Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #1 

Former Chief Justice of Minnesota Supreme Court supports a Rebuttable Presumption of Shared Parenting.  Watch a two minute edited segment of the interview below:

 


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
BBW

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 357
Reply with quote  #2 
Bryan,
 I assume you forwarded this to a few "special" people in Des Moines?


__________________
The amount of success you have in solving a problem is directly proportional to the amount of constructive energy you put into solving it.
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #3 

As a matter of fact, the two minute edited segment of the interview posted above shall be emailed to each legislator in the State of Iowa!


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Kds

Member
Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #4 

http://printcalendartemplates.com/


http://bestheadlightbulbs.net/


http://spotifypremiumapp.com/


http://printcalendartemplates.com/printable-calendar-2018/

 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!