User talk:Johndodd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "Welcome" Letter :-)

Welcome!

Hello, Johndodd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Tawker 23:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for fixing that table on my user page. Jtrost 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not said in Talk:Judicial activism when I realized the poster probably wasn't coming back.

After reading the article Common Law I realized from where the Supreme Court would get the notion that they could use "Foreign Law" in U.S. rulings. Common Law at it root is uncodified and derives from what is, according to community standards, commonly held to be just . At the inception of the US Supreme Court, The Court had Common Law as its basis and a new document, The United States Constitution, to interpret. What if not Common Law could the original justices use to make their rulings? And is it therefore not in keeping with "Originial Settings" and "Fundamental President" for the current Court to acknowledge the broader Global Community in which we live?

Not. Quite. First, judicial activism is a charge made in the face of a judge interpreting statutes: acts of legislatures. It's a claim that -- using whatever model of statutory interpretation the judge applies (and there are arguably between three and five competing with one another in the U.S. at the present) -- the judge has enacted his own policy choices over those of the legislature that passed the law way back when, the legislature today, popular political opinion, or the public conception of how a particular law is "supposed to work".

The accusing side says, "X ambiguous provision in this law means Y, and if you interpreted laws according to A school of statutory interpretation, you'd reach that result." And the other side says, "No, X really means Z, and the judge used B school of interpretation." And it gets really weird when, on another issue side X says the judge should have used B to reach their preferred Y outcome, when he got to conclusion Z by doing A.

I think that's why we at Wikipedia are having such a hard time coming up with something we can agree on.

Second, under any modern constitution in a country that has a common law -- to the extent the legislature does not violate entrenched laws that limit the legislature's power -- the legislature and not the courts decide what the law is. Violent felonies were established as crimes by courts in England. Today, nearly the whole of criminal law is governed by statute. There are few bastions left where judge-made law is the norm. And even there legislatures could step in and enact comprehensive statutes taking control of the law in those fields as well.

With that out of the way, more directly to your question... The canon of what English judge-made law would have precidential value (i.e., would bind U.S. courts) was closed when the colonies declared their independence. After that, any new developments in the British Empire didn't control what went on in American courts. Between the English case law that was expropriated, the laws of the colonial and early state courts, and the statutory laws of the colonies, states, and new federal government, there federal judiciary and the state courts in the new federal system had plenty to work with.

The areas where you see judges using foreign and international law are the rather obvious places where international rights are implicated: treaties and international transactions. It's more controversial when treaties aren't self-executing (i.e., all the treaty says is, "Countries H, I, J, and K agree to pass laws in their respective legislatures that say P, Q, R, and S."). And it's most controversially raised in the context of the Eighth Amendment (the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment). There are some judges that say, like you suggest, "We should look to our international peers to see what they say is cruel and unusual," but even in this case, they aren't taking a German decision to be binding precident on them. Conversely, there are judges who say we should look to particular other sources to define cruel and unusual.

I think your confusion is an example of why any discussion of judicial activism needs to start with a more thorough treatment of the competing theories of statutory interpretation in this country.

Johndodd 15:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IL. SUP CT.

Actually, Mcmorrow just got done being Chief Justice, Thomas is it now, i think User:Briaboru

[edit] Image:Unofficialpeoria.svg

Please add a self-licensed tag to Image:Unofficialpeoria.svg in addition to the logo one, so that there's no doubt you're releasing your own SVG work. I think this is the first openly available vector image of the city logo. For what it's worth, I can't seem to find any trademarks for the City of Peoria itself at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website ([1]), but the Indian-head logo has been used on city letterhead, flags, and vehicles for at least a decade or two. --Closeapple 06:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know you could do multiple license tags on an image. I guess there's no reason you couldn't.
If it turns out there's no restriction on the logo, I'll break that off the flag, and put it in another file. I just wish there was a good reference drawing of the official city flag.
Johndodd 06:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, they've been using that logo for quite some time, and it's on everything official pretty much, except the police cars now. You could commit a zoning violation and get free letterhead for the logo, but there's probably a less complicated way. There might be a flag hanging inside City Hall that you could measure. --Closeapple 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grifo Mágico

Hi. I'm not sure about if it is an optical illusion, you can remove it from the article. The "sculpture" is in a aquatic park in Spain. It is a famous optical effect, and this sculpture isn't special over others. If you find the perfect place for it, say me. I don't consider it a feature picture because it was a speedy shot :(. Cheers --Emijrp 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Bow tie

Hi,

You may have an interest, since I saw your name in the history list of the Bow tie article: There's a separate article, List of bow tie wearers and an admin is suggesting deleting it. When I looked into the Bow tie page, I found there's already a list there. I don't have an opinion on which list should remain, but one really should go. I'd appreciate your advice on the Talk:Bow tie page, if you're interested and have the time.Noroton 00:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually used to know one of the guys on the "List of" page (he was wearing bow ties back then when we were both just out of college). I can't believe there's a Wikipedia page on him. When the lists get merged, I'm sure someone will take him off, and the fact is, I'd have to agree. When I started looking into it, Google came up with the "bow tie" nickname for the Chevrolet logo, something I'd never heard of before. I hope somehow, some way, that remains, whether or not people like Chevy cars on the list. Thanks for contributing, by the way: You've done your part to uphold civilization (as for bow ties themselves, well, I never had much use for them).Noroton 01:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bow tie business again

My idea of polling people on what they want with the bow-tie articles hasn't exactly worked perfectly. I don't see much of a consensus for moving the list to one page or the other, so I'm going to try this: I'll cut down the list on the Bow tie main page to a summary and make sure everything is on the List of bow tie wearers page sometime late this week unless I hear a strong objection from those, like you, who have suggested otherwise. I think (hope) that's an acceptable resolution. Feel free to speak up if I'm all wet.Noroton 20:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bundestag graph

I used Microsoft Excel to make the Bundestag graph as a pie chart -- I can send you an example spreadsheet or describe the process if you are thinking of making something similar for another article or project.

The inner ring represents the pre-election party balance for comparison (the number in parentheses). I use a half-circle for both rings because I've seen more examples like that in the past, I think. Willhsmit 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To arms! To arms!

The List of bow tie wearers page has been nominated for article deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers) and there are already seven deletionists surrounding me. Are you, a contributor to that page (and to the discussion on the Bow tie page back in October) gonna let them do that?!? Defend our page! Go there to vote to uphold truth, justice and the civilized way! Noroton 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New WikiProject Illinois Collaboration Division

Hey, saw you were a participant in the Illinois WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Unofficialpeoria.svg

Hello Johndodd, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Unofficialpeoria.svg) was found at the following location: User:Johndodd. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Illinois 2007 Census

The WikiProject Illinois 2007 membership census has concluded. If you did not add your name during the last week, you were declared "inactive" in the project, your name is still listed at The Participants Page. You can change your status by replacing {{member inactive}} with {{active}} in the table. Any members should also feel free to fill in any missing details on the list below.

IvoShandor 11:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)