I know dude, tell me about it. It seems like everyone in the world knows my cock is small and wants to sell me herbal enhancements . And now that I think about it, I've never even met a terrrorist.
Just think if this loss of self-confidence spreads. Tomorrow it may be you getting e-mails about your small cock. And so on and so forth. Why, next week everyone identifying themselves as part of Western civilzation may get this ego popping email,
"Dames always srieked at me and even men did in the free lavatory! Well, now I whizgiggle at them, because I took [product name omitted] for 4 months and now my prick is hugely weightier than federal."
And though I've little experience in the matter, since I always pay for my lavatory visits, there are very few of us who are more hugely weightier than federal
The situation with the kid does not involve a Constitutional issue - he can still say whatever he please. The situation you propose (hypothetically I'm sure) is a classic equal protection issue.
If someone chooses them, they obviously are not rational to begin with.
And this is the very reason why drug laws fail as deterrence. As you say, someone who thinks it would be a fine idea to snort ether, acetone and cough medicine is not, by definition, rational. But, deterrence only works against rational actors.
I doubt that many crack heads, before they're about to hit the ol' glass dick, think, "Wow, you know guys, I've been thinking. The mandatory federal minimum for possesion of this amount of crack is seven years. This, of course, changes our entire 'drug calculus.' I think we should clean up."
Drug problems are social health problems, not crime problems. For example, how will it help the above hypothetical crack addict if we give him a felony conviction and put him in jail? His family, if any, certainly are not going to be supported by him while he's in jail. And then, when he gets out, what kind of job will he be able to get with that conviction on his record? We should be getting our policy tips from doctors, not criminologists. At the minimum, drug convictions should be focused more on help with addiction and not incarceration (especially some of these crazy mandatory minimums and the desparate difference in sentencing for crack vis-a-vis cocaine).
Ha! Your HS sounds like it was a little more serious than the one I attended. Or perhaps my social engineering was more developed in HS than yours:). My senior year, I probably missed at least 40 days. But, as luck would have it, I knew a girl who was an office aid that provided me with the little slips one had to give to the teacher after being absent (the school also used a stamp for the signature on it which I was able to use). Ah, the good ol' days. Of course, my motivation for this was that I had everything I needed to graduate the year before and was not allowed (they told me that it was not possible and then later tried to deny they had said this, the bastards).
So, you still think that the bulk of other children in the district should have to feel a budget crunch (though a few charities may see a windfall). How about this solution. If people in that district don't like the choices made by administrators, they can vote in new school board members and affect the system that way. However, if they think that the chosen actions are appropriate, why bring in the court system? Because I really do not believe that this action by the school violates the student's rights (as a previous posters said, he's still free say whatever he wants) or breaks any sort of reg.
The "suing the school for a large amount of money" card brings to mind the South Park episode where everyone sues each other for sexual harassment. And, of course, that episode cannot be thought of without thinking of the "Petey the Sexual Harassment Panda." This makes me laugh. Good times.
The government most certainly has the power to regulate speech and gun ownership. For example, you can be charged with a crime if you yell "fire" in a crowded theater when in fact there is no fire, threats against the president, etc. Gun ownership too is regulated, for example felons are prohibited from owning guns. Of course, the government cannot regulate "free speech," but not all speech is free (see the above, and I'm sure you can come up with your own examples). In the same vein, the "right to bear arms" does not translate into total freedom for us citizens to carry anything we want (for example, I'm prohibited from owning an RPG). So, no matter what we may wish, the reality is that the government (both state and federal) can and does regulate these two things.
Anyway, I was responding to your assertion that the bill of rights did originally apply to state laws. It did not. Any 1L can tell you that. Also, what's up with repeating what I said about the 14th amendment and the bill of rights (and really minus 9 and 10 which the courts don't seem to like to deal with)? I don't suppose I know what you're getting at there, unless it is "co-oping" what I was saying.
The states have what is called police power. The federal government does not. And, before the 14th, the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and not to state governments. Buff up on some history and constitutional law before you call people assholes - ya asshat!
Just joking. I wouldn't read any history or ConLaw.
Not really. One, mega-corporations are able to take better advantage of government farm subsidies than smaller farms since some of these handouts are dependent upon the amount of land that is farmed. This, of course, makes them more profitable. Two, yeah the farmer would need two cars/trucks. All the dairy farmers I know have wives who work (I live in a rural area in Missouri). Farmers have to go buy things like medicine for animals, repair parts, haul animals around to saleyards or vets, etc. They also have fields that they need to access. The farmer can't do that if his wife is at work with the car. The farmer also has a tractor that costs from 20-100k (depending upon the needs/size of the farm) along with 2-10k worth of implements.
I also find kinda laughable your statement, "[The farmer] doesn't need to spend nearly as much on food -- he grows food for a living." Dude, we're not talking about subsistence level farmers. These are people who may grow crops, milk cows, and/or raise cows for beef. Grain requires mills to be processed. Milk, while you can drink it fresh, is generally pasteurized in factories. Though, I will admit that a lot of farmers I know do have cheap beef (though they still have to pay to have it butchered and wrapped).
And remember that the stuff the farmer sells does not have a high profit margin. So price dips are felt rather quickly. Farmers have fallen into a kind prisoner's dilemma. Over the years they have demanded and developed new farming tech that makes bigger crop yields, more productive milk cows, etc. And it's this increase in efficiency that is running a lot of family farmers out of business as the profit margins continue being clipped and they become unable to compete.
I think that of any university in the country, Harvard would be the one that could easily afford the legal bill. What with the free legal work from law students and profesors and their $25 billion endowment, I wonder if the RIAA can afford to sue them.
Of course its a negative thing for most everyone in the nation. However, it does not follow that it is a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws. One, the definitions states that retroactive civil laws may be allowed. Two, I don't think that my first point really even matters, because the direction of the negative affect on rights is to the subject of the legislation. In this case that would be the telcos - and this of course certainly does not negatively affect them.
Also, bills of attainder have nothing to do with this either. Here is the Black's Law Dictionary definition,
bill of attainder. 1. Archaic. A special legislative act that imposes a death sentence on a person without a trial. 2. A special legislative act prescribing punishment, without a trial, for a specific person or group. Bills of attainder are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. -- Also termed act of attainder
Not really. According to Blacks Law Dictionary (and you've got to admit that this is a better source for US jurisprudence definitions than wikipedia),
ex post facto law. A law that impermissibly applies retroactively, esp. in a way that negatively affects a person's rights, as by criminalizaing an action that was legal when it was committed. Ex post facto criminal laws are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. But retrospective civil laws may be allowed.
And since immunity is not negative, I very much doubt that this is unconstitutional.
At least insofar as the creation of political beliefs goes, the US rates higher in "the transmission of parental partisanship" than other countries. (Russell J. Dalton, Citizen Politics, p.177) This means that here in the US I'm more likely to support the same party as my parents. And so long as the respective party can insert information within this mechanism which tranfers parental partisanship to the child, then the ol' "I am (insert political mindset), therefore I am voting for (insert associated candidate)" is more likely to occur because the party can build the appropriate image for a candidate that they know will attract a certain number of voters.
Do the people with mod points really believe that McGurk was being a troll. He was merely repeating what Anivair said, but with a different spin in order to show that the bulk of people who identify themselves as either conservative or liberal are not properly represented by political elites and really have very little power in the composition of those elites.
Neither comment was written in order to assuage the authors' politcal opposites (notice the use of a KKK example in reference to conservatives and a belief in a "9/11 inside job" in reference to liberals). It is very interesting to read polemical statements from both sides that are merely mirror images of one another and which probably do represent a strong current of belief within each camp.
Why would anyone want an attorney that played all warm and fuzzy with the other side. Do you think they should have went to a day-spa before the deposition so that they could bond a little more. I bet he didn't even bring flowers and candy! My god, it looks like he put his client's interests above the interests of a scam/expert witness!
Mr. Rizz, I humbly submit that if you were a defendant in a case brought against you for mulitple thousands of dollars, you would be rightly pissed off if the attorney that you were paying for gave free-passes to the plaintif and their claims against you. All I can say about your diatribe is that it's pretty lame.
Is the vocabulary thing really uncalled for? Isn't this guy supposed to be some kind of computer forensics expert? Here is the definition of forensic: pertaining to, connected with, or used in courts of law or public discussion and debate. Don't you think the guy should have understood the word (I belive it was exculpation or something similar)? Since his testimony is used to determine this very thing (i.e. the word he didn't understand).
Hows does opposing new tax and bond measures equate into economic anarchism? For that to be the case you would have to prove that bonds and taxes are the only regulations the economy possesses. And I don't believe you can show this. Also, remember that only Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce (which, as the USSC reads it, means anything even remotely connected to "the stream of commerce").
A note concerning my use of USSC as an abbreviation for the US Supreme Court. I noticed that one poster a few days ago railed against someone's use of USSC because, as he claimed, it more properly referred to the United States Sentencing Commission. My ConLaw prof in law school (a respected practicioner of constitutional law who had even argued cases before them) always used USSC during class. So haha -- I guess.
Not to nit-pick (lol), but I wouldn't suggest using either abbreviation unless its just in your notes. According to the nazis (err... national-socialist party members) who write the Bluebook, the abbreviation is simply U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
I know dude, tell me about it. It seems like everyone in the world knows my cock is small and wants to sell me herbal enhancements . And now that I think about it, I've never even met a terrrorist.
Just think if this loss of self-confidence spreads. Tomorrow it may be you getting e-mails about your small cock. And so on and so forth. Why, next week everyone identifying themselves as part of Western civilzation may get this ego popping email,
And though I've little experience in the matter, since I always pay for my lavatory visits, there are very few of us who are more hugely weightier than federal
Oh, burn!
I can also charge you for interacting with you in a public forum - but that doesn't mean you're going to pay.
The situation with the kid does not involve a Constitutional issue - he can still say whatever he please. The situation you propose (hypothetically I'm sure) is a classic equal protection issue.
:)
That's what I'm saying
If someone chooses them, they obviously are not rational to begin with.
And this is the very reason why drug laws fail as deterrence. As you say, someone who thinks it would be a fine idea to snort ether, acetone and cough medicine is not, by definition, rational. But, deterrence only works against rational actors.
I doubt that many crack heads, before they're about to hit the ol' glass dick, think, "Wow, you know guys, I've been thinking. The mandatory federal minimum for possesion of this amount of crack is seven years. This, of course, changes our entire 'drug calculus.' I think we should clean up."
Drug problems are social health problems, not crime problems. For example, how will it help the above hypothetical crack addict if we give him a felony conviction and put him in jail? His family, if any, certainly are not going to be supported by him while he's in jail. And then, when he gets out, what kind of job will he be able to get with that conviction on his record? We should be getting our policy tips from doctors, not criminologists. At the minimum, drug convictions should be focused more on help with addiction and not incarceration (especially some of these crazy mandatory minimums and the desparate difference in sentencing for crack vis-a-vis cocaine).
Ha! Your HS sounds like it was a little more serious than the one I attended. Or perhaps my social engineering was more developed in HS than yours :). My senior year, I probably missed at least 40 days. But, as luck would have it, I knew a girl who was an office aid that provided me with the little slips one had to give to the teacher after being absent (the school also used a stamp for the signature on it which I was able to use). Ah, the good ol' days. Of course, my motivation for this was that I had everything I needed to graduate the year before and was not allowed (they told me that it was not possible and then later tried to deny they had said this, the bastards).
So, you still think that the bulk of other children in the district should have to feel a budget crunch (though a few charities may see a windfall). How about this solution. If people in that district don't like the choices made by administrators, they can vote in new school board members and affect the system that way. However, if they think that the chosen actions are appropriate, why bring in the court system? Because I really do not believe that this action by the school violates the student's rights (as a previous posters said, he's still free say whatever he wants) or breaks any sort of reg.
The "suing the school for a large amount of money" card brings to mind the South Park episode where everyone sues each other for sexual harassment. And, of course, that episode cannot be thought of without thinking of the "Petey the Sexual Harassment Panda." This makes me laugh. Good times.
I like drawing and quartering the best. The horses involved basically make it a parade. And hey! Who doesn't like a parade?
I've had sociology and anthropology classes which used the term.
The government most certainly has the power to regulate speech and gun ownership. For example, you can be charged with a crime if you yell "fire" in a crowded theater when in fact there is no fire, threats against the president, etc. Gun ownership too is regulated, for example felons are prohibited from owning guns. Of course, the government cannot regulate "free speech," but not all speech is free (see the above, and I'm sure you can come up with your own examples). In the same vein, the "right to bear arms" does not translate into total freedom for us citizens to carry anything we want (for example, I'm prohibited from owning an RPG). So, no matter what we may wish, the reality is that the government (both state and federal) can and does regulate these two things.
Anyway, I was responding to your assertion that the bill of rights did originally apply to state laws. It did not. Any 1L can tell you that. Also, what's up with repeating what I said about the 14th amendment and the bill of rights (and really minus 9 and 10 which the courts don't seem to like to deal with)? I don't suppose I know what you're getting at there, unless it is "co-oping" what I was saying.
The states have what is called police power. The federal government does not. And, before the 14th, the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and not to state governments. Buff up on some history and constitutional law before you call people assholes - ya asshat!
Just joking. I wouldn't read any history or ConLaw.
Not really. One, mega-corporations are able to take better advantage of government farm subsidies than smaller farms since some of these handouts are dependent upon the amount of land that is farmed. This, of course, makes them more profitable. Two, yeah the farmer would need two cars/trucks. All the dairy farmers I know have wives who work (I live in a rural area in Missouri). Farmers have to go buy things like medicine for animals, repair parts, haul animals around to saleyards or vets, etc. They also have fields that they need to access. The farmer can't do that if his wife is at work with the car. The farmer also has a tractor that costs from 20-100k (depending upon the needs/size of the farm) along with 2-10k worth of implements.
I also find kinda laughable your statement, "[The farmer] doesn't need to spend nearly as much on food -- he grows food for a living." Dude, we're not talking about subsistence level farmers. These are people who may grow crops, milk cows, and/or raise cows for beef. Grain requires mills to be processed. Milk, while you can drink it fresh, is generally pasteurized in factories. Though, I will admit that a lot of farmers I know do have cheap beef (though they still have to pay to have it butchered and wrapped).
And remember that the stuff the farmer sells does not have a high profit margin. So price dips are felt rather quickly. Farmers have fallen into a kind prisoner's dilemma. Over the years they have demanded and developed new farming tech that makes bigger crop yields, more productive milk cows, etc. And it's this increase in efficiency that is running a lot of family farmers out of business as the profit margins continue being clipped and they become unable to compete.
I think that of any university in the country, Harvard would be the one that could easily afford the legal bill. What with the free legal work from law students and profesors and their $25 billion endowment, I wonder if the RIAA can afford to sue them.
Of course its a negative thing for most everyone in the nation. However, it does not follow that it is a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws. One, the definitions states that retroactive civil laws may be allowed. Two, I don't think that my first point really even matters, because the direction of the negative affect on rights is to the subject of the legislation. In this case that would be the telcos - and this of course certainly does not negatively affect them.
And since immunity is not negative, I very much doubt that this is unconstitutional.
At least insofar as the creation of political beliefs goes, the US rates higher in "the transmission of parental partisanship" than other countries. (Russell J. Dalton, Citizen Politics, p.177) This means that here in the US I'm more likely to support the same party as my parents. And so long as the respective party can insert information within this mechanism which tranfers parental partisanship to the child, then the ol' "I am (insert political mindset), therefore I am voting for (insert associated candidate)" is more likely to occur because the party can build the appropriate image for a candidate that they know will attract a certain number of voters.
Do the people with mod points really believe that McGurk was being a troll. He was merely repeating what Anivair said, but with a different spin in order to show that the bulk of people who identify themselves as either conservative or liberal are not properly represented by political elites and really have very little power in the composition of those elites.
Neither comment was written in order to assuage the authors' politcal opposites (notice the use of a KKK example in reference to conservatives and a belief in a "9/11 inside job" in reference to liberals). It is very interesting to read polemical statements from both sides that are merely mirror images of one another and which probably do represent a strong current of belief within each camp.
Why would anyone want an attorney that played all warm and fuzzy with the other side. Do you think they should have went to a day-spa before the deposition so that they could bond a little more. I bet he didn't even bring flowers and candy! My god, it looks like he put his client's interests above the interests of a scam/expert witness!
Mr. Rizz, I humbly submit that if you were a defendant in a case brought against you for mulitple thousands of dollars, you would be rightly pissed off if the attorney that you were paying for gave free-passes to the plaintif and their claims against you. All I can say about your diatribe is that it's pretty lame.
Is the vocabulary thing really uncalled for? Isn't this guy supposed to be some kind of computer forensics expert? Here is the definition of forensic: pertaining to, connected with, or used in courts of law or public discussion and debate. Don't you think the guy should have understood the word (I belive it was exculpation or something similar)? Since his testimony is used to determine this very thing (i.e. the word he didn't understand).
Remember the McLibel case that occured in the UK?
Hows does opposing new tax and bond measures equate into economic anarchism? For that to be the case you would have to prove that bonds and taxes are the only regulations the economy possesses. And I don't believe you can show this. Also, remember that only Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce (which, as the USSC reads it, means anything even remotely connected to "the stream of commerce").
A note concerning my use of USSC as an abbreviation for the US Supreme Court. I noticed that one poster a few days ago railed against someone's use of USSC because, as he claimed, it more properly referred to the United States Sentencing Commission. My ConLaw prof in law school (a respected practicioner of constitutional law who had even argued cases before them) always used USSC during class. So haha -- I guess.
Well, thank god someone had the good sense to abort that one.
Some of this data could be used for oversight purposese. Remember the law which gave telecomms $ in order to bring broadband to rural areas?
Not to nit-pick (lol), but I wouldn't suggest using either abbreviation unless its just in your notes. According to the nazis (err... national-socialist party members) who write the Bluebook, the abbreviation is simply U.S.