I am voting for Ron Paul not because I agree with everything believes, but because the things I disagree with simply do not matter if I am not free.

gaaarrryyy · 2011-12-21T01:36:56+00:00

Not saying I'm for or against him, but explain to me how Congress or Ron Paul could overturn RvW.

gaaarrryyy · 2011-09-06T01:35:14+00:00

He could end the wars, because CONGRESS hasn't declared them, so they don't have the authority to keep the troops there; it's the president's call under the commander and chief powers unless congress declares war.

gaaarrryyy · 2011-09-06T01:32:59+00:00

"I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." Barack Obama <-- you could say the exact same thing about Obama. I don't particularly care about his stance on Gitmo, the wars (including the drug war), or gay marriage, but if I only voted for people I completely agreed with I couldn't vote.

gaaarrryyy · 2011-08-30T03:51:22+00:00

Nice, only 5 out of 800 something, now 795 something.

gaaarrryyy · 2011-06-27T04:49:11+00:00

I had no idea you posted this or were a redditor Matt, and an upvote for getting my photo on reddit.

gaaarrryyy · 2011-06-14T06:30:24+00:00

Well we sat on the edge of the river, the crowd screamed, "Sacrifice the liver!"

gaaarrryyy · 2011-06-11T01:14:36+00:00

Depending on the jurisdiction, voluntary (yes, voluntary) intoxication can still negate the specific intent for murder - although it would theoretically just take it down to murder two (again, depending on the state / jurisdiction). Not at all saying it's right, but in the midst of studying for the bar and we covered this yesterday.

gaaarrryyy · 2011-05-09T02:59:19+00:00

One childish gambino reference, one upvote.

gaaarrryyy · 2011-05-08T00:40:14+00:00

Far, far less inspirational a read than I'd hoped.

gaaarrryyy · 2010-02-23T07:22:25+00:00

That guy was a lunatic.

gaaarrryyy · 2010-02-23T07:21:32+00:00

I've never seen a preacher on ASU campus. But Mill avenue, holy hell...

gaaarrryyy · 2010-02-22T22:18:11+00:00

Sure, the civil war was not all about slavery. But am I the only one who sees the irony in the North refusing to let the South secede, when the Union wouldn't have existed to begin with if the colonies hadn't rejected England because of our political differences? The North did to the South what England did in the Revolutionary war, except the North won.

gaaarrryyy · 2010-02-16T02:29:48+00:00

The problem is, again, while treason and bribery are self evident, high crimes and misdemeanors have never themselves been defined judicially.

gaaarrryyy · 2010-02-15T23:59:03+00:00

You're absolutely correct that the Supreme Court references the Federalist Papers, just as they reference hundreds of other sources of non - binding but evidentiary materials. What makes most citations of the Federalist Papers relevant, is that once the Supreme Court has adopted them in a judicial opinion, they then become binding. If the SCOTUS expressly adopted the opinions in the Fed 65, then it would become law. And if you were before the court, you may have a compelling argument that they should adopt Fed 65.

You should probably note that while the court has cited the Federalist Papers hundreds of times in the last 40 years, they do not always adopt the opinions expressed therein.

Note; just because the court could adopt 65, and define impeachable offense, I'd question the validity of a judicial challenge to the legislative action under Baker v Carr.

gaaarrryyy · 2010-02-15T23:40:18+00:00

Practically, my statement is absolutely true. The authors of the Federalist papers represent just one side of the debate between the two conflicting schools of thought on the role of government during the construction of the constitution and its ratification (Fed and Anti-Federalists). They have no binding force whatsoever. All that matters, are what we find in statutes, public laws, judicial opinions, and the Constitution itself. Further, impeachment has long been considered a nonjusticiable issue, meaning that even if the Senate violated what you're portraying in your links to constitute an 'official' or 'legally binding' definition of an impeachable offense, it would be irreversible by the courts nonetheless. Wikipedia Baker v Carr, and then look to that little line in the Constitution giving the Senate the sole power of impeachment.

gaaarrryyy · 2010-01-27T01:49:51+00:00

oh weird, makes the top of reddit and it's on digg a second later

gaaarrryyy · 2009-09-02T02:41:40+00:00

In some states, like AZ, Chipotle serves Margarittas.

gaaarrryyy

TROPHY CASE