...Knowing "who did it" in a "who done it" really does ruin the experience, just look at the namesake "The Mousetrap" movie. Despite being a better than average film, it did poorly in the box office in part to a movie critic revealing the killer.
What film? Famously, the rights a film of "The Mousetrap" state that no film can be made until the West End production has been closed for 6 months (presumably, to avoid revealing the secret). Since the play is still running, no film has been made. The filmmakers have been waiting so long that the producer who made the original deal died almost 10 years ago!
I'm sick and tired of people saying "Oh, the right to ____ isn't mentioned in the Constitution, therefore it doesn't exist."
I have to wonder if those who say that know that the Bill of Rights was actually criticized at the time of its drafting for for enumerating rights, on the grounds that nobody could really enumerate every right that a person or people have?
Which is why, of course, the Ninth Amendment exists. Never hear of it? That's probably because it says this: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Huh. So the text of the Constitution is telling you that you have rights beyond what's in the text of the Constitution!
Well, now that we have that settled, let's start talking about what those rights are...
Re:you've probably had sex with a woman, too
on
DECnet Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 1
"Christian" doesn't mean following the rules you like, and ignoring the ones you don't. Many people like to call themselves Christians and ignore the rules, but that's completely different.
Actually, I remember once reading about a guy who "ignored" the rules, but then again, he was a Jew... Where did I read that story, hmm....oh, yes....
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, "Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" She said, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." The Pharisees therefore said unto him, "Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true." Jesus answered and said unto them, "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me."
...interpret the constitution, not try to rewrite it.
If you really, honestly believe this, I encourage you to read the text of the 11th Amendment and then read some of Justice Scalia's opinions surrounding its...ahem....interesting meaning that is completely ahistorical and not founded on the text of the actual Amendment.
Oh, wait. You're probably too busy being a gloating, knee-jerk, know-nothing d**kwad, like most Bush supporters. Have fun torturing Iraqis next time you're in Baghdad. ("Don't worry, this is for your own good 'cause you're just too much of a kid...)
Somebody should have told you, plus maybe Michael Jackson, a long time ago that the origin of the English word "history" isn't "his" + "story". It's the ancient Greek word "histor", which meant "learned man."
If I see some another Women's Studies major write something like "herstory" again, I swear I'm going to shoot something.
I'll give you that, but it also had some of the best acting I've ever seen. Andreas Katsulas playing G'Kar was simply amazing -- you aren't aware that you're watching a guy in a Narn suit, you think you're watching a Narn.
Peter Jurasik wasn't half bad, and I actually enjoyed watching Stephen Furst grow into the character of Vir.
Michael O'Hare, OTOH....[ducks oncoming flames -- I know this is largely a question of taste, people...]
What happens to people who paid royalties since then. Can they sue to get their fees back, or are they SOL?
Just offhand, as a random law student (I know, I know, IANAL...yet...), they might be able to get some money back through something like unjust enrichment -- on the grounds that they didn't actually get anything when they paid their money. Who knows, maybe a claim of fraud might work too. The problem with that is that unjust enrichment is usually considered an equitable principle, and that means that whoever they paid their money to could argue laches, which is basically the equitable version of a statute of limitations; people who paid money back in the 80's might still be screwed.
But good luck to whoever sues, since that way we'll finally get a court decision. Litigation's way too expensive these days, and that's impairing the development of the law as a whole.
"If you have the cajones to get on stage, you win," he said
Now, I'm not a native Spanish speaker, but I did pretty well in the subject in school. From what I remember, cajones means "drawers," like the things that go into a chest of drawers.
I think the reporter should have checked a dictionary and determined that the source was actually saying/attempting to say cojones, which, as we all know courtesy of Madeline Albright, means "balls" (i.e. testicles).
Either that, or Fox's "fair and balanced" editorial style determined that drawers weren't getting adequate coverage in the media. Talk about affirmative action!
If you hope to graduate, you might want to work on reading comprehension.
Ok, a snark, I can deal with that. But check this out -- you were making two points in your original post. I was replying to the first. Here they are:
1. That non-lawyers' lack of knowledge of substantive areas of the law renders them unable to engage in any fulfilling discussion about the law.
2. That legal documents are drafted in a deliberately obfuscatory manner in order to assure future business for the legal community.
The second point I readily concede -- everybody knows that if you're the only lawyer in town you'll starve to death.
As regards my post, it was not a contradiction but a clarification. And if you don't understand the difference between that, I have sad words to say for whatever state bar admitted you.
How about the parol evidence rule? Are non-lawyers familiar with this *vital* aspect of all contract law?
That people don't know it is one good reason why in some jurisdictions it's becoming more often "deprecated" (to use a geek turn of phrase). UCC 2-202's formulation includes course of dealing, course of performance, and trade usage in order to explain the terms of the contract; that covers a lot of ground the old rule kept out. Lots of places allow "tacking" of non-contradictory additional terms, either in other writings or referred to in other writings.
Hell, most non-lawyers don't even know the difference between slander and libel,
Whoo...I'm shaking. It's not like they have to pay 150 grand and three years to learn. They can pick this shit up from Black's. I'll teach 'em now: Slander = spoken defamation Libel = written defamation
Damn, that was hard. What's "defamation," you say? That's another story...
Law, as a subject, isn't that hard. Chief Justice John Marshall only studied it for six weeks, and he was a fabulous judge. "Being a lawyer" is about a way of thinking and approaching problems, not waving your dick around screaming terms from your real property text.
Oh yeah, who am I? Future lawyer, University of Michigan, class of 2005.
And British English tends to dominate in Europe, and elsewhere around the world, so...
Actually, when I spent my year in Europe I met a lot of Anglophone Europeans who said they had a choice when they learned English to learn American or British English, and most chose British simply because Britain is closer than the U.S.
But elsewhere in the world? I'm not so sure. Every single Latin American I've met who speaks English speaks American English. The vast majority of Asians that I've met do as well, in spite of the fact that they could be geographically closer to Australia than the U.S.
I don't think it's as much what's the "proper" English as it is about simple cultural dominance. More people watch American movies worldwide than listen to the BBC, after all.
However, you made the same mistake Hemos did by saying it wasnt a law at all.
I'm still saying that it's not a law.
The Constitution is Law. Law Supreme. Law that trumps common law. Law that trumps state law. Law that trumps federal law. Big-Fucking-L Law. Ok?
But it's not a law. You know, the kinds of shit that gets revised every day. This is more than a question of terminology. Germany has something that (as far as I understand) translates as the Basic Law. I've never seen it called the German Constitution, however.
Whatever. Enough. Sorry for trying to make a subtle distinction in a place that obviously doesn't handle subtlety well.
Again, my apologies for the confusion. I was glossing Hemos's use of the word "law" as a layman's substitute for the lawyerSpeak "statute," since he called the First Amendment "a federal law," not merely "federal law".
Is it law? Sure. Is Linux a program? Sure. Is it more accurate to call Linux a kernel? Of course. Is it more accurate to distinguish the Constitution from that which it controls? Of course.
Short Answer: "Supreme law of the land" is a legal term of art.
Long Answer:Yeah, I know.
But ask a million different people what Congress or their state legislature does and they're likely to say "It makes laws." But Congress (acting alone) can't change the Constitution (well, actually, depending on what you think it _could_, but that's a good topic of discussion for a "Law Geek" site, not Slashdot.)
I like to differentiate the forest from the trees. The Constitution establishes our system of government. Our system of government is about laws made under a republican form of government. Under the Constitution, the People established the Republic, and the democratically elected representatives of the people, not the People itself, make laws.
You cut this too thin, it starts to look like a where-does-hardware-stop-and-software-begin argument...
I'm going to apologize in advance for being picky.
The First Amendment isn't law, it's a part of the Constitution. The Constitution trumps Federal Law.
The first words of the First Amendment say "Congress shall make no law..." That is, the First Amendment initially only restricted Congress, not state legislatures. Then, through application of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) said that the First Amendment would (kind of) apply to the states as well as the federal government.
But wait, free speech isn't that easy. Lots of states have crimes against fraud. But what is fraud? A lie. What is political speech (sometimes)? A lie. When can you tell one lie from another lie? This is where things get tricky.
Sidenote: this is why the First Amendment applied only to the Feds initially. The Founders thought that the to-and-fro of normal political action in the states would help preserve liberties, and so didn't prevent the states from doing a heck of a lot initially. They were more afraid of the federal government becoming tyrranical. Rhetorical question: ask yourself which is more tyrranical today -- the states or the feds?
So SCOTUS has now made a million itty-bitty divisions within the First Amendment. You can go to jail for burning a draft card, but it's ok to wear a jacket saying "Fuck the Draft."
The Supreme Court is busy. Very very busy. Don't think that they're the only ones who could have helped this guy, though. For his case to have gotten this far, it must have wound its way through a handful of courts and a dozen different judges.
The First Amendment is complicated. Don't get me wrong, I'm as much a foe of obscenity law as Larry Flynt; this post isn't about the underlying case, more about the way that it's been presented here. Want to make things better? Petition your state legislator to change the laws of your state. State legislators have a thankless job and would probably look forward to some feedback from one of their constituents.
And no, I'm not a legislator or a guy who knows one. I'm just a student.
If you studied English in college you'd know that there was a "little ice age" in Europe from around the time Elizabeth I came to the throne (think Shakespeare) to about the time that George I came to the throne (think Defoe). (Disclaimer: both "thrones" are that of England -- I'm not that up on the history of other European countries. Sorry)
It wasn't that big of a deal. People lived. Massive migrations didn't happen. Life adjusted -- in fact, you barely hear about it in writings of the period -- the most knowledge we have is from paintings, like this one.
Besides, they're getting these conclusions from only 40 years of oceanic data? I'm not even an engineer or scientist and I understand that in massively complex natural systems fluctuations happen.
Seriously man, I could go on about the typos in your "review" (that hardly suggests you've seen the movie), but I won't. I can understand flubs like this from Taco or anybody else, but c'mon, you're a professional writer -- don't you get paid to do this?
Mr. Katz, you're a professional, it's time you started acting like one.
Slashdot Mirror
...Knowing "who did it" in a "who done it" really does ruin the experience, just look at the namesake "The Mousetrap" movie. Despite being a better than average film, it did poorly in the box office in part to a movie critic revealing the killer.
What film? Famously, the rights a film of "The Mousetrap" state that no film can be made until the West End production has been closed for 6 months (presumably, to avoid revealing the secret). Since the play is still running, no film has been made. The filmmakers have been waiting so long that the producer who made the original deal died almost 10 years ago!
I'm sick and tired of people saying "Oh, the right to ____ isn't mentioned in the Constitution, therefore it doesn't exist."
I have to wonder if those who say that know that the Bill of Rights was actually criticized at the time of its drafting for for enumerating rights, on the grounds that nobody could really enumerate every right that a person or people have?
Which is why, of course, the Ninth Amendment exists. Never hear of it? That's probably because it says this: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Huh. So the text of the Constitution is telling you that you have rights beyond what's in the text of the Constitution!
Well, now that we have that settled, let's start talking about what those rights are...
"Christian" doesn't mean following the rules you like, and ignoring the ones you don't. Many people like to call themselves Christians and ignore the rules, but that's completely different.
Actually, I remember once reading about a guy who "ignored" the rules, but then again, he was a Jew... Where did I read that story, hmm....oh, yes....
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, "Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" She said, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." The Pharisees therefore said unto him, "Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true." Jesus answered and said unto them, "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me."
John 8:1-16 (King James Version)
If you really, honestly believe this, I encourage you to read the text of the 11th Amendment and then read some of Justice Scalia's opinions surrounding its...ahem....interesting meaning that is completely ahistorical and not founded on the text of the actual Amendment.
Oh, wait. You're probably too busy being a gloating, knee-jerk, know-nothing d**kwad, like most Bush supporters. Have fun torturing Iraqis next time you're in Baghdad. ("Don't worry, this is for your own good 'cause you're just too much of a kid...)
The [hi]story of that event
Somebody should have told you, plus maybe Michael Jackson, a long time ago that the origin of the English word "history" isn't "his" + "story". It's the ancient Greek word "histor", which meant "learned man."
If I see some another Women's Studies major write something like "herstory" again, I swear I'm going to shoot something.
B5 had some of the worst acting I have ever seen
I'll give you that, but it also had some of the best acting I've ever seen. Andreas Katsulas playing G'Kar was simply amazing -- you aren't aware that you're watching a guy in a Narn suit, you think you're watching a Narn.
Peter Jurasik wasn't half bad, and I actually enjoyed watching Stephen Furst grow into the character of Vir.
Michael O'Hare, OTOH....[ducks oncoming flames -- I know this is largely a question of taste, people...]
What happens to people who paid royalties since then. Can they sue to get their fees back, or are they SOL?
Just offhand, as a random law student (I know, I know, IANAL...yet...), they might be able to get some money back through something like unjust enrichment -- on the grounds that they didn't actually get anything when they paid their money. Who knows, maybe a claim of fraud might work too. The problem with that is that unjust enrichment is usually considered an equitable principle, and that means that whoever they paid their money to could argue laches, which is basically the equitable version of a statute of limitations; people who paid money back in the 80's might still be screwed.
But good luck to whoever sues, since that way we'll finally get a court decision. Litigation's way too expensive these days, and that's impairing the development of the law as a whole.
"If you have the cajones to get on stage, you win," he said
Now, I'm not a native Spanish speaker, but I did pretty well in the subject in school. From what I remember, cajones means "drawers," like the things that go into a chest of drawers.
I think the reporter should have checked a dictionary and determined that the source was actually saying/attempting to say cojones, which, as we all know courtesy of Madeline Albright, means "balls" (i.e. testicles).
Either that, or Fox's "fair and balanced" editorial style determined that drawers weren't getting adequate coverage in the media. Talk about affirmative action!
If you hope to graduate, you might want to work on reading comprehension.
Ok, a snark, I can deal with that. But check this out -- you were making two points in your original post. I was replying to the first. Here they are:
1. That non-lawyers' lack of knowledge of substantive areas of the law renders them unable to engage in any fulfilling discussion about the law.
2. That legal documents are drafted in a deliberately obfuscatory manner in order to assure future business for the legal community.
The second point I readily concede -- everybody knows that if you're the only lawyer in town you'll starve to death.
As regards my post, it was not a contradiction but a clarification. And if you don't understand the difference between that, I have sad words to say for whatever state bar admitted you.
How about the parol evidence rule? Are non-lawyers familiar with this *vital* aspect of all contract law?
That people don't know it is one good reason why in some jurisdictions it's becoming more often "deprecated" (to use a geek turn of phrase). UCC 2-202's formulation includes course of dealing, course of performance, and trade usage in order to explain the terms of the contract; that covers a lot of ground the old rule kept out. Lots of places allow "tacking" of non-contradictory additional terms, either in other writings or referred to in other writings.
Hell, most non-lawyers don't even know the difference between slander and libel,
Whoo...I'm shaking. It's not like they have to pay 150 grand and three years to learn. They can pick this shit up from Black's. I'll teach 'em now:
Slander = spoken defamation
Libel = written defamation
Damn, that was hard. What's "defamation," you say? That's another story...
Law, as a subject, isn't that hard. Chief Justice John Marshall only studied it for six weeks, and he was a fabulous judge. "Being a lawyer" is about a way of thinking and approaching problems, not waving your dick around screaming terms from your real property text.
Oh yeah, who am I? Future lawyer, University of Michigan, class of 2005.
Actually, when I spent my year in Europe I met a lot of Anglophone Europeans who said they had a choice when they learned English to learn American or British English, and most chose British simply because Britain is closer than the U.S.
But elsewhere in the world? I'm not so sure. Every single Latin American I've met who speaks English speaks American English. The vast majority of Asians that I've met do as well, in spite of the fact that they could be geographically closer to Australia than the U.S.
I don't think it's as much what's the "proper" English as it is about simple cultural dominance. More people watch American movies worldwide than listen to the BBC, after all.
However, you made the same mistake Hemos did by saying it wasnt a law at all.
I'm still saying that it's not a law.
The Constitution is Law. Law Supreme. Law that trumps common law. Law that trumps state law. Law that trumps federal law. Big-Fucking-L Law. Ok?
But it's not a law. You know, the kinds of shit that gets revised every day. This is more than a question of terminology. Germany has something that (as far as I understand) translates as the Basic Law. I've never seen it called the German Constitution, however.
Whatever. Enough. Sorry for trying to make a subtle distinction in a place that obviously doesn't handle subtlety well.
Again, my apologies for the confusion. I was glossing Hemos's use of the word "law" as a layman's substitute for the lawyerSpeak "statute," since he called the First Amendment "a federal law," not merely "federal law".
Is it law? Sure. Is Linux a program? Sure. Is it more accurate to call Linux a kernel? Of course. Is it more accurate to distinguish the Constitution from that which it controls? Of course.
Short Answer: "Supreme law of the land" is a legal term of art.
Long Answer:Yeah, I know.
But ask a million different people what Congress or their state legislature does and they're likely to say "It makes laws." But Congress (acting alone) can't change the Constitution (well, actually, depending on what you think it _could_, but that's a good topic of discussion for a "Law Geek" site, not Slashdot.)
I like to differentiate the forest from the trees. The Constitution establishes our system of government. Our system of government is about laws made under a republican form of government. Under the Constitution, the People established the Republic, and the democratically elected representatives of the people, not the People itself, make laws.
You cut this too thin, it starts to look like a where-does-hardware-stop-and-software-begin argument...
I'm going to apologize in advance for being picky.
So SCOTUS has now made a million itty-bitty divisions within the First Amendment. You can go to jail for burning a draft card, but it's ok to wear a jacket saying "Fuck the Draft."
The Supreme Court is busy. Very very busy. Don't think that they're the only ones who could have helped this guy, though. For his case to have gotten this far, it must have wound its way through a handful of courts and a dozen different judges.
The First Amendment is complicated. Don't get me wrong, I'm as much a foe of obscenity law as Larry Flynt; this post isn't about the underlying case, more about the way that it's been presented here. Want to make things better? Petition your state legislator to change the laws of your state. State legislators have a thankless job and would probably look forward to some feedback from one of their constituents.
And no, I'm not a legislator or a guy who knows one. I'm just a student.
Sheesh....
Calm down, everybody.
If you studied English in college you'd know that there was a "little ice age" in Europe from around the time Elizabeth I came to the throne (think Shakespeare) to about the time that George I came to the throne (think Defoe). (Disclaimer: both "thrones" are that of England -- I'm not that up on the history of other European countries. Sorry)
It wasn't that big of a deal. People lived. Massive migrations didn't happen. Life adjusted -- in fact, you barely hear about it in writings of the period -- the most knowledge we have is from paintings, like this one.
Besides, they're getting these conclusions from only 40 years of oceanic data? I'm not even an engineer or scientist and I understand that in massively complex natural systems fluctuations happen.
I know I'm not the first one to complain about Jon Katz, but.....
"Dwight Yoakum"?!?! Try Dwight Yoakam. Or maybe even Dwight Yoakam.
Seriously man, I could go on about the typos in your "review" (that hardly suggests you've seen the movie), but I won't. I can understand flubs like this from Taco or anybody else, but c'mon, you're a professional writer -- don't you get paid to do this?
Mr. Katz, you're a professional, it's time you started acting like one.