close

Subscriptions

SchmSte8

Last seen: 1 hour ago

SchmSte8 is a 24 year old guy from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

Holy shit....I got accepted into a couple law schools!! And..even scarier, some're vying for me with scholarships (yet...I couldn't get one as an undergrad)!!

  • http://imgur.com/xaa3u.jpg

    Reviewed Aug 13 • 92 reviews • imgur.com

    If everyone was nationalistic there would be no one to question the government to help maintain the liberties that we have. It's in periods of intense national pride from whence erosions of our liberties start (think PATRIOT Act, the Japanese American internment). Had it not been for people that were acting in an unpatriotic and unnationalistic manner, there would be no US.

    I would also mention that Zarkane says, "Sure. I suppose one could twist the First Amendments "freedom of speech" to cover sitting down when the Flag passes." I should like him to read West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624), as it was decided by the Supreme Court that says it's unlawful to make it compulsory for children in school to salute the flag and pledge allegiance by means of the first amendment. They further go on to say that it's not an allowable method of achieving "national unity". So, in short, yes, it is a lawful usage of your first amendment right to not salute the flag.

    I, for one, am proud that I cannot be forced to salute something that may stand for something other than that I stand. I've invoked this right several times over the course of my life so far, sometimes it's been disdained but mostly it's been looked at as it was intended, a criticism of what we, as a nation, have become.

  • If Housepets Were Libertarians | Progressive Political...

    Rated Jun 01 2009 • 50 reviews • leftycartoons.com

    This is completely inaccurate. Libertarianism is essentially the idea that we are free to do as we want without infringing upon the liberties of others, e.g., robbing them. We don't say that there is no need for government, because there is.

    How do you define infrastructure? As the basic facilities, services and installations. The police provide a service, they're (supposed) to protect our liberties. We need electricity and water, so these utilities are installations; we all have the liberty to live. Roads and highways? Most of us are capable of earning money.

    One of aunts is a tad slow, but she studied hard and ended up getting a degree and is now respected in her profession, even going so far to teach classes. Work ethic comes in different forms, some of us are more apt at one particular thing than another. I suck at sports and wouldn't expect to get paid for that. But, on the other hand I'm going to law school, by my own work and I'm going to pay for it by my own means.

    Another one of my aunts has absolutely no desire to work. She works part time as a supermarket cashier, bringing home maybe $5000 a year gross. My uncle brings home $20000 a year gross. My father has offered to get him into a position where he would at least double that and maybe triple it. But my aunt told my uncle to say no. Instead my family has to pay for their house maintenance, we have to give them cars, we have to pay their bills and we have to listen to them complain about money as they go and live beyond their means. This sounds an awful lot like they're expecting everything to be handed to them. In the same token, one of my cousins and his girlfriend are completely capable of holding jobs. But they didn't. They got aid from the state, county, and city to pay their bills. Only, they didn't use it for that; it went to other pleasures. In some instances it's fair for aid, such as the disabled.

    Libertarianism recognizes the idea that not everyone is equal. I don't believe in equality of outcome, but I believe in equality of opportunity plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/ [plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/] ).

  • Could Automakers Drive a GDP Rebound? - BusinessWeek

    Rated May 13 2009 • 1 review • business, cars • businessweek.com

    An article dealing with cars companies, their sizes and the GDP.

  • List of international auto racing colors - Wikipedia, the...

    Rated Apr 23 2009 • 1 review • cars • wikipedia.org

    Why Ferraris are red, Aston Martins are green, Mercedes-Benzes are silver and Fords are White with blue stripes.

  • Anthony Bourdain's Guide to Food Television - Eat Me Daily

    Rated Mar 25 2009 • 12 reviews • eatmedaily.com

    Stolen and not cited from:

    tv.msn.com/culinary-picks-and-pans [tv.msn.com/culinary-picks-and-pans]

  • The Top 10 Mis-Reported Stories Of 2008 | Sweetness & Light

    Reviewed Jan 23 2009 • 6 reviews • politics • sweetness-light.com

    Absolutely worthless without sources.

    But, seeing as how it's an opinion piece (for the most part) it's hard to source it out.

    And remember, though you may fraternize with particular people, it doesn't mean that you are like them. I hang around with people of nefarious demeanor occasionally, they've criminal records (including killing people). Does this mean that I'm a murderer? Nope, I've never committed a crime (here in WI, traffic offenses are considered non-criminal).

    To one person the idea of qualifications may vary greatly than to another person. I study law (constitutional is actually what I've studied most of), I'm going to be an attorney.

    This also changes what I think of qualifications. This is why I think that pieces without sources are worthless. In writing opinions, courts relies on citations from previous cases. In classes, if I can't provide the case from which I'm using a principle it doesn't count as an answer.

  • http://kuvaton.com/kuvei/brain_hacking.jpg

    Reviewed Jan 20 2009 • 20 reviews • kuvaton.com

    This site watermarked the image as their own when it was taken from:

    cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Graphic/2009/01/10/11brain2axx__123... [cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Graphic/2009/01/10/11brain2axx__123...]

  • Supreme Court OKs Use of Illegally Obtained Evidence -...

    Rated Jan 14 2009 • 33 reviews • politics • newser.com

    I gotta say, I don't like this ruling. What's to stop them from "illegally" doing something else to produce evidence? Sure, we have case law now that states certain things can't be done, but what if this is used as the basis of an argument to overturn those?

  • Libertarian to Liberal

    Rated Dec 31 2008 • 17 reviews • politics • std.com

    But, he's a bit off with the "But, they then feel free to declare the "playing field" level, and that all should follow their rules" bit. You really can't all be level if there're laws that give preference or disfavor someone or some group. Any person that gets preferential treatment is at the expense of someone else. I'm actually not quite sure he really understood what libertarianism is. Look at his natural rights thing, could there be a supposed diety behind them? Yeah, but could they also be arrived at without it? Certainly, I personally believe that everyone has the same rights regardless of certain innumerable nuances. Did I get that believing in a god? Nope, I got it by humanism. But, I will say this, everyone has their own opinions about what is best to be done and everyone that doesn't seriously try to argue/think through those beliefs, well, they really don't know what they believe.

  • Walking Therein & Fight the FOCA

    Reviewed Nov 13 2008 • 3 reviews • jacquedixon.com

    The FOCA has been sitting, essentially dead, since 4/07 for the Senate version of the bill and since 5/07 for the House version. On those dates they were referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties (House version) and to the Committee on the Judiciary (Senate).

    Now, I'm against abortion in most instances (except whereupon not having it done places the mother in grievous harm); I do respect the choice of women to have it done.

    The summary is of the bill is stated that it is "To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes."

    Further, the Court found with Roe v. Wade that in cases where the fetus is viable, the state may ban abortions given the exclusion that in cases in which the bearer is at risk, she can have an abortion. If local/state governments wrote laws taking into account the ruling there would be no problem. Yet, states often write the laws to challenge Roe v. Wade, which, if you know how the Court operates, precludes the Court from hearing the arguments and thus denying the claim UNLESS some other thing is mentioned.

    Also, the Court has found that as time goes on, the age of the fetus, in which it is viable, has decreased as medical technology has increased and thus has upheld Roe v. Wade. Wherein (I believe) it was stated that anything after 7/8 months was considered viable (my memory is a bit rusty as it's been a couple years since I've had to study the case) and at the time that I read the decision it was at least a month lower and possibly more.

    My inclination would be that this, as you have presented, would be declared unlawful by the Court since they really do like to rely on the doctrine of stare decisis. They won't overturn themselves, they've only done this a handful of times, one of the times was when they ruled segregation illegal after ruling many years before that it was. But, as the text of the bill ACTUALLY says, I believe that it would stand a challenge.

    And, of course, no argument is made valid without links. So, included are the ones to THOMAS with the text of the bills.

    thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z [thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z] :H.R.1964:

    thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z [thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z] :S.1173: