HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » steve2470 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ... 206 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Steve
Gender: Male
Hometown: Florida
Home country: US
Current location: US
Member since: Sat Oct 16, 2004, 01:04 PM
Number of posts: 27,350

Journal Archives

this happened to me and I'm NOT recommending you do this....

I was in Fort Lauderdale many years ago, at 3 AM. I didn't have enough money for a hotel room of any kind, and I had a young lady with me (long story). I went to two hotels and asked politely for a break. Of course, they had to say no. I didn't want us sleeping in the car or outside.

The third hotel I went to, the front desk clerk was a devout Christian lady. She took pity on us and gave us a room for free, but made me promise to repay her ASAP, which I readily agreed to and even suggested upfront. The room cost $85 I think. As soon as I got back home to my checkbook, I mailed her a check and thanked her profusely.

There are some really wonderful people in the world, as this front desk clerk was. She had the money to pay for it, which I'm sure many (if not most) desk clerks do not. If she had refused us (which I expected), we would have had to bite the bullet and sleep in the car.

1918 SCOTUS: Hammer v. Dagenhart 247 U.S. 251, Child labor is A-OK with us (sarcasm)


Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving the power of Congress to enact child labor laws. The Court held regulation of child labor in purely internal (to a single state) manufacturing, the products of which may never enter interstate commerce, to be beyond the power of Congress, distinguishing the Lottery line of cases, which concerned Congressional regulation of harms (e.g. interstate sale of lottery tickets) that required the use of interstate commerce.

Justice Day, for the majority, said that Congress does not have the power to regulate commerce of goods that are manufactured by children, and that the Keating-Owen Act of 1916 was therefore unconstitutional. Drawing a distinction between the manufacture of goods and the regulation of certain goods themselves "inherently evil", the Court maintained that the issue did not concern the power to keep certain immoral products out of the stream of interstate commerce, distinguishing previous cases upholding Congress's power to control lottery schemes, prostitution, and liquor. The Court reasoned that, in those cases, the goods themselves were inherently immoral and thus open to congressional scrutiny. In this case, however, the issue at hand was the manufacture of cotton, a good whose use is not immoral. The Court further held that the manufacture of cotton did not in itself constitute interstate commerce. The Court recognized that disparate labor regulations placed the various states on unequal ground in terms of economic competitiveness, but it specifically stated that Congress could not address such inequality, for it was within the right of states to enact differing laws within the scope of their police powers:

It is further contended that the authority of Congress may be exerted to control interstate commerce in the shipment of childmade goods because of the effect of the circulation of such goods in other states where the evil of this class of labor has been recognized by local legislation, and the right to thus employ child labor has been more rigorously restrained than in the state of production. In other words, that the unfair competition, thus engendered, may be controlled by closing the channels of interstate commerce to manufacturers in those states where the local laws do not meet what Congress deems to be the more just standard of other states. The grant of power of Congress over the subject of interstate commerce was to enable it to regulate such commerce, and not to give it authority to control the states in their exercise of the police power over local trade and manufacture.

"The commerce clause was not intended to give to Congress a general authority to equalize such conditions," the court reasoned. The Court added that the federal government was "one of enumerated powers" and could not go beyond the boundary drawn by the 10th Amendment, which the Court misquotes by inserting the word "expressly":

In interpreting the Constitution, it must never be forgotten that the Nation is made up of States to which are entrusted the powers of local government. And to them and to the people the powers not expressly delegated to the National Government are reserved.

In our view the necessary effect of this act is, by means of a prohibition against the movement in interstate commerce of ordinary commercial commodities, to regulate the hours of labor of children in factories and mines within the states, a purely state authority. Thus the act in a two-fold sense is repugnant to the Constitution. It not only transcends the authority delegated to Congress over commerce but also exerts a power as to a purely local matter to which the federal authority does not extend.

The ruling of the Court was later overturned and repudiated in a series of decisions handed down in the late 1930s. Specifically, Hammer v. Dagenhart was overruled in 1941 in the case of United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941). The Court in the Darby case sided strongly with Holmes' dissent, which they named "classic". They also recast the reading of the Tenth Amendment, regarding it as a "truism" that merely restates what the Constitution had already provided for, rather than offering a substantive protection to the States, as the Hammer ruling had contended.

The horrible decision here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=247&invol=251

5 Ridiculous Myths You Probably Believe About Schizophrenia

(yes original headline)


(heavily edited)

#5. It's Not Multiple Personalities

#4. Voices Don't Make You Do Terrible Things

#3. You Can't Necessarily Tell Who Has It

#2. The Medication is an Illness of Its Own

#1. The Bullshit People Believe Impacts Your Life More Than the Disorder

Flo, the Progressive Insurance lady, is actually a comedienne...

The things you learn when you're bored. I always assumed she was just a pitch lady.

Meet Progressive's Flo: Standup Comic Stephanie Courtney


from Steve, who brings you one more tidbit of useless trivia

I heard the singing of animals (crickets ? ) that you only hear during hot weather last night

I can't remember hearing the singing in March before. It's usually May before I hear the singing.

Is it crickets I'm hearing ? I live near a small pond. Thanks.

1895 SCOTUS: United States v. E.C. Knight Company, antitrust law cannot be enforced


The court's 8-1 decision, handed down on January 21, 1895 and written by Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller, went against the government. Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented.

The court held "that the result of the transaction was the creation of a monopoly in the manufacture of a necessary of life" but ruled that it "could not be suppressed under the provisions of the act". The court ruled that manufacturing—in this case, refining—was a local activity not subject to congressional regulation of interstate commerce. Fuller wrote:

That which belongs to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the United States, but that which does not belong to commerce is within the jurisdiction of the police power of the State. . . . Doubtless the power to control the manufacture of a given thing involves in a certain sense the control of its disposition, but . . . affects it only incidentally and indirectly.

Under the Knight decision, any action against manufacturing monopolies would need to be taken by individual states, making such regulation extremely difficult with regards to out-of-state monopolies because states are prohibited from discriminating against out-of-state goods by, among other things, the Dormant Commerce Clause and Article I section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling prevailed until the end of the 1930s, when the court took a different position on the national government's power to regulate the economy.

The horrible decision here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/156/1/case.html

Need help with sim card and Blu Win Jr W410A phone

Hi all, I'm a bit of a klutz with phones, so bear with me here.

I got this phone: http://www.bluproducts.com/index.php/win-jr

This is not a critical situation, since it's a second phone.

Anyway, it's unlocked and you have to insert your own mini-sim card from your carrier. I checked on the carrier's website and they say the line is activated. The phone has two slots for sim cards and one slot for an SD card. Here's the problem: With my last phone, it was super easy to insert the card and take it out. You simply put the sim card in with the electrical contacts face down, gently tap it in to make sure it was a good connection and close the case.

With this phone, you have to push the card into the slot, then slide it UNDERNEATH a plastic covering to make contact with the electronics. When I went to turn the phone on, it keeps telling me invalid sim card. I've tried to extract the damn sim card but it's so far up into the housing that it's going to take special surgery to get it out. Talk about poor design!

Anyway, I wanted to get feedback before I contact the phone manufacturer so I know what to say and what to ask.


eta: I figured out where I really messed up. The sim card my carrier sent me had the "Standard Sim" card (also known as a mini-sim card), with the "Micro Sim" card within it. You can push out the Micro-Sim card and use it alone if the Standard Sim card is too large. I should have used the larger Standard Sim card.

eta2: I think I've found the perfect tool to extract the inaccesible sim card

PELCO Slim Fine (tweezers)

Listerine mouthwash made bad breath a social no-no in the 1920's....


Listerine, for instance, was invented in the nineteenth century as powerful surgical antiseptic. It was later sold, in distilled form, as both a floor cleaner and a cure for gonorrhea. But it wasn't a runaway success until the 1920s, when it was pitched as a solution for "chronic halitosis"— a then obscure medical term for bad breath. Listerine's new ads featured forlorn young women and men, eager for marriage but turned off by their mate's rotten breath. "Can I be happy with him in spite of that?" one maiden asked herself. Until that time, bad breath was not conventionally considered such a catastrophe. But Listerine changed that. As the advertising scholar James B. Twitchell writes, "Listerine did not make mouthwash as much as it made halitosis." In just seven years, the company's revenues rose from $115,000 to more than $8 million.

If that's true, the things you learn on Wiki.

What song immediately puts you in a better mood ?

For me, right now, it's this one:

1883 SCOTUS racism: Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 3, African-Americans are second-class citizens


The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), were a group of five similar cases consolidated into one issue for the United States Supreme Court to review. The Court held that Congress lacked the constitutional authority under the enforcement provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals and organizations, rather than state and local governments.

More particularly, the Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which provided that "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude" was unconstitutional.

The Court, in an 8-1 decision by Justice Joseph P. Bradley, held that the language of the 14th Amendment, which prohibited denial of equal protection by a state, did not give Congress power to regulate these private acts, because it was the result of conduct by private individuals, not state law or action, that blacks were suffering. Section five empowers Congress only to enforce the prohibition on state action. Legislation by Congress on subjects which are within the domain of the state are not authorized by the 14th Amendment. Private acts of racial discrimination were simply private wrongs that the national government was powerless to correct. Bradley commented that “individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.”

The Court also acknowledged that the 13th Amendment does apply to private actors, but only to the extent that it prohibits people from owning slaves, not exhibiting discriminatory behavior. The Court said that "it would be running the slavery argument into the ground to make it apply to every act of discrimination which a person may see fit to make as to guests he will entertain, or as to the people he will take into his coach or cab or car; or admit to his concert or theatre, or deal with in other matters of intercourse or business."

The racist decision here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=109&page=3
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ... 206 Next »