AndyBoyd

OK, I will admit I was not aware of these SDFs. Seems like they could certainly be deployed in emergency situations much like the National Guard. Could a state "declare war" or "wage war" using these SDFs under the US Constitution? Only Congress can "declare war", but we've only formally done that a few times. I don't see why a state couldn't legitimately use these SDFs in legit emergencies.

States can certainly call up the National Guard in emergencies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States In order to wage war, you usually need an army. Generally speaking, states don't have those. Although there are some guys in the woods in Northern Michigan that seem ready to go...

Not a decision, just an opinion piece printed in Canada. Oops! Whatever it is, I hope it's true! Chuck It's not true. You might want to read posts 13 and 20.

The Supreme Court has indicated that Art. III. sec. 2, cl. 2 does not mean that it is mandatory that every case involving a state as a party must go directly to the Supreme Court. "We construe Art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2 to honor our original jurisdiction but to make it obligatory only in appropriate cases. And the question of what is appropriate concerns, of course, the seriousness and dignity of the claim; yet beyond that it necessarily involves the availability of another forum where there is jurisdiction over the named parties, where the issues tendered may be litigated, and where appropriate relief may be had." Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 451 (1992) (quoting Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 93 (1972)). The attorney who wrote this article was either aware of this and was trying to make a political point, or he was not aware of this, which means he isn't very bright. Either way, it is hard to take this article seriously. Don't worry, though, this case will end up before the Supreme Court soon enough.

"I do believe Islam is evil and should be eradicated." How do you propose to do this?

Tell me how it feels knowing chaos will never end. Tell me what it's like when the celebration begins. Slayer, New Faith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuekcvH5VqM

Here is the Opinion. I skimmed it, very briefly. It seems to focus on the federal preemption issue. For those who are not lawyers, the basic idea the Court focused on is that the federal Constitution gives the federal government the exclusive power to regulate immigration. State laws that attempt to do that are therefore superceded by federal law. Here's a brief quote from the Opinion: "The United States primarily asserts that the statutory provisions contained in S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution makes federal law “the supreme law of the land.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, supported by both enumerated and implied constitutional powers." Here's the entire Opinion: http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/courtinfo.nsf/983700DFEE44B56B0725776E005D6CCB/$file/10-1413-87.pdf?openelement The Court issued a preliminary injunction. This means that further proceedings will be necessary before the Court issues a permanent injunction. I believe Arizona can appeal the preliminary injunction. Arizona can defintely appeal a permanent injunction, if and when it happens.

I agree that federal-vs.-state authority is part of it, but as best as I can tell, it looks like all the issues are in the pot. The actual Opinion should be up on Lexis or Westlaw within a day or two. It might be available somewhere else on the Web, but I haven't searched for it. The only real way to find out what issues were argued and what the AZ Court said is to read the Opinion.

Not overturned. Portion are blocked or delayed until the courts have their say Correct. Bad choice of words on my part.

This is of course not the last word on this issue. AZ will certainly appeal. I would be surprised if the case did not eventually go to the Supreme Court. But for now the law, at least its most controversial parts, has been overturned. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration

This must somehow be Obama's fault as well. Where is the outrage? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10695037

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." — Socrates

DUH Because someone that someone loathes posted something... Yep, just figured that out from another thread. It's a cheap shot at Kallend. I should have known.

According to the info I turned up on a quick internet seach on this guy, he has been retired for some time. He wrote an article on this issue in 1998. The University where he taught still hosts his website, but it does not appear to have been updated for years. http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/05/07/strange-doings-at-the-beach-csulb-kevin-macdonald-and-barry-dank/ Why are you bringing this up now? BTW, I think it is a bad idea for college professors to have sex with their students. Although, from the point of view of the professor, it cetainly sounds like fun.

"Of course, nobody can be perfectly objective in their reading of the law - I agreed on that point, earlier. I think the political leanings of the SCJs have a bearing on how they interpret the Constitution - constructionist or non-constructionist." So we agree then. Great!

"show me ONE case where the decision shows that it was decided the way it was due to politics." SC decisions, and lower court decisions, will be written in legalese, so it won't be obvious that the decisions are ultimately political. (Again, I don't think all SC decisions are political, but some clearly are.) Part of the legal realism theory I talked about earlier is the idea that there is so much law out there, any judge can justify any decision he or she makes by citing to law he or she agrees with. But there is often law to the contrary the judge ignores or works around. So to an extent you are right -- the decision itself will not be obviously political. But in many SC cases, I believe, political considerations drive the way the Court ultimately rules. If anyone is interested in the inner workings of the SC, including how important political considerations are, here's a great book to check out. http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Inside-Secret-World-Supreme/dp/0385516401

And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws. Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision. The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics. If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations. Re-read the bolded, above, then try again. One of my first law school professors asserted that the Supreme Court is a political institution. I think she was at least partially right. There are lots of SC decisions on arcane areas of the law that have very little to do with politics, but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. Here's a related point to chew on. There is a legal school of thought that basically says that judges make decisions based more on political and moral views than on any "objective" view of the law. Here's a quick quote from an article I'll link to. "Legal realists maintain that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Realism In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system.

Excellent! A father in North Carolina accidentally shoots and kills his 11 year old daughter. http://www2.wnct.com/news/2010/jun/29/child-shot-and-killed-by-fathers-gun-17293-vi-13152/ Bummer.

1. Smart people can manipulate statistics to support just about any argument. 2. This thread seemed to be about anecdotal evidence. You cited to four anecdotes. 3. I didn't argue that we should take away anyone's guns. You can have all the guns you want as far as I'm concerned. Hell, put an anti-aircraft battery in your backyard for all I care.

Just to put my cards on the table before I reply, I call myself a liberal on most issues, but I am not a big gun control guy. I have no problem with the recent Supreme Court ruling, and I believe that if people want to arm themselves for protection within the framework of reasonable licensing requirements, that's fine. However, to throw around anecdotal evidence of random incidents where people have successfully defended themselves with guns proves nothing. It is just as easy to cite examples where gun ownership has turned horribly tragic. http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100621/articles/6211003 http://www.koat.com/news/23226724/detail.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/22/92679/deputys-3-year-old-daughter-dies.html Once again, I believe that an individual ought to have the choice to decide whether to possess a gun. It is possible that a gun owner may defend him or herself successfully at some point. It is also possible that the gun owner will watch as his or her child is lowered into an early grave. There are also numerous cases where domestic violence incidents have escalated tragically where guns are involved. http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm If you want to own a gun, I say fine. No problem. But let's stop with argument based on the heroic home defender anecdotes. This argument just doesn't work.

I have 2 self-packing parachutes. I just lay them down in the south hangar and go back in about 20 minutes and they are packed. Seriously, I apprciate the packers' hard work every weekend. And that video is cool, but a little creepy.

Typical conservative state of mind. Baseless generalizations.

Lots of interesting stuff to chew on as far as the death penalty debate. I won't divert the thread from the skydiving issues, but I might suggest posting these links in SC. It might spark some interesting discussion.

Even Republican leadership attacked Rep. Barton for his comments, and demanded that he apologize. The only defenders he has left are the right-wingers on this forum. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37759828/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/ It's pretty clear to any reasonable person, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, that BP fucked up badly, and ought to pay to clean up their mess. At least, it ought to be clear. Edit: well, if I'd have taken the time to read the whole article I linked, I'd have found out that a handful of Republicans still support what Barton said. My bad. So I stand corrected -- he does have supporters outside this forum.

Well, she's doing better than Pres. Ford did. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/23/43/11415c8a4e3ebb4747b3118c3ddc.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://www.thestar.com/news/article/165507&usg=__xinTvsVPlGkaDmuTXnWdjDObnX0=&h=290&w=405&sz=49&hl=en&start=6&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=zP71_g_kvcuKLM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgerald%2Bford%2Bfalling%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26tbs%3Disch:1