Date added:	2009-08-28	Posted by:	ancient
Brand:	Hitachi	Firmware:	N/A
Model number:	HDS728080PLAT20	Manufacture date:	N/A
Model name / serie:	N/A	Buffersize:	2 MB
Drive size:	80 GB	RPM:	N/A
XBOX version:	v1.0	Progam(s):	XboxHDM
		Locking:	Yes
Additional notes:		Report this entry - Edit
No problem at all. Using this hdd for about ~9 months.

#1 - posted by (198.245.5*.*)

2014-01-08 11:58:01

It seems to me that when Congress legislates in an area, but stetas that it does not intend to limit the President's constitutional power, we're really in Youngstown category II and 1/2. On the one hand, Congress hasn't left the area an open field or displayed inertia, indifference or quiescence (Category II) it has made its views known. On the other hand, acting outside Congress's framework wouldn't necessarily be incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress (Category III) because Congress has acknowledged that the President has the power (of an undefined scope) to do so. The absence of an exclusivity provision does not, in itself, put us in Category II. After all, there was no exclusivity provision in the laws at issue in Youngstown. Of course, there was no clause expressly reserving the President's constitutional power, either. But the ultimate test of II v. III is whether (and, I would argue, to what degree) the President's actions are incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress. If the President disregarded the FISA framework wholesale,would this be incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress? Just An Observer cites the pre-1978 legislative history for the proposition that under the proposed Act Congress would have abandoned the field. But what about the text of the proposed Act? The Findings section stetas: It is . . . essential . . . that in protecting us against our enemies, the President does not compromise the very civil liberties that he seeks to safeguard. It then goes on to quote Jackson's concurrence at length, as well as O'Connor's concurrence in Hamdi that the state of war is not a blank check for the President. Doesn't that imply that Congress does not intend for the President's powers to conduct electronic surrveillance to be unchecked?To put it another way: Assume that the repeal of the exclusivity provision does put us in Youngstown category II. Isn't it clear that, in Congress's view, the President's category II authority to conduct electronic surveillance is not unlimited? And doesn't Jackson's framework require us to give weight to Congress's will, even if we might have otherwise thought that the President's category II power was unchecked? I don't mean to deny that the proposed Amendment would greatly expand the President's powers to conduct electronic suveillance (far beyond what I would want to see). But I'm skeptical that, as Balkin and Lederman argue, it would give him a blank check. That's certainly not how I would rule if I were a judge presented with the issue.

#2 - posted by (193.40.21*.*)	2014-01-09 20:37:17
Just what the doctor <a href="http://cmxiidzg.com">orreded,</a> thankity you!

#3 - posted by (213.46.19*.*)	2014-02-05 11:18:49
Heckuva good job. comparehealthinsur.com health insurance life insurance cost bestlifeinsurpolicy.com I it. sure levitra cost per pill heliomeds.com levitra prices appreciate

#4 - posted by (79.117.2*.*)	2014-03-01 13:18:50
In theory, no-fault insurance is designed to do away with many of the annoying and time-consuming delays that are found in the fault QuotesChimp.