rushmc 23 #151 April 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The Constitution means what SCOTUS says it means, not what Airdvr says it means. That takes nothing from what Airdvr posited. Frankly, I have a hard time figuring out what President IS concerned with the Constitution. I'm sure that in June the SCOTUS will tell us what the commerce clause means. Just like today they told us that warrantless intrusive strip searches are OK. No violation of the following: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. You do know that this search was done just prior to him being placed in confinement So, the SC did not say they can strip search you when ever they want, they just said the cops can strip search you before you are put in jail (not that I like that either) So what was the "probable cause", for a guy with an "unpaid" fine (that had actually been paid) that wasn't even a crime? Like I said I dont like this here And I just went through this last month with my son He had gotten in a bit of trouble He paid for a two day locked in course to take care of the sentence he has to serve The cops went by his place 4 weeks after he took the course, ran his plates and found there was a warrant out for him not serving his sentence They found their error after he was in jail for 10 hours He has a lawyer that can wait to get this one filed But all I was doing here was clearing up what the SC ruled on The other parts seem to be irrelevant at this time At least based on what the SC said We can at least be honest about it dont you think?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #152 April 2, 2012 Quoteto bad your information on our oil reserves is wronghttp://www.americanfreepress.net/...has_massive_oil.html all we need is a little american enginuity to pull it out I'm curious if you actually read the article you linked. Some relevant quotes from the article: "according to scientists and petroleum companies, much of it cannot be recovered with current technology due to the costly processing involved and the depth of the deposits buried beneath the Rocky Mountains." "But even with modern technology, the difficulties associated with extracting and processing shale oil have forced even some of the largest oil companies to drop out of the game." So, this is not a resource that is ever going to be competitive against more traditional resources that can be pumped directly from the ground, as Middle East oil can be. To get at it, you'll literally have to strip-mine most of the land area of Wyoming/Colorado/etc, even to the point of digging up the Rocky Mountains. Then all that rock has to be cooked at high temperature/pressure to extract a petroleum that is inferior to most of the oil that can be pumped from conventional reserves. And, all the extracted rock will then have to be dumped somewhere, maybe covering up another state or two. Another serious issue is water supply. Shale oil is exposed at the surface in some of the most arid areas in the US (Colorado/Wyoming/Utah), yet each barrel of extracted oil requires at least 10 barrels of water for extraction and processing. In most of the area, even if the shale oil plants took all of the available water, leaving nothing for the local population to drink or use for agriculture, it wouldn't be enough to support an economically viable level of production. If so many of the big oil companies are getting out of the business, maybe that's a signal that this isn't something that can be made cost-competitive with a "little american enginuity". I'm sure those companies are not lacking in American ingenuity. You should also consider that if you are going to factor shale oil into the size of US reserves, for any meaningful comparison to be made you have to factor it into reserves for the rest of the world too. It is therefore interesting that "Large deposits of shale oil are also not unique to the United States. In fact, there are huge reserves of the substance all around the world, from China to Australia to Scotland to South Africa. But, once again, the problem rests with the expense of getting to it and processing it". Shale oil will be economically viable one day, when conventional reserves are close to exhaustion and we're acclimated to $40/gallon gas. It will still be an ecological disaster, though, to exploit it on a scale that would allow it to be burned as fuel, as opposed to used as raw material for plastics and other chemical production. I find it interesting that some people are so philosophically opposed to anything like "green technology" that they would prefer large scale destruction of the landscape (that's a general comment regarding oil addiction, I know you didn't specifically say that). Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #153 April 2, 2012 Just my opinion but I don't think the justices are going to take to kindly to public grandstanding: Quote President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #154 April 2, 2012 QuoteWell, if one can read the intent can be defined very well Really? There are no questions about the constitution or what was meant by it, or how it fits into today's society? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #155 April 2, 2012 QuoteQuoteWell, if one can read the intent can be defined very well Really? There are no questions about the constitution or what was meant by it, or how it fits into today's society? It has nothing to do with today's society The constitution was not meant to fit We are intended to fit it Read the Federalist Papers for an education you really need"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #156 April 2, 2012 QuoteThe constitution was not meant to fit We are intended to fit it Right. No question about how new technology fits in for example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #157 April 2, 2012 >It has nothing to do with today's society >The constitution was not meant to fit >We are intended to fit it Sucks about us abolishing slavery, then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #158 April 2, 2012 Quote>It has nothing to do with today's society >The constitution was not meant to fit >We are intended to fit it Sucks about us abolishing slavery, then. If you don't like the constitution then add an amendment, that is what was done for the last 200 years. I didn't hear Obama bitching about prop 8 being overturned by a gay judge. it really pisses him off when the constitution gets in his way doesn't it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #159 April 2, 2012 Quote>It has nothing to do with today's society >The constitution was not meant to fit >We are intended to fit it Sucks about us abolishing slavery, then. Since the 13th amendment was added a bit over 150 years ago, you might want to get an updated copy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #160 April 2, 2012 >If you don't like the constitution then add an amendment, that is what >was done for the last 200 years. Yep. So I guess the Constitution WAS intended to change with society; we change it to fit the times. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #161 April 2, 2012 Quote>If you don't like the constitution then add an amendment, that is what >was done for the last 200 years. Yep. So I guess the Constitution WAS intended to change with society; we change it to fit the times. By amendment, yes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #162 April 2, 2012 Quote>If you don't like the constitution then add an amendment, that is what >was done for the last 200 years. Yep. So I guess the Constitution WAS intended to change with society; we change it to fit the times. by amendment not because someone doesn't like the restraints it has, the scotus' job is to uphold the constitution not change it as Obama wants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #163 April 2, 2012 >by amendment not because someone doesn't like the restraints it has By amendment BECAUSE someone doesn't like the restraints it has. We got rid of prohibition because we didn't like that restraint, for example. >the scotus' job is to uphold the constitution not change it as Obama wants. Correct, they decide whether laws are constitutional. If they decide that the individual mandate is constitutional, then it is. End of story. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #164 April 2, 2012 Quote>by amendment not because someone doesn't like the restraints it has By amendment BECAUSE someone doesn't like the restraints it has. We got rid of prohibition because we didn't like that restraint, for example. >the scotus' job is to uphold the constitution not change it as Obama wants. Correct, they decide whether laws are constitutional. If they decide that the individual mandate is constitutional, then it is. End of story. Obama is pissed because it doesn't look like the scotus will allow the law. My feeling is that if he doesn't like it he has the right to have it put to a vote by the american people and congress, unfortunalely he wouldn't have the support of most of the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #165 April 2, 2012 QuoteQuote>If you don't like the constitution then add an amendment, that is what >was done for the last 200 years. Yep. So I guess the Constitution WAS intended to change with society; we change it to fit the times. by amendment not because someone doesn't like the restraints it has, the scotus' job is to uphold the constitution not change it So you reckon it IS OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #166 April 2, 2012 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g-dFgXfO43uZ7Bc77Wz1zz8d45uA?docId=CNG.f9446a5381d38b19a2d27bc87df829e6.331 Take your hope and change and toss it. Here's a Constitutional Scholar stating the following: Quote"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Gee, Mr. President. Here I thought that a Supreme Court overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress was precedented and ordinary. As a primer, I would suggest that our POTUS/Constitutional Scholar go to Marbury v. Madison 5 US 137 (1803) which established some 209 years ago that the job of the SCOTUS is to review the Constitutionality of laws. Yes, even laws that are passed by democratically elected bodies like Congress. Really, Mr. President? Or this: QuoteObama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example Hmmm. Isn't it YOUR Solicitor General who is arguing that the Supreme Court should go line by line on this law? Activism is NOT striking down laws that the Constitution states are illegal exercises of power. Activism means overturning existing precedent or writing laws. Our own President is decrying the very process that made American government unique - checks and balances. Our President is telling you and me that he shouldn't have limits to his power. Even more so, that "unelected" Justices (unelected BECAUSE it exempts them from the political process) should not be given creedence. How do Kagan and Sotomayor feel about what their President has just said? That a guy who went to law school would say such a thing with a straight face is PROOF that hope and change were nothing more than easy-to-break campaign promises/slogans. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #167 April 2, 2012 QuoteSo you reckon it IS OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Yeah. If there's a fire. That's why we laws that ban the saying of such things are not banned. That whole thing about wanting to let people know that there is a fire if there is one. But as for the consequences of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there wasn't one? Let the person face the consequences of their actions. That's why banning of "fighting words" were never held to be Constitutional. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #168 April 3, 2012 Quote That a guy who went to law school would say such a thing with a straight face is PROOF that hope and change were nothing more than easy-to-break campaign promises/slogans. Wouldn't be the first time a politician has make public statements to pander to the public, all the while saying very different things behind closed doors. I hardly believe he thinks the justices are going to listen to his statements and change their minds. He's running for President ... if the SC kills Obamacare, he can still say he tried his best and did better than the Clintons did and will try again. It may be perfect for him, since it saves him from the blame if it doesn't cure cancer and generate a budget surplus by 2015. Certainly another lawyer (you) knows this difference. Your job is to advocate for your client, not say what you really might think. He's advocating for his (potentially) legacy defining act. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #169 April 3, 2012 Political cartoon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #170 April 3, 2012 He's not advocating for anyone but himself. And by calling an action by the SCOTUS to strike down a law as "unprecedented" is just so fucking wrong it's ridiculous. Note - in advocating for my client I also have an obligation to only take positions that are consistent with the truth. Here's the thing - it wasn't mere puffery on his part. What he said was objectively false. Add to that, it was accompanied by a criticism of his power being checked. Lies and bemoaning that something that keep his power under control. Not what I want in a leader. I had such hope... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #171 April 3, 2012 Perfect cartoon. Sorry if it's a repost, but just listen to this clown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH3E6lL61dw&feature=player_embedded "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #172 April 3, 2012 QuoteHe's not advocating for anyone but himself. Didn't I say that? Quote Note - in advocating for my client I also have an obligation to only take positions that are consistent with the truth. Sorry, I've seen way too many examples otherwise to buy this one. Defense lawyers in particular will do anything to create reasonable doubt, doubt, or fantastic doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #173 April 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>If you don't like the constitution then add an amendment, that is what >was done for the last 200 years. Yep. So I guess the Constitution WAS intended to change with society; we change it to fit the times. by amendment not because someone doesn't like the restraints it has, the scotus' job is to uphold the constitution not change it So you reckon it IS OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater. You can shout fire if you want, you may not like what happens after that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #174 April 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteHe's not advocating for anyone but himself. Didn't I say that? Quote Note - in advocating for my client I also have an obligation to only take positions that are consistent with the truth. Sorry, I've seen way too many examples otherwise to buy this one. Defense lawyers in particular will do anything ... As will plaintiff's lawyers in liability cases.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #175 April 3, 2012 Yes. As will Prosecutors who are immune from malicious prosecution actions. Yes. There are people in lots of jobs who don't take their oaths seriously (military, law, medicine, President). My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
