G&T

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 04:10 PM) No because the Supreme Court of the US could say that the Constitution of that state was unconstitutional and therefore make them amend it. In this instance the US Supreme Court remained SILENT on the Illinois Constitution. How does that make any sense? Because the language of the IL Constitution is not unconstitutional.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 12:44 PM) Just so its clear, my arguments were not based on actual US precedent. They were based on a common sense approach that is not used in the court system. Thus when I argue that: Illinois constitution differs from US constitution. That when the US accepted Illinois as a state they implicitly ratified the Illinois Constitution. Thus it would require that the US Supreme Court state that the Illinois Constitution is unconstitutional under federal law. Im not arguing that the Federal law doesnt trump State law, im arguing that the Supreme Court did not even address the idea that the Illinois constitution differs from the US constitution and whether that difference is constitutional. They took the easy way out and made bad law in the process. Its not often that a state constitution varies greatly from the Federal Bill of Rights, but it can and does happen. In those cases the State should have the final say on their constitution, until the Fed says the state constitution is unconstitutional. Once again im not arguing this using precedent or case law, this is just my personal opinion based on common sense. The Illinois Constitution cannot permit itself to do something that the state would not otherwise be allowed to do. The police powers do not permit a state to place an outright ban on a constitutional right. The police permit the state to place restrictions on that right and that has not been infringed. I just don't understand how you think this is a common sense approach. Any state would be able to do whatever they wanted simply by making an amendment to thier constitution.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 01:44 PM) Well, I just don't see why he'd be meeting with the Bulls again so quickly unless something was brewing. If the BUlls come to agreement, it'll be announced just like Gooden/Salmons/Darko's s***ty contracts have. Yeah it's strange. It's also strange that they met with Wade even though it is "well known" that he doesn't want to leave Miami. In fact the Score said that the Bulls had to work just to get Wade to meet. So either Wade met with them for the hell of it, or the Bulls were able to convince him that there was good reason to hear them out.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 10:34 AM) The argument for why Lebron wouldnt go back is: Cleveland is a much more attractive destination with Lebron. If he wanted to win with Cleveland wouldnt he be pitching Cleveland to players like Wade is Miami? They dont have salary for a big guy but they still could be doing something to improve. They don't have any room to add a player, and they really have the talent to trade for someone. If he goes back, they will likely have a similar team to last year's, which isn't good enough to win. They will have to dump salaries or something to clear cap room for free agents...except next year's free agents are re-upping now to avoid the possibility of a lock out. So who is going to be out there that will make them better quickly? He could be looking at another few years before they are really in shape to win.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 04:18 PM) Is he retracting the Bosh or just saying James isn't going to Miami? Bosh sign and trade apparently was retracted (according to the Score).

QUOTE (SHIPPS @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 04:11 PM) Now I havent been around the world of sports because I have been working most of the day but wasnt he saying the EXACT opposite early at like noon? He said that Bosh was going to the Heat in a sign and trade. Which average fans on this site knew sounded funny. And he is now retracting. Just another guy putting his name on the rumors. And apparently he backed the Stephen A. Smith LeBron to the heat rumors because SAS can't be wrong twice (that's according to Goff).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 12:13 AM) And I dont think the Illinois Constitution is infringing on the US Constitution, and strangely enough, neither did the Supreme Court. If the Illinois Constitution is an infringement, then shouldnt the Illinois Constitution be under attack here? Instead it is the City of Chicago. The state of Illinois has the ultimate right to interpret its own Constitution, unless the Supreme Court states that the Illinois Constitution is unconstitutional. Thus it should have been up to the Illinois Supreme Court to decide whether or not this law was legal under the Illinois Constitution. If the law was deemed legal, then it should have gone before the Federal Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cut out one of the most important steps of state rights. Generally you do not have a situation where the Constitution of the State is slightly different than the Federal Constitution, which could give rise to a different interpretation of law under both. But in this case it existed and in this case the state was given no deference to interpret its own Constitution. Its probably one of the biggest blows to state rights in history. I think you are misinterpreting the Constitution's application to the states. A state or locality cannot place an outright ban on Constitutionally protected rights under the police powers. It can be restricted in any way consistent with the scrutiny standards but it cannot be banned. States try to claim "police power" for basically every restraint on personal liberty they create, but the Supreme Court does not permit all of them. Under your logic, the state could ban speech, abortions and everything else under the guise of police powers (health, safety, and welfare of the state's citizens). Here, the Supreme Court states that there is a right to own handguns. That right can be restricted very heavily, but it cannot be banned.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 12:09 PM) What happens? It says "connection failed" or facetime failed or something.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 12:00 PM) I really like mine, but the full experience won't be realized until a lot of people have them so you can really use the video calling. I don't know anyone else who has one, so I haven't been able to do that yet. My fiance and a friend have them and facetime has not worked very well. I have yet to see it work where both phones are not on the same wifi connection (if that makes sense). We tested them at our apartment and it worked, but it won't work from our apartment to my work.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 10:49 PM) I guess I'm getting hung up on the word "trump". I don't see it that way - because state laws can supercede federal law, as long as it passes constutitional merits. There are certain areas where states have exclusive powers (police powers) and others where they act because the federal govt has not acted. States cannot enact laws that are contrary to federal law. In that respect it sort of looks like precedent, but the Feds can enact laws that are contrary to state law and the federal law (assuming Congress is acting constitutionally) will override the state law.

I should add that this doesn't really impact states rights. Local govt can place restrictions on guns in the same way we place limitations on speech (time, place, and manner restrictions). Outright bans are simply not allowed.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 09:37 PM) Which is why state laws are then held to a federal standard. However, this doesn't mean that federal laws "trump" state law, it just means there's a precedent over state law - local laws can apply as long as they are not against the constitution - it's explicit, not implicit, here. It's that simple. ::::::: While I'm at it, who here votes for "living and breathing" for a constitution and argues that it's an "old outdated document"? Federal law trumps state law. However the federal government cannot enact laws upon the state except pursuant to the interstate commerce clause.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 07:41 PM) Take this for what it's worth, but I am interning for a sports marketing agency whose main client is Nike. We have been holding Nike Skills Academy appearances at Niketown Friday, today and tomorrow. Thus, we work with Nike's basketball marketing guys. They say the people they know (LeBron is a Nike guy) say LeBron to the Bulls. Not the best sources here, but still... Probably an indication of what Nike wants. Which is a good thing to hear.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 06:46 PM) well, might as well throw everything up here, Jason Goff from the Score, new on the NBA beat, but works really hard at covering the Bulls, is saying is sources point to Lebron with the Bulls... again, I know nothing is concrete, just reporting what I'm reading Bernstein says his guys have Lebron to the Bulls and the number he put on it was75%. His take was that Stephen A Smith had it wrong. He says it's stadomire (sp) is the guy going to Miami.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 01:52 PM) I'd probably call for his head. With no hitters being so damn common lately, it wouldn't mean much to me. Plus, you're talking about a guy's career. 15 minutes of fame on SportsCenter isn't worth it. And weren't you the guy getting all sensitive about back problems with Joe Crede? You know how you can avoid chronic arm problems? By not throwing 150 pitches... No hitters are so damn common because the Rays keep getting no hit.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 26, 2010 -> 12:38 PM) Oh wow... Yeah, it took me about an hour and a half to get it in that morning. Yeah I was able to accidentally place 2 orders in an hour at 6:30 eastern. Others couldn't get one. Crazy.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 26, 2010 -> 12:27 PM) I don't think you had to get your order in on that first morning to get it by the 23rd or 24th... No but you had to get it in that first day. I had a friend try for 5 hours and finally got through. Plenty of people never got the order in. Apple suspended pre-orders after the first day.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 26, 2010 -> 11:51 AM) So Iphone OS4 although awsome in theory is complete crap for alot of people including me right now. I am presently downgrading back to 3.1.3 because for me and most of the other users out there are having complete issues with googlesynch (not me) and exchange sync (me). The phone simply cannot access exchange environments more than once a day at most. They need a fix fast because I dont think that many people can downgrade like I can. I'm bothered that most apps aren't multitasking. I figured apps (especially radio apps) would be updated immediately, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 08:58 PM) I don't know why these people didn't just order the damn thing online anyways. You get it earlier and you don't have to leave your house. I'm sure most tried and couldn't get through.

QUOTE (NIUSox @ Jun 25, 2010 -> 07:43 PM) Hoegarden may be my favorite beer. It is definitely better than Blue Moon. Can't believe I forgot to mention it. Get into that finer things thread. There are plent of great wheat suggestions. And I love Hoegaarden.

So is the Score internet stream down?

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Jun 24, 2010 -> 06:06 PM) The one thing that's making me hesitate buying an Iphone is AT&Ts 2GB/month limit. For those of you already using smartphones, is this a reasonable concern? Remember that wifi doesn't count. That can be a huge bonus if your work (or where ever) has wifi and you want to use it there. I will be surprised if I hit 2 gb.

Posting from the iphone. My first smartphone and I have no clue how I lived without it.

Law isn't growing anywhere. Healthcare is the place to be in any market.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 20, 2010 -> 05:27 PM) I'm not a huge fan either. With one or two exceptions, I much prefer when dogfish sticks with what they do best - high-octane high alpha American ales. Yeah. I respect the efforts on the oddball brews, but just having a lot of alcohol does not a great beer make.