DiscussMormonism.com

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:01 pm**

1. For Droopy: does Article I of the Constitution give Congress the authority to create the Air Force? Why or why not?

2. For subgenius: can either the state or federal government force a married couple to have a baby? Why or why not?

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:52 pm**

Give 'em a break. Make it multiple choice...

Posted: **Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:27 am**

Given the information in this article:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/fl-boca-squatting-in-style-20130122,0,1530279.story

Does the disseisor meet the qualifications for adverse possession?

:lol:

Posted: **Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:06 pm**

bcspace wrote:Given the information in this article:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/fl-boca-squatting-in-style-20130122,0,1530279.story

Does the disseisor meet the qualifications for adverse possession?

You motherboard.

No.

The Florida adverse possession period as stated in the article is 7 years.

The article was published on January 24, 2013.

Neighbors say the presumed record owners had only been absent for about 18 months.

The new occupant was first noticed the day after Christmas or about a month ago.

Count on your fingers if you need to motherboard but if you are going to grow up to be a computer programer you need to learn basic arithmatic.

Now, speaking of the US Airforce.

Posted: **Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:52 pm**

Darth J wrote:2. For subgenius: can either the state or federal government force a married couple to have a baby? Why or why not?

Please, clarify what you mean by "force".
Physical force? Psychological force? Coercion? incentives? etc...
I mean, do you intend force as it applies to penalty or reward? or as Pavlov?
FORCE, the transitive verb vs [url=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reinforcement]reinFORCE the noun ?

I do not think "force" is an appropriate term...but the government certainly does encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege.

Please, note :
D v A (1845) 163 ER 1039
Potter v Potter (1975) 5 Fam Law 161, CA
A v J (Nullity) [1989] 1 FLR 110, Anthony Lincoln J

oh and for our UK members
Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

If i recall the news correctly, i believe the legal definition of consummation and its necessary involvement in a "legal marriage" is a bit of an obstacle in the UK, prompting many LGBT to call for its removal from their law - which is like blind people protesting the vision test for a driver's license.

i particularly enjoy the notion of "ordinary and complete"

Now, all that being said, for you "civil contract" folks.......if sexual relations (whether same-sex or incestuous or polygamous...etc), whether procreative or not, have no influence on a marriage contract or property rights, then what can be the only qualification for a marriage license???...just that they be of some arbitrary legal age and be consenting?...which is actually the point of my Legal Eagles thread....

It would seem that the LGBT are not concerned with marriage at all but rather they are concerned that marriage be redefined, (as seen in the UK where they literally want it redefined), watered down, and bastardized to a "new" definition - basically the definition of a civil union....ironic.

Posted: **Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:57 pm**

Darth J wrote:1. For Droopy: does Article I of the Constitution give Congress the authority to create the Air Force? Why or why not?

2. For subgenius: can either the state or federal government force a married couple to have a baby? Why or why not?

I like how your arrogance is so misguided...notwithstanding the obvious "loaded questions" above...it should be asked of you (though you are incapable of a sincere respsonse)

1. does article I of the Constitution PROHIBIT Congress the authority to create the Air Force? why or why not?

2. can either the state or federal government be PROHIBITED from forcing a married couple to have a baby? why or why not? (though arguably the phrase should be imposed upon a qualification of marriage).

Posted: **Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:00 pm**

bcspace wrote:Given the information in this article:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/fl-boca-squatting-in-style-20130122,0,1530279.story

Does the disseisor meet the qualifications for adverse possession?

This does not have anything to do with constitutional law.

Posted: **Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:15 pm**

subgenius wrote:I do not think "force" is an appropriate term...but the government certainly does encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege.

Please, note :
D v A (1845) 163 ER 1039
Potter v Potter (1975) 5 Fam Law 161, CA
A v J (Nullity) [1989] 1 FLR 110, Anthony Lincoln J

Potter v Potter (1975) 5 Fam Law 161, CA
H and W married, and found W was physically unable to consummate the marriage. W underwent surgery and they tried again, but were prevented by W's emotional state. H then declined to try further and W petitioned for annulment on the grounds of H's wilful refusal. The judge dismissed the petition and W's appeal also failed: H's refusal was the result of his loss of sexual ardour rather than a deliberate decision.

A v J (Nullity) [1989] 1 FLR 110, Anthony Lincoln J
H and W were of Indian ancestry and took part in an arranged civil marriage, which was to be followed by a religious ceremony some four months later. Between the two ceremonies they spent only a few days together because of H's work in the USA. Shortly before the religious ceremony (which it was accepted was a prerequisite to consummation), W refused to go ahead with it, giving as her reason H's apparently uncaring and unloving attitude towards her. H apologised and said he had supposed a formal relationship would be appropriate until they were "properly married", but W refused to accept this apology and maintained her refusal to go through with the religious ceremony. H was granted a decree of nullity for W's wilful refusal to consummate the marriage.

Despite Subgenius' assertion that these cases show that the government does "encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege," these cases do nothing of the sort. Subby is out to luch, as usual

Posted: **Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:25 pm**

subgenius wrote:
Darth J wrote:2. For subgenius: can either the state or federal government force a married couple to have a baby? Why or why not?

Please, clarify what you mean by "force".
Physical force? Psychological force? Coercion? incentives? etc...
I mean, do you intend force as it applies to penalty or reward? or as Pavlov?
FORCE, the transitive verb vs [url=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reinforcement]reinFORCE the noun ?

I do not think "force" is an appropriate term...but the government certainly does encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege.

Please, note :
D v A (1845) 163 ER 1039

An 1845 case from Scotland? Really? Really?

Potter v Potter (1975) 5 Fam Law 161, CA
A v J (Nullity) [1989] 1 FLR 110, Anthony Lincoln J

oh and for our UK members
Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

If i recall the news correctly, i believe the legal definition of consummation and its necessary involvement in a "legal marriage" is a bit of an obstacle in the UK, prompting many LGBT to call for its removal from their law - which is like blind people protesting the vision test for a driver's license.

i particularly enjoy the notion of "ordinary and complete"

This has nothing to do with the OP. The OP is asking about the United States Constitution. Family law in the United Kingdom is not relevant to that.

Now, all that being said, for you "civil contract" folks.......if sexual relations (whether same-sex or incestuous or polygamous...etc), whether procreative or not, have no influence on a marriage contract or property rights, then what can be the only qualification for a marriage license???...

It's not a requirement for a marriage license at all. If it were, it would mean you have to have sex before you can get married.

just that they be of some arbitrary legal age and be consenting?...which is actually the point of my Legal Eagles thread....

The answer is yes, subgenius. A state government does in fact get to arbitrarily define marriage. I'm sorry to inform you there is no objective, eternal truth in this matter, and that the legal institution of marriage in the United States was not started by Heavenly Father in the Garden of Eden. However, once a state does define marriage, it has to give equal protection of law to all persons within that state. That is actually the point of the 14th Amendment.

It would seem that the LGBT are not concerned with marriage at all but rather they are concerned that marriage be redefined, (as seen in the UK where they literally want it redefined), watered down, and bastardized to a "new" definition - basically the definition of a civil union....ironic.

This does not have anything to do with family law or constitutional law in the United States.

I like how your arrogance is so misguided...notwithstanding the obvious "loaded questions" above...it should be asked of you (though you are incapable of a sincere respsonse)

A loaded question is one that suggests a particular answer. Both of the questions in the OP are completely open-ended.

1. does article I of the Constitution PROHIBIT Congress the authority to create the Air Force? why or why not?

That is exactly the opposite of how the Constitution works. Article I, section 8 and the 10th Amendment limit Congress to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Congress does not get to do whatever it wants unless it is prohibited. Congress only gets to do what it is specifically allowed to do. That is the whole point of having enumerated powers.

2. can either the state or federal government be PROHIBITED from forcing a married couple to have a baby? why or why not? (though arguably the phrase should be imposed upon a qualification of marriage).

This is the same question as the OP is asking, simply phrased a different way.

Posted: **Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:26 pm**

Molok wrote:Despite Subgenius' assertion that these cases show that the government does "encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege," these cases do nothing of the sort. Subby is out to luch, as usual.

Yes, they are off point in substance, and THEY ARE NOT FROM THE UNITED STATES.

DiscussMormonism.com

For our constitutional scholars, Droopy and subgenius

For our constitutional scholars, Droopy and subgenius

Re: For our constitutional scholars, Droopy and subgenius

Re: For our constitutional scholars, Droopy and subgenius

Re: For our constitutional scholars, Droopy and subgenius

Re: For our constitutional scholars, Droopy and subgenius

Re: For our constitutional scholars, Droopy and subgenius

Re: For our constitutional scholars, Droopy and subgenius

Re: For our constitutional scholars, Droopy and subgenius

Re: For our constitutional scholars, Droopy and subgenius

Re: For our constitutional scholars, Droopy and subgenius