The 9th and 10th amendments are, and always have been, absolutely meaningless. They are simply restatements of common law principles, but they do not grant any rights that would not exist had they not been included.
"Reasonable", like the term "Reasonable Man'', has a rather precise legal meaning these days. It still makes sense... if you accept that the point of the law is to narrow as much as possible the definition of any particular word.
It has always been my understanding that the Supreme Court has determined that the border is where the powers of the executive to order searches has been at its zenith.
More precisely, warrants are not required at the border.
So, within that confluence of factors, the searches were probably quite legally acceptable.
Under that ruling, the EPA was told that greenhouse gasses are pollutants and it has to provide a rational rationale for regulating them. The EPA, by the way, was arguing against that.
How are they biased? You do not seem to have proven any specific bias.
The Court may have come to what you consider an incorrect decision; that is not bias. The Court may have come to a decision found ultimately to be incorrect on appeal: that is not bias, either.
Bias requires a specific partiality to one party or another, and you have not even mentioned any sort of bias here.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to have treated it like a criminal trial but then to realize that most of the sentencing elements don't come into play. There's no value in sentencing guidelines like deterrence or rehabilitation because he's not a criminal, he's a military agent. He hasn't done anything 'wrong'.
The result is that if, in fact, for whatever reason you do let him go there's no ideological problem with that.
The movie was terribly crafted. The only part of it that was at all well done was the fact that there was no sound in space, but other than that the movie had holes you could drive a tractor-trailer through- plot holes so large they actually detracted from the enjoyment of the movie, by making one seriously consider the writer's sanity.
I simply ask because Stuart Slade makes an identical argument and he's the only person I've actually seen make it. In fact, he wrote a series of books about it.
Given your defensiveness, I'd say that my question was answered in the affirmative.
There's no reason to protect the key, either: they have the material that's incriminating. What do you gain by holding onto the key to a safe that the authorities have already legally seized?
Really, they already legally have seized your documents. Your 5th Amendment right not to incriminate yourself might prevent you from having to turn over those documents, but once they've passed that test and seized the documents anyway...
I also don't agree that being forced to turn over a key that opens a lock the police already have constitutes self-incrimination, either. (I realize US case law in this is unclear- US v. Boucher appears to be most on-point but there are issues in play that make it not likely to serve as the basis for a general decision on this issue).
The key itself is not incriminating. What's incriminating is what's inside the box, but the police already have the box. You cannot incriminate yourself because you've already been incriminated: the material which proves your guilt is already within the hands of the authorities.
Slashdot Mirror
The 9th and 10th amendments are, and always have been, absolutely meaningless. They are simply restatements of common law principles, but they do not grant any rights that would not exist had they not been included.
Any succession by any state would be illegal, and it has been that way for more than a hundred years.
With respect to your signature, and it's pertinent: Five guys and a moving van are also strong enough to take everything you have.
"Reasonable", like the term "Reasonable Man'', has a rather precise legal meaning these days. It still makes sense... if you accept that the point of the law is to narrow as much as possible the definition of any particular word.
It has always been my understanding that the Supreme Court has determined that the border is where the powers of the executive to order searches has been at its zenith.
More precisely, warrants are not required at the border.
So, within that confluence of factors, the searches were probably quite legally acceptable.
Or these porn-surfers could be less lazy and simply memorize their porn URLs. It can't be that hard.
Pathfinder seems simply to be an extension to D&D 3.5- I am hard-pressed to see how it's 'pretty much shaking up the entire gaming community'.
Didn't the Supreme Court already rule on this in Massachusetts v. EPA ?
Under that ruling, the EPA was told that greenhouse gasses are pollutants and it has to provide a rational rationale for regulating them. The EPA, by the way, was arguing against that.
How are they biased? You do not seem to have proven any specific bias.
The Court may have come to what you consider an incorrect decision; that is not bias. The Court may have come to a decision found ultimately to be incorrect on appeal: that is not bias, either.
Bias requires a specific partiality to one party or another, and you have not even mentioned any sort of bias here.
You can if they're going in the same direction.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to have treated it like a criminal trial but then to realize that most of the sentencing elements don't come into play. There's no value in sentencing guidelines like deterrence or rehabilitation because he's not a criminal, he's a military agent. He hasn't done anything 'wrong'.
The result is that if, in fact, for whatever reason you do let him go there's no ideological problem with that.
My point was that it's not particularly barbarous to let him go. He wasn't a common criminal. He was, essentially, a prisoner of war.
Barbarous? For an agent of a foreign power (Libya) to kill civilians of a power they dislike? Really? That's just war.
I have, in fact, seen it. I've seen it about six times, because I needed to write a rather detailed review and I happen to be a masochist.
I admit that by the end of his tenure, I was sure William Shatner was playing the role for laughs more than anything else.
I believe the estimate was something like 10 people would die per launch, but I'd have to find the figures.
Project Orion was certainly designed for planetary launch. They even did an analysis of how many people it would kill per launch due to fallout.
The movie was terribly crafted. The only part of it that was at all well done was the fact that there was no sound in space, but other than that the movie had holes you could drive a tractor-trailer through- plot holes so large they actually detracted from the enjoyment of the movie, by making one seriously consider the writer's sanity.
Perhaps it would have been for the best had we not had the JJ Abrams Star Trek movie.
I simply ask because Stuart Slade makes an identical argument and he's the only person I've actually seen make it. In fact, he wrote a series of books about it.
Given your defensiveness, I'd say that my question was answered in the affirmative.
Put it this way: Are you willing to go to Russia and attempt to sue them?
Let me guess, you're a fan of Stuart Slade's, aren't you?
If the police take from my house without opening a briefcase containing incriminating evidence, have they seized those documents? Of course they have.
What if the documents are written in Arameic? Does the fact that they can't read them mean they haven't been seized?
The police provided, in order to obtain a court order, sufficient evidence to prove that that they know what they're looking for and where it is.
And they do: they have a court order.
There's no reason to protect the key, either: they have the material that's incriminating. What do you gain by holding onto the key to a safe that the authorities have already legally seized?
Really, they already legally have seized your documents. Your 5th Amendment right not to incriminate yourself might prevent you from having to turn over those documents, but once they've passed that test and seized the documents anyway...
I also don't agree that being forced to turn over a key that opens a lock the police already have constitutes self-incrimination, either. (I realize US case law in this is unclear- US v. Boucher appears to be most on-point but there are issues in play that make it not likely to serve as the basis for a general decision on this issue).
The key itself is not incriminating. What's incriminating is what's inside the box, but the police already have the box. You cannot incriminate yourself because you've already been incriminated: the material which proves your guilt is already within the hands of the authorities.