My bet is about four hours.
Printable View
My bet is about four hours.
Daniel, I'll answer your question.
It's a legal urban legend. In other words, it doesn't mean squat.
Another one I hear: "You have to live with someone for seven years before a common law marriage is valid."
Google possession nine tenths law for tons of info.
Now, go read stuff by Bryan Garner.
http://www.lawprose.org/
He is a plain language advocate and you really need to learn from him.
Thanks for the link.
Doesn't the common law marriage thing depend on the state?
What about possession laws, and the Ninth Amendment.
If there are no domestic tranquility of the state issues, when does the traditional police power of the state have the authority to deny and disparage that right and power?
Quote Daniel-Thing? What thing do you mean "thing"?Quote:
Doesn't the common law marriage thing depend on the state?
What about them? Do you know anything about the concept of "possession" in legal terms?Quote:
What about possession laws, and the Ninth Amendment.
What's your question? What is it that you are asking here? Break it down. If there is no domestic tranquility? What type of situation are you talking about? Give an example of where there was or is no domestic tranquility.Quote:
If there are no domestic tranquility of the state issues, when does the traditional police power of the state have the authority to deny and disparage that right and power?
The common law marriage issue is a state prerogative, from my understanding.
If I had perfect knowledge of the legalities of possession, I would not be asking about them.
I don't question the traditional police power of the state in matters pertaining to the domestic tranquility of that state.
My question arises, when there is sufficient domestic tranquility, and someone is in possession of a Thing; and, the state (via legislation, from politics) has some concerns over which Things those citizens may possess.
I am under the assumption that there is now and has been some type of connection thing between the state and police. Therefore, it must stand as logical deduction that if there is substantial domestic tranquility within the common law of doctrine, the police power is adequate and lawfully called upon to settle a domestic dispute.
In the event that the state is in possession of the Ninth Amendment the state may call an emergency use of state police to quell the state of unequal tranquility within the common law marriage.
Although there remains outstanding, in this issue of possession, the doctrine which allows for the possession of the domestic partner given that the common law marriage is so condoned by the state. As long as there is no threat or situation where there is no domestic tranquility there should not be the need for the use of police power in nine tenths of the situations where this has been called.
It would not then be disputed that there is no denial or disparage of the 9A and right to hold power as long as there is no interference with that same person’s want for power.