»Click here to calculate your site FeedRank Today«
FeedRank, a newly developed algorithm for ranking RSS feeds only on RSSMicro
Click here to learn more
 4/10 Good --- blogs.msdn.com http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/rss.xml
| not actually a .NET blog ... |
Thursday, August 07, 2008 --- 13 days ago http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2008/08/07/8839510.aspx
| It sounds like a scene from the movie Brazil , but in fact it's the law. Let's rewind a bit. The introduction is a bit technical, but I'll try to keep it short. There is a legal filing known as a habeas petition and another known as a petition for review . There are rules regarding what each one covers and the deadlines for filing them. Prior to 2005, there was no deadline for habeas petitions, but you had to file your petition for review within 30 days of whatever it was the government did that you wanted to object to. In 2005, Congress passed (and the President signed) a law which recategorizes what the two types of filings covered, and many claims that had fallen under the habeas petition have been reclassified as requiring a petition for review instead. This change in the rules creates a gap in coverage because Congress forgot to include a grandfather clause (or, for computer geeks, a "smooth migration plan"): What if, at the time the new law took effect, the thing you want to complain about was reclassified as requiring a petition for review, but it took place more than 30 days ago? You wake up one morning and somebody tells you, "Hey, there's a new law today. You just lost your right to respond." What you do, then, is file a lawsuit challenging the new rules. And then two years later, the Third Circuit Court hears your case and rules that, yes, you're right, the law that Congress passed is unconstitutional (a violation of Section ... |
|
|
Recent Posts
|
|
|
Facebook Del.icio.us Digg StumbleUpon Reddit Google
Anytime
