16 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2021
  2. Oct 2020
  3. Jul 2020
  4. Jun 2020
  5. Mar 2020
    1. expect to see more support from Democrats, Republicans, academics and diplomats for the notion that government has a much bigger role to play in creating adequate redundancy in supply chains
    1. The main forces that restricted public health police powers were: (1) the advent of civil rights jurisprudence; (2) the rise of patient autonomy and the rapid expansion of state personal health services expenditures; and (3) federal encroachment on state authority.
    2. Historically, the communitarian bases of the American legal system supported the subordination of individual rights when necessary for the preservation of common good. Quarantine measures were subjected to a deferential review supporting the states' right to substantially limit individual rights for the community's benefit.
    3. The legal principles employed to sustain state public health police power were sic utere tuo ut alterum non laedas (use that which is yours so as not to injure others) and salus publica suprema lex est (public well-being is the supreme law).12 The principle of sic utere describes the power of the state to prevent or prohibit “the use of private property or the commission of private acts in a manner harmful to others.”15 The principle of salus publica, on the other hand, recognizes police power as a means to “prevent or avoid public harm even if the action has not harmed others.
    4. Generally, the courts reviewed police power measures only when the degree of restriction of personal liberty was found to be unconscionable.
    5. Remedies included regulation of private property and behavior and the power to detain and hold individuals without pre-intervention review
    6. communitarian philosophy underlying this approach was carried into later judicial holdings, further consolidating states' exercise of public health police power.

      "Communitarian"

    7. Police powers of the states are an expression of civil authority, i.e., the state's ability to control, regulate, or prohibit non-criminal behavior.6 Health officials may use these powers to compel treatment, prohibit or direct a particular conduct, or detain and isolate in a quasi-criminal nature
  6. Jun 2019
    1. The decision did not favour his financial interests and has been misreported by the journalist. In fact, Mr Petch was pressuring an inexperienced General Manager to attend to an entitlement affecting multiple councillors. The entitlement - reimbursement of legal expenses incurred in legal action initiated by council - is not discretionary, but must be extended to councillors incurring costs in carrying out their civic duties in good faith. The entitlement is explicitly coded in the NSW Local Government Act and NSW Office of Local Government expenses guidelines for serving councillors and Mayor's. No evidence was submitted that the affected councillors had acted in a manner other than "good faith". Therefore the only logical conclusion that could be drawn for delaying the reimbursement

  7. Jan 2019
    1. We must have an agency of the federal government to pMtett it.

      Is a federal government, and a federal government alone, enough to do such a thing? I mean, look at what happened to the Library of Alexandria. I still get pissed off thinking about that. And is it even a good idea in the first place to let them have that responsibility? I can't help but think of all of the instances in which governments have been directly responsible for mass destructions of literature. There's an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to historical book burning events, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents, and a large majority of these noteworthy burnings were done at the will of the government. What would happen if we were to give them too much agency in this matter? Is it a good idea for governments to have the final say in the well-being of our literature? How can we trust them to decide what is and isn't worth protecting?

  8. Oct 2013
    1. The end of democracy is freedom; of oligarchy, wealth; of aristocracy, the maintenance of education and national institutions; of tyranny, the protection of the tyrant. I

      Practice of government equals end results.