Soxbadger

Ukraine is a Seinfeld reference. Long story, but funny.

1) The US needs to adjust the style of play for international play. The flopping is just insane, and the fact American's play physical does not help at all. Watching the game it was clear the American's play in a different league where dropping to the ground on the slightest touch will get you nothing. I can say with pride that I did not see 1 flagrant flop by an American, and most American's went out of their way to not fall even when there was contact. 2) WTF is with not using the wings when attacking. When the US were playing even and 1 man up, they always forced the ball to the middle instead of going outside in. 3) I cant understand not subbing. I guess they were happy with a tie, but Italy was tired. US needs to attack more, even if they lose people will respect them. Tie would of been a good result at even strength, so in the end just have to beat Ghana and hope that Czech's lose, or win by a huge margin.

All I am going to say is, Im not going to take the hours it takes to read through every Supreme Court case and tell you which ones they say are fundemental. You can do the research yourself, I already provided you the three constitutional standards: 1) Strict scrutiny 2) Intermediate scrutiny 3) Rational basis The first level strict, is reserved for those rights that are fundemental. The court has repeatedly stated that the bill of rights are fundemental rights. I dont see what the constitution has to do with this. The supreme court is the final law of the US, they are the ones that interpret the constitution, and they have interpreted the fundemental right into the constitution, therefore it is part of the constitution. If you would like to bring a case that says the first amendments are not fundemental rights go ahead. Jackie, Your not using the word assumption correctly. I do not assume it, the Supreme Court of the United States has said it themselves. They have said that there are certain fundemental rights that require more protection. Its not an assumption when Im just repeating what the Supreme Court has said. WCSox, Who cares about whether or not it was part of Western Culture or not. Slavery was part of western culture, but clearly today it is not tolerated. The argument is off point, but anyways the Supreme Court has no problem putting the right to consume food or drink, or drugs into the rational basis test. In which the govt just need to prove legitimate interest.

Pratt, I disagree with your opinion. First the first amendment is "a fundemental right" which means it has higher protection than say "drinking alcohol". No one even has taken the time to read my post about rational basis standard of review versus strict scrutiny, instead everyone just relies on the circular logic: "Well if the amendment is part of the constitutional, then it cant be unconstitutional." But that is not true, here we are talking about 2 provisions that are directly in conflict. I do not think that the constitution was written to give Amendment's end all power, especially when that amendment is directly opposed to another amendment, specifically one in the bill of rights. If the precedent is set, where does it end. Can a super majority just make any rule that it wants, regardless of how directly in may oppose the original constitution? The answer in my opinion is no, that should the people of the United States (which the founding fathers did not trust) through the majority pass an amendment that is fundementally opposed to the bill of rights, the Supreme Court has the power to invalidate that Amendment. Because in the end, only the judiciary can enforce the law, so if they are unwilling to enforce, then the law has no effect. Crimson, Not all amendments are equal. Some protect fundemental rights, specifically those in the Bill of Rights. I would think that the Supreme Court would have the common sense to weigh, the 1st Amendment and the new Amendment. Everyone keeps mentioning prohibition, but that has 0 precendent in this case. Prohibition was already legal in many states and areas. The Supreme Court had never found drinking a protected action. As compared to flag burning which the Supreme Court has found in Texas v Johnson as proteted by the First Amendment. They are 2 completely different fact patterns, and so far no one has even shown any information regarding the Supreme Court wanting to over turn prohibition. If they did not want to over turn the law, then it did not matter if they had the power. WCSox, The Supreme Court has consistently disagreed with that opinion though. If I was around in the prohibition era, I would of argued that it was unconstitutional as well. But those battles have lost consistently, otherwise you would see Marijuana being legalized. The SC on ther other hand has found flag burning a protected action. I dont necessarily agree with their opinion or rationale, but that is the law and using their laws, Im writing what I believe they would do. The govt stance is not my opinion, I believe that people were given the right to do what they wanted with their own time, so long as they were not hurting/harming anyone else. I guess that is very utilitarian in the end.

Two things before I go, 1) I wont be around till tomorrow so if anyone finds information about why the SC cant over rule an Amendment I would be interested to see it. I am talking about a judge, or scholar writing about prohibition and saying that the SC thought about it and it did not happen, etc. I couldnt find anything so far. 2) Minors, I think anyone who believes in the quote above, has beliefs that are closer to a Nazi's than an American's.

Nuke, here is your statement: This is very close to Nazi ideaology. Im sorry if you dont see that way. But any time you say you dont care about torture, that people should be mowed down, and physical pain, that sounds very close to the "final solution." I didnt make the statement, you did. Now back to your argument on flag burning. You use prohibition as an example: Please tell me how prohibition was unconstitutional. The test for a law like this is, rational basis review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review There is no way that the Supreme Court could of found prohibition unconstitutional based on this standard. Clearly regulating alcohol was within congress's power, and therefore prohibition was constitutional. The only way to argue unconstitutional is that there was no rational basis for the govt to make the law, almost always the govt wins when rational basis is the constitutional standard. Now compare and contrast with "strict scrutiny", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny which would be the level of scrutiny the new amendment would come under. Under strict scrutiny the court must find that the law, 1) was justified by a compelling govt interest, 2) it was narrowly tailored, 3) it was the least restrictive means of for achieving that interest. The question would be is whether or not flag burning is a compelling govt interest. In order to be compelling, it must be necessary or crucial, which I believe this law is neither. Therefore under strict scrutiny the Supreme Court could invalidate the law, where as under rational basis the Supreme Court could not. The difference between this Amendment and Prohibition is simply that prohibition did not try and take away a fundemental right that would require the govt to pass strict scrutiny. Now I know that this is just wikipedia, but I doubt that you have access to either Westlaw or Nexis. I did not talk about the difference between prohibition and a 1st amendment right, because that is basic constitutional law. Its like arguing why the govt can make a law that bans the use of marijuana but can't make a law that bans the practice of praying. In the end, I do not believe prohibition has close enough facts to warrant serious discussion of why a constitutional challange would be different. Drinking alcohol is not a constitutionally protected activity, protesting is. Jackie hayes, They are an "Amendment". They SC can interpret these amendments, I dont see why they could not interpret one to be unconstitutional based on an inconsistency with another amendment. Also the first amendment is a "fundemental" amendment. And that does mean something in the court of law. Feel free to put in "fundemental right" into a search engine and see some case law. Anyways gotta go so if its not as quality sorry/

Wcsox, Yah just noticed I put possessive there for no reason, but its just an internet board I dont use my trusty wordperfect or spell check even. Jackiehayes, Actually I do not assume anything. I am reading the 4 corners of the document (the constitution) and applying the rules that the document itself has. There is absolutely no provision or statement that says the Constitution is immune from judicial review. I do not think it makes sense either as an Amendment is legislative in nature and the judiciary is specifically empowered to determine the constitutionality of legislation. The biggest problem is you can not challange the constitutionality before its passed because that would not be ripe.

Nuke, Please find me a specific clause in the constitution that says, the constitution is not reviewable by the Supreme Court. I could not find such language. And your idea that just because something is approved by an amendment makes it constitutional is weak and without merit. If congress and 3/4 of the states passed a law that said: "Islam is the only faith of the United States, any person who practices another religion besides Islam will be arrested." You are saying the Supreme Court would have its hands tied? Look to Article III of the constitution: It says ALL cases. And no where in Article III is the Supreme Court limited in its power from interpreting or striking down an Amendment (we already know that the supreme court can interpret amendments, why they couldnt strike them down seems odd.) When you go to Article V Amendments, there is no clause, provision, or mention that the Supreme Court can not over rule an Amendment. By putting the 2 articles of the constitution together, Article III saying the Supreme Court has the power to hear all cases without limitation, and Article V where the constitution does not place any protection for amendments from judicial review, the only conclusion that can be reached is that Amendments are able to be judicially reviewed. Now the greatness of this whole excersise in constitutional law is, that in the end, it is the Supreme Court who will decide whether or not they have the power. So it will be up to the justices on the court to decide where does the judicial power end. I am not about to go and research all justices opinions on the extent of the judiciarys power. The only thing laughable here is the fact that you refuse to bring any evidence, facts, or otherwise to support your stance. You base your entire post on "I believe" an opinion, and then bring no text to support it. The only reason you think the Hitler references are weak is because they completely destroy about half of the viewpoints you hold so dearly. My early quote where I changed the words slightly shows just how closely you parrallel Nazi views.

I was just going to add that this case was actually very narrowly tailored. The police did identify themselves before entering, they just failed to "knock" while doing so. This I agree is just a procedural misstep, as if the police identified themselves, and then waited 15 minutes but failed to knock, would it really be worse than identifying, knocking, and breaking in within 30 seconds? The answer is no. All search and seizure comes down to the reasonableness requirement that is inherent in the 4th amendment. As long as the police are "reasonable", the search should be allowed. I do not think there is any reason to say that not knocking is patently unreasonable, but instead should be fact specific. I fell into the trap of trusting the media to correctly write up an article about a judicial decision. Many times ive said to other people dont believe how the media interprets a case, but I went and did it myself.

Well its been almost half a day and no one has done any research to disprove my theory that the Supreme Court could review an amendment. Thus I think the end result of this amendment being passed (which I don't think it will) would be the striking of the Amendment as unconstitutional. And as a result the judiciary being given even more power. Anyways I stand by my previous comments that if you ban flag burning, then you have to ban swastika's, etc. And when does it end. A society of the free allows dissent, and as long as they are not hurting anyone, I can see no reason why the govt should destroy the very freedom the first amendment was designed to protect, the right to speak against the govt and not fear prosecution. Although this law would have been really popular with the Hitler's, Stalin's, of the world.

Heil Hitler

In one part you speak of freedom, and in another you are so willing to take it away. Part of freedom, part of democracy (or if you want to be technical a republic) is that people are going to have different views. When America lets people burn the flag, it shows that we not only preach, but we practice. I dont see any amendments banning the Confederate flag, or stopping people from showing a swastika in public. What America should be proud about is that we let people have any opinion they want.

Actually if you specifically read the constitution, it is silent on whether the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to hear a case regarding whether an amendment was constitutional. I dont really want to do the research, but now that I start to think about it Im starting to feel that the Supreme Court would find that it was able to hear the case. There are 2 ways for an amendment, the 2nd way involves only the Senate and House. This to me suggests that Amendments are legislative in nature, one of the purposes of the Supreme Court is to be a check on the legislative. The constitution specifically spells out a way for the legislature to trump the executive (2/3's in congress over turns presidential veto), but there is never a way for congress to make a law not subject to Supreme Court rule. Even if the law is passed 100-0 it still is subject to the Supreme Court. I am not a constitutional law expert, but this seems like the type of "tyranny of the majority" that the founding fathers specifically tried to prevent. Anyways my guess is amendment fails. Most people dont care, I mean we are a commercial society, we should promote people going out and buying more merchandise to destroy it and have to buy more. Dont they have better things to do with the money I send them yearly. I mean did anyone find anything to say that the Supreme Court cant? I tried to find it, and Im really finding nothing but maybe Im just not looking in the right spots.

Bad ruling, bad law. And I wouldnt test the "shooting a police officer in self-defense". My guess is if you shoot the police officer, they are going to shoot you. And the only court case you are going to be seeing is in probate. Ah well, natural extension of "new" conservative theory. Privacy rights are trampled for the "good" of the whole.

UCMJ (United States Code of Military Justice) governs. Unlike prisoners of war, or people captured by the US military, soldiers voluntarily agreed to enter the service, and knew that when they commit a crime during their service, they are subject to UCMJ rules. Here are the UCMJ rules: http://www.army.mil/references/UCMJ/#SUBCH...AND%20RESTRAINT According to the UCMJ, soldiers may be held on probable cause. There is no provision regarding being charged before being detained. If the detainment became excessive, you may be able to have a due process claim. But at this point you are looking at 2 months of detainment, and the govt has made it clear what they believe the soldiers are guilty of: kidnapping and murder. My personal opinion is that if you weigh out all the factors: 1) need for govt secrecy as this is a pending investigation and ramifications could put troops in Iraq at great risk, 2) the crime potentially being charged is one of the worst, 3) the deprivation so far has been minimal, that a court would not do anything. I would like to say though that I have very limited knowledge of the UCMJ, it just is not something you learn about unless you are involved with the military.

I could understand if you were in a league, and you were arbitrarily assigned the cubs as your team. But why go out and buy a Cubs hat when you could just get your 2nd favorite team? So many other good choices.

What? Bonds was already given immunity when he went to the grand jury in the BALCO trial. They are now investigating perjury, because that was not included in the immunity. Anything that Bonds said could potentially be perjuring. Makes perfect sense that he wouldnt want the feds who are hell bent on a perjury charge to get MLB's information, which they then will compare to his grand jury transcript and look for any inconsistencies.

As a sidenote, the NFL does not currently test for HGH, and the NFLPA is trying to keep it that way. Since the Olympics in Athens (the ancient ones, not modern) athletes have been caught using illegal substances. Cheating in this fashion is thousands of years old, but really came into the spotlight because of the East German team. At that point the East German team said that no matter what officials did to prevent doping (another term for illegal substances) the dopers would always be a few years ahead of them. No drug policy will ever be able to catch the drugs that they dont know about. And that is the biggest problem, the drug designers are right now have the new more advanced drugs. The MLB, NFL, etc policies wont even know about them for a few years.

Rex, To me its not about the bottom line. I think both venues will offer similar revenues, although with Chicago out of the box thinking could potentially generate more revenue streams. The real problem I see is, the Big 10 is vacating Chicago. You already see teams from other conferences successfully recruiting the top Chicago players out of the Big 10 conference, and I cant help but wonder if that is partially due to the fact the Big 10 and Chicago have High Schools have very little connection. Chicago is the home of the Big 10 in the professional world, any office in Chicago is filled with alumni. But the tourney brought excitement and a connection to Big 10 basketball for younger fans. I dont think it will make that big of a difference, I just think that Chicago is the biggest city in the Big 10 area, and the Big 10 needs to make sure that it is locked down.

Aced to me means any grade above A-. Perfect means 100%

Bad for the Big 10 though. The biggest city in the Big 10 area is Chicago. Its generally not a smart to move away from one of the biggest tv markets.

I think the ACLU is good because they take positions that a normal lawyer or law firm could not take. Yes they take extreme positions, but there are plenty of people out there trying to strip our constitutional freedom every day. One group dedicated to trying to expand constitutional protection's is not really going to hurt.

I thought the goal was peace in the Middle East. Not "democracy" in the Middle East. Seeing as Hitler was elected, its the people not the system of govt that mean something.

Anyone that has ever wanted to be a GM and have control of a team should consider DPBL if they have not tried it. Prior to last summer I had never even heard of the game when I started reading a thread about a new league that was opening and decided that I would take a chance. I was given the Tigers (one of only 2 teams I think that were available) and ever since I have been playing the game. (Although that league went belly up and I never played a game as the Tigers.) Later I was invited by Rangercal to join this league, and it really can be quite addictive. Anyways if you are interested in joining, feel free to pm me or Knight etc. Just make sure you say the reason you joined is me, not knightkni because I need the 150 points. Also if you feel intimidated because you do not know anyone, when i started in the league I only had seen a few of the people post on the boards. Never really had even had a conversation.

Congrats, only sad part about graduating college is you dont get to go back in the fall.