brierebecca

GGGRRRRRRR!!!! And it's supposed to rain all weekend! Again! So I guess I'm going to go to Lake Wales.... Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

So I'm not on the Thomaston hot list?? Hehe. I love stirrin' the shit. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

I thought there was an identifiable FBI officer in the photo....could be wrong, but that would indicate that it wasn't the fault of one or two low-level infantry guys. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

You know, it was really funny reading Alberto Gonzalez's memo defining torture as "the infliction of permanent physical harm." Apparently, anything less is, to the Bush administration, not torture. Interestingly, the Geneva Convention defines it differently: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

Okay, well, I guess you win. It's obvious that I'm outmatched on this one. Feel free to come back and beat me up any time. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

No offense, but this is why you're bored. Doing the same thing for 20 years would make anyone bored. Maybe it's time to try new things in the sport, or stop doing it for a while. But refusing to try new things and complaining that you're bored isn't going to get you anywhere. Just my 2 cents. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

Find me a case interpreting the use of a phone line as a "channel of interstate commerce," and I'll concede. Because from what I've read, cases interpreting both "channels" and "instrumentalities" of commerce are pretty rare. My initial search hasn't yeilded one. You can't say that one phone call in one state fits into one of those categories without some support. Because most of the cases dealing with Perez have focused on the third category, I gave it greater weight. Necessary and Proper Clause...need I remind you that our legislature hasn't actually declared war on terrorism or Iraq? It's all Bush rhetoric. He doens't get the Necessary and Proper Clause blank check (like what happened when we were putting Asian Americans into ghettos in WWII), until an actual war is declared. We're not to the point where the administration can unilaterally override our rights and suffer no legal consequences. Even the bypass of the FISA courts is getting some governmental attention, and that wouldn't fly if we had declared war. I'm with you on Bush. I just don't think you can attribute his blatant disregard of the law with a progressive view of the Constitution. Thanks for the input, though. I'm being serious. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

Actually, per Lopez, the federal government can only regulate things that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. It's a big difference. Your arguments are interesting, but I have to disagree. What you posit is actually throwing out the rights and requisite remedies already guaranteed in the Constitution (resorting to marial law). I don't know of any progessive Constitutional scholar who advocates dispensing with rights guaranteed in the Constitution. It simply involves interpreting existing rights within the framework of our modern society. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

You took the words right out of my mouth. Er...hands. Whatever.

Brie needs to breathe, but Cheddar's better wrapped.

I know what you mean!!! I've had so much chocolate at work today, I'm vibrating at my desk.

Do a sexy dance in stillettos...... Unless that's an everyday thing for you guys. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

Actually, I would argue that, not only have you just articulated the beauty of such a system of interpretation, but also the fact that it's non-partisan. As for your torture observations, you make reference to a balancing of the Constitutional rights with additional measures for our protection. Us "living, breathing Constitution" people don't see the Constitution itself as a negotiable. At least I don't. I just see its interpretation as something that may change with the changing views of society. "Cruel and unusual punishment" will undoubtedly be interpreted differently in this day and age than it was in the 18th century, before the advent of electric shock torture and other technical means. I think the reason more conservatives don't use this argument is because it lends itself more to modern views of expansive rights, and conservatives tend to lean toward tradition. Lately, however, the Supremes have been relatively reserved concerning personal freedoms and rights. They have, however, been gutting statutes, like 42 USC 1983, that give remedies to those rights. See Gonzaga v. US, if you want some case law (because you were so "disappointed" last time) Marshall in Marbury v. Madison said to "look at law like the bad man" because where there are no remedies, there are no rights in the first place. Without redress, there is no right to speak of, because someone could violate your rights, and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Regarding Amending the Constitution, I guess I don't see the process changing too much anytime soon, and I don't see why we should disenfranchise groups of people while the wheels of change take too long to roll forward into the 20th century. In the end, I think it's all activism anyway. Originalist arguments can employ whatever sources they wish to reach an interpretation of the "words" in the statute or Constitutional provision. It's not an exact science, and it never will be. We will never be able to know what the original drafters of the constitution were thinking. And even if we do have records from senate debates on a bill, words are an infinitely debatable area - they just mean different things, and that's the way it is.

I'm a second year law student at Florida State. I wanted to get a J.D. because it's a useful degree that I can do a lot with, and make some money in the process. Although lately I'm thinking of just practicing law, because I enjoy it. I was a Classics Major at Emory before that. Because I loved it

Hiya folks, In Atlanta this weekend, it was a high in the 50s on Saturday, and in the 40s on Sunday. We went out and jumped on Saturday, and it was so cold our faces were hurting. We jumped a little more than we would normally have to get the tandems up without a lot of loss to the DZO. Sunday, we made the executive decision that because there were no tandems, and it was a high in the 40s, we weren't going to jump. So I guess my line is 50 degrees. Of course, I have the luxury of living in the south, so the cold weather here never lasts. Where is your cold weather line?

Happy berfday!! Just because you were wondering Jeff, I still love the canopy. And I hear that you're a really nice guy. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

I didn't intend for this thread to be about abortion rights. I wanted opinions on this form of grotesque speech in traffic. That said, Roe v. Wade currently allows states to restrict the ability of women to have abortions in the third trimester, and many have done so. Because I have never been pregnant, I could never deliver a personal opinion on what is right or wrong in any given situation. Because I believe it is a personal choice, I could comprehend many different circumstances where a third-trimester abortion could still be a viable option, especially where there are health risks involved. If you could, please respond to this post in PMs, unless you would like to comment on the free speech issues. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

Somehow I don't think the pro-choice movement would score any points going tit for tat on this one, but it's a great observation.

I don't know if it was a company truck. The entire side of the truck was the image the the website. Brie "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

So I was driving home from my run this morning, and had to stop at an intersection. I glanced over, and a truck was parked at the light to my right. On the side of the truck, which was about the size of a regular industrial delivery truck, was a color photo of a bloody, mucousy fetus, with a dime thrown in the picture for scale. There were the beginnings of lungs, a discernable head, and limbs, but they were made up of a bloody mass of tissue. It was, of course, an anti-abortion ad. It was about 10X20 feet. I was shocked, and sat slack-jawed in the intersection until the car behind me blew its horn when the light had changed. I can't get the image out of my head, it was so offensive. I feel certain that if I had been driving when I first encountered the picture, it could have caused me to have an accident, and I am not easily shocked. It was that horrible. I couldn't imagine what impact it would have had upon a woman who has had an abortion. I've been thinking about it all morning, and like it or not, the owner of the truck had the right to display the picture. Brandenburg and Miller v. California, the big cases on the restriction of free speech and expression in this country, would never patently disallow such an image. Frankly, I have to admit that the image was the best argument I've ever seen for the elimination of the right to have an abortion. To be clear, my abortion views are the same as many other women to whom I have spoken on the subject: I would never want to have one, but I patently respect and believe in a woman's right to choose. It's a personal decision, and one that the legislature shouldn't be able control or restrict. I was wondering what the posters here would conclude about this form of expression. Brie edited to attach this link: http://abortionno.org/abortion_no.html this is the organization who sponsored the ad. "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

Thanks.

Chris....you drew me warm fuzzies. you're almost as cute as your son.

While I think that your take on strict constructionism is a good one, you have to acknowledge that there are some serious problems with this theory. The arguments you make assume that we can actually understand what phrases like "reasonable search," "equal protection," and "due process" really mean. They're broad and ambiguous terms for a reason: because lawmakers cannot possibly comprehend every scenario for the application of such laws or rights, and it is better to make the term broad than it is to narrowly define that term and possibly disenfranchise a group of people Because these terms are so broad and ambiguous, it is sometimes impossible to discern the meaning of the terms by simply looking at the phrase itself. Originalists like Scalia and Thomas counter this argument by interpreting the terms in the Constitution by what the "framers" meant when they write the Constitution. There are two problems with this argument. First, interpreting a term as the framers meant for it to be interpreted is NOT simply looking at the words themselves. It is determining what the framers meant by those words. I don't understand how this is any different from interpreting statutory language to mean what its authors intended it to mean. Second, it is impossible for ANY of us to know what the framers really thought. The notes from the Constitutional Convention are sketchy at best, and often one version will contradict another. Some of us dirty hippie liberals think that the broad nature of the terms above is a part of the genius of the constitution, and that it should evolve with the country as its values and policies change. Originalists like Scalia would never ascribe to this view, and think that the Constitution should only be changed by Amendment (like the equal protection clause amending the voting clause making blacks 4/5 of a person). As idealistic as this may sound, it is very difficult to amend the Constitution. Whether it should be made easier or not isn't for me to say, but the reality is that unless Originalists and Strict Constructionists want to do away with privacy and the dormant commerce clause, they need to rethink their positions. I just wanted to give the other side to your argument. I totally respect your position, and I think you're a smart guy.

I was looking more for ideas on what to do that isn't the traditional V-day triad (chocolate, roses, dinner out). But if people really want to post their warm fuzzies too, that's cool with me.

What I really don't understand is why people feel the need to GO OUT on Valentine's Day. It's the worst day of the year to go out. The restaurants are packed, the prices are inflated, and the service is going to be sub-standard because of the volume of customers. This year, my fiance and I are staying in, grilling steaks, and doing naughty things with Nutella. What are your avoidance plans for Valentine's Day? Brie edited for grammar "Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie