text:
Dessin School of Arts is a Drawing classes in Thirumullaivoyal thirumullaivoyal, Chennai. It is ''one of the best art class'' for overall growth of a creative children and adults in the artist field to develop the skill of realistic, imagination, and innovation.
Dessin School of Arts is a full-fledged Drawing Coaching institute with more then 50 branches all over Chennai, Trichy, Coimbatore, Karaikudi, Madurai, Bangalore and Andaman & Nicobar Island.
''Kalaivalarmani Artist. Mr. R. Rajendran'', the founder of Dessin School of Arts. He graduated from the government college of fine arts with bachelor and Masters of fine arts majoring in painting. He has also exhibited his works of arts with a number of solo and group exhibition. Indian traditional paintingis focused dominantly in the painting of Kalaivalarmani Artist Mr. R. Rajendran.
Artist Mrs. SudhaRajendran, the director of Dessin School of Arts. She holds Bachelor of fine arts graduated from bharathiar university. She also exhibited her paintings at many art galleries. Mrs. Sudha Rajendran was honoured as award winner on title ''WOMEN ARTIST'' 2019 by Artrenclz art gallery at Coimbatore. She elected for a career in teaching. Her main motive is to develop the budding artist and build up as artistic person.
About Branch Manager
Dessin School of Arts offered the franchise in Fine Arts courses throughout the world. The main intention to nurtures the artists and give wings to their boundless imagination. Kalaivalarmani Artist Mr. R. Rajendran was intended to cultivate the artist from every nook and corner of the universe in fine arts.
A student undergoes a gradual development in the drawing and painting courses starting with oil pastel medium includes coloring course & Fundamental course for kids, Intermediate course for children and the Advance courses – basic drawing, basic coloring, pen sketching, pencil shading, Poster color, Acrylic on canvas, Pallet on knife painting, charcoal sketching, Portrait, Water color, Oil painting, Abstract art, Modern art and so on…. Dessin School of Arts conduct the grade examination in fine arts and honoured with the course completion certificate in drawing and painting.
Dessin Academy institute of fine arts also offered the courses for adults – special and regular coaching in drawing and painting, Diploma in fine arts | Six - months certificate course | Three – month certificate course | Bachelor of fine arts | Master of fine arts and also provide the special classes in painting, training classes for art competition, coaching for art exams, training for art entrance examination by any fine arts colleges.
Dessin Fine Art Tust is conducting an online national level art competition and painting contest with different themes. The art exhibition, summer class, weakened was conducted by our drawing schools in every year at all branches in Chennai, Trichy, Coimbatore, Karaikudi, Madurai, Bangalore and Andaman & Nicobar Island
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Are there drawing classes in Thirumullaivoyal which offer lessons only on sketching ?
Yes, there are. Drawing classes cater to students looking for both basic and advanced level of sketching.
2. What is the duration of a drawing class?
The classes usually run for 1-2 hours. Classes catering to advanced level students may run for a longer duration.
3. What age group do drawing classes in Thirumullaivoyal cater to?
They cater to students of all age groups, starting from six years of age.
4. Do these classes conduct regular exams?
The affiliated ones will have an annual theory and a practical exam. Please check with the class on the exam syllabus and dates.
5. How much do the drawing classes in Thirumullaivoyal charge as fees?
The minimum monthly fee starts from Rs. 1000. The more established ones may charge higher fees.


text:
This morning, I griped about the acc, our newly coined name for the practice of copying a third party on an existing email chain to undermine or pull rank on the original recipient. (The A can stand for angry, awkward, annoying ... or other A-words you might be thinking of ...)
You all have responded with an avalanche of email. In fact, I don't think I've ever received more email responses to anything I've written. A sample of what you had to say:
Robert from Florida says he has to use the acc as a form of "CYA":
"I agree that there is a passive-aggressive element to doing this, and maybe even a 'throwing someone under the bus' element as well. Sometimes I do it to protect myself from my boss coming back and saying 'why didn't you let me know'. This is CYA --'covering your a**.' Sometimes the sales people respond to my e-mail with a phone call, leaving me with no e-trail for future CYA."
Traci, who works in health care, questions whether the acc is a no-no, saying sometimes you have to escalate over email to get your issue addressed:
"One always hopes that the person they are communicating with will be responsive and professional, but unfortunately that is not always the case, and occasionally intervention from 'above' is needed. Anyone who asks to 'speak your supervisor' on the phone with an unhelpful customer service representative, or looks for a manager when there is a problem at a store or restaurant is doing the same thing. It's not annoying. It is expected that you would follow the chain of command when someone isn't doing their job."
Rod, a director and producer, says he has no choice but to use the acc in his line of work.
"In my industry, I have a list of people that are prepared to be the person I randomly add as a CC on messages. This way, the person I'm writing can't ignore the message, or not answer my questions. If they don't, they'll know that there's someone else on the e-mail chain that will see that they aren't doing their job, or at least aren't being professional. Yes, they're guilted into responding. But the bigger issue is why people don't do their jobs, and reply to e-mails in the first place. If people did ... and if they answered the questions asked of them, there would be no need for an 'acc.' "
And a woman who wishes to remain nameless writes of her personal experience:
"The practice of cc'ing third parties was used a lot by my ex in our divorce discussions, dragging in his whole family who were then forced to take sides or email him, saying 'we really don't want to be involved in this!'... so it goes on everywhere!"
Peter from New Jersey says to keep it simple: "The rule we really need is 'Don't be a jerk.' "
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Sheldon Brown's Music Page | Sheldon Brown's Home Page |
Note: The URL listed above will be stable for the long term. If you wish to link to these photos, that is the safest URL to use. The actual photos and files may move around from time to time, depending on storage availability, but https://www.sheldonbrown.com/iolanthe99 will always get you to the photos of this show.
Cast members and their families may copy these images to their own Web sites if they wish, as long as they provide credit and a link to sheldonbrown.com/org or sheldonbrown.com.
You can order these and other M.I.T. Gilbert & Sullivan images on CD ROM
Images from other M.I.T. Gilbert & Sullivan Shows
This page created and maintained by: Sheldon Brown Copyright © 1999
(but I stole some graphics from the The MIT Gilbert & Sullivan Players site!)
Updated March 17, 2002


text:
NOKYA® Arctic Yellow Headlight Bulbs (Low Beam)
Posted by jjlimelite.jl
- (1994 - 1999 Mitsubishi 3000GT)
Very happy good price fast delivery
NOKYA® Arctic White Bulb - Universal H3C (80W)
Posted by Jacque_W08
After one return because of the manufacturer, I ended up getting what I wanted. It was sent quickly and arrived undamaged.
NOKYA® Arctic Yellow Headlight Bulbs
Posted by Casel19821
- (1992 - 1993 Mercedes 190E)
A good product at a good price. Fast postage too... Cheers!
NOKYA® Arctic Yellow Fog Light Bulbs
Posted by danzsantafe1
- (2002 - 2006 Hyundai Santa Fe)
This is the wrong part number listed on your website. My 2006 Santa Fe uses 880 bulbs (I found out only after I was ready to swap them out.) I tried, but the 881 just will not fit.
NOKYA® Arctic White Headlight Bulbs (Low Beam)
Posted by ruger44
- (2007 - 2008 GMC Sierra)
great sale, timely delivery


text:
Happy May Day! Today marks the beginning of a beautiful month full of sunshine, flowers and a fresh new start to summer. May is a busy time of year, filled with graduations, weddings and other spring events, but May Day itself is a historic holiday that celebrates the beginning of spring with festivals and fiestas.
Today can even be an opportunity to plant the seed of altruism. If you want to make your May Day meaningful, check out these ideas for how to share the gift of altruism today.
Give out May Day baskets.
Of course, the easiest way to give this May Day is by handing out May Day baskets! This can be a fun activity to do together with a child for his or her friends, or even as an adult. You may even hand out a few in the workplace.
Get crafty and try out some new ideas, from paper baskets all the way to full-on handmade. Fill them up with goodies and treats to surprise the recipients, then get to giving. May Day is fun for both giving and receiving baskets, so start out your summer with an altruistic step.
Send May Day warm fuzzies.
If baskets aren't a good fit for your May Day festivities, consider giving others the gift of warm fuzzies. Everyone loves kind, thoughtful words to make them feel appreciated.
Give your friends, family members and coworkers notes or cards with warm fuzzies written on them, and see how much joy they bring. If you really want to get in on the fun, try using some funky paper or folding creatively for a colorfully cool fuzzy.
Plant May Day flowers for the future.
What's one of the best parts of May? The flowers, of course! You can give back this May Day by planting flowers and other types of greenery for the future, including fruits, vegetables and even trees. Whether you work on your own garden, help out a friend or even a community area, you can grow flowers for tomorrow by planting the seeds today.
Volunteer at May Day events.
Lots of nonprofit and even for-profit organizations will have fundraising events this month to celebrate the bright spring weather. Check in your neighborhood to see what organizations you care about are doing and get involved.
Volunteers are a vital part of the success of any nonprofit, and you can help join that by running an event, collecting summer items or helping to raise money. Start your summer off altruistically with a fun volunteering experience.
Donate in the name of May Day.
Finally, celebrate giving this May Day by donating what you can to a local cause you care about. Whether it's finances, gently used items or even your time, your donation makes a difference in starting the summer off for nonprofits. See where the greatest need is and start giving.
This May Day, live altruistically. Whether you make one person's day or contribute to an entire group of people, your contribution makes a difference in building a brighter spring and even better world.


text:
Charitable Gift Annuity
Gifts That Pay You Income
There's a way for you to support Murray State University and feel confident that you have dependable income in your retirement years. You can do this with a charitable gift annuity.
This type of donation can provide you with regular payments and allow us to further our work. You can also qualify for a variety of tax benefits depending on how you fund your gift.
If you fund your gift annuity with cash or appreciated property, you qualify for a federal income tax deduction if you itemize. In addition, you can minimize capital gains taxes when you fund your gift with appreciated property.
And now, you can fund your gift using your IRA assets. If you are 70½ and older, you can make a one-time election of up to $53,000 to fund a gift annuity. While your gift does not qualify for an income tax deduction, it does escape income tax liability on the transfer and count toward all or part of your required minimum distributions.
Gifts That Pay
Your payments depend on your age at the time of the donation. If you are younger than 60, we recommend that you learn more about your options and download this FREE guide Plan for Retirement With a Deferred Gift Annuity.
Payments for Life
Learn more about the many benefits of a charitable gift annuity in our FREE guide Strengthen Your Future With a Charitable Gift Annuity.
View My GuideSee How It Works
An Example of How It Works
Dennis, 66, and Mary, 65, want to make a contribution to Murray State University Foundation but they also want to ensure that they have dependable income during their retirement years. They establish a $20,000 charitable gift annuity.
Based on their ages, they will receive a payment rate of 5.1%, which means that they will receive $1,020 each year for the remainder of their lives. They're also eligible for a federal income tax charitable deduction of $6,402* when they itemize. Finally, they know that after their lifetimes, the remaining amount will be used to support our mission.
*Based on a 5.2% charitable midterm federal rate. Deductions and calculations will vary depending on your personal circumstances.
Fund Your Donation With:
Calculate Your Benefits
Submit a few details and see how a charitable gift annuity can benefit you.
Not Sure How to Begin Planning?
Download My FREE Personal Estate Planning KitInformation contained herein was accurate at the time of posting. The information on this website is not intended as legal or tax advice. For such advice, please consult an attorney or tax advisor. Figures cited in any examples are for illustrative purposes only. References to tax rates include federal taxes only and are subject to change. State law may further impact your individual results. California residents: Annuities are subject to regulation by the State of California. Payments under such agreements, however, are not protected or otherwise guaranteed by any government agency or the California Life and Health Insurance Guarantee Association. Oklahoma residents: A charitable gift annuity is not regulated by the Oklahoma Insurance Department and is not protected by a guaranty association affiliated with the Oklahoma Insurance Department. South Dakota residents: Charitable gift annuities are not regulated by and are not under the jurisdiction of the South Dakota Division of Insurance.


text:
Balkinization   |
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts First in What Will Probably be a Long Series: The President Asserts Executive Privilege
Thursday, June 28, 2007
First in What Will Probably be a Long Series: The President Asserts Executive Privilege Marty Lederman
In response to the congressional subpoenas for White House documents and testimony related to the removal of U.S. Attorneys, the President has formally asserted executive privilege. Talking Points Memo has posted the Fred Fielding letter here. The Fielding letter attaches the legal justification for assertion of the privilege, signed by Acting AG Paul Clement. Like most of Paul's work, it is a serious and substantial argument, consistent with similar arguments in analogous privilege memos in Democratic and Republican Administrations alike. (It was almost certainly drafted in the first instance by Paul Colborn and political appointees at OLC; but I'm confident Paul Clement's signature is not simply a formality, i.e., that Paul made sure he was comfortable with each of the arguments and probably contributed materially to the final draft.)
I would for now simply focus on one prominent aspect of the memo -- the repeated assertion that because the President had the authority to replace the U.S. Attorneys for whatever reason he deems fit, Congress has no legitimate or substantial need to know what the reasons were for the removals.
This will probably strike most readers as an odd claim -- after all, isn't one of Congress's principal jobs to investigate and reveal possible wrongdoing within the Executive branch, both so that legislators can knowledgably consider statutory amendments that might lessen the risk of improper conduct in the future, and also simply to inform the American people of the wrongs of its government? US Attorneys may be fired by the President for any reason apart from obstruction of justice, including for political reasons. There is no allegation by Congress, nevertheless actual evidence, that any US Attorney was fired to obstruct justice. Rather, the argument is that the President fired the US Attorneys for "improper political reasons." In any case, obstruction of justice is already a crime and no one is seriously claiming that Congress can pass a law barring the President from firing his own political appointees for political reasons. Therefore, this obvious political witch hunt cannot hide behind the fig leaf of investigating wrong doing or enacting new laws.
Bart's argument fails, as it did the last dozen times he made it, for a reason which is no less true for having been repeated a dozen times:
Congress chose to pass a statute allowing the President to avoid confirmation process in naming new U.S. attorneys in certain circumstances. Congress is entitled to reconsider the wisdom of that statute and to engage in factfinding thereon. The abuse of the privilege granted to the President, as alleged in the present case, is a reasonable basis for Congress to investigate the alleged abuses.
It seems worth pointing out that no one, in a sane society, wants the president to appoint and dismiss attorneys based on their willingness to further the president's, and his party's, political goals. Before we get too distracted by the technicalities of the law, we should remember to simultaneously consider the reasons the attorneys were dismissed (and appointed), and whether these are legitimate in a functioning democracy.
Mr. DePalma has already been distracted from the most important issue, notwithstanding Lederman's advice in the final sentence of his post. If the allegations regarding the attorney dismissals are correct, we all have a duty to seek some remedy the problem. Remember if the administration's legal position can be maintained, then we face a very serious problem. Only the most naive foolish idealist would trust any president's word that he will not appoint and dismiss attorneys for his own political gain. I second Anderson's final comment. There is, clearly, a reasonable basis for congress to investigate. Pete L. By the way, what is the word on the related converse problem, that of appointing attorneys who were will to do the administration's political and harmful bidding?
You know it really is interesting times for the country. It is like a "leak test" for the constitution, so many things not explicitly mentioned due to "quaint" assumptions such as "honest brokers" and "honorable individuals". But, hey! Those phrases don't apear in the Constitution (just ask Bart or Charles) and there is always impeachment, so no worries...
I first came to this site following up on Kim Lane Scheppele's great article When the Law Doesn't Count: The Rule of Law and Election 2000. After reading it, I was really struck that we might well need a "post-horror" Rule of Law amendment to our constitution (or let's hope it is a "post-almost-horror" amendment.) But if we are truly at the point where it is all just some fancy semantic game, and that is acceptable to the press and the country, no further words written anywhere are going to stop that slide. My read is that we are in the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War and like any Constituional crisis, it is more a test of our basic moral fiber than any mere scratchings of pen on paper.
I see no reason that Congress couldn't restrict the President's authority to fire U.S. Attorneys. Limitations on Presidential authority to terminate officers were upheld in Humphrey's Ex'r v. U.S., 295 U.S. 602 (1935). Everyone agrees that U.S. Attorneys need independence to uphold the law free from political interference. To my thinking, that brings their offices comfortably within the category where Congressional limits on Presidential termination are permissible under the reasoning of Humphrey's.
Indeed, I think that this Administration's clear abuse of its power to terminate U.S. Attorney's makes a strong case for the wisdom of legislation granting U.S. Attorney's tenure for a fixed term unless terminated for cause.
Bart DePalma wrote: US Attorneys may be fired by the President for any reason apart from obstruction of justice, including for political reasons.
An attempt to obstruct an ongoing prosecution or investigation is only one example of improper reason for a President to fire a U.S. Attorney. There are many others. An example that comes immediately to mind is firing a U.S. Attorney because he was absent from his office while serving in the National Guard. Bart DePalma wrote: There is no allegation by Congress, nevertheless actual evidence, that any US Attorney was fired to obstruct justice. There certainly are reasons to suspect that U.S. Attorneys were fired to obstruct justice. Notably, Carol Lam was fired in the midst of investigating prominent members of the President's party. Mounting evidence also suggests that U.S. Attorneys were fired for resisting pressure to bring baseless prosecutions that would have politically benefited the President's party. To the extent that Congress has not yet uncovered definitive evidence of such improper motives, that is largely the result of the Administration's efforts to stonewall the investigation. One cannot plausible argue that the possiblity of improper motives has been discounted when the Administration has, to date, failed to disclose who selected the U.S. Attorney's for termination, let alone provided an accounting of the reasons.
Well, then there were certainly reasons to suspect that U.S. Attorneys were fired under both Clinton and Carter to obstruct justice -- were you calling for investigations and impeachment back then? Oh, that's right, the DEMOCRATS controlled Congress then. We now return to your regularly scheduled pogrom.
Jonathan Turley, with Keith Olbermann, raises another possibility:
...Since we first found out about this program, some of us have said that this was a clearly criminal act that the president called for. ... If we're right, not only did he order that crime, but it would be, in fact, an impeachable offense." "Both sides, both Democrats and Republicans, have avoided this sort of pig in the parlor," Turley continued. "They don't want to recognize that this president may have ordered criminal offenses. But they may now be on the road to do that, because the way Congress can get around the executive privilege in court is to say, we're investigating a potential crime." http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Law_Scholar_Wiretap_subpoenas_may_open_0627.html
During Carter's administration, you would have been correct. However, for 3 congresses under Clinton 104th-106th, the Republicans held the majorities in both houses. Since your facts are incorrect, I have grave doubts as to your allegations.
Charles: Which U.S. Attorneys do you suspect were fired improperly in the Clinton and Carter Administrations? Please provide names and the improper reasons you suspect.
I am sure you are aware that, despite attempts by Republican pundits to confuse the American public, nothing remotely similar to the Bush Administration's mid-term mass U.S. Attorney purge happened during either of those Administrations.
I believe you are confusing two different sets of subpoenas. Turley was discussing the new subpoenas issued just yesterday regarding the warrantless suveillance program; the subpoenas the White House rejected today were issued previously, and related to investigating the U.S. attorneys matter. Turley's view likely will be relevant if, as expected, the White House also defies the subpoenas relating to the surveillance program.
Too bad, then, that Congress does not prosecute federal crimes, huh? QuiteAlarmed: I have no facts / allegations wrong -- Clinton fired the U.S. Attorney investigating Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) BEFORE the GOP took over in 1994. My question stands: were you calling for investigations and impeachment back then?
Charles uses the term "pogrom" to describe QuiteAlarmed's comment. This is quite something! If Charles knows the history of this word, and honestly believes QuiteAlarmed's comment counts as a pogrom, he needs to very seriously reevaluate his values (and his basic ability to apply a definition).
And to Charles, directly, You shouldn't assume that QuiteAlarmed or anyone else wouldn't want serious investigations into the many wrong doings of the democratic party. Not all of us participate in this strange game of picking a party to cheer for. In addition, you must realize that the fact that there are democrat supporters who are hypocritical, it doesn't have relevance to the substantial issues at hand. Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of some, is not relevant to the project of maintaining a functioning democracy and discussing its laws. Pete L.
Sorry, that last one was for FraudGuy.
QuiteAlarmed: Only MID-TERM mass U.S. Attorney firings can be improper?
Carter fired U.S. Attorney David Marston at the request of Democratic Rep. Joshua Eilberg, whom Marston had been investigating corruption charges against Eilberg (and Democratic Rep. Daniel Flood). I will get you the Clinton firing specifics. P.S. Thanks for the info, Pete.
As I am sure that you know, Jay Stephens (the U.S. Attorney investigating Representative Dan Rostenkowski) was released in 1993 when President Clinton came into Office, along with all 93 of the other U.S. Attorneys. It was simply a case of a new Administration replacing the appointees from its predecessor. This is the same thing that every Administration, including both Bush Administrations and the Reagan Administration, does when it takes office. Nothing suggests that Jay Stephens was particularly singled out for termination. In contrast, the U.S. attorney firings at issue here, were highly unusual. The Bush Administration singled out several particular individuals for termination, one of whom was conducting prominent investigations of members of the President's party and several others of whom had resisted pressure to bring baseless prosecutions that would have benefited the President's party. I'll ask again, what reason do you have to suspect that Jay Stephens was terminated for improper reasons? Or any other U.S. Attorney fired during the Clinton Administration? I'll address David Marston in a separate post.
Peter writes: You shouldn't assume that QuiteAlarmed or anyone else wouldn't want serious investigations into the many wrong doings of the democratic party.
Agreed. If there was reason to suspect that an Administration improperly fired a U.S. Attorney, I absolutely would want Congress to investigate it, regardless of the party of the Administration. I recall extensive Congressional investigation during the Clinton Administration. If there was any reason to suspect that Jay Stephens was fired for improper reasons, I am certain that Dan Barton would have investigated it.
YOU were the one who posted above the following criteria "There certainly are reasons to suspect that U.S. Attorneys were fired to obstruct justice. Notably, Carol Lam was fired in the midst of investigating prominent members of the President's party." I'm simply using YOUR own stated criteria. Jay Stephens was indeed the name I was looking for -- thank you very much -- he was similarly fired in the midst of investigating prominent members of the President's party (eventually, you may recall, Clinton gave Rostenkowski a Presidential Pardon). That, at the very least, fits YOUR criteria of "reasons to suspect that U.S. Attorneys were fired to obstruct justice" correct? But, even putting aside ALL of Clinton's first term U.S. Attorney nominations (and I still don't see how you are going to argue the President gets one free shot at what you are NOW calling "improper firings"), are you seriously going to claim that NONE of the following U.S. Attorneys (AFTER Clinton's re-election, replacing those who had already been appointed by Clinton the first time around) were investigating any Democrats and/or based on any "political consideration" at all: 1997 — Wilma Lewis, Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, or Sharon Zealey? 1998 — Byron Jones, Denise O'Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, or Jose Rivera? 1999 — Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., Carl Schnee? 2000 — Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, or Audrey Fleissig? Do you really want to bet how many of these U.S. Attorneys were registered Republicans? As for Chairman Burton, he was not Chairman in 1993 re: Stephens' firing. By 1997, maybe Burton was too busy investigating everything else Clinton was up to, or maybe, just maybe, everyone on BOTH sides of the aisle understood back then that Presidents have the preogative to fired whichever U.S. Attorneys they want, with or without reason, and it was only now that Democrats have decided to trump up all these charges? I take great comfort knowing that you, for one, [retroactively] would have absolutely wanted Congress to investigate it before, regardless of the party of the Administration. We'll see if that holds for the next Democratic Administration . . .
As for David Marston's termination, yes: that absolutely should have been investigated. I was only 6 years old at the time; so I doubt that I was calling for investigations. The Department of Justice did investigate. I don't know if there was a Congressional investigation as well, but one would have been justified. Personally, I don't think that President Carter intended to obstruct justice, but there certainly was ample reason for suspicion. (Deleted and reposted to correct typo.)
Our posts crossed in the ethernet. I'm sure you will let me know where we still disagree.
preogative = prerogative
Maybe I'm not following your point, but I checked Wilma Lewis' bio as she is the first on the list. But she was not fired mid-stream. Or are you saying that the person she replaced was "fired"?
Charles: That, at the very least, fits YOUR criteria of "reasons to suspect that U.S. Attorneys were fired to obstruct justice" correct?
Incorrect. As mentioned in the last post, Jay Stephens was fired when President Clinton replaced ALL the U.S. Attorneys at the start of his administration. You've offered absolutely no reason to suspect that Jay Stephens was singled out for special treatment because he was prosecuting a Democrat. Can you provide one? Charles: (and I still don't see how you are going to argue the President gets one free shot at what you are NOW calling "improper firings") Under the current system, Presidents ordinarily replace all or most of the U.S. Attorneys at the start of the Administration. During an Administration, however, removing a U.S. attorney is unusual. They are ordinarily removed only for cause. Replacing all the U.S. Attorneys at the start of an Administration is not, at all, suspicions. Replacing a select number of U.S. Attorneys in the midst of an Administration -- not for cause -- is highly suspicious. (I'll respond to the other names you threw out in a subsequent post. Frankly, I have no idea who they all are without a bit of research.)
Sorry, Mike, those are dates of NEW nominations of U.S. Attorneys Clinton replaced after his re-election -- I see that I already had this conversation once with QuiteAlarmed and PMS_Chicago back the end of May re: Goodling and Immigration Judges too. You can easily verify anyone's party registration, e.g. www.voterlistsonline.com (although Arizona and Pennsylvania records cannot be directly downloaded). None of those replacement U.S. Attorneys were registered Republicans -- IMAGINE THAT!!!
Again, QuiteAlarmed, I don't see how you are going to argue the President gets one free shot at what you are NOW calling "improper firings" beginning or end of his term.
Replacing a select number of U.S. Attorneys in the midst of an Administration -- not for cause -- is highly suspicious.
Great -- I just gave you 34 "highly suspicious" Clinton replacements then.
charles Great -- I just gave you 34 "highly suspicious" Clinton replacements then.
Only if they were fired (i.e., forced to resign) not for cause. Can you tell me that every person in that list was fired and it wasn't for cause? Otherwise, you have no reason to be suspicious. I'm not going to waste my timing researching each of them if all you did was spit out a list of every U.S. attorney replaced during the Clinton Administration. The onus is on you to provide some reasonable basis for suspecting an improper motive. If you do, then I'll likely agree that it should have been investigated. Were any of them in the midst of high profile investigations of members of the President's party? Did any of them resist pressure to bring baseless prosecutions beneficial to the President's party? If so, which ones and what exactly are your suspicions?
charles: Again, QuiteAlarmed, I don't see how you are going to argue the President gets one free shot at what you are NOW calling "improper firings" beginning or end of his term.
Again, charles, under the current system, Presidents ordinarily replace all or most of the U.S. Attorneys at the start of the Administration. During an Administration, however, removing a U.S. attorney is unusual. They are ordinarily removed only for cause. Replacing all the U.S. Attorneys at the start of an Administration is not, at all, suspicions. Replacing a select number of U.S. Attorneys in the midst of an Administration -- not for cause -- is highly suspicious.
LOL -- Wilma Lewis replaced Eric Holder (who had been nominated by Clinton in 1993 -- your "free shot" replacement above). Holder was indeed investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton's top campaign aide, Ira Magaziner, among other Democrats -- BINGO!!!!
Looks like Eric Holder wasn't quite the "bingo" that you thought, Charles.
Remember, its only suspicious if the U.S. Attorney was fired (i.e., forced to resign) not for cause. That's what happened with all of the U.S. Attorneys involved in the current scandal. Do you have any others?
Oh, so obstruction of justice is NOT your primary concern then? You are now more concerned whether it involved lateral vs. horizontal job moves (discounting, of course, the one "free shot" you think every President gets regardless of whether that obstructs justice too)? I will have to go back and re-read your posts in which you claimed "nothing remotely similar to the Bush Administration's mid-term mass U.S. Attorney purge happened" (despite 32 names I have already given you). My bad.
Of course, it wasn't also possible that Holder got the Deputy Attorney General position in order to keep him quiet, right?
C'mon. You got exposed. You were quite certain that Holden had been removed from a gov't position. Instead, he gets promoted. Now it's a newly concocted scheme that complete ignores the ethical improprieties for Holden if such a scenario occurred. Accept that you got exposed, concede the point and move on...
You might also concede that you have no clue whether any of the names you listed had any shenanigans attached. Just listing 32 names of folks that were no longer US Attorneys is pretty thin...
Charles, if you keep changing your criteria, no one's going to be able to answer your questions.
I knew that Eric Holder got the Deputy A.G. job. My posts above still meet QUITEALARMED's criteria: "During an Administration, however, removing a U.S. attorney is unusual." It's not MY criteria. I personally think that political appointees can be fired for political reasons, or for no reason at all.
Back on topic re: Executive Privilege: In U.S. vs. Nixon, the Court rejected Nixon's claim because Executive Privilege "must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial." Recall also the issue at the time was a PROSECUTOR'S (and grand jury) access to specific recordings Nixon had made in order to prove that criminal case. In Clinton's case, the Court found that Executive Privilege (typically seen as discussions, advice, etc. that the president receives in the course of his official duties) did not extend to precluding his advisers from testifying about a non-official matter (especially when encouraging his mistress to lie to a grand jury) again with a PROSECUTOR (and grand jury). I think Harriet Miers (as White House COUNSEL) is a slam dunk, but even if you look at the subpoena sent to the White House yesterday, it is quite clear that it fails to match either of these cases. It is not a limited subpoena for specific evidence in a criminal trial. And it certainly related to the official business of the president. A copy of the subpoena is on the Washington Post's web site. It is quite clear that the request is for a huge swath of internal deliberative documents that amount to nothing else bu a fishing expedition. This is not a targeted subpoena for specific evidence but the kind of broad demand for materials that NO Administration would accept. Among other things, it calls for: A - All documents from September 11, 2001 to the present constituting the President's authorization or reauthorization of the warrantless electronic surveillance program B - All documents from September 11, 2001 to the present containing analysis or opinions from the Department of Justice, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, the White House, or any other entity within the Executive Branch on the legality of, or legal basis for, the warrantless electronic surveillance program, including documents that describe why the surveillance at issue should not or could not take place consistent with the requirements and procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) C - All documents from September 11, 2001 to the present, including orders, decisions, or opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and pleadings submitted to the FISC, that reflect communications with the FISC or any FISC judges about the warrantless electronic surveillance program, containing legal analysis, arguments, or decisions concerning the interpretation of FISA, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force enacted on September 18, 2001, or the President's authority under Article II of the Constitution; D - All documents from September 11, 2001 to the present that reflect, discuss, or describe agreements or understandings between the White House, the Department of Justice, the National Security Agency, or any other entity of the Executive Branch and telecommunications companies, internet service providers, equipment manufacturers, or data processors regarding criminal or civil liability for assisting with or participating in the warrantless electronic surveillance program.
Please do go back and read my posts as you indicated you would. I trust that, when you do, you will find that my position throughout this discussion has been consistent. The circumstances create ample reason to suspect that the Bush Administration fired the U.S. Attorneys to obstruct justice. Those circumstances are: 1. The U.S. Attorneys were fired (i.e., forced to resign). 2. The firings were unusual in that they occurred mid-Administration (i.e., they were not part of the ordinary replacement of U.S. Attorneys that occurs at the outset of all Administrations). 3. The firings were not for cause. 4. At least one of the U.S. Attorneys was involved in a high profile investigation of members of the President's party and other U.S. Attorneys had been pressured to bring baseless prosecutions that would have benefited the President's party. When these circumstances conjoin, I think any reasonable person would conclude that an investigation is warranted. When the Administration fails to provide even the most basic information about who chose the U.S. Attorneys for termination and why those U.S. Attorneys were chosen, then I think any reasonable person would conclude that further investigation is warranted. It is possible that no wrongdoing occurred here. We won't know until the investigation is complete, and that won't happen until this Administration is forced to stop stonewalling.
charles: I knew that Eric Holder got the Deputy A.G. job. My posts above still meet QUITEALARMED's criteria: "During an Administration, however, removing a U.S. attorney is unusual."
Obviously, it does not meet my "criteria." Eric Holder was not "removed," i.e. fired or forced to resign. He was promoted within the Department. I sincerely doubt you mean to suggest that promoting Holder to Deputy Attorney General might have obstructed the investigation of Ira Magaziner. If you were aware that Holder was promoted within the Department, then it is passing strange that you nonetheless declared such a blatantly falacious argument a "bingo".
So, I guess that was some different QuiteAlarmed who was quite alarmed over: "Replacing a select number of U.S. Attorneys in the midst of an Administration -- not for cause -- is highly suspicious." I gave THAT QuiteAlarmed 32 such replacements.
If this is the REAL QuiteAlarmed posting now, and not the Invasion of the Body Snatchers "QuiteAlarmed" what is your definition of:
I actually thought you might be somewhat reasonable, but it's clear that you are not. You know very well that promoting and replacing connote two very different meanings. Not to mention that the context in QuiteAlarmed's reference to "replacing" USA's is clear.
O.K., I have now reviewed each and every post, and it seems as if QuiteAlarmed meant to use the words "FIRED WITHOUT CAUSE" instead of "replaced", "removed", "terminated", "purged", and "released" is that correct?
This is a disappointing post in what has become for me a disappointing blog by some of the supposed leading minds of the legal community. Here I have regularly read posts disparaging the U.S. Constitution, its formers and people that hold both in high regard.
The problem with that regularity, especially in light of the obvious nature of the people currently involved in interpreting and effecting the words and, dare I mention, the ideals of the constitution is that it becomes apparent that the railing against the constitution is very much akin to someone screaming at a piece of paper, as if that sheet of pulp should somehow provide some righteousness for our times. A faith based insanity against faith in a jewel of reason in a time when no reasonable reason is allowed to exist. In this post you pay homage to one Paul Clement, "Acting AG." (That name has a similar ring to "Treated as" AG.) "Like most of Paul's work, it is a serious and substantial argument.." Deferential words directed towards someone of questionable merit deserving of deference. Yet this blog has little hesitation in denouncing the formers of this nation. As a lesser 'distinguished' legal mind has pointed out elsewhere, Clement has a fundamental conflict of interest in this matter. http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/freds-fuck-you-.html Clement, in this post here, is presented as reasonably defending what my lying eyes perceive as a monumentally corrupt group of individuals that has done enormous damage to this nation over the last few years. The damage isn't only to this nation. There is the blood of hundreds of thousands of people also involved. Paul Clement is working to protect these people from any attempts to see, in light of strong indications of criminal behavior, what some of their actions might have been. Yet Paul Clement, to whom you show such deference, is also the person in charge of investigating some of these same possible criminal activities. He is both investigator (and laughably, possible prosecutor) and defender against investigation. And he's not claiming some jurisdictional priority. He's claiming no right of investigation, apparently including his own since this Bush-Cheney group of malefactors has ended internal investigations with as little as denying security clearances. Clement has extended himself in a fundamentally corrupt manner and you chose to ignore that fact and not mention it here. This blog reminds me of the Ron Suskind description of a conversation he reportedly had with Karl Rove. .................................................. The aide [reportedly Rove] said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." .................................................. Too much of what I read here is analysis of bullshit legal droppings that will only be replaced by other bullshit legal droppings when the next politically motivated judicial decision is handed down. That has been apparent for years and was blatantly obvious in 2000 when this abomination of a group, Bush-Cheney, was forced on this nation by the "Supreme" Court. Now with two more political hacks on that court the meaning of the constitution will be whatever the duck hunt arrangers decide - so long as the duck hunt invitations continue. And you here keep screaming about the constitution, praising people like Clement and analyzing minutiae of bullshit. Rove and Cheney must be laughing their asses off while Bush rides his bike. All well protected from any consequences of their malfeasance by people like Clement.
Had you read my posts on the "Is Trojan Advocating the End of Humanity?" thread, you would have seen that no one who attacks the "faith based insanity" could consider me reasonable : )
I trust that anyone fairly reading my posts in this thread will see that my position has been consistent throughout. I find your suggestion to the contrary -- arguing that I was inconsistent because I did not feel the need to spell out my position in every single post -- extraordinarily weak, and I trust that other readers will as well.' The U.S. Attorney scandal is about firings; that does not need to be spelled out in detail in every post for it to be understood by honest readers. Consequently, I am sadly convinced that you have no interest in a serious discussion of this issue; so I see no value in devoting more of my time toward it.
Moving on, does anyone else think it is illegal to replace a U.S. Attorney because he was absent from his office while serving in the National Guard?
Turley was being interviewed about the subpoenas regarding the surveillance program, which he said might involve criminal or impeachable offenses on the part of the President. He made no such comment about the U.S. attorney scandal or those subpoenas, and he was not even being interviewed on that subject. There may be common issues involved in both cases, but I have not seem Turley articulate them. I don't think we can assume he would generalize as you do. Maybe he would, maybe not.
QuiteAlarmed said...
Charles: Which U.S. Attorneys do you suspect were fired improperly in the Clinton and Carter Administrations? Please provide names and the improper reasons you suspect. The stink during the Clinton Administration was that the US Attorneys in change of Arkansas and Illinois where investigations of the Clintons and Rostenkowski were removed and replaced with more friendly prosecutors. Of course, there was no way to be sure because Clinton fired and replaced them all.
"Bart" DePalma:
The stink during the Clinton Administration was that the US Attorneys in change of Arkansas and Illinois where investigations of the Clintons and Rostenkowski were removed and replaced with more friendly prosecutors.... Oh, sure, compared to rabid Republican prosecutor Charles Banks, Kenny Starr was just a "harmless little fuzzball".... But look, over there!, it's Clinton's penis, Clinton's penis!!!.... Cheers,
Moving on, does anyone else think it is illegal to replace a U.S. Attorney because he was absent from his office while serving in the National Guard? Yes. See here for more on the hypocrisy. You may insist that Iglesias wasn't in fact fired because of his service duty and that they just used this for an excuse, and so in fact the firing was legal, but why would the maladministration insist that they had fired him illegally? Cheers,
According to the post by Constitutional Lawyer on that TPM thread, April 5, 2007 at 10:26 PM, it was not against the law to fire Iglesias based on his military commitment:
"While I have no sympathy for the AG and his handling of this matter, this particular claim--that a US Attorney can pursue statutory rights (like USSERRA) to challenge his removal--does not even pass the laugh test. US Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and are "officers of the United States" under Article II of the Constitution. The President has unlimited power to remove such officers at will and it is well established that Congress (and the courts) cannot interfere with the exercise of that power. Therefore a US Attorney cannot assert a right created by Congress (i.e. USERRA) to prevent their removal by the President. TPM Muckraker should not be snookered into giving this one any credence."
The rest of the comment from Constitutional Lawyer:
The real story here has nothing to do with the controversy over Mr. Iglesias' removal. Instead the story is how the discredited head of the Office of Special Counsel (Scott Bloch) has ginned up this absurd theory and solicited Mr. Iglesias to file a complaint to protect Mr. Bloch himself from an on-going investigation of his own serious misconduct. He has done so to create a situtation where it would look like retaliation if the Adminstration sought to take action against Mr. Bloch himself, on the basis of the findings of that investigation. Charles, your support appears to state that the incorrect theory was started by other the Bush administration officials to cover themselves for other wrongoing. They can't keep themselves straight due to partisan interest, blatant self-interest, hidden self-interest, paid influence, and shameless pandering. Thanks for the reference, Charles. Will your team ever resume doing anything moral, legal, or ethical?
That's right -- the WHITE HOUSE was behind the "it's against the law to fire Iglesias based on his National Guard service" false flag operation -- don't forget that Bush personally planted demolitions at the WTC and Rove has a giant laser in space that creates hurricanes. I mean, come on!!
شركة مكافحة النمل الابيض بالرياض
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض شركة رش مبيدات بالرياض شركة مكافحة حشرات بجدة شركة رش مبيدات بجدة شركة مكافحة الحشرات بمكة شركة مكافحة حشرات بالدمام شركة رش مبيدات بالدمام شركة كشف تسربات بالرياض شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض+ كشف تسربات شركة كشف تسربات المياه بجدة شركة تسربات بالدمام شركة عزل خزانات بالرياض شركة عزل اسطح بالرياض شركة تسليك مجاري بالرياض شركة شفط بيارات بالرياض شركة تنظيف بجدة شركة تنظيف فلل بجدة شركة تنظيف شقق بجدة شركة تنظيف خزانات بجدة شركة تنظيف منازل بجدة شركة تنظيف بالدمام شركة تنظيف شقق بالدمام شركة تنظيف فلل بالدمام شركة تنظيف بالطائف شركة تنظيف وعزل خزانات بمكة شركة تنظيف بمكة شركة تنظيف وعزل خزانات بالمدينة المنورة شركة تنظيف فلل بمكة شركة تنظيف مجالس بالبخار بمكة شركة تنظيف بالمدينة المنورة شركة تنظيف بتبوك شركة رش مبيدات بتبوك شركة مكافحة حشرات بتبوك شركة تنظيف بالرياض شركة تنظيف خزانات بالرياض شركة تنظيف فلل بالرياض شركة تنظيف شقق بالرياض شركة نقل اثاث بالرياض شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض شركة رش مبيدات بالرياض
ugg boots cheap soccer shoes ugg outlet air max 90 coach outlet uggs on sale fitflops sale clearance louis vuitton handbags the north face polo ralph lauren outlet coach outlet fitflops uggs on sale lebron james shoes nike air max michael kors handbags louis vuitton outlet coach outlet online michael kors outlet coach outlet online true religion coach outlet store online coach factory outlet hollister kids michaek kors outlet cheap jordans michael kors handbags ugg outlet swarovski jewelry ugg boots coach factory outlet louis vuitton handbags cheap uggs gucci handbags louis vuitton outlet stores louis vuitton outlet hollister co abercrombie fitch oakley sunglasses cheap oakleys
All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring.
Post a Comment
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya |
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin's Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |


text:
To verify our online classes, select your state to view a list of recognized counties.
Become a recognized county or court official.
State: Missouri
County: Caldwell
State: Verify w\ Court
The Online Co-Parenting/ Divorce class is recognized in 11 counties within this state.
Verify with Court – County courts may accept our classes although it is recommended that you speak with either your lawyer or court administrator for approval.
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE! If you complete one of our online programs and your local county court declines it, please see our Terms of Use for our refund guarantee policy.
Protect Yourself and Your Children From Domestic Violence.
CALL 911 for immediate assistance,
or your local emergency service.


text:
One of the things that sold us on this house is the access to the adjacent forest preserve and all the trails that run through it. I had beautiful day dreams of gathering up the whole family and strolling out the door and into the woods without having to worry about driving and parking and the possibility of not having all the important gear we'd need for a Sunday afternoon nature hike. Like snacks. Snacks are very important to three year old hikers.
Unfortunately, we've only been on two or three decent walks since moving here. It's amazing how much of a time suck raising an infant is. We've had a beautiful fall, the weather has been perfect for it, but all my plans of family walks usually go down in flames when there are naps to be thought of. Not to mention the ticks. Don't even get me started on the ticks.
Okay, I can't resist. Not only have we found at least a gazillion ticks on the dogs upon returning home, not only wood ticks but also the dreaded Lyme Disease carrying deer ticks, but I also found a tick crawling on my arm while I was carrying the baby (and I screamed like a girl as my body went into fits of convulsions trying to shake the damn thing off, because DEER TICK. LYME DISEASE. CREEPY CRAWLY DISEASE CARRIER. GAH.) and Mr. C found a tick embedded in his.... In his...
Well, as one man confided in me on twitter (as if that was possible), and I quote, "My Uncle Nishan once found on his ... Balzac."
So anyway, the walks have not been happening. We went on a short hike last week with Mr. C's parents but it was late in the afternoon and kind of chilly and on the trail we chose to take there were lots of piles of horse poop to avoid. Poop that was hidden under a thin layer of fallen leaves. Dodging those landmines is really fun when you're holding onto a three year old's hand for dear life but the last thing we need is for Chicky to trip over a tree root and fall face down in week old horse apples. Needless to say, the hike did not live up to my expectations.
Oh, and did I mention the hunting? Apparently, hunting season starts in the beginning of October, guaranteeing that our hikes during the best weather for it will take on a whole new level of stress. Horse poop? Ha! I laugh at horse poop when there's the possibility of being stuffed and mounted over someone's fireplace.
I come from a long line of hunters, deer mainly, but I had to do my research to find out the 411 on the full hunting season. There's bird season (pheasant, grouse, Wild *hiccup* Turkey) and Peter Cottontail season, Rocky the Squirrel season and Let's Kill Tod the Cute Little Fox season. Then there's hunting Bambi with bow and arrow and hunting Bambi's mom with a shotgun. That's my personal favorite. Guess taking the dogs out to the backyard to do their business will be a lot more interesting.
We even bought orange vests so we wouldn't be shot at while hiking. I have no joke for that. Feel free to interject.
But I still have my dream. The dream of one day seeing my dogs and my children on the trail, running ahead of me and Mr. C as we hold hands on a warm fall day.
The reality is the dogs will run ahead to gobble all the poop they can find and then I'll spend an hour picking tiny little disease carrying parasites off of them. And the girls will probably start a stick fight and one of them will end up in the ER. And we'll have to listen for gun shots and try not to be mistaken for Thumper.
But, dammit, I'm still going to dream.
Because I look pretty good in fluorescent orange.


text:
Format : CBR/CBZ
Language : English
Size : 25.74 MB
Download Link :
All the content presented here are found from various blogs and forums. The owner of this blog takes no responsibility what so ever for any of the content (image/audio/video). If you find some content inappropriate or if there is any violation of copyright, kindly contact the host of the content (image/audio/video) to remove it from their server. Enjoy your stay on this blog. Thanks.


text:
These headlines this morning make it sound like Europe's economy is up and running again:
-- "Euro Area Exits Longest Recession on Record." (Bloomberg News)
-- "Euro Zone Emerges from Recession." (The Wall Street Journal)
-- "Euro Zone Economy Grew 0.3% in 2nd Quarter, Ending Recession." (The New York Times)
They're all based on the news that Eurostat, the keeper of economic statistics for the European Union, says GDP grew 0.3 percent within the EU's borders from the end of March through June.
The stories may turn out to be right. But, unfortunately, reports of the European recession's death are (to borrow from Mark Twain) greatly exaggerated.
As Olli Rhen, Eurostat's vice president, writes on his blog: "I hope there will be no premature, self-congratulatory statements suggesting 'the crisis is over.' " He calls the GDP report only another sign of "a potential turning point in the EU economy."
The quick conclusion by some economists and some in the news media that a slight rise in one quarter's GDP means a recession is over ignores how experts figure out when an economy is either in a significant downturn (a recession) or enjoying steady growth (an expansion).
In Europe, just as in the U.S., the official arbiter is a committee of economic researchers who look at much more than just quarterly GDP data. As the European Centre for Economic Policy Research says of its business cycle dating committee's work:
"First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but use a range of indicators, notably employment. Second, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, 'a significant decline in activity.' "
It adds that the data it examines include GDP, investment, industrial production and "Euro area employment."
In other words, the referees will be waiting to see more numbers before deciding if the EU recession that started in the third-quarter of 2011 is really over.
Among the things they'll be watching, of course, is whether the third-quarter GDP figure released Wednesday is revised on Sept. 4 when Eurostat isues its next report about the second quarter. If the figure is revised down, that would certainly support the case that it's too soon to declare that happy times are here again. An upward revision would add to evidence that things are getting better.
All this underscores why CBS MarketWatch looked at Wednesday's news and reached this conclusion:
"For now, tempting as it may be, it might be better to keep the champagne on ice and pop the cork only when the euro zone is into a more sustainable recovery."
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Look at this map, and notice that deep, deep in the Republican South, there's a thin blue band stretching from the Carolinas through Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. These are the counties that went for Obama in the last election. A blue crescent in a sea of red.
These same counties went mostly blue in 2004 and 2000. Why? Well, the best answer, says marine biologist Craig McClain, may be an old one, going back before the Civil War, before 1776, before Columbus, back more than 100 million years to the days when the Deep South was under water. Those counties, as he writes here, went for Obama because trillions and trillions and trillions of teeny sun-loving creatures died there. He's talking about plankton. That's why the Republicans can't carry those counties. Blame plankton.
[Don't leave. I know some of you bounced here because my headline was political, and the word "plankton" will send you scuttling back to HuffPo, Politico and Drudge, where politics is plankton-free. But before you go, check out this next map.]
It's an image of North America as it looked during the Cretaceous era, 129 million to 65 million years ago. As you can see, much of the continent was still covered by water. The Deep South had a shoreline that curled through the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, and there, in the shallow waters just offshore, were immense populations of floating, single-celled creatures who drifted about, trapped sunshine, captured carbon, then died and sank to the sea bottom. Those creatures became long stretches of nutritious chalk. ( I love chalk.)
When sea levels dropped and North America took on its modern shape, those ancient beaches — so alkaline, porous and rich with organic material — became a "black belt" of rich soil, running right through the South. You can see the Cretaceous beaches in this map, colored green. McClain got these maps from geologist Steve Dutch's website, at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
And because this stretch was so rich and fertile, when cotton farmers moved here in the 19th century, this stretch produced the most cotton per acre. Harvests of 4,000-plus bales were common here. Notice that the most productive plantations mirror the ancient coastline.
Then came slavery.
McClain, quoting from Booker T. Washington's autobiography, Up From Slavery, points out: "The part of the country possessing this thick, dark and naturally rich soil was, of course, the part of the South where the slaves were most profitable, and consequently they were taken there in the largest numbers." After the Civil War, a lot of former slaves stayed on this land, and while many migrated North, their families are still there.
In this 2000 census, you can see that the counties with the biggest populations of African-Americans still trace that Cretaceous shoreline.
This, says marine biologist McClain, explains that odd stretch of Obama blue; it's African-Americans sitting on old soil from ancient organisms that turned sunshine into fertilizer. So plankton remain a force in Southern elections — though not always, not continuously. After the Civil War, when the South voted solidly Democratic and Jim Crow laws ruled, many blacks couldn't vote, so the pattern disappears. Voting rights laws hadn't been passed during the Goldwater-Johnson election of 1964, so in this map, the African-American difference is invisible.
But some African-Americans were still there. So was the soil (though it's not as rich as it once was), and so were the rocks that geologist Steve Dutch "found immediately familiar" because they mapped those ancient shores. All of which is to say, when you cover politics, sometimes, without realizing it, you are also telling rock tales. Geology, every so often, peeks through.
Geologist Steve Dutch's detailed maps, and careful analysis, come from a study he did of the Bush-Gore election in 2000. He called it "Geology and Election 2000." You can find that here. "Dr. M" (that's Craig McClain's Nom de Blog at "Deep Sea News") wrote his geology analysis here.
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Being convicted of DUI is a serious criminal offense. If you or a loved one has been arrested for a DUI in Sand Springs, you have found the right firm. Our Sand Springs DUI lawyer has the knowledge and experience to defend you and achieve the best possible case outcome, regardless of the severity of your DUI charge.
The combination of drinking alcohol or using drugs and then driving in Oklahoma is known as Driving Under the Influence, hence the term DUI. Convictions for DUI can range from license suspension to jail or prison, depending on the factors, history of the accused, and other circumstances. If you or someone you care about has been charged, it's never to early to seek representation from a qualified Sand Springs DUI lawyer.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is the most commonly committed crime in the United States. It is almost always committed by a an otherwise respectable citizen who has never been in trouble before with the law. Because it is so common, representation of the defendant is often attempted by attorneys not versed in criminal law. Lawyers who do not typically handle DUI may underestimate the crime because it's a trumped up traffic crime. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A competent Tulsa Criminal Attorney understands, and will convey to you the following:
1. Though one of the most common of all criminal offenses, DUI is one of the most complex to understand and defend properly.
2. The stakes are high and have lasting consequences.
3. DUI prosecution is full of unique legal standards and procedures which are geared to facilitate a conviction.
We live in a country where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but it is applied differently in DUI cases. With blood-alcohol evidence, the presumption is reversed. You are considered impaired if your blood alcohol is over .08 for Driving Under the Influence (it could be less for other related offenses).
Our Tulsa Criminal Defense Lawyer knows how an arrest may be challenged and how, if possible, a suspension can be avoided. We can provide you with an aggressive defense against your Sand Springs DUI charges and are aware of the legal loopholes that can act in your favor.
There are many complex issues that can surround a DUI arrest in Sand Springs. It is important to understand that by operating a motor vehicle within the state, you have given what is called "implied consent" to undergo test(s) for alcohol. The most common test is the breath test is a breath test which measures your BAC (blood alcohol content). If you refuse the test(s), your license will be administratively suspended. If you intend to challenge the suspension, you must do so immediately. You only have 15 days to request an administrative hearing. As you can see, it is imperative you act immediately. Any delay or neglect of a DUI can result in severe consequences that may be otherwise avoided. As with any criminal matter, it is advisable that you seek counsel from a qualified Sand Springs DUI Lawyer immediately. Our firm offers free consultations and payment plans are available.


text:
Few days before Christmas, we went for a walk in Downtown Madrid. It is great the way it looks with all the Christmas decoration. We took the new Canon EOS M to try it out and I have to say that I loved it! We use the Canon EOS 7D for our videos and photos and, although it is a fantastic camera, this new one is much easier to carry around and the pictures it takes are clear and bright with just one click! It is a great option for those, like myself, who don't master at cameras.
Here goes some pictures of my look that day. Unfortunately the battery finished and I couldn't take many pictures of all the Christmas details.
Esta última foto de Canon a Canon, tienen su gracia.
Abrigo/ Coat: DIY
Camisa/ Shirt: Chicnova (Echádle un vistazo a esta web que tiene cosas muy chulas! Take a look at this website. It has cool stuff!)
Pantalones/ Jeans: Benetton
Zapatos/ Shoes: Betsey Johnson via Sarenza
Bolso/ Bag: Zara
Colgante/ Pendant: Teresa Aldama
Pulseras/ Bracelets: Spanish& Sisters, Teresa Aldama y Tous.
Uñas/ Nail Polish: Hot& Spicy de O.P.I.
Fotos compras: Primera y segunda foto: C.Serrano; tercera foto: Zara.