Smoking also apparently helps control schizophrenia. Or perhaps a more exact way of putting it is that schizophrenics who are smokers do worse when they don't smoke. Most schizophrenics are smokers, just because of the tough circumstances under which they live, but I cannot cite for that. I just know that every schizophrenic that I have ever known smokes, and I have read studies about schizophrenia and smoking. Unfortunately, I read these studies way before the internet, so I cannot provide links.
It was pure and simple stupidity on the part of the voter, and failure to vote properly is a failure to vote. No one is to blame but the voter for not reading things clearly. They caused their own vote not to be counted.
Do you understand why what you just said in this quotation is a poll test? A poll test is a discriminatory extra requirement designed to keep someone in a certain group from voting. For instance, in the South before the civil rights movement, when people registered to vote, they had two standards to receive the franchise. White people just went in and registered to vote. Black people had to prove they could read, and if they passed, then they could register to vote. Lots of poor white trash couldn't read, but they got to vote. Poll tests are illegal in the United States because they have been found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Do you see why what you are saying is okay should have been considered illegal?
There is actually a reason everyone qualifies their legal expertise. That is because it is actually illegal to give legal advice unless you are a member of the bar, and people get prosecuted for it all the time.
Even after I graduated law school, it was still illegal for me to give legal advice, until I received my bar results, and was sworn in.
Nowadays, I know that part of the reason for the bar is to control the legal market, like a license. But it has always been true that you had to pass a qualifying exam of some sort, even just an oral one. Also, there have been lawyers for a long time, so there is a bit of a secret handshake aspect to it, I am sure.:)
You are a little confused. While you are correct that the 9th amendment has been interpreted as not referring to individual
rights, it is no longer true that the Bill of Rights as a whole does not apply to individual rights. The 14th amendment has
been interpreted as incorporating protections for the civil rights of individuals into all levels of government interference.
The right to privacy was originally a right derived from Common Law. We all have heard the expression "An Englishman's home
is his Castle." This was the rough summary of the right to privacy enjoyed by freemen in England. Of course, it was an
ideal, and was not perfectly executed in practice, but the same could be said of much that goes on in this country.
In the US, much of our law is based on a combination of British Common Law, Statutory, and Constitutional law. And, once a
statute is written that enumerates what was previously common law, the statutory meaning takes precedence. For instance,
under Common Law, all that is required for a conspiracy conviction is evidence of a plan. You don't need to take any steps
to enact the plan to be found guilty. But Statutory Conspiracy requires a plan, plus an act in furtherance of that plan,
such as contacting someone to help, or buying a supply. This change was made in an attempt to avoid the concept of "thought
crimes." But, if you have the misfortune of living in a state that does not have a statute defining Conspiracy, you are
STILL subject to the common law "plan = conspiracy" standard.
The right to privacy was one of those unspoken, but widely accepted theories of British Common Law. But with the publication
and ratification of the US Constitution, many areas of Common Law became statutory. Nowadays, the right to privacy is a
statutory one, carved out of the intersection of individual rights derived from the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th ammendments.
For instance, the 5th ammendment gives you the right not to self-incriminate, the 4th gives you protection from unreasonable
searches and seizures, and the 14th and 6th amendments insure that you have due process rights (although this seems to fly
over the head of the Bush Administration). In the middle of the 20th century, the USSC began to interpret the nexus of these
rights as creating an area of individual activity that should be free from government interference. Some of the more famous
cases, Griswold v. Connecticut and progeny, Roe v. Wade and progeny, found that while the right to privacy was not
enumerated, it was implied, in the same way that if you say "I consult with my attorney Monday through Sunday," you have
implied that you also talk to your attorney Tuesday, Wednesday, etc.
Santorum and his ilk, who claim to be strict constructionists, want you to believe a) that if the Constitution doesn't
explicitly state a right, it doesn't exist, and b) the Constitution establishes a government to control and rule the
citizenry. People like him are the most treacherous people in the US today. The stealth theory he is pushing with his
obsessive comments on sexuality, is that individuals should have no input into their own governance, and that the government
is an entity that has an obligation to control personal behavior, and also that it may push people around as it finds
convenient.
However, strict constructionism is false on its face. The mechanism for the citizenry to amend the Constitution is written
right into it. As can be seen in contemporaneous writings, it was obvious that members of the Convention expected, and even
hoped, that the Constitution would not be a static document, but that it would be amended by The People through legal means,
sometimes as Constitutional amendments, and often as the result of judicial challenges (to refute the concept of "activist
judges"). Many members of the convention would be thrilled to see that there is no longer slavery in the US. This despite
language in the Constitution explicitly discussing the internation
You're right, it isn't evident to everyone. Especially people who can read. You were the one who suggested that your terminology was supported by the USSC. I guess you assumed no one would be willing to read the decisions to see if they supported your assertion. Ooops!
Falsification,
No matter how many word searches you do on findlaw.com and tourolaw.com, it doesn't prove your point. You are equating dicta with findings. Dicta is just blather about how the Court came to its decision. It can be important, and is of interest, and can be quoted in legal briefs, but it does not work as legal precedent, which is the meat of any decision. Only findings can be the basis of legal precedent. There was no finding of legal meaning for the term "potential life," in either of the two cases you cited (Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, for those who are to lazy to click on the links).
In fact, the inability to find a bright
line definition of what "potential life" means is the whole point of most of the dicta found in Roe v. Wade and progeny. The inability of the court to come to a joint finding of what "potential
life" means, is the very reason this issue is still being litigated at several levels of the federal court system.
Slashdot Mirror
Smoking also apparently helps control schizophrenia. Or perhaps a more exact way of putting it is that schizophrenics who are smokers do worse when they don't smoke. Most schizophrenics are smokers, just because of the tough circumstances under which they live, but I cannot cite for that. I just know that every schizophrenic that I have ever known smokes, and I have read studies about schizophrenia and smoking. Unfortunately, I read these studies way before the internet, so I cannot provide links.
It was pure and simple stupidity on the part of the voter, and failure to vote properly is a failure to vote. No one is to blame but the voter for not reading things clearly. They caused their own vote not to be counted.
Do you understand why what you just said in this quotation is a poll test? A poll test is a discriminatory extra requirement designed to keep someone in a certain group from voting. For instance, in the South before the civil rights movement, when people registered to vote, they had two standards to receive the franchise. White people just went in and registered to vote. Black people had to prove they could read, and if they passed, then they could register to vote. Lots of poor white trash couldn't read, but they got to vote. Poll tests are illegal in the United States because they have been found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Do you see why what you are saying is okay should have been considered illegal?
There is actually a reason everyone qualifies their legal expertise. That is because it is actually illegal to give legal advice unless you are a member of the bar, and people get prosecuted for it all the time.
Even after I graduated law school, it was still illegal for me to give legal advice, until I received my bar results, and was sworn in.
Nowadays, I know that part of the reason for the bar is to control the legal market, like a license. But it has always been true that you had to pass a qualifying exam of some sort, even just an oral one. Also, there have been lawyers for a long time, so there is a bit of a secret handshake aspect to it, I am sure.:)
You are a little confused. While you are correct that the 9th amendment has been interpreted as not referring to individual rights, it is no longer true that the Bill of Rights as a whole does not apply to individual rights. The 14th amendment has been interpreted as incorporating protections for the civil rights of individuals into all levels of government interference.
The right to privacy was originally a right derived from Common Law. We all have heard the expression "An Englishman's home is his Castle." This was the rough summary of the right to privacy enjoyed by freemen in England. Of course, it was an ideal, and was not perfectly executed in practice, but the same could be said of much that goes on in this country.
In the US, much of our law is based on a combination of British Common Law, Statutory, and Constitutional law. And, once a statute is written that enumerates what was previously common law, the statutory meaning takes precedence. For instance, under Common Law, all that is required for a conspiracy conviction is evidence of a plan. You don't need to take any steps to enact the plan to be found guilty. But Statutory Conspiracy requires a plan, plus an act in furtherance of that plan, such as contacting someone to help, or buying a supply. This change was made in an attempt to avoid the concept of "thought crimes." But, if you have the misfortune of living in a state that does not have a statute defining Conspiracy, you are STILL subject to the common law "plan = conspiracy" standard.
The right to privacy was one of those unspoken, but widely accepted theories of British Common Law. But with the publication and ratification of the US Constitution, many areas of Common Law became statutory. Nowadays, the right to privacy is a statutory one, carved out of the intersection of individual rights derived from the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th ammendments. For instance, the 5th ammendment gives you the right not to self-incriminate, the 4th gives you protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the 14th and 6th amendments insure that you have due process rights (although this seems to fly over the head of the Bush Administration). In the middle of the 20th century, the USSC began to interpret the nexus of these rights as creating an area of individual activity that should be free from government interference. Some of the more famous cases, Griswold v. Connecticut and progeny, Roe v. Wade and progeny, found that while the right to privacy was not enumerated, it was implied, in the same way that if you say "I consult with my attorney Monday through Sunday," you have implied that you also talk to your attorney Tuesday, Wednesday, etc.
Santorum and his ilk, who claim to be strict constructionists, want you to believe a) that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly state a right, it doesn't exist, and b) the Constitution establishes a government to control and rule the citizenry. People like him are the most treacherous people in the US today. The stealth theory he is pushing with his obsessive comments on sexuality, is that individuals should have no input into their own governance, and that the government is an entity that has an obligation to control personal behavior, and also that it may push people around as it finds convenient.
However, strict constructionism is false on its face. The mechanism for the citizenry to amend the Constitution is written right into it. As can be seen in contemporaneous writings, it was obvious that members of the Convention expected, and even hoped, that the Constitution would not be a static document, but that it would be amended by The People through legal means, sometimes as Constitutional amendments, and often as the result of judicial challenges (to refute the concept of "activist judges"). Many members of the convention would be thrilled to see that there is no longer slavery in the US. This despite language in the Constitution explicitly discussing the internation
Wow, your wife really is cool!
;)
You're right, it isn't evident to everyone. Especially people who can read. You were the one who suggested that your terminology was supported by the USSC. I guess you assumed no one would be willing to read the decisions to see if they supported your assertion. Ooops!
Falsification, No matter how many word searches you do on findlaw.com and tourolaw.com, it doesn't prove your point. You are equating dicta with findings. Dicta is just blather about how the Court came to its decision. It can be important, and is of interest, and can be quoted in legal briefs, but it does not work as legal precedent, which is the meat of any decision. Only findings can be the basis of legal precedent. There was no finding of legal meaning for the term "potential life," in either of the two cases you cited (Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, for those who are to lazy to click on the links).
In fact, the inability to find a bright line definition of what "potential life" means is the whole point of most of the dicta found in Roe v. Wade and progeny. The inability of the court to come to a joint finding of what "potential life" means, is the very reason this issue is still being litigated at several levels of the federal court system.