Main · Videos; Dating british men tips speech impaired dating service · dating a large man · abase in a sentence yahoo dating · a biblical reformation of dating. Main · Videos; Best free dating sites singapore abase in a sentence yahoo dating · echipament echitatie online dating · free dating websites in portsmouth. and he answered, “When thou atest dates and threwest away the Arab. meaning “the Mother of Amir,” a nickname for the hyena, which bites the hand that feeds it. There upon the Evil Spirit softened his voice and smoothed his speech and abased himself, Can this have originated Swift's “Yahoo”?.
Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee? Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are? All you need is something that produces a high enough voltage, like a big van der Graaff generator. Her God impression was getting scarily on point. Canst thou put an hook into his nose? Will he make many supplications unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? First He is talking about the earth and the stars and the clouds, and then He decides no, I will just drop everything and focus on Leviathan for three chapters.
God spends three of them studying Torah, three judging the world, three answering prayers, and three playing with Leviathan. Like a giant whale or something, right? So God is saying we need to be able to make whales submit to us and serve us and dance for us and stuff?
We have totally done that. It says he has scales and a strong neck. But then the question becomes — exactly how smart do we have to be to deserve an answer?
Now that we can, as Bill puts it, send lightning through the sky, now that we can capture whales and make them do tricks for us, does that mean we have a right to ask God for an explanation? That we are maybe not smart enough.
Like when kids ask about lightning, we say that the clouds rub up against each other and make sparks. Canst thou graduate college? When the dishwasher breaketh, is it thou who repairest it? Other than doctors, I mean. Job is asking this very reasonable question — how come I, a righteous man, have been made to suffer immensely?
Why would you do that?
Bad things happen to most people, but maybe it is not because of bet between God and Satan at all times? Where do we go? They knew if I hear the real answer, I would start crying, become upset, maybe run away.
Maybe the real reason God allows evil is something terrible. Maybe He is trying to protect us from knowing something. For example, he tells the story of the time when he was traveling to a town, and no one would let him stay in the inn, so he tried to camp in the woods, but his fire went out and he was alone in the cold and the darkness.
But that night, a bunch of bandits raided the town and killed and enslaved everybody. Yes, sometimes some suffering is necessary to prevent even greater suffering, but then you ask why there has to be the greater suffering, and if you keep pushing it back further then eventually you get to the greatest suffering of all and the buck stops there.
Therefore, the righteous suffer on Earth.
Dred Scott v. Sandford :: 60 U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
But even the Hell-bound wicked have a few virtues. Therefore, the wicked prosper on Earth. Then people ask why the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper, and it looks like a mystery, but it actually makes total sense. It seems more like suffering happens at random regardless of how good a person you are. There are certainly bad people who just fulfill their natural selfishness without having any good to get in the way.
They just do what the system tells them, follow their incentives with no concern for the consequences. But then there are other people. People who delight in causing other people pain.
I beg to differ. Any of you ever read about what the Japanese did to the Chinese in Nanking? The Nazis, you know, mostly they just wanted some people dead and went about it in a horrifically efficient way. The Japanese, they enjoyed it. They worked hard on it. They deviated from efficiency, from self-interest, they sacrificed their own self-interest to be as perfectly cruel as possible.
Thamiel and his demons. It was in this big hall. First the President came in, and they all played the Star-Spangled Banner. Then Thamiel came in, and the band played…played the anthem of Hell. They were all out of tune and fighting with each other and going at weird intervals that tricked the ear and made me want to pull my hair out.
Everyone except Ana laughed. Everyone made approving noises except Pirindiel, who asked something about where one could find these garlic angels, and who had to be taken aside and given a quick explanation. The angel took some pasta and half-heartedly put it in his cup of soup. We think we know what we have to do. On a political level this all makes sense.
But on a theological level, even Reverend Stevens barely touched this. Why does God have these Names that work miracles, but not tell us what they are? Why does He suffer them to be distributed throughout a namespace that can only be searched through a combination of cryptological acumen and brute force?
Why does He permit them to be hidden by klipot, by which they can be bought and sold without letting the customer grasp their true structure? On a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State, the judgment below was reversed and the case remanded to the Circuit Court, where it was continued to await the decision of the case now in question. The declaration of Scott contained three counts: Sandford appeared, and filed the following plea: Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court.
Sandford, in his own proper person, comes and says that this court ought not to have or take further cognizance of the action aforesaid, because he says that said cause of action and each and every of them if any such have accrued to the said Dred Scott accrued to the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction of this court, and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Missouri, for that, to-wit: Wherefore, he prays judgment whether this court can or will take further cognizance of the action aforesaid.
In May,the defendant, in pursuance of an agreement between counsel, and with the leave of the court, pleaded in bar of the action: That the plaintiff was a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendant, and, as such, the defendant gently laid his hands upon him, and thereby had only restrained him, as the defendant had a right to do.
That with respect to the wife and daughters of the plaintiff, in the second and third counts of the declaration mentioned, the defendant had, as to them, only acted in the same manner and in virtue of the same legal right.
The counsel then filed the following agreed statement of facts, viz: In the yearthe plaintiff was a negro slave belonging to Dr.
Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. I n that year,said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April or May, At the time last mentioned, said Dr.
Emerson removed the plaintiff from said military post at Rock Island to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the Territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States of France, and situate north of the latitude of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north, and north of the State of Missouri. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Snelling, from said last-mentioned date until the year In the yearHarriet, who is named in the second count of the plaintiff's declaration, was the negro slave of Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the army of the United States.
Emerson held said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Snelling until the year In the yearthe plaintiff and said Harriet at said Fort Snelling, with the consent of said Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be their master and owner, intermarried, and took each other for husband and wife. Eliza and Lizzie, named in the third count of the plaintiff's declaration, are the fruit of that marriage.
Eliza is about fourteen years old, and was born on board the steamboat Gipsey, north of the north line of the State of Missouri, and upon the river Mississippi.
Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the State of Missouri, at the military post called Jefferson Barracks. In the yearsaid Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said Harriet and their said daughter Eliza from said Fort Snelling to the State of Missouri, where they have ever since resided. Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, said Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, to the defendant, as slaves, and the defendant has ever since claimed to hold them and each of them as slaves.
At the times mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration, the defendant, claiming to be owner as aforesaid, laid his hands upon said plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, and imprisoned them, doing in this respect, however, no more than what he might lawfully do if they were of right his slaves at such times. Further proof may be given on the trial for either party. Louis county; that there was a verdict and judgment in his favor; that, on a writ of error to the Supreme Court, the judgment below was reversed, and the same remanded to the Circuit Court, where it has been continued to await the decision of this case.
In May,the cause went before a jury, who found the following verdict, viz: After an ineffectual motion for a new trial, the plaintiff filed the following bill of exceptions. On the trial of this cause by the jury, the plaintiff, to maintain the issues on his part, read to the jury the following agreed statement of facts, see agreement above.
No further testimony was given to the jury by either party. Thereupon the plaintiff moved the court to give to the jury the following instruction, viz: The court refused to give such instruction to the jury, and the plaintiff, to such refusal, then and there duly excepted. Upon these exceptions, the case came up to this court.
Supreme Court Scott v. This case has been twice argued. After the argument at the last term, differences of opinion were found to exist among the members of the court, and as the questions in controversy are of the highest importance, and the court was at that time much pressed by the ordinary business of the term, it was deemed advisable to continue the case and direct a re-argument on some of the points in order that we might have an opportunity of giving to the whole subject a more deliberate consideration.
It has accordingly been again argued by counsel, and considered by the court; and I now proceed to deliver its opinion. There are two leading questions presented by the record: Had the Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction to hear and determine the case between these parties? If it had jurisdiction, is the judgment it has given erroneous or not?
The plaintiff in error, who was also the plaintiff in the court below, was, with his wife and children, held as slaves by the defendant in the State of Missouri, and he brought this action in the Circuit Court of the United States for that district to assert the title of himself and his family to freedom. The declaration is in the form usually adopted in that State to try questions of this description, and contains the averment necessary to give the court jurisdiction; that he and the defendant are citizens of different States; that is, that he is a citizen of Missouri, and the defendant a citizen of New York.
The defendant pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, being a negro of African descent, whose ancestors were of pure African blood and who were brought into this country and sold as slaves.
To this plea the plaintiff demurred, and the defendant joined in demurrer. The court overruled the plea, and gave judgment that the defendant should answer over. And he thereupon put in sundry pleas in bar, upon which issues were joined, and at the trial the verdict and judgment were in his favor.
Whereupon the plaintiff brought this writ of error. Before we speak of the pleas in bar, it will be proper to dispose of the questions which have arisen on the plea in abatement. That plea denies the right of the plaintiff to sue in a court of the United States, for the reasons therein stated. If the question raised by it is legally before us, and the court should be of opinion that the facts stated in it disqualify the plaintiff from becoming a citizen, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, then the judgment of the Circuit Court is erroneous, and must be reversed.
It is suggested, however, that this plea is not before us, and that, as the judgment in the court below on this plea was in favor of the plaintiff, he does not seek to reverse it, or bring it before the court for revision by his writ of error, and also that the defendant waived this defence by pleading over, and thereby admitted the jurisdiction of the court. This peculiar and limited jurisdiction has made it necessary, in these courts, to adopt different rules and principles of pleading, so far as jurisdiction is concerned, from those which regulate courts of common law in England and in the different States of the Union which have adopted the common law rules.
In these last-mentioned courts, where their character and rank are analogous to that of a Circuit Court of the United States -- in other words, where they are what the law terms courts of general jurisdiction -- they are presumed to have jurisdiction unless the contrary appears. No averment in the pleadings of the plaintiff is necessary, in order to give jurisdiction. If the defendant objects to it, he must plead it specially, and unless the fact on which he relies is found to be true by a jury, or admitted to be true by the plaintiff, the jurisdiction cannot be disputed in an appellate court.
Now it is not necessary to inquire whether, in courts of that description, a party who pleads over in bar when a plea to the jurisdiction has been ruled against him does or does not waive his plea, nor whether, upon a judgment in his favor on the pleas in bar and a writ of error brought by the plaintiff, the question upon the plea in abatement would be open for revision in the appellate court. Cases that may have been decided in such courts, or rules that may have been laid down by common law pleaders, can have no influence in the decision in this court.
Because, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the rules which govern the pleadings in its courts in questions of jurisdiction stand on different principles, and are regulated by different laws. This difference arises, as we have said, from the peculiar character of the Government of the United States. For although it is sovereign and supreme in its appropriate sphere of action, yet it does not possess all the powers which usually belong to the sovereignty of a nation.
Certain specified powers, enumerated in the Constitution, have been conferred upon it, and neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial departments of the Government can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked out by the Constitution.
And in regulating the judicial department, the cases in which the courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction are particularly and specifically enumerated and defined, and they are not authorized to take cognizance of any case which does not come within the description therein specified. Hence, when a plaintiff sues in a court of the United States, it is necessary that he should Page 60 U. And if he omits to do this, and should, by any oversight of the Circuit Court, obtain a judgment in his favor, the judgment would be reversed in the appellate court for want of jurisdiction in the court below.
The jurisdiction would not be presumed, as in the case of a common law English or State court, unless the contrary appeared. But the record, when it comes before the appellate court, must show affirmatively that the inferior court had authority under the Constitution to hear and determine the case. And if the plaintiff claims a right to sue in a Circuit Court of the United States under that provision of the Constitution which gives jurisdiction in controversies between citizens of different States, he must distinctly aver in his pleading that they are citizens of different States, and he cannot maintain his suit without showing that fact in the pleadings.
This point was decided in the case of Bingham v. Cabot, in 3 Dall. And in Jackson v. It is needless to accumulate cases on this subject. Those already referred to, and the cases of Capron v. Van Noorden, in 2 Cr. Van Noorden strikingly illustrates the difference between a common law court and a court of the United States. If, however, the fact of citizenship is averred in the declaration, and the defendant does not deny it and put it in issue by plea in abatement, he cannot offer evidence at the trial to disprove it, and consequently cannot avail himself of the objection in the appellate court unless the defect should be apparent in some other part of the record.
For if there is no plea in abatement, and the want of jurisdiction does not appear in any other part of the transcript brought up by the writ of error, the undisputed averment of citizenship in the declaration must be taken in this court to be true. In this case, the citizenship is averred, but it is denied by the defendant in the manner required by the rules of pleading, and the fact upon which the denial is based is admitted by the demurrer.
And, if the plea and demurrer, and judgment of the court below upon it, are before us upon this record, the question to be decided is whether the facts stated in the plea are sufficient to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue as a citizen in a court of the United States.Learn English Words - Chivalrous (Vocabulary Cartoons for Children)
The plea in abatement and the judgment of the court upon it are a part of the judicial proceedings in the Circuit Court and are there recorded as such, and a writ of error always brings up to the superior court the whole record of the proceedings in the court below.
And in the case of the United States v. And this being the case in the present instance, the plea in abatement is necessarily under consideration, and it becomes, therefore, our duty to decide whether the facts stated in the plea are or are not sufficient to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue as a citizen in a court of the United States.
This is certainly a very serious question, and one that now for the first time has been brought for decision before this court. Such linguistic constituents may include the syntactic constituents, the semantics, and so forth. The logical operations begin at scanning operation where the fact extraction tool scans the electronic document to find words or phrases matching those of a fact- word table.
A fact- word table is a list of words or phrases that are known to likely be used when expressing a fact as opposed to an opinion for example. Table 2 shows a brief example. Note that to provide optimal processing performance, the words of the table may be associated with the most appropriate part of speech POS tag which is discussed below in relation to tag operation Table 2 Research has been done to determine words that are suggestive of facts rather than opinions.
For example, the class of words that introduce facts can be derived using research and work on the classification of verbs and their lexical functions. Two relevant papers that may be used as a material to do so include: Thus, on the basis of such research, the fact-word list as shown in Table 2 may be constructed to include those verbs or other words that are suggestive of a fact expression as opposed to a non-fact.
Chapter 5: Never Seek To Tell Thy Love
For example, the terms "invented" or "hired" are suggestive of a fact expression whereas the terms "can be" or "complains" are not. A particular example of a fact-word list can be found in Appendix A located at the end of this specification.
This particular example is a non-exhaustive list of verbs that are fact-words that may be used to discover factual descriptions in electronic documents. Either upon application of the fact-word table to an electronic document, or in parallel with the application of the fact- word table such as where the POS Tag is already associated with the words in the fact- word table, the parts of speech POS of each of the words of each factual description are tagged at tag operation This tagging operationwhich may occur in parallel with or subsequent to scan operationmay involve making disambiguating choices for words which have more than one POS tag, such as by favoring a noun tag over a verb tag since it is understood that syntactic phrases like noun phrases are known to be the entities involved in a factual event.
Any unknown and non-pre- tagged words may default to nouns for this reason as well. As with nouns, adjectives may be favored over verbs e. When creating the associations of the POS Tags to the words of the fact-word table, such as when creating the table, these disambiguating choices may already be applied so that, for instance, "planned" is associated with an adjective POS Tag in the table and not a verb POS Tag.
Once the factual descriptions have been found and the words of the factual descriptions have been tagged with the POS, then the more complete analysis may be performed to improve the accuracy of the fact extraction without requiring that the entire document be subjected to this more complete processing.
At identification operationsyntactic phrases like noun phrases and verb phrases are identified. The syntactic phrases are identified by utilizing conventional grammar rules and light linguistic analysis. Those syntactic phrases that are in the neighborhood, i.
Thus, by focusing on only those syntactic phrases that are in the neighborhood of the factual description, the process avoids looking at all the linguistic constituents of a whole sentence. Furthermore, at identification operationthe linguistic constituents of the factual descriptions having the neighboring syntactic phrases are further determined by assessing the role a syntactic phrase plays within the corresponding sentence based on the pattern identified in the factual description.
Thus, it is determined from the word pattern of the factual description whether the syntactic phrase plays the role of subject or object within the sentence containing the current factual description being analyzed. Once the linguistic constituents of the factual descriptions are determined, i.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
The exclusion rules may be applicable on the basis of a syntactic phrase as an object, a syntactic phrase as a subject, or a syntactic phrase without regard to its role.
Furthermore, in this particular embodiment, an exclusion rule being applied to individual words, to the syntactic phrases, or to the whole sentence lead to the same result, which is to exclude the whole sentence from being a factual description.
An example of exclusion rules that may be applied is shown in Table 3. Table 3 Either upon application of the exclusion rules, or in parallel with the application of the exclusion rules, scoring rules are applied at scoring operation The scoring rules give a weight to both the subject and object noun phrases for each of various features, and a total score for the candidate factual description is the sum of the individual feature weights plus the certainty score of the matching fact-word.
The individual feature weights may be positive, when indicative of a fact, and may be negative, when indicative of a non-fact. Examples of features and associated scoring rules are provided below in Table 4.
The feature scores may be manually assigned using human judgment or may be automatically learned. Table 4 The total score for the factual description is then compared to a pre-defined threshold to determine whether the total score exceeds the threshold at query operation If the threshold is not exceeded, then the corresponding factual description may be discarded. This presentation may include displaying the fact, saving the fact to a library, and so forth.
In this manner, the degree of accuracy of fact extraction and presentation can be controlled while the processing steps remain the same. Search terms have been entered in search field to conduct the search. The search term has been matched to various web site links available from the Internet. The user may visit the electronic documents in the normal fashion.
Additionally, facts, and about the search term are displayed in section Accordingly, a user can quickly spot facts about the subject of the search without having to visit any of the electronic documents that have been found and without having to manually read and discern fact from opinion.
It will be appreciated that screenshot is merely one example of how the facts may be presented to the user. Rather than presenting them in a separate column as shown, they may be listed as sub-elements of the electronic document that they have been extracted from.
Furthermore, as an alternative to or in addition to listing the facts on the search results page, the facts extracted from a particular electronic document may also be listed in a column or other location upon the user viewing the electronic document itself. Additionally, as an alternative to or in addition to separating the facts from the document for display, the facts may be highlighted within the electronic documents both in the list of documents within the search results and within the complete electronic document when it is chosen for display.
As yet another alternative, the facts may be displayed independently from search results, such as to display facts only with a selectable link to obtain the source documents, where only the extracted facts have been searched to thereby avoid the document search completely. Additionally, it will be appreciated that the presentation of the extracted facts, such as that shown in screenshotmay be provided as a display to a local computer implementing the search and fact extraction for a local user.
Alternatively, the presentation of the extracted facts, such as that shown in screenshotmay be provided as a display to a remote computer that has requested that the local computer perform the search and fact extraction on its behalf, such as in the case of an Internet based search engine.