muff528

... or like Steppenwolf so eloquently put it, "Take the world in a love embrace". A little Nevr-Dull and she'll look just like new! The bike I was riding today, actually my wifes bike... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/onekick/frame/009-5.jpg

Interesting!........ but I thought that would have been Number 2!

... or like Steppenwolf so eloquently put it, "Take the world in a love embrace".

If it appears that all the people on the ground are moving away from you ..... they are!

As you gain experience you will begin to notice that at break-off time the ground/horizon will have a "look" that you will notice in your peripheral vision. Best I can describe is that for me it seemed the horizon was noticeably moving or closing in. Also, I always checked the cloud bases of different layers on the way up and made a mental note of their altitudes. You can use these flat cloud-bases as "checkpoints" during RW dives as you cross their plane while your attention is on the dive itself. Sometimes there would be up to three layers up to exit altitude. For example: 4k, 7k and maybe 11k. These cloud bases would generally lift as the day progressed. Just one more tool. This is probably more useful here in FL than it would be in, say, AZ. Looking at the other guy's alti is good too!

Brian from "Family Guy" is pretty good.

Looks like he already found the pot.

I think the difference between polar radius and equatorial radius is about 13 miles.

Specifically which "other rights"?... embodied where in the Constitution? (Later...) For that counter-argument to be successful it would have to be shown that slavery was effectively already prohibited prior to the ratification of the 13th Amendment and therefore a repeal of the Amendment could not affect the prohibition of slavery. IMO that argument, if successful, would have to show that the practice of slavery had been illegal and unconstitutional for almost 90 years since the original ratification of the Constitution, regardless of the interpretation of the wording in the extradition clause. Additionally, if these "other rights" used for this counter-argument can "effectively prohibit slavery" with no specific mention of the word "slavery".... then how can the original Article 4, Section 2, which does not mention the word "slave", be exclusively interpreted to refer to the return of escaped slaves (in addition to referring to the extradition of escaped convicts)? Of course, it could have been interpreted by the SCOTUS either way (with or without also meaning slaves) if they wanted to since the Constitution makes no other reference to slavery whatsoever prior to that Article and in fact does not even use the word "slaves" until the 13th Amendment in 1865. IOW, even if the wording of Art4, Sec2 was meant to throw a bone to the slave states (and yes, I do realize it was) to gain some support for the agreements, there is no previous mention of the conditions or responsibilities (or the legality or constitutionality) of slave ownership in the Constitution itself to suggest that the clause in Section 2 should necessarily also refer to slaves. ....and I find that a little curious and conspicuous. Specifically which "other rights"?... embodied where in the Constitution? IMO these other rights are embodied in the BOR and in the Declaration of Independence (which, in part, provides the principles upon which the framers built the Constitution and the Union). Now if the tenets of Freedom and Liberty (not to mention the economic considerations of the day) were so important to the framers, and they absolutely meant for the practice of slavery to continue, how do they neglect to do something as simple and important as defining who can be sold into slavery and seemingly more importantly .... who can not? Did they just assume that there are "other rights" (which, it seems, are subject to amendment and modernization without exception) that would provide sufficient protection, .... and that future populations would simply continue to enslave only people of a particular description because, well,.... that's just the way it is? My uneducated opinion is that these are unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness outlined in the Declaration, and what should be the non-amendable Bill of Rights without which there would have been no agreement or ratification or union. If all parts of the Constitution can be amended without exception then there really is no protection at all provided by the Constitution for anyone and we are just trusting that the government of the day (political people who generally have a political agenda) will constrain themselves to "do the right thing" when they perceive or represent important issues as Constitutional crises. Without an immovable base the Constitution would (will) eventually evolve into an entanglement of seemingly conflicting amendments with no real principled foundation.

So the 13th, by replacing a clause, has effectively eliminated that clause causing any future hypothetical repeal of the amendment to not result in reverting back to the original (now non-existant) clause. So new language would need to be written to replace the amendment. This in contrast to, say, the 18th Amendment which really did not amend anything that existed in the Constitution. Of course the 18th was repealed and the Constitution effectively reverted to a pre-18th condition (notwithstanding the subsequent 19th and 20th). (Again, I'm not suggesting that any repeal of the 13th should even be considered. Just using that as a contrasting example.) All of that was really a question attempting to gain understanding. And yes, I completely agree that when specific issues are addressed in Amendments or opinions issued by courts, that "cleaner" language (say what you mean!) would be nice. But then you guys would have to look for other work. You raise an interesting hypotherical question: Would an express repeal of the 13th Amendment (example: "Amendment Thirteen of this Constitution is hereby repealed") restore slavery to legality? Quicky and off the top of my head, I'd say No, because there are myriad Federal laws, as well as state laws and state constitutional provisions, that still make the practice of non-penal slavery unlawful. But it could give rise to an argument that the particular express impediment to slavery in particular under the US Constitution has been removed. One counter-argument to that would be that the other rights embodied in the Constitution, if followed faithfully, already effectively prohibit slavery, even though they might not specifically mention the word "slavery". This is an incomplete thought process on my part - I'd have to do more research to answer in greater depth. You're getting very close to where I've been going with this discussion since early in this thread.

Returning to my 2 guys stranded on a desert island... As soon as they agree to coexist and to share latrine duties they have formed a rudimentary "government"... like it or not. Then it's only a question of scale.

So the 13th, by replacing a clause, has effectively eliminated that clause causing any future hypothetical repeal of the amendment to not result in reverting back to the original (now non-existant) clause. So new language would need to be written to replace the amendment. This in contrast to, say, the 18th Amendment which really did not amend anything that existed in the Constitution. Of course the 18th was repealed and the Constitution effectively reverted to a pre-18th condition (notwithstanding the subsequent 19th and 20th). (Again, I'm not suggesting that any repeal of the 13th should even be considered. Just using that as a contrasting example.) All of that was really a question attempting to gain understanding. And yes, I completely agree that when specific issues are addressed in Amendments or opinions issued by courts, that "cleaner" language (say what you mean!) would be nice. But then you guys would have to look for other work.

Yeah, I should have some lettering done on my rig" "This rig contains a Swift 5-Cell reserve canopy that has been deployed enough times to qualify for it's own A-license." ... that should stop 'em! (Just kidding -- I've only used it twice and it was deployed 3 or 4 times before I got it)

I agree with the altimeter engraving. I did that myself. Also, with a little hobby-shop model paint, you can put an obvious design on an altimeter that you can see easily. What do you get when you combine a disposable camera, a broken altimeter and a rainy day? I bet they wont think about stealin an altimeter again! I always used my old Barigo and I could leave it laying around anywhere safely. It seems no one else wants it.

So you're the guy who started that famous skydiving tradition we all enjoy now! This should be in the History forum

So... I take it that, in your professional opinion, the abolition of slavery by virtue of the 13th Amendment is not "settled law". Digging a bit deep there, aren't you? By that criteria, none of the amendments are "settled law", since they could all be changed/abolished by future amendments. Not digging at all... it's right there in plain sight... ...."without exception". I dunno...... that whole "settled law" terminology that has recently cropped up sends chills up my spine for some reason. Having said that, there are certain fundamental precepts, or unalienable rights, that I feel should be "settled" and guaranteed. I just happen to lump the BOR in there with them (IMO, of course).

[reply...........Technically, though, every part of the Constitution, without exception (thus far), is subject to amendment (including being repealed by means of subsequent amendment) by the formal amendment process............... So... I take it that, in your professional opinion, the abolition of slavery by virtue of the 13th Amendment is not "settled law".

Let me just say that, as a layperson, every opinion I've offered is just that, an opinion.... only one of 300 million other (probably 300M different) opinions. I've offered opinions of how I think the Constitution should be interpreted and I've posed questions (maybe veiled) about why others here think certain things were done a certain way. Obviously, if the Articles of the Constitution can be amended then so can the BOR. I believe that amending the BOR should be more difficult although in reality there probably is no greater standard to do so than any other amendment or Article technically. (Maybe Andy could shed some light here). But, like Andy says, the "popular hurdle" may be greater. Also, again like Andy says, his job is interpreting such things... but like I said with attempted humor, there are a lot of people whose job it is to interpret these things and they have held different opinions for over 2 centuries. I can take your first paragraph and say about the 2nd Amendment, which many on this forum would like to see repealed: "It doesn't really matter if you agree personally. Courts used that amendment as precedent in deciding cases involving the right to bear arms, and Congress thinks it is worth allowing it to stand." Now here I'm not trying to compare the validity of the 13th Amendment with the idea of repealing the 2nd. I'm just answering your first paragraph by saying that, with respect to the Constitution, things are the way they are at any given time because of your argument using the Courts and Congress.... Same argument. (man! that was convoluted!)

Don't you think that at least some of these other founders were opposed to slavery and that was enough motivation to provide a "fix"? I think if all of the founders were criminal, slave-mongering scoundrels, and if slave labor was absolutely essential to the economy then there would have been more direct and bullet-proof protections for slavery included in the Constitution. Like this (Constitution of the Confederate States of America): Article 4 Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition 1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired. 2. A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime. 3. No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due. Now this says "slaves" and means "slaves".

Well, I think it is a great idea. We should intercept any shipments of the traffic girls to Iran and confiscate them for use here. I really am tired of looking at those unsightly traffic lights. Maybe we could trade them some pocket protectors in exchange for the traffic girls.

For good or for ill, I've spent a lifetime in the wacky business of interpreting this gobbeldy-gook for a living. It meant "slaves". That's what it was intended to mean, and that's what it did mean. End of discussion. I'm a n'er-do-well college drop-out and I like to believe that the founders knew that ultimately the ownership & enslavement of other humans could not be reconciled with the founding principles of the Union....and provided the mechanism to do away the idea when the stars aligned. And, (tongue-in-cheek) most lawyers I know spend their time arguing with other lawyers while still another lawyer acts as a referee.

But if it was written to gain support from slave states, then its intent was to cover the return of slaves. At least according to Wikipedia, it was: If we shouldn't torture the Constitution to say things that the founders didn't think of in some areas, we shouldn't do so in other areas, either. It is what it is; a great template, with the means for modification. Wendy P. I like my Constitutions nice and strong, to that it can carry the weight of centuries of constitutional lawmaking. Not weakened by a lot of stuff hanging off of it in all directions. And yes, it is curious to me that the clause was added by one of the slave states and did not mention slavery specifically.

Well, I think the 13th Amendment did place a nice punctuation mark on the abolition of slavery at the end of the War to give teeth to the Emancipation Proclamation (which, itself, abolished slavery) and the war's ultimate effect on slavery. Kind of a coup de grace so to speak. And.....It really is not hard to make the argument that "a thing" that was designed and implemented to do "something" was not needed in the first place.

US courts didn't need to rule that the 13th Amend. superseded that paragraph. The amendment was crafted and ratified specifically to supersede that paragraph when the amendment was written. My point is that the amendment wasn't necessary in the first place.