Translating ...
Women (and, indirectly, homosexual) and more ethnic groups have fought to ensure the right to independence through this kind of political protests, legislative action and pressure vessels, and their efforts were applauded and supported by a large portion of society. They, and all of us must now be responsible for the consequences of all within the umbrella of full equal rights.
Women have equal rights in a large percentage of cases to bring home more bread than their wives. Marriage and sexual orientation, living together kind of relationship has become the economic, financial and social partnership. However, in many cases, the courts and public sentiments do not see eye-to-face with the consequences of this hard-fought-for economic, financial, social and equal rights before the law and fair practice. Fair practice, in fact, an economic, financial and social contract.
According to the new standard for all beings on the economic, social and financial par with equal rights before the law, society must also assign a profession or position in the dependent part in any relationship to live together in order to make this the new standard for equal rights work. So, the old adage about a woman or a dependent part in any relationship is a "housewife" must now be reinterpreted the legal standard job description. The hostess was so agreed job description of a stay at home and can request up to 50% right on the financial value of the total revenues and 50% non-contractually-defined value from the value of investments are considered as part of a relationship. If both partners work outside the home to support the same household budget, and then just have to share revenue and the burden of the housewife.
Under the strict standards of full equal rights for all persons can not provide legal, contractual or social care or a group of underdogs will be underdogs in society. It is legally, logically and socially foolish to give unequal legal rights and protection groups or private individuals in public or private relationship. Our society has evolved over the possible protection of healthy, well educated people who are not otherwise physically or mentally handicapped in any way.
money available to "service / employer 'to hostess a comfortable and secure in his position as a hostess must be considered wages, including wages and appropriate clothing, comfortable home, food and shelter, dinner and theater excursions. Mandatory private and social respect and like everyone involved in the hostess has to pay part of its rights as a provider of housewives under the provision of equal rights before the law in all economic, financial and social situations.
The physical beatings, mental and physical deprivation and cruelty are thus crimes against another person. One must keep intimate relationships to the standards of persons with respect to any prominent corporate structure - the same appreciation and respect, without the derogatory signs of inferiority and signs of intimidation. person so injured shall be able to sue for such violations in court without destroying the relationship, just as is done in a larger world of corporate structure.
The physical beatings, mental and physical deprivation and cruelty are thus crimes against another person. One must keep intimate relationships to the standards of persons with respect to any prominent corporate structure - the same appreciation and respect, without the derogatory signs of inferiority and signs of intimidation. person so injured shall be able to sue for such violations in court without destroying the relationship, just as is done in a larger world of corporate structure.
...It can be said that a housewife in the employ of the service provider. If the relationship between the provider and homemaker beak down one must interpret it as a break-down or hostess quitting his position or firing homemaker services. It is economically and financially sound understanding, especially so in this age where relationships flourish and die as soon as the flowers in the field.
If the relationship between employer and employee service / hostess breaks the employer may provide retirement benefits, but he / she is not legally or ethically responsible to indefinitely hold a housewife in the style in which the hostess was accustomed to in her last relationship.
If one is having a professional housewife was shot he / she shall be entitled to unemployment benefit until they can secure employment, and upon reaching the retirement age should be entitled to social security payments as well as anyone else, iusluga it is the duty of the employer to pay what the company law provides that an employer has a duty to such an award of unemployment and social security pay.
housewife is most responsible for the creation of future adult citizens. Government and society greatly profit from it. If the hostess is not considered as a worker, it is positioned above the receiving government aid other workers can easily get you qualified to receive it. Job housewives often more strenuous and taxing of corporate jobs.
If the housewife keeps money hidden in secret bank accounts hostess was embezzling funds as employees. She / he is responsible for the stolen money and the legal, financial and criminal consequences of the act.
If the housewife keeps money hidden in secret bank accounts hostess was embezzling funds as employees. She / he is responsible for the stolen money and the legal, financial and criminal consequences of the act.
...or society should accept equal rights in full, or not at all. But the court may allow hesitant about the emotional relationships or relationships between convenience 'čovjeka'i' women 'and claims that the service has duties to the housewives relationship is broken down, a hostess is responsible for anything.
or society should accept equal rights in full, or not at all. But the court may allow hesitant about the emotional relationships or relationships between convenience 'čovjeka'i' women 'and claims that the service has duties to the housewives relationship is broken down, a hostess is responsible for anything.
...Under the adage of equal rights and benefit to the court, intimate relationships where one party provides comfort and maintenance depends on the party's relationship to the contract - nothing else! It could be argued that there was a contractual relationship is an intimate relationship based on contract terms.
The idea of family violence is so out of date. In many cases the police will not or can not intervene in domestic disputes. This means that the suppressed people in the private relationship no viable means to protect her / it from the dominant peace-breaker, without legal divorce. Under the principle of equal rights, it must be established so that if one person does not appeal against another person in any respect, the complaint must have a viable status, criminal and contract, the court and must be respected by the police.
There is, overall, too wanton irresponsibility in private, intimate relationships and extensive corporate relationships, such as investment banking, public and government trust. Holding all parties responsible for the greater area of equal legal rights, it makes sense to teach children of all ages the principles of private rights "under the law, "so that the juvenile, and later in adult intimate sexual relationships both (all) parties are fully aware of their rights, duties, obligations and legal recourse.
This also means that the private person in his capacity as President of the United States can not have immunity for their actions beyond the constitutional powers of the presidency, and support confidence that violate my private in our private law, constitutional relationship. Yes, I have private relationship with the president and this is stipulated in the Constitution of the United States. If the President gives this relationship by lying to me through the media or betray my trust in him / her of conspiring with the hidden powers behind government I should be able to claim in court and sue him or hold him criminally liable for a breach of trust.
I can not understand how our republican form of government, the original constitutional provision, the people supposedly came from the people and the good people can be changed by the government and the government ratified the proposed constitutional amendment to that of democracy. Such a suggestion can only be made by people and can only be ratified by the people. The U.S. government is the people for the people's crown. The Constitution does not make that clear in the preamble. If officials in the government changed the constitutional republican form of government servants but state officials apparently have deposed our constitutional form of government came on. We are in a de-facto government that has become the default mode of government through ignorance, stupidity and carelessness of people. This in turn can be legally overturned. But I can not see well and at this late date.
I think that the U.S. and state governments are in a reckless, irresponsible relationships with me about many other matters of private law, and it is clear that I have no recourse against their insane actions in relation to my constitutionally guaranteed contractual rights. I feel mentally abused and frustrated. This abuse has been festering in my mind for decades, and perhaps turn into a permanent state of depression.
The way I see it, the way it should be true, or de-jure, or easy, but the way in which humanity has messed things the de-facto, or false, and unjust. It is because of greed in humanity to justice, thus it can not happen - after all, physical existence is just a sick game in which rules are violated, because we have only a spiritual judge
.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar