It seems like clothes are all designed for banana-shaped women. Whenever I find something that fits nicely around my hips and bust, it balloons around my waist and I have to safety-pin it or wear a belt. Whenever I find anything that fits my waist, it's too tight around my bust and hips.The only thing that I've made work so far is this: low-rise jeans or shorts that don't touch my waist (then they only need to fit my hips, and it doesn't matter that my waist is small) paired with either a shirt that's too tight around my bust but fits my waist or a shirt that fits my bust but is too big around my waist, thus forcing me to wear a belt.It's really frustrating. Are there any stores that sell clothes for hourglass shapes? Does anyone have any tips on dressing as an hourglass?
Well. only if you consider that's what amendments are for a document that can mean anything means nothing at all Judges that modify the meaning of the Constitution are the most vile kind of scum. Laws and policy are for the legislature and the executive. the *only* thing that *UNELECTED* judges are supposed to do is rule if they conform to the constitution *as it was written* or not.. even if the way it was written was wrong or immoral It is not the job of the Judge to make law or policy!
Yes. The Constitution is a document that is supposed to change with the times (empowerment of Women and Minorities, Lowering the voting age to 18) as long as we stick with its principles. Although it is been threatened several times over the years, it is worth our time to remember the struggle it took to get it made in the first place and the country that was founded upon it.
I can see your pointhowever, for someone else to re-air a bunch of Imus stuff unauthorized is still copyright infringement.
Yes and no. The yes has two parts. First, as noted above, the framers expected it to be amended to adjust to changing conditions. As shown by the Eleventh and Twelfth Amendments, the founding fathers were quite willing to amend the Constitution when flaws in the original plan were revealed or conditions changed. Second, I believe that they understood that there would be changes that would require judges and legislators to decide how the old rules fit new circumstances. For example, to use a case from several years ago, how do you apply the Fourth Amendment rule against unreasonable searches and seizures to high tech devices like infrared surveillance and heat detectors. That requires considering whether the new methods of observation are sufficiently like old-fashioned searches (By the way, Justice Scalia was part of the majority which held that such high tech surveillance was a search). I do not think the framers saw the general terms of the Amendments as enacting specific rules locked in stone. A similar reasoning was used by Chief Justice John Marshall back in the early 1800s to approve the First Bank of the United States. The no part is that I do not think the Framers expected judges and legislators to ignore or re-write the basic concepts underlying the text. You can't make a horse into a person for Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence regardless of what a judge believes about specieism. Of course, some provisions do ask the judges to make value judgments (e.g. the cruel and unusual punishments clause, the reasonable search and seizure clause). Such clauses do invite a consideration of general standards but only to a very limited extent based on the principles intended by the framers.
NO!!!! Inalienable rights is just what it means . . . permanent, unchanging, eternal. It's interesting that people claim Bush is ignoring the Constitution, but can't think of one single right they've personally forfeited since 911. Yet they casually forget Janet Darth Vader Reno under Clinton, and episodes like the Branch Davidians, Elian Gonzales, and the national I.D. card proposed by the Democrats in the '90's. It was the Liberals that invented political correctness (i.e. limits to free speech) in the first place. Utter hypocrisy.
