Comments by "" (@zachrodan7543) on "LegalEagle" channel.

at a glance, I think I am going to have to go with "not legally enforcable" pretty sure the "for all eternity" clause violates the rule against perpetuities
1
pretty sure that would run into some equal protections problems. how about "supreme court justices must be re-confirmed by congress every 5 years" let's not be ageist, after all. I do wonder if every 5 years is the best frequency though... and have no clue about the question of if it would fall under "good behavior"
1
wow. I feel like I have seen childcare workers and elementary school teachers with less patience than that judge.
1
I am finding somewhat confusing how there is a difference between a "constitutional right" and a "clearly established constitutional right." wouldn't a right being explicitly stated in the constitution be a clear establishment of that right regardless of if anyone was stupid enough to violate it previously? because if not, then it sounds to me like the real problem with qualified immunity might simply be this distinction. surely, at the very least, the "would a reasonable person think it was acceptable" test that is used in things like negligence and recklessness, amongst other things, should be relevant here...
1
I think I just discovered the most irritating sort of mid-video advertising: an ad from the person who's video you are watching, such that it is the same voice, same approximate setting and clothing, and completely different topic... thank you legaleagle's advertisment for curiousity streams nebula for exposing me to how distracting this specific experience can be from following the video.
1
so... is there even enough time for impeachment to play out? there isn't a whole lot of precedent for successful impeachment, and I don't believe there is precedent for impeachment of a lame duck president, successful or otherwise. On the one hand, there likely wouldn't be much to debate, given that the primary witnesses and victims are also the ones who would be doing the impeaching, but this is the government we are talking about. also, could you clarify why you say "the 25th amendment is too good for trump". I don't fully see how it differs from impeachment as far as removing the president from office is concerned...
1
the one thing I disagree with in your analysis is your claim that she isn't calling herself a liar or an idiot. From a very strict logical standpoint, a few of her statements and the conclusions they naturally suggest are as follows: 1. "no reasonable person would believe as fact the things sidney powell said" (if p, then q) 2. "sidney powell believed as fact the things that sidney powell said." (p) 3. therefore, sidney powell is not a reasonable person. (therefore, q)
1
is the "reasonable person" standard relevant to the idea of whether or not what trump believed would work as a defense? in other words, would it be enough to show that any reasonable person in his position would believe that the election was lost?
1
Do you think you could put out a video detailing how, exactly, things might play out if the executive branch ignores court orders? Maybe explain a bit more clearly how far the courts are (or are not) able to enforce actions against the executive branch? It seems like every video you put out these days has at least one "hopefully they obey the court order" moment, but just how far can the court go to punish noncompliance, if the executive branch tries to be non-compliant to attempts at enforcement? Surely they would have a hard time doing anything to trump himself (even though as one former president put it, "the buck stops here [at the president]")?
1
Dodobird also, that's what a monkey does when deciding to make something artistic. and the courts already ruled that monkey-made-artwork is not copyrightable
1
@OsvaldoChannel1 I'll start by answering your question about people training on works by famous artists of the past: nothing wrong with ai training on those works either, given that they aren't protected by copyright (assuming you are talking about works from far enough in the past that if they ever had a copyright it is expired.) the difference between a human training off of another artist's work to improve their own is that they are ultimately adding their own experiences and interpretations to the piece (generally). additionally, consider what the extent is that a human learns by doing such training: a better understanding of techniques and methodology, not a better understanding of "what is a flamingo" (in other words, a human training off of another artist's works is using the work not for the creative expression contained within the work, but for the methodology that produced that creative expression. method cannot be copyrighted. the ai, on the other hand, is using the works not to merely gain a better understanding of how to assemble an image to make it look good, but also for the creative expression of what makes a tree a "tree" and a city a "city". the ai is using the art in the training set for both style (which is uncopyrightable) and expression, which is copyrightable.
1
@OsvaldoChannel1 the issue isn't about style. it is about the expression of ideas. the style is not subject to copyright in the first place, after all. however, the way a particular artist expresses a specific idea creates a copyrighted expression of that idea. if the ai is then using that to tell it what "airplane" looks like, i'd argue it is absolutely making use of the expression of the idea, rather than just the idea. remember, the ai, unlike a human artist, doesn't know what a tree is. it knows what set of values and weights tend to produce something humans identify as fitting the description of "tree", but it has no understanding that a tree is a large plant with a strong middle part covered with bark, which humans often cut down to get raw materials to make houses out of.
1
Welcome to four more years of you having amother video that you need to make about the presidemt's latest shenanigans... on a potentially daily basis. Not sure if you can even maintain that rate of research for that long. Best of luck and don't overwork yourself in the process
1
@TitaniumDragon ah, but with google books, it only gave you a snippet, right? in order to get the full context, you needed to buy the book. having the ability to see if a book talks about something helps you know whether it is worth buying the book to see more of what it has to say on the matter. I never said that the ai art generation is a substitute for old art. I am saying that using an ai art generator is a substitute for commissioning an artist to make something. this would be fine, if it weren't the artwork created by those sorts of artists that was used to train the ai in the first place. unlike google books, the ai art generators are using art that people created to create art that is meant to compete against that artwork on which it was trained.
1
In my opinion, while I do think the court needs to be expanded to restore balance, I believe that adding four justices, which would flip the balance of the court entirely, would be unpopular and may even be impossible to pass. I think a better option for court packing is to add two justices, as a way of restoring some semblance of balance to the court without blatantly flipping the ideological balance of the court. I have no problem with the ideology that I disagree with holding a majority in the courts, as that is the nature of politics. what I do have a problem with is them holding a majority so large that you need almost as many justices to break party lines as their are in the minority for anything that is ideologically heavy to be decided in favor of the minority opinion, especially when the supreme court has a tendency to be ideologically behind the rest of the country, with justices having life appointments. I do agree that imposing term limits would be problematic, but I almost wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to do away with having a fixed number of justices, in favor of having a fixed number of appointments for each president. one idea that I have heard proposed is to have each president get two supreme court appointments, and I think that this could be reasonably implemented without term limits. The only downside I see to this is the risk of them running into architectural problems, as I don't know what the physical capacity of the bench is or how much of an impact the related cost of increasing things might have on the situation. looking at a photo of the courtroom (posted on the supreme court's website) it looks like there is probably only enough room to comfortably add two more chairs... although I don't have the greatest sense of scale, with only one photograph to base this off of... in short, I do think that two more justices should be added to the court. I do not think that this should be presented as retaliation for merrick garland and amy coney barret. as ghandi put it: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." this should be presented as restoring the court to some semblance of similarity to the makeup of the country. neither party is so outspoken as to hold a massive majority of the voters. there is a reason that neither party holds a supermajority in either house of congress, after all. and I do not believe that the supreme court should be so unballanced as to give one ideology a supermajority on the bench any more than i would be ok with living in an america where one party held a supermajority in the house or the senate. I may be a democratic voter, but I will freely admit to being terrified by the revelation a few videos ago on this channel that if texas becomes a democratic gimme in the electoral college, it would become virtually impossible for republicans to ever win another presidency. I don't believe such a small majority should be allowed to hold that much power, regardless of ideology
1
I didn't know you could fight cancer with a lawsuit? I thought that was a job for the medical professionals...
1
@AsbestosMuffins I think the bigger issue with it is that it seems to be a bold-faced lie in a legal filing. is it legal to intentionally lie in a legal filing?
1
0:37 can we see the full character sheet for legus eagus? i'm curious what the stat distribution is that you went with, and how many jokes you managed to squeeze in
1
HOW DARE YOU BESMIRCH THE GOOD NAME OF THE ULTIMATE PIZZA TOPPING?! then again, I think everything is tastier with hot sauce and spicy peppers, so what do I know?
1
I am curious how anyone can claim that "the presidency is not an office" when we have a lot of places, at least in non-lawyer contexts, where we do talk about "the office of the president of the united states". even article 2 of the constitution refers to the presidency as an "office"
1
my personal thoughts on section 230 is that it should be modified slightly, to ONLY apply to websites that make an honest effort to moderate their content: if it is meant to encourage websites to moderate, it should make it strictly beneficial to moderate: if you have the resources to attempt to moderate your website and you choose not to, you should be liable for that gross negligence of your responsibility to take care of your website. (I would emphasize that in no way should websites be held to a standard of perfect moderation, though: that would be like holding humans to a standard of being able to fly, because some select species have the resources to do so (such as birds, insects, and bats).
1
while it is true that the balanced bench approach is unfriendly to independants, the unfortunate reality is that our entire political system tends to ignore independents. given that supreme court justices still need to be appointed by the president, and independents have such a low probability of taking that post that it is often considered harmful to their voter-base's interests to run as a third party, because it takes away votes from the lesser of the two evils that are the democrats and republicans. it isn't a great system, but it is the system we (unfortuately) are stuck with.
1
@iPuzzlePirate true. on the other hand, have you considered that perhaps the reason why the two-party system is so prevalent (and it seems to be prevalent in most countries based on the news talking about other countries having a party in power and an opposition party), is that this system is comfortable given the human tendency to sort things into the binary of "us" and "not-us". The major parties also have the advantage of being well-known. If you were to name any of the third-parties I wouldn't be able to tell you the first thing about what they stand for, and I think the same could be said for most people in the country this isn't to say that I support the balanced bench proposal, as I see several other issues with the idea, such as it being overly complicated. I personally don't have a problem with there being a slight (as in, one justice either way) majority for one of the parties, regardless of which party, as long as there isn't a sense that justices are being forced through without support. Removing the need for bipartisanship in supreme court nomination hearings is probably the most damaging thing that has happened to the courts lately, and is part of why things are so dire: prior to mcconnel revoking the filibuster on supreme court nominees, a president needed to select appointees who were acceptable to both parties, but with it reduced to a simple majority the system now favors extreme ideologues, because there isn't any need to appeal to the minority party (even though they generally make up almost half the country)
1
@iPuzzlePirate agreed. I do think that it is ridiculous how the primaries in some states require you to register your party. At least here in the state of Washington, you don't have to register as a member of a party to participate in the primaries, you just have to only vote in one of them.
1
Does Congress have the ability to impose a prison sentence on Pete hegseth? Given that the trump administration has no interest in punishing him, and all? If so, i feel like when he is sent to prison, someone should play that clip of him saying "if it was anyone else, they would be in prison", and tell him he is just getting what he advocated for.
1
um... why was it the fda that was going after jarts? I don't follow how it is under their jurisdiction...
1
while you are in a copyright and trademark mood, would you consider making a video discussing your thoughts on generative ai trained on copyrighted materials, especially given that there are now two lawsuits going through the courts (one regarding the CoPilot ai, and one regarding several of the image generator ai). I think it could be an interesting opportunity to discuss some of the less obvious aspects what what may or may not be fair use (arguably, the biggest legal issue I as a non-lawyer see these ai running into is whether or not the use of copyrighted materials to train a machine to produce products that compete with those materials is acceptable. while a lot of outcry has been raised about issues of the ai producing potentially infringing outputs, it is the use of the images as inputs that might be more of an issue, and I am curious what your thoughts on the matter would be. at the very least, I hope that if nothing else, you give us a video analyzing these cases once they get through the courts, maybe diving into whatever arguments are brought up to support the verdict.
1
true, but we seem to be forever stuck with the two-party system. curse the human tendency towards binary categorizations
1
@rockinrec22 fair. how do you propose we change the system we currently have to reach such a reality? because given that we have had a two-party system since part-way through washington's presidency, I think we might be far too entrenched in this binary for a simple change in the voting process to break the trend. from the very beginning, political parties have been more about ideology than anything else. and given that the majority of americans are aware of the ideologies and platforms of the non-major parties, part of the solution will likely require educating the populace about what these other groups represent. the self-harm you described is not the end result of the two-party system and the first-past-the-post voting structure of the country. It is a part of the logical explanation for why these smaller parties are doomed to be minorities in the first place. I suppose that particular issue could be somewhat addressed by ranked-choice voting, but it still leaves the other issues that stand in the way of the smaller parties, such as the way that the democratic and republican parties behave almost like opposing teams at times: the party affiliation serves to form a coalition of people with similar views who present a more imposing presence (as a blobulus mass of people) than the much smaller number of people affiliated with other parties. with these points in mind, I actually would like to hear your suggestion for putting third parties and independents on more even footing with the democrats and republicans
1
@rockinrec22 @Gavin Taylor so, you are suggesting that rather than having the house representatives and senators be elected by their states, they should be allocated based on party prefference within their states? I feel like this is a hard sell, given that every politician ultimately has their own platform that they are elected on. and the house of representatives is not meant to represent "community" interests. that is the job of state and local governments. the reason we have the two legislative bodies is because when the nation was founded, some (like representatives of the larger states) wanted states to have representation proportionate to population (which is the case in the house of representatives), while others (such as the smaller states) wanted all states to have equal political power (which is the case in the senate). house representation is then simply a way of representing the populace with approximately equal legislative representation per person (although I will admit this is somewhat corrupted by gerrymandering on both sides of the spectrum). I think the biggest issue with the house is that this supposedly proportional representation is not necessarily representative of the ideological positioning of the representative populace. The solution to this, then, would be to ensure that when districts are drawn up and approved based on the census data, they are not gerrymandered in either party's favor. how to make this happen is beyond my ability to contemplate, given that even experts have had a hard time tackling this issue, and I am just a guy in the comments of a youtube video.
1