http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
rec.arts.books@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE) - 19
messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/92153a6882249799?hl=en
* Cheaper Kindle - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/83369cb7977feb61?hl=en
* SCAM: Mandatory Health Insurance, NO Public Option - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/f793922b9f00bc0f?hl=en
* Sacred Hate - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/11c8e21638dc8c0f?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/92153a6882249799?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 19 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 13 2009 11:35 pm
From: Butch Malahide
On Oct 13, 9:00 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
> STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
> laws that are unconstitutional
Nothing stops them? What about their oath to support and defend the
constitution?
== 2 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 8:04 am
From: Evelyn Leeper
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>> provision.
>
> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
> would be clearly unconstitutional.
Well, yes, I think we're in complete agreement here.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
I don't need a friend who changes when I change and who nods
when I nod; my shadow does that much better. -Plutarch
== 3 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 8:11 am
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Evelyn Leeper wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>>> provision.
>>
>> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
>> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>
>
> Well, yes, I think we're in complete agreement here.
>
Hi Evelyn,
He has no clue what he is talking about. See my two posts
in response to this one.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 4 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 8:14 am
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>>>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>>>>>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>>>>>> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
>>>>>> Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
>>>>>> S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
>>>>>> in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
>>>>>> of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
>>>>>> divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
>>>>>> Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
>>>>>> put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
>>>>>> subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
>>>>>> was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
>>>>>> 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
>>>>>> challenged again.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Those are divorces, not marriages.
>>>> And divorces do not come from marriages????
>>> Divorces and marriages are different things. Related but different.
>>> Honestly.
>> They all come under marital status. See my quotes from
>> Williams which you conveniently deleted.
>
> Right. They don't aply because they're about divorce, not marriage.
> I never denied that FFaC has been used in divorces.
>>>> So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
>>>> DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!
>>> Of course it took place. There was a license and everything.
>>> Maybe
>>> even pictures. Did FFaC make it legal in Virginia? Nope.
>> Again, you are failing to understand. They were prosecuted
>> under a criminal law.
>
> If a marriage performed in state A is illegal in state B, A isn't
> exactly honoring that marriage, is it?
>
>
You are hopeless. I have tried to be patient, but you won't
even go to the sources. I don't know if you find them too
difficult or what. But unless you read them and unless you
can understand that marriage and divorce are two sides of
the same coin - marital status - and unless you study page
311 of the Williams case, it is useless to discuss this
further with you.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 5 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 8:15 am
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> David DeLaney wrote:
>> Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>>>> provision.
>>> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did,
>>> DOMA
>>> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing
>> actually STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils,
>> etc., from passing laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody has
>> actually taken the steps needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as
>> unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT involve the legislative or
>> executive branches, as everyone knows.
>
> DOMA has been around since 1996, and here's been same-sex marriage to
> test it with since 2004. What's holding things up?
>
>
I guess you didn't bother to read my posts from two hours
before you posted the above.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 6 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 8:22 am
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
David DeLaney wrote:
> Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the provision.
>> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
>> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>
> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
> STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
> laws that are unconstitutional,
Until tested in a case and controversy, it is not that easy
to determine constitutionality of a law (or proposed law).
That is why the Supreme Court exists and that is why the
decision in Marbury v. Madison is what it is.
> and b) nobody has actually taken the steps
> needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT
> involve the legislative or executive branches, as everyone knows.
>
Wrong. There are plenty of cases that are on their way
through the courts testing DOMA. See my post in response to
Mike.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 7 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 8:23 am
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>>>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The force of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is just now
>>>>>>>>> beginning to be felt in the area of same sex marriage.
>>>>>>>> FFaC has never applied to marriage.
>>>>>>> Wrong. See _Williams v. North Carolina_ , 317 U.S. 287, 63
>>>>>>> S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, 143 A.L.R. 1273 (1942), revisited
>>>>>>> in 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092 (1945) without modification
>>>>>>> of the basic principle that a state with power to grant a
>>>>>>> divorce is entitled to full faith and credit. _Sherrer v.
>>>>>>> Sherrer_ , 334 U.S. 343, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 92 L.Ed. 1429 (1948)
>>>>>>> put the quietus to that question. A further gloss on the
>>>>>>> subject - disallowing third party attacks on such divorces -
>>>>>>> was made in Johnson v. Muelberger, 340 U.S. 581, 71 S.Ct.
>>>>>>> 474 (1951). After that it was black letter law and not
>>>>>>> challenged again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those are divorces, not marriages.
>>>>> And divorces do not come from marriages????
>>>> Divorces and marriages are different things. Related but
>>>> different.
>>>> Honestly.
>>> They all come under marital status. See my quotes from
>>> Williams which you conveniently deleted.
>>
>> Right. They don't aply because they're about divorce, not
>> marriage.
>> I never denied that FFaC has been used in divorces.
>>>>> So you see, VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE. IT
>>>>> DID NOT MAKE A g-d DIFFERENCE!!!
>>>> Of course it took place. There was a license and everything.
>>>> Maybe
>>>> even pictures. Did FFaC make it legal in Virginia? Nope.
>>> Again, you are failing to understand. They were prosecuted
>>> under a criminal law.
>>
>> If a marriage performed in state A is illegal in state B, A isn't
>> exactly honoring that marriage, is it?
>>
>>
>
> You are hopeless. I have tried to be patient, but you won't
> even go to the sources. I don't know if you find them too
> difficult or what. But unless you read them and unless you
> can understand that marriage and divorce are two sides of
> the same coin - marital status - and unless you study page
> 311 of the Williams case, it is useless to discuss this
> further with you.
Useless is right.
== 8 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 8:24 am
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> David DeLaney wrote:
>>> Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the
>>>>> provision.
>>>> I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did,
>>>> DOMA
>>>> would be clearly unconstitutional.
>>> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a)
>>> nothing
>>> actually STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils,
>>> etc., from passing laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody
>>> has
>>> actually taken the steps needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as
>>> unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT involve the legislative or
>>> executive branches, as everyone knows.
>>
>> DOMA has been around since 1996, and here's been same-sex marriage
>> to
>> test it with since 2004. What's holding things up?
>>
>>
>
> I guess you didn't bother to read my posts from two hours
> before you posted the above.
You explained in detail why no test cases have launched?
== 9 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 8:30 am
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
> You are hopeless. I have tried to be patient, but you won't
> even go to the sources. I don't know if you find them too
> difficult or what. But unless you read them and unless you
> can understand that marriage and divorce are two sides of
> the same coin - marital status - and unless you study page
> 311 of the Williams case, it is useless to discuss this
> further with you.
"The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether the
Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require
one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't." -- Lea
Brilmayer, Howard M. Holtzmann Professor of International Law at Yale
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
== 10 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 9:41 am
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> You are hopeless. I have tried to be patient, but you won't
>> even go to the sources. I don't know if you find them too
>> difficult or what. But unless you read them and unless you
>> can understand that marriage and divorce are two sides of
>> the same coin - marital status - and unless you study page
>> 311 of the Williams case, it is useless to discuss this
>> further with you.
>
> "The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether the
> Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to require
> one state to recognize another state's marriages. It hasn't." -- Lea
> Brilmayer, Howard M. Holtzmann Professor of International Law at Yale
>
> http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
>
>
Well, at least you cited something for once. The article, I
note, is by a professor of international law, not
constitutional law. More important, though, is that the
author fails to cite a single case regarding the FF&C clause
and marital status. She does not even try to distinguish
Williams, for instance, even though the court clearly stated
it was dealing with all aspects of marital status. As I
quoted from the Supreme Court previously:
"Certainly if decrees of a state altering the marital status
of its domiciliaries are not valid throughout the Union even
though the requirements of procedural due process are wholly
met, a rule would be fostered which could not help but bring
'considerable disaster to innocent persons' . . . ."
Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287 at 301.
Frankly, the words of the Supreme Court carry far more
weight than a short opinion article that does not review the
case law.
West's lists lists about 50+ pages of case headnotes on the
application of FF&C to matrimonial and family relations
cases. There is no question but that FF&C applies to marital
law. You cannot pretend that there is some aspect of it
that can be carved out from this broad jurisdiction. Your
arguments make no sense in the real world of law. By the
way, FF&C has even been applied to force a state which does
not recognize common law marriage (Louisiana) to give effect
to such a marriage validly contracted in another state.
Parish v. Minvielle, 207 So.2d 684 (La.App. 1969). That is
right on point for the same sex marriage issue.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 11 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 9:50 am
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> You are hopeless. I have tried to be patient, but you won't
>>> even go to the sources. I don't know if you find them too
>>> difficult or what. But unless you read them and unless you
>>> can understand that marriage and divorce are two sides of
>>> the same coin - marital status - and unless you study page
>>> 311 of the Williams case, it is useless to discuss this
>>> further with you.
>>
>> "The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether
>> the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to
>> require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It
>> hasn't." -- Lea Brilmayer, Howard M. Holtzmann Professor of
>> International Law at Yale http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
>>
>>
> Well, at least you cited something for once.
Yeah, I thought you'd prefer argument from authority to mere logic.
== 12 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 10:05 am
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>> You are hopeless. I have tried to be patient, but you won't
>>>> even go to the sources. I don't know if you find them too
>>>> difficult or what. But unless you read them and unless you
>>>> can understand that marriage and divorce are two sides of
>>>> the same coin - marital status - and unless you study page
>>>> 311 of the Williams case, it is useless to discuss this
>>>> further with you.
>>> "The fly in the ointment was that nobody bothered to check whether
>>> the Full Faith and Credit Clause had actually ever been read to
>>> require one state to recognize another state's marriages. It
>>> hasn't." -- Lea Brilmayer, Howard M. Holtzmann Professor of
>>> International Law at Yale http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
>>>
>>>
>> Well, at least you cited something for once.
>
> Yeah, I thought you'd prefer argument from authority to mere logic.
>
The law may or may not be logical, but you have to know the
difference. And a professor's whim is not the law. What
the courts say is the law. And that you have not bothered
yet to examine. That is nothing but willful ignorance,
especially when you have been even told where to look and
been given excerpts from the text.
In any case, it is you who is not being logical. As I
pointed out before, the FF&C Clause contains no exceptions.
It is absolute in its application. You may or may not
like that, but the purpose of the constitutional provision
was "to alter the status of the several states as
independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore
obligations created under the laws or by the judicial
proceedings of the others, and to make them integral parts
of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just
obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of
the state of its origin." Milwaukee County v. M.E. White
Co., 296 U.S. 268, 276-77 (1935).
Given that rationale, logic demands that there is no
individual aspect of marital law that can possibly be
excluded from its scope.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 13 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 10:17 am
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
> In any case, it is you who is not being logical. As I
> pointed out before, the FF&C Clause contains no exceptions.
> It is absolute in its application. You may or may not
> like that,
What does "like that" have to do with anything? I have no agenda
here.
> Given that rationale, logic demands that there is no
> individual aspect of marital law that can possibly be
> excluded from its scope.
Yet as the professor points out, it hasn't been applied to marriage,
as opposed to divorce. (Your point about common-law marruiage appears
to be an exception.) That's a fact, whether you like it or not.
== 14 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 10:17 am
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
>> In any case, it is you who is not being logical. As I
>> pointed out before, the FF&C Clause contains no exceptions.
>> It is absolute in its application. You may or may not
>> like that,
>
> What does "like that" have to do with anything? I have no agenda
> here.
>
>> Given that rationale, logic demands that there is no
>> individual aspect of marital law that can possibly be
>> excluded from its scope.
>
> Yet as the professor points out, it hasn't been applied to marriage,
> as opposed to divorce. (Your point about common-law marruiage appears
> to be an exception.) That's a fact, whether you like it or not.
>
>
Your ability to resist reality is truly impressive.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 15 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 10:21 am
From: "Mike Schilling"
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>
>>> In any case, it is you who is not being logical. As I
>>> pointed out before, the FF&C Clause contains no exceptions.
>>> It is absolute in its application. You may or may not
>>> like that,
>>
>> What does "like that" have to do with anything? I have no agenda
>> here.
>>
>>> Given that rationale, logic demands that there is no
>>> individual aspect of marital law that can possibly be
>>> excluded from its scope.
>>
>> Yet as the professor points out, it hasn't been applied to
>> marriage,
>> as opposed to divorce. (Your point about common-law marruiage
>> appears to be an exception.) That's a fact, whether you like it or
>> not.
> Your ability to resist reality is truly impressive.
I'll ask for about the fourth time: show a case where FFaC was used to
force a state to recognize a marriage. Your point about common-law
marriage was one, I'll give you that. Any others?
== 16 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 9:04 am
From: dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
David DeLaney <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
>Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> P.S. Why would you think that the Full Faith and Credit
>>> Clause would not apply to marriage? The language of the
>>> section does not make any limitations on the breadth of the provision.
>>
>>I don't know why it doesn't, but it never has. E.g. if it did, DOMA
>>would be clearly unconstitutional.
>
>DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
>STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
>laws that are unconstitutional, and b) nobody has actually taken the steps
>needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT
>involve the legislative or executive branches, as everyone knows.
(Or, as another post in the thread notes, amend b) to "nobody has actually
FINISHED taking the steps needed to...")
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
== 17 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 9:06 am
From: dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
Butch Malahide <fred.galvin@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 13, 9:00 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
>> STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
>> laws that are unconstitutional
>
>Nothing stops them? What about their oath to support and defend the
>constitution?
If we could toss people out of Congress, or even somewhat inconvenience them,
for breaking oaths, it'd be a far different body. (Yeah yeah, technically
there's impeachment proceedings. Good luck even getting one -started-.)
State legislatures and city councils have even fewer controls on them
directly...
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
== 18 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 9:08 am
From: dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
Francis A. Miniter <faminiter@comcast.net> wrote:
>David DeLaney wrote:
>> DOMA _is_ clearly unconstitutional. The problems are that a) nothing actually
>> STOPS Congress, or state legislatures or city councils, etc., from passing
>> laws that are unconstitutional,
>
>Until tested in a case and controversy, it is not that easy
>to determine constitutionality of a law (or proposed law).
_Exactly_. So trying to have some sort of "wait wait don't tell me, that
violates ... section Q of the Constitution, you can't put it up for debate"
rules in with the rules of order Would Not End Well.
>That is why the Supreme Court exists and that is why the
>decision in Marbury v. Madison is what it is.
Yep.
>> and b) nobody has actually taken the steps
>> needed to get DOMA struck DOWN as unconstitutional ... which steps do NOT
>> involve the legislative or executive branches, as everyone knows.
>
>Wrong. There are plenty of cases that are on their way
>through the courts testing DOMA. See my post in response to Mike.
Well, more "needs tweaking", to 'nobody has actually _finished_ taking the
steps needed'. I forgot that several had started along the path already.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
== 19 of 19 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 12:11 pm
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>
>>>> In any case, it is you who is not being logical. As I
>>>> pointed out before, the FF&C Clause contains no exceptions.
>>>> It is absolute in its application. You may or may not
>>>> like that,
>>> What does "like that" have to do with anything? I have no agenda
>>> here.
>>>
>>>> Given that rationale, logic demands that there is no
>>>> individual aspect of marital law that can possibly be
>>>> excluded from its scope.
>>> Yet as the professor points out, it hasn't been applied to
>>> marriage,
>>> as opposed to divorce. (Your point about common-law marruiage
>>> appears to be an exception.) That's a fact, whether you like it or
>>> not.
>> Your ability to resist reality is truly impressive.
>
> I'll ask for about the fourth time: show a case where FFaC was used to
> force a state to recognize a marriage. Your point about common-law
> marriage was one, I'll give you that. Any others?
>
In re May's Estate, 305 N.Y. 486 (1953), couple went to
Rhode Island to get married because NY did not allow
marriages of uncle and niece. Now do your own homework.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheaper Kindle
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/83369cb7977feb61?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 6:57 am
From: Louann Miller
mike muth <mike.muth@unverbesserlich.org> wrote in news:6abdaaa7-9057-448c-
ab71-6aa1e820f0a4@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On the other hand, the books on my iPhone are not restorable except
> through Amazon. As far as I know, there is no app to allow the
> transfer of Kindle books from PC to the Kindle iPhone app. I only
> keep books I reference or am currently reading on the iPhone, anyway.
I was wondering about that very thing, having just acquired an iPhone with
a Kindle app as one of its toys. But any e-book that's available through
Kindle is likely to become available elsewhere in other formats not long
after.
There are entire binary e-book newsgroups devoted to that sort of thing. I
hear.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 7:06 am
From: netcat
In article <_cOdnbE-xrBdRUjXnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
louann_m@yahoo.com says...
> mike muth <mike.muth@unverbesserlich.org> wrote in news:6abdaaa7-9057-448c-
> ab71-6aa1e820f0a4@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On the other hand, the books on my iPhone are not restorable except
> > through Amazon. As far as I know, there is no app to allow the
> > transfer of Kindle books from PC to the Kindle iPhone app. I only
> > keep books I reference or am currently reading on the iPhone, anyway.
>
> I was wondering about that very thing, having just acquired an iPhone with
> a Kindle app as one of its toys. But any e-book that's available through
> Kindle is likely to become available elsewhere in other formats not long
> after.
>
> There are entire binary e-book newsgroups devoted to that sort of thing. I
> hear.
Among other things. But I thought we were discussing legal means of
obtaining and reading e-books here.
rgds,
netcat
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 7:47 am
From: Louann Miller
netcat <netcat@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote in
news:MPG.254007598a0b4858989d48@news.octanews.com:
>> There are entire binary e-book newsgroups devoted to that sort of
>> thing. I hear.
>
> Among other things. But I thought we were discussing legal means of
> obtaining and reading e-books here.
Having paid for a book once, a hypothetical reader might feel justified in
getting an informal backup copy as well to make up any deficiencies (like
DRM) in the paid-for copy.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 11:47 am
From: mike muth
On Oct 7, 6:23 pm, rab <remai...@reece.net.au> wrote:
> MarketWatch - Anticipating the arrival of fresh
> competition, Amazon.com Inc. on Wednesday slashed the price
> of its Kindle electronic-book reader by $40 to $259
> (Amazon.com:http://xrl.us/Kindle259) and announced a
> version that can work internationally.
Today, Amazon announced that it was expanding the market for Kindles.
They will go on sale in Germany on October 19th (per news spot on RTL)
for 250 Euros.
About 50 Euros of that price is VAT (value added tax), so the price
before taxes works out to about $280.
I note, too, that it appears that the Kindle will be available in a
number of counries besides the US and Germany. The UK is one.
--
Mike
==============================================================================
TOPIC: SCAM: Mandatory Health Insurance, NO Public Option
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/f793922b9f00bc0f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 9:16 am
From: Skipper
In article
<d986eeee-5f3b-452e-87d5-e7e50507cdec@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
$Zero <zeroisms@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 9:00 pm, Just Me <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Idiots. Numskulls. Patsies and Pushovers! How antithetical to a
> > laissez-faire democracy can this get? This is NOT like mandatory auto
> > insurance, which is restricted to a liability policy. You get deaf,
> > blind and clueless on the road, it protects the other guy. But when
> > Congress gets deaf, blind and clueless, where is the liability
> > insurance I can buy against that?
> >
> > Every citizen is here imposed upon to empty his wallet to keep all
> > those greedy, price inflating, fat flying bastards in the medical
> > industry rich. I do not WANT to make them rich. Why am I being forced
> > to keep those leaches full, fat and engorged with my life's blood? I
> > DON'T want to give them my money. Pass the public option and it
> > becomes my duty as a citizen to participate, just as I pay my taxes.
> > With no public option this is forcing me to patronize a business I'd
> > rather piss on than look at; participate in my own financial
> > destruction to the benefit of those greedy rats. This is not money
> > going to our own collective health care account, it is going into the
> > bottomless investment schemes of the insurance companies; it is the
> > building of another Too Big to Fail corporate hegemony not one whit
> > different than AIG.
> >
> > Why am I being forced to do business with anyone? I thought that was
> > MY choice! And not only that, I am coerced under penalty of fine do
> > business with precisely the kind of sleaze-bags that I despise more
> > than any other. Yeah, I'd rather do business with the Mafia or the Tea
> > Baggers than shell out one cent to the people that are making these
> > crooks in Congress like Baucus all so rich and sassy as we see.
> >
> > I don't WANT to do business with those people, so WHY should I? What
> > the hell kind of government is this anyway that it operates to mug its
> > own citizens to prop up the profits of a class of bureaucrats that,
> > given the public option, have no earthly reason to exist?
> >
> > Some investigative reporter needs to put a tail on Baucus and Snow,
> > get to the bottom of this and find out what other than graft can be
> > causing them to turn traitor to the principles of their own parties.
> > What gives them the chutzpah? What? You KNOW what.
> > --
> > JM
> >
> > http://doo-dads.blogspot.com
>
> i think it's some sort of national IQ test.
>
> they want to see just how much they can get away with before people
> tear themselves away from Dancing w/ the Stars and American Idol long
> enough to say: WTF?!
>
> my guess?
>
> those show's ratings will go thru the fricken' roof for many years to
> come.
>
> Americans are the dumbest fucking people on planet earth, bar none.
>
> -$Zero...
Sure they are. Down there below the Uzbeks, huh?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sacred Hate
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/11c8e21638dc8c0f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 11:18 am
From: Just Me
Quoting from hot New York SuperJew Blogger, sexy Ms. Pam Geller
http://tinyurl.com/yg83t78 . . .
Muslim leaders have repeatedly made clear their animosity toward Jews
and Judaism. For example, on November 23, 1937, Saudi Arabia's King
Ibn Saud told British Colonel H.R.P. Dickson: "Our hatred for the Jews
dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and
rejection of Isa (Jesus) and their subsequent rejection of His chosen
Prophet." He added "that for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be
killed by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Heaven and into
the august presence of God Almighty."3
When Hitler introduced the Nuremberg racial laws in 1935, he received
telegrams of congratulation from all corners of the Arab world.4
Later, during the war, one of his most ardent supporters was the Mufti
of Jerusalem.
Jews were never permitted to live in Jordan. Civil Law No. 6, which
governed the Jordanian-occupied West Bank, states explicitly: "Any man
will be a Jordanian subject if he is not Jewish."5
The Arab countries see to it that even young schoolchildren are taught
to hate Jews. The Syrian Minister of Education wrote in 1968: "The
hatred which we indoctrinate into the minds of our children from their
birth is sacred."
--
More on these birds of a fanatic fascist feather here . . .
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 14 2009 12:13 pm
From: "Koolchicki@smurfsareus.xxx----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------"
On Oct 14, 2:18 pm, Just Me <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quoting from hot New York SuperJew Blogger, sexy Ms. Pam Gellerhttp://tinyurl.com/yg83t78. . .
>
> Muslim leaders have repeatedly made clear their animosity toward Jews
> and Judaism. For example, on November 23, 1937, Saudi Arabia's King
> Ibn Saud told British Colonel H.R.P. Dickson: "Our hatred for the Jews
> dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and
> rejection of Isa (Jesus) and their subsequent rejection of His chosen
> Prophet." He added "that for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be
> killed by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Heaven and into
> the august presence of God Almighty."3
>
> When Hitler introduced the Nuremberg racial laws in 1935, he received
> telegrams of congratulation from all corners of the Arab world.4
> Later, during the war, one of his most ardent supporters was the Mufti
> of Jerusalem.
>
> Jews were never permitted to live in Jordan. Civil Law No. 6, which
> governed the Jordanian-occupied West Bank, states explicitly: "Any man
> will be a Jordanian subject if he is not Jewish."5
>
> The Arab countries see to it that even young schoolchildren are taught
> to hate Jews. The Syrian Minister of Education wrote in 1968: "The
> hatred which we indoctrinate into the minds of our children from their
> birth is sacred."
> --
> More on these birds of a fanatic fascist feather here . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yg83t78
http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.html
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.arts.books"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.arts.books+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Has laoreet percipitur ad. Vide interesset in mei, no his legimus verterem. Et nostrum imperdiet appellantur usu, mnesarchum referrentur id vim.
0 comments:
Post a Comment