OT: Bimbo Eruptions

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Shadowfax]Did someone say SHARK?[/quote]

Shadowfax: Ah, geez…

“Shark Hearing

Sharks have extremely sensitive hearing. They can identify much lower sounds than human ears can detect, and some can hear sounds more than 700 feet away. Some scientists think hearing is typically the first sense sharks use in detecting their prey.”

From FactMonster.com[/quote]
Some sharks (like the hammerhead) are viviparous in their reproduction.

Unlike turnips.

[DomoArigato]

It’s time to break out this classic piece from The Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

[scaredyclassic]

Lol.

This attitude isn’t gonna help us pass the bar exam. We need to buckle down and study people

[markmax33]

[quote=SK in CV]
The authority is in Article III, Section 2. The ruling cites rights granted in the 14th amendment. It has nothing to do with anything in Art.I, Sec. 8.

I know Sec. 8 is pretty important to Ron Paul. I think he would be pretty embarrassed the way you’re throwing it around.

And be careful here. I’m setting a trap for you. Please don’t walk into it. It will hurt.[/quote]

Alright since we are we are constitutional geniuses tell me how this:
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

has anything to do with abortion. I have a bridge in brooklyn I can sell you too.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]Alright since we are we are constitutional geniuses tell me how this:

insert 14th Amendment here

has anything to do with abortion. I have a bridge in brooklyn I can sell you too.[/quote]

The decision, as I recall, focused on “due process of law”.

I know, it’s complicated.

[Shadowfax]

My Conlaw understanding has faded and I had a horrible ConLaw prof, but a few things stuck with me. First, that there is no “right to abortion” in the constitution. There is no “right to privacy” but the interpretation of a “living” consitution enables the courts to protect certain areas of life that the founders couldn’t envision in the 1700s. Or perhaps they were so basic they didn’t think they needed mentioning? Either way, we now have to interpret the written words of the document. Literalists will never give up saying “it’s not in the Constitution,” but how can a bunch of male slave owners in the 1700s have accounted for the unfolding of history without intending for the Constition to grow and adapt over time?

The right to privacy (the basis of the attenuated right to abortion) is based in the concept of “fundamental rights”. These were first set forth (in western law making) in the Magna Carta–a document that the founders were well versed in and some of the federalist papers show that they conversed in the language of the magna carta about certain fundamental rights. [go look it up]

A nice summary of how the founders were influenced by the last attempt to express the freedoms of the people is found here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/
The expression of certain fundamental or inalienable rights is the underpinning of the “penumbra of rights” that is relied upon to get to all the privacy issues, or at least the more imporatant cases that don’t turn on some factual anomaly.

The Supreme Court chose to base its decision on the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe v. Wade was decided primarily on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A criminal statute prohibiting abortion that did not take into account the state of pregnancy or other interests than the life of the mother was deemed a violation of Due Process.

[scaredyclassic]

That sounds familiar. Penumbras. Due process.

What does Ron Paul say “due process” means?

Nobody claimed to be a con law genius.

It’s just, well, listening only to Ron Paul and reading a few referenced sections, and not reading a few hundred us supreme court opinions and mulling them over with other smart people, is likely to make you jump to conclusions that might be wrong.

[Shadowfax]

Yeah, it’s those several thousand pages of legal reasoning, citations, quotations from other cases, etc. that make up the framework of constitutional law, that holds most people back from understanding what the hell is going on here. I include myself in the ingnorant crowd and I am suspect of anyone who thinks they have all the answers. Especially when they emerge after a summer course in Constiutional Law sponsored by some right wing religious “college.”

Unless you are some sort of ConLaw scholar, it’s really hard to have a good grasp on why the USSC makes the decisions that they do in this area. It’s way more complicated than the pundits would like the public to believe. I am a woman and I happen to think that the Court in Roe v. Wade got it mostly right, but maybe not entirely for the right reasons.

[UCGal]

[quote=walterwhite]
Nobody claimed to be a con law genius.

[/quote]

Actually MarkMax claimed everyone was. Here’s what he said….

[quote=markmax33]ROE VS WADE is unconstitutional. Ask anybody.

[/quote]

followed by…

[quote=markmax33]
Alright since we are we are constitutional geniuses tell me how this:

[/quote]

But I’d much rather talk about Big Lebowski references, sharks, turnips, and maybe even introduce zombies into this thread. It’s pretty clear to me that MarkMax is not listening… just preaching.

One of the things I love about Piggington is that threads can have real give and take – especially threads with Array, Allan, Dan, Eaves, afx, and the artist formerly known as scaredy. I don’t enjoy it when it turns into one side trying to shout down reasoned discussion.

So on that note… Zombies anyone?

[urbanrealtor]

So my thinking about the Redekker plan would be to sacrifice El Cajon and Temecula to the throngs of undead.

Their bony, white-supremecist, hides would distract them just long enough to get the barricades in place and get the Carl Vinson ready if we needed to evacuate.
We could use Fern/30th (lets just call it fernieth) to prepare a single escape route to the pier.

Then, as one, we could get Marion all spun out on crystal and duct tape two hatchets to her hands and run like hell while she fought the hordes as they crested Mission Village rd and ate Norv Turner (though nobody would notice that).

I figure she would buy us at least an hour.

[scaredyclassic]

In preparation I suggest you all watch the groundbreaking deadliest warrior episode entitled

zombies v vampires

really useful stuff.

[markmax33]

[quote=Shadowfax]Yeah, it’s those several thousand pages of legal reasoning, citations, quotations from other cases, etc. that make up the framework of constitutional law, that holds most people back from understanding what the hell is going on here. I include myself in the ingnorant crowd and I am suspect of anyone who thinks they have all the answers. Especially when they emerge after a summer course in Constiutional Law sponsored by some right wing religious “college.”

Unless you are some sort of ConLaw scholar, it’s really hard to have a good grasp on why the USSC makes the decisions that they do in this area. It’s way more complicated than the pundits would like the public to believe. I am a woman and I happen to think that the Court in Roe v. Wade got it mostly right, but maybe not entirely for the right reasons.[/quote]

Do we think it takes a Conlaw degree for this? Do we believe the states can take care of this or do we need the GOV to force something on all the states in a one size fits all? I’d be really interested in opinions on that. Are the state courts too stupid for some reason?

[scaredyclassic]

Each state has its own constitution and each state gets to interpret it’s own state constitution.

[markmax33]

[quote=markmax33][quote=Shadowfax]Yeah, it’s those several thousand pages of legal reasoning, citations, quotations from other cases, etc. that make up the framework of constitutional law, that holds most people back from understanding what the hell is going on here. I include myself in the ingnorant crowd and I am suspect of anyone who thinks they have all the answers. Especially when they emerge after a summer course in Constiutional Law sponsored by some right wing religious “college.”

Unless you are some sort of ConLaw scholar, it’s really hard to have a good grasp on why the USSC makes the decisions that they do in this area. It’s way more complicated than the pundits would like the public to believe. I am a woman and I happen to think that the Court in Roe v. Wade got it mostly right, but maybe not entirely for the right reasons.[/quote]

Do we think it takes a Conlaw degree for this? Do we believe the states can take care of this or do we need the GOV to force something on all the states in a one size fits all? I’d be really interested in opinions on that. Are the state courts too stupid for some reason?[/quote]

The constitution doesn’t list any of the following in the assumption that the states would handle it:

Abortion, murder, manslaughter or any other acts of violence.

There are only 4 forms of crimes outlined in the constitution:

Counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery.

Criminal and civil laws were intentionally left to the state.

How did they make the leap that if they don’t regulate murder, that they should regulate abortion?

[UCGal]

MarkMax… the subject has changed to zombies… or better yet – zombie sharks!!!
(Now that is really terrifying.)

I love the idea of sending Marian to stay behind and fight them.

Can we make a stop at La Posta to get grub before we head out to the Carl Vinsen?

[Author]

Posts