zapatos

We instituted a version of a safe zone in my household when my children were too young to drink. Coming home drunk was a violation of our rules, but if my kids were out with the car and under the influence, they could call home for a ride, 24 hours a day, with zero retribution for drinking. I was willing to accept law breaking and rule breaking if it meant saving them from harm. I suspect people who aren't willing to accept safe zones for drug use among strangers will usually feel differently if it is a loved one whose life is at risk.

Or it can be struck down when a state law conflicts with a federal law. Agreed.

It is both law and decision. When a court makes a decision, that decision becomes part of the body of unwritten laws known as common law.

Well, except for recreational use of marijruhanna in 18 states and Washington D.C., even though it is still illegal at the federal level.

The unenumerated Rights exist because the 9th Amendment say they do. They are just not named. It was left to SCOTUS to make these unenumerated rights explicit as the question of them comes up. Rather forward thinking of the Founders. Once the right is enumerated by SCOTUS it is binding on all other courts as if it had been explicitly written into the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the right to overturn their own ruling of the precedent that enumerated that Right, but unless and until they do, the Right (such as the Right to an abortion) exists due to the Supreme Court decision. I don't believe that is circular reasoning. Ignoring stare decisis should not be taken lightly, and should only be done if the original ruling's egregiousness surpasses an undefined threshold. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stare_decisis.asp

You can also hope that on the way down a plenary indulgence is being granted on your behalf! (12 years of Catholic School)

Haha. Good jokes travel fast!

Putin dies and goes to hell, but after a while, he is given a day off for good behavior. So he goes to Moscow, enters a bar, orders a drink, and asks the bartender: -Is Crimea ours? -Yes, it is. -And the Donbas? -Also ours. -And Kyiv? -We got that too. Satisfied, Putin drinks, and asks: -Thanks, how much do I owe you? -5 euros.

You complain about my 'sad' use of the point system in the same post you happily (😜) justify your use the point system. Please don't be a hypocrite, it's beneath you.

Don't play the martyr. I didn't neg rep you because you want beer to be legal and hard drugs to be illegal. Not necessary to keep quoting yourself. We all saw it the first time.

What is the one source? I ask because I neg repped you when you pitied me. That means there are at least two sources.

The number of negative votes with no discussion is minuscule, and typically self-evident.

You can stick your pity in your bum.

It was said in jest, but only partly so. Saying "...there is a steady migration. Let's put them to work..." sounds like forced labor. You've got women and children, people unskilled and illegal, with their own dreams and plans. What makes you think they want (or would be allowed) to stay in the desert, some of them in Mexico, under unknown conditions? Unless you've done some kind of manpower study of illegal immigrants and the legal ramifications, you are just daydreaming.

I'm not sure about the part where we Mexica immigrants slaves, but it's an interesting idea.

If Roe is overturned that will no longer be the case, and many states will indeed resort to the supernatural detection of souls. Unfortunately if you are making the laws you are under no obligation provide evidence the fetus has a soul; you simply claim it is so.

In that case you are only trying to limit what others can do for their own protection. I could see you trying to protect yourself from outside threats, but it seems rather paternalistic to decide you have to protect others from their own weak characters. My own opinion is that we should err on the side of allowing people to make their own decisions, rather than making those decisions for them.

Personally I'd rather decide for myself whether or not to smoke pot, even though that might then make me have to decide for myself whether or not to do a harder drug. At some point we have quit depending on our mothers, um, I mean our government and fellow citizens, to make sure we don't touch the hot stove.

I'd rather it not be done globally. I almost never sign out and prefer the simplicity of being logged in whenever I visit the site.

Just because it doesn't look like a plan to you doesn't mean it is not there. You cannot even know the plans of politicians and business leaders who are people around you. What makes you think you would see the plan of God?

She did. What you see is exactly the plan.

Yep, that's it. We discussed it at our weekly meeting and decided on this course of action for obvious reasons. I'm sure you've already heard from our representatives.

Don't keep us hanging. Who are they?

I'm not sure we are at odds. The 'belief' of yours I was referring to was your belief that the definition encompassed your views (rejection of practiced religious beliefs). Just as a Catholic might have the 'belief' that the definition of Catholicism encompasses their views (the acceptance of the use of birth control).