May Lord Christ enter in?
- Oscar Wilde, The Ballad of Reading Gaol
Law student. Yankees fan. Massive fraggle. Just living the American dream.
Query: Would the federal judiciary be able-- under the doctrines of recusal and non-justiciability-- to even hear a challenge to the constitutionality of such a statute? I learned today from an article by Judith Resnik (61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1877) that the judiciary has heard questions about the constitutionality of statutes about its own pay (see e.g., Evans v. Gore 235 U.S. 245, ), but there may be limits to the "necessity" doctrine.My answer, of course, is I don't know. It is an interesting problem, one that'll doubtless occupy law school exam-writers for generations to come.
For a wedding between a Sikh man and an Irish-Catholic woman, for instance, the ceremony included the lighting of a Catholic unity candle (slightly modified: The couple didn't extinguish their individual candles after lighting the joint flame, as is the tradition) and a Sikh ritual in which everyone is given cooked grain as a sign that the temple feeds and blesses all.This paragraph creates this misleading impression that the Unity Candle has some place in the "Catholic" "tradition". It doesn't. While it may be true, as this author suggests, that it was Catholics who brought this blight upon the face of the wedding ceremony (although this page suggests a possible alternate origin), the Unity Candle is most certainly not something emerging from the Catholic Tradition, nor is it a regular part of the Catholic rite of marriage today, as this site indicates. The practice is only 20-30 years old, is rumored to have been inspired by a soap opera, and is strongly discouraged from use in Catholic marriages, since it's thought to promote heterodox religious ideas (or somesuch).
a tax could be imposed on greenhouse gas emissions as well as certain financial transactions, arms sales or multinational corporations.Over at NRO's The Corner, John J. Miller is not a fan.
Other proposed approaches raise the possibility of taxes levied on ships transiting key maritime straits, airline tickets, credit card purchases as well as an international lottery.
(1) The defendant committed the offense during the commission or attempted commission of, or during the immediate flight from the commission or attempted commission of, a felony and the defendant had previously been convicted of the same felony; or (2) the defendant committed the offense after having been convicted of two or more state offenses or two or more federal offenses or of one or more state offenses and one or more federal offenses for each of which the penalty of more than one year imprisonment may be imposed, which offenses were committed on different occasions and which involved the infliction of serious bodily injury upon another person; or (3) the defendant committed the offense and in such commission knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victim of the offense; or (4) the defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner; or (5) the defendant procured the commission of the offense by payment, or promise of payment, of anything of pecuniary value; or (6) the defendant committed the offense as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of anything of pecuniary value; or (7) the defendant committed the offense with an assault weapon, as defined in section 53-202a; or (8) the defendant committed the offense set forth in subdivision (1) of section 53a-54b to avoid arrest for a criminal act or prevent detection of a criminal act or to hamper or prevent the victim from carrying out any act within the scope of the victim's official duties or to retaliate against the victim for the performance of the victim's official duties.The mitigating factors, as defined by Conn. General Statutes 53a-46a(h):
(1)the defendant was under the age of eighteen years, or (2) the defendant was a person with mental retardation, as defined in section 1-1g, or (3) the defendant's mental capacity was significantly impaired or the defendant's ability to conform the defendant's conduct to the requirements of the law was significantly impaired but not so impaired in either case as to constitute a defense to prosecution, or (4) the defendant was criminally liable under sections 53a-8, 53a-9 and 53a-10 for the defense, which was committed by another, but the defendant's participation in such offense was relatively minor, although not so minor as to constitute a defense to prosecution, or (5) the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that the defendant's conduct in the course of commission of the offense of which the defendant was convicted would cause, or would create a grave risk of causing, death to another person.OK, take a minute to catch your breath.
The reply of the Nazis was drastic and immediate. More than three hundred Catholic priests were imprisoned in concentration camps, and the publication of the decree in the churches of Germany was forbidden.I'm confused: wasn't the Catholic Church complicit in the crimes of Nazism?
For a limited time, you'll get 1/2 pound of our sweet Snow Crab FREE with the purchase of one pound of Snow Crab. Get yours today.Who are these people who eat a pound-and-a-half of crab in one sitting?
People tell me that Senator Edwards got picked for his good looks, his sex appeal, and his great hair. I say to them — how do you think I got the job?To which I say: HEY! that cuts a little too close to those of us on the downwards curve of hirsuteness.