Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (339)	9/7/2006 9:43:40 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Ironic that the Plaintiff's name is "Loving." LOL! In another twist of fate, the name of the Plaintiff in the SCOTUS case that struck down anti-"miscegenation" laws was also Loving. Loving vs. Virginia. I always think about that when I see the "Virginia is for lovers" ads. Well, once upon a time I would have said that law is toast, but with the new Supreme Court, and Justice Stevens' age, who knows?

To: one_less who wrote (339)	9/8/2006 11:28:59 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project filed a lawsuit today on behalf of a family that was denied a permit to live in the city of Black Jack because of a law that prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by “blood, marriage or adoption.” “The City of Black Jack’s behavior is both pompous and unconstitutional,” said Brenda Jones, Executive Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. “Black Jack’s attempt to criminalize people’s choice to live together as a family has earned international ridicule for Missouri.” I oppose such laws, but I can't find any good argument that they are unconstitutional. As a federal law I think it would be clearly unconstitutional but the feds are more limited under the constitution than the states are.