98

Trespassing requires that you be on someone else's property without their permission. The supervisor has explicitly given you permission, so it's not possible for you to trespass. You are correct that someone with the proper authority could revoke this permission at any time, at which point you would have to leave or be guilty of trespassing. The only way ...


27

15 USC Subchapter IX gives the Secretary of Transportation powers to set rules about the 11 time zones, and those laws supersede state and local laws. Observance of Daylight Savings Time is optional for a state. This is the DST law. First, it says that at the DST changeover times, the standard time of each zone established by sections 261 to 264 of ...


24

No A state may not do that. The US Constitution Art. I section 8 says: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. ... To ...


24

All laws (federal, state and local) apply to everybody, unless you have diplomatic immunity. That is, unless e.g. the federal government decides as a matter of policy to ignore certain federal laws. California does not have a law generally prohibiting the use of marijuana, though public consumption is illegal, minor consumption is illegal, and possession ...


21

US Laws are Free of Copyright Federal Works 17 USC 105 says: Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. The phrase "work of the United States Government"...


16

if a postal police officer happened to be there one day, he'd [...] question the supervisor I'd say the post office people, and esp. the supervisor, are at much higher risk than you. If, by some policy or law or whatever, what you do was actually prohibited, then the supervisor and staff would likely get into trouble for allowing you there because it ...


14

tl/dr: All states have to use US Standard Time. The US Gov't power of standards The US Gov't's power to keep time falls under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 of the US Constitution: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; Currently, the US Department of Commerce National Institute of ...


10

The Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet-level arm of the Executive Branch. The Sec'y of Homeland Security directly "runs" that branch, and serves at the pleasure of the President of the United States. There is a House committee on Homeland Security which conducts "oversight" and handles legislation related to security. There is likewise a Senate ...


10

This is addressing the last paragraph: could the federal government decide on "eternal October" to avoid a presidential election? The date of the election itself is set by statute. However the Constitution specifies that the President shall hold office for a term of "4 years". Suppose the executive (in this case the Secretary of State for Commerce) decides ...


9

So a little background will help. the United States Code has only been around since 1926 where before the law was a patchwork of acts. Over time congress has taken a bundle of acts and relegated them to be covered by a title in the code. This project is still on going with legislation for Title 52 and Title 54 passing in 2014. Title 53 is a work in progress ...


9

Yes, the government determines what time it is. Examples of it happening in the past: The UK "lost" 11 days when it switched from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 Samoa "lost" 1 day when they switched across the international date line in 2011 The effect on elections is a different issue, and is governed by a different set of laws - in ...


8

Legally, no, Congress can't pass laws just because it feels like it. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution contains a set of powers Congress has.* Other sections give Congress additional powers. Elsewhere in Article I, Congressional consent is required for states to make interstate agreements, keep military forces in peacetime, and impose tariffs. It's ...


8

I agree with David Siegel's answer but I think its always important in the law to consider what it would take to get what you want. I will say it is possible but not as an export prohibition per se and practically may fail. The state could use its 5th amendment powers of eminent domain to take possession of all of the desired raw materials and relevant ...


8

only federal law applies to foreigners This is not correct. For example, there is no federal law criminalizing murder generally. (There are federal laws criminalizing murder in certain specific circumstances.) If you killed the shopkeeper around the corner, you probably would not have violated any federal law. You will of course be subject to ...


7

They can, and do; there's just one wrinkle: They get the assent of the Federal government. Take the Great Lakes Compact (please, says Nestle and Coke). It's a deal amongst the Great Lakes border states, and provinces, that decide how (or to be more precise, how not) water will leave the Great Lakes watershed. It's an agreement, not a treaty. But as ...


7

Your interpretation is correct. The constitution says that judges stay in office "until and unless they are impeached." That means that congress cannot impose a time limit on any judge's term of office. If it did so, it would be contrary to the constitution. The only grounds for removal are those to do with misbehavior. Therefore, judges have life ...


6

Yes. In 1872 President Grant was stopped for speeding (on horseback, mind you). The officer, observing that he had stopped the President of the United States, initially let him go with nothing but a verbal warning. Later the same day, the same officer stopped Grant again speeding in the same place. The officer then informed Grant that he would have to be ...


6

When an individual or an organization (such as a business or a local or state government) thinks that a governmental action is in violation of a constitutional limitation, s/he/it may file suit against the government (Federal, state, or local as the case may be). Such suits most often seek injunctions against continuation of the action, but sometimes damages,...


6

There are some statutes that have a section that says "any violation of this action is punishable by . . . ." but the INA is not one of them. Generally speaking, the way it would be imposed would be: (1) to deny entry on a departing commercial airplane flight or ship (which is enforced by the private enterprises involved pursuant to Transportation ...


6

Mueller was appointed under Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 600, which provides at § 600.8(c), Closing documentation, that At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel. The use of ...


6

The Supreme Court has ruled, in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, that Congress is empowered to pass the Controlled Substances Act: whether or not you agree with the ruling, that is what the current law is. Citing Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 and Perez v. US, 402 U.S. 146, the court held that If Congress decides that the “‘total incidence’” of a practice ...


5

No (with one exception, see bottom), there is not currently any limits to the power of a Presidential Pardon. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the power: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he ...


5

2 USC 192 imposes a penalty of $100-$1000 and 1-12 months in prison. That assumes a trial and conviction. Officials were found in contempt under the previous administration, but there was no criminal prosecution (DOJ would have to prosecute, which they declined to do).


5

The main impediment is identifying exactly what "a law" is. When people talk (casually) about "the law", that can refer to statutes enacted by Congress, regulations set forth by administrative agencies to articulate specifics of those statutes, and Supreme Court rulings as to what "the law" is or says. The canonical example of "a law" is a statute passed by ...


5

The United States has a very liberal attitude when it comes to free speech. Short of materials that are: child pornography, restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Libelous/Fraudulent, encourage or aid others in breaking the law, or seditious/treasonous/ terroistic/other credible threats there is almost nothing that can't be ...


5

Employees are only required to work in the sense that refusal to report can result in discipline (like reprimand or firing) and forfeit of whatever money you would have earned had you shown up. This is exactly the same way federal employees (or most employees, for that matter) are always required to work. The fact that they're not being paid on time has ...


5

No punishment followed because those policies are not the law, and, even it was found out earlier, no Inspector General would have the authority to dismiss Mrs. Cliton, it's POTUS's prerogative, as I understand it. That is true for maybe 10 people max in a government department. For the tens or hundreds of thousands of employees who weren't appointed by the ...


5

If the marijuana used was grown locally and did not travel in interstate commerce it would seem that the use of marijuana in states where this use is legal could not be construed as illegal under federal law because the federal government lacks jurisdiction under the commerce clause. You might think that, but you'd be wrong. In Gonzales v. Raich (545 U.S. ...


5

An example is that a person eventually convicted of a crime has made a false statement in pleading "not guilty". 1001a would compel confessions, because you cannot legally conceal a material fact. In a judicial proceeding, the analog that prevents certain kinds of "lying" is the law against perjury, which is much stricter than the broad ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible