dimblr.com Welcome Guest | Login or Register

12 Responses to “Deaths & Funerals”

1. on 01 Apr 2008 at 12:11 am 1Alec

   Just out of curiosity, “in this day and age” if a scientist created a small multi-cell organism in a laboratory, complete with its own unique DNA, that is capable of cellular mitosis could he claim it was alive?I am not arguing with you, I am just curious how you jump to the conclusion that this is crazy, thats all.

2. on 01 Apr 2008 at 1:01 am 2Britannia

   Let's find out

3. on 01 Apr 2008 at 1:52 am 3Phineas

   Whisper, I agree with you that I would hope that Congress would not choose to strip jurisdiction (the ability to hear a case) from the federal courts for substantive due process claims (like abortion), but the constitutional issue here is whether it can. I can tell from your comments that you are not a lawyer. Or if you are, you did not study federal court jurisdiction or advanced constitutional law. So let me explain.First, the text you cite is the fourteenth amendment, which does not place any limits on congress. It limits only the states.Second, there is no doubt among constitutional scholars that congress can strip jurisdiction. If you survey every expert in the country, 100% will agree that it can. The Supreme Court has upheld this. See Ex Parte McCardle (1868) and Sheldon v. Sill (1850).You are right there may be limits on the ability to strip jurisdiction. Those limits have never been tested. One such issue arises when: the Congress also eliminated EVERY avenue of review - by cutting off all access to the Supreme Court. Another could arise if Congress decided to strip jurisdiction in a way that is otherwise unconstitutional (let’s say Congress says the courts can’t hear challenges to laws based on due process). There is one case that suggests (but doesn’t hold) that this second limit might apply (Klein).I hope I’ve done a better job explaining it this time.

4. on 01 Apr 2008 at 2:42 am 4Estelle

   I thought Ron Paul was alright but fuck him now. What a fuckin asshole. I guess he’s a douche just like the rest of ‘em. There is no hope. This world is going to hell. Period. Enjoy it while you can. Abandon all hope.

5. on 01 Apr 2008 at 3:33 am 5Austen

   Libertarianism is entirely orthogonal to the question of when life begins; there’s nothing illogical about taking the stance that it begins at conception.Furthermore, even libertarians will hold that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the freedom of its citizens: to say otherwise is not libertarianism, but anarchism. Ron Paul’s stance with respect to the unborn is perfectly logically consistent with his libertarianism.

6. on 01 Apr 2008 at 4:24 am 6Adelia

   Uh, yeah guys — there are some serious downsides in my opinion. Ron Paul's Flaws as Seen By One Die-Hard Supporter But overall he’s a vote for change, and that’s what we need. More than anything he’s getting people involved in the system of democracy, and that’s worth supporting despite nearly any flaws.Go Ron.

7. on 01 Apr 2008 at 5:14 am 7Kalisha

   I’ve been saying this on reddit for sometime now, but the mainstream redditors have censored me by negative modding me.Ron Paul says some great things, but he also has a lot of scarrryyy things. I think redditors and a lot of tech people are blind to some of his wackiness because he’s the only one who points out some obvious elephants in the room.

8. on 01 Apr 2008 at 6:05 am 8Allyson

   Well, I don’t have cameras in their house, but I assure it they are physically supported by the floor. </sarcasm>I apologize for the hyperbole, still people seem to be surprised.

9. on 01 Apr 2008 at 6:55 am 9Len

   It isn’t certainly unconstitutional. There is a debate among constitutional scholars over whether Congress can strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear certain claims (challenging laws as unconstitutional).No one doubts that the constitution allows Congress to strip jurisdiction. Congress “may,” not “shall” create the lower courts (all federal courts other than the Supreme Court). Article III, Section 1. The power to create is the power to destroy. Thus Congress can strip jurisdiction from those courts. Congress can also strip jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to hear certain appeals (as Congress sees fit). Article III, Section 2, clause 2.The constitutional question arises if Congress strips jurisdiction from ALL federal courts to hear the cause of action. For instance, if jurisdiction were stripped from lower courts through the first provision and appellate jurisdiction via the second. (You may ask how the Supreme Court could have appellate jurisdiction if there are no inferior federal courts. The answer is that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over BOTH inferior federal courts and state supreme courts).The problem you have identified is there, but probably only if the Congress also eliminated EVERY avenue of review - by cutting off all access to the Supreme Court.

10. on 01 Apr 2008 at 7:46 am 10Kaelee

    I’m not a Ronbot, but do object to your gross distortion of American history. It was the Federal government that denied States the right to recognize black people as people. It’s one of the most important cases in U.S. history but maybe few on here have ever read about Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857.If you think that such an example could only come from antebellum American history then you haven’t studied Plessy v. Ferguson. The uneleceted Supreme Court didn’t vindicate the rights of black citizens to equal treatment before the law. “Wait, wait,” you might say, “those were cases from so long ago.” In 1944 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the President’s action to intern American citizens of Japanese ancestry. They were U.S. citizens who had their rights stripped without any due process whatsoever. “Alright, but that was still decades ago, nowadays a strong central government always respects liberty and freedom…” No, even now the Feds have denied the rights of individuals in states to decide what substances may be ingested. In Gonzales v. Raich the U.S. Supreme Court said it didn’t matter that the voters of California wanted medical marijuana, the Feds could continue to raid businesses and homes as they saw fit taking property and incarcerating people. That case is a real eye opener and one really should read the dissenting opinions of Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas who both make great arguments on behalf of freedom and state rights. The case was decided 6/6/2005 and has meant continued DEA raiding in California despite the law passed by the people of California. The DEA isn’t an elected body enforcing laws passed by the majority of Americans. The DEA is a paramilitary ogranization carrying out the directives of the Federal Government regardless of individual rights and the laws of the states.

11. on 01 Apr 2008 at 8:36 am 11Driscoll

    Straw man. I never grossly distorted anything. I never argued that the federal government has always done the right thing, but the state governments aren’t any more likely to do the right thing either.