Making Baby Jesus Cry - Page 317

Shape Shifter · 09-13-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
does the advent of sperm banks render a transfer of Blackacre "to my children," void under the Rule against perpetuities?

Sperm are considered children now? I knew you wanted to roll back Roe, but I never knew how far.

Captain · 09-13-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
They also had no problem banning marriages of a type.

You mean bigamy? Inter-racial marriage? Surely, at that point in time, the word marriage had a pretty clear meaning. And there is absolutely no point in expecting any sensible constitutional thinking about race until after the Civil War.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 09-13-2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
does the advent of sperm banks render a transfer of Blackacre "to my children," void under the Rule against perpetuities?

Haven't most states statutorily overruled that Rule anyway?

Hank Chinaski · 09-13-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Haven't most states statutorily overruled that Rule anyway?

I don't know. I have no idea why all that shit was in law school or on an exam. Next one of us to sell their house (Ty you're selling now?) try and keep a reversionary interest in the event "the old oak tree falls."

I'd be curious.

Spanky · 09-13-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That would be an oxymoron. Statutes always trump the common law. The common law cannot secure rights against the legislature; that has to be done by higher authority -- state constitution, federal constitution, or (in some circumstances) federal law.

At least, that's what I dimly remember from law school.

Did I miss the collective bout of insomnia last night?

So what you are saying is the strict constructionists are right. If the state legislature makes a law against abortion, the court can't say there is a right to abortion (if it is not in the consitution) because there is not such thing as common law right that trump government statutes.

sebastian_dangerfield · 09-13-2005, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Sperm are considered children now? I knew you wanted to roll back Roe, but I never knew how far.

I have committed so many genocides. I'm like Pol Pot, if his choice of weapon was Lubriderm.

sebastian_dangerfield · 09-13-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't know. I have no idea why all that shit was in law school or on an exam. Next one of us to sell their house (Ty you're selling now?) try and keep a reversionary interest in the event "the old oak tree falls."

I'd be curious.

I've retained the right to use the toilet at every residence I've owned. Fucks up closings, but you'll never know when you might be in the old neighborhood and have a bowel full of seven layer burritos.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 09-13-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't know. I have no idea why all that shit was in law school or on an exam. Next one of us to sell their house (Ty you're selling now?) try and keep a reversionary interest in the event "the old oak tree falls."

I'd be curious.

Isn't it easier, and more enjoyable, just to rent Body Heat?

sebastian_dangerfield · 09-13-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Don't be absurd, you strict constructionist small minded idiot. I dont care about actual cases or cites. It's common sense!!! Something in which you bozos are in short supply.

When did you become an Order of the Queef tool? Were you one of those fat dorks who actually paid attention in Con Law and then debated the shit in the library with the other Ladykillers?

sebastian_dangerfield · 09-13-2005, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't know. I have no idea why all that shit was in law school or on an exam. Next one of us to sell their house (Ty you're selling now?) try and keep a reversionary interest in the event "the old oak tree falls."

I'd be curious.

Bite your tongue; property was the only course I easily aced. For some reason, that Emanuel’s outline downloaded perfectly into my brain.

Shape Shifter · 09-13-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I have committed so many genocides. I'm like Pol Pot, if his choice of weapon was Lubriderm.

Did you have a falling out with Paul Mitchell?

Captain · 09-13-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Where in the common law does the right to privacy exist? I'm not asking for a constitutional amendment, I'm asking for a case cite from, say the 1700s in England.

According to Brandeis, you should look at, among others, Year Book, Lib. Ass., folio 177, pl. 19 (1356), (2 Finl. Reeves Eng. Law, 395).

Hank Chinaski · 09-13-2005, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
According to Brandeis, you should look at, among others, Year Book, Lib. Ass., folio 177, pl. 19 (1356), (2 Finl. Reeves Eng. Law, 395).

Fucking Shape Shifter puked all over my copy of 1356. can you post the case?

Captain · 09-13-2005, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Fucking Shape Shifter puked all over my copy of 1356. can you post the case?

Brandeis cites it as the first reported case of slander; I'm afraid they don't seem to have put the 1356 year book on-line yet. But here's the Brandeis article.

spookyfish · 09-13-2005, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
You mean bigamy? Inter-racial marriage? Surely, at that point in time, the word marriage had a pretty clear meaning. And there is absolutely no point in expecting any sensible constitutional thinking about race until after the Civil War.

I find this avatar confusingly similar. Please try to use the original. Or Captain Morgan. Or something.

Thank you.