But, if you change, "spouse and spouse" to "a group of spouses", then how do you change "upon death of a spouse, the remaining spouse shall inherit 100% of communal property before probate"? As in, you die, and your three widows each inherit 100%? That's 300%. Where do you get two more identical houses?

Well, first, the spouse is generally only entitled to 1/3 of the assets and in some cases, up to a certain dollar amount in an intestate death. Wills and contracts normally supersede all that unless the widow(er) receives less than that amount in which they can contest the will (though usually not the contract).

But to answer the question, it would be the unit "spouse" that receives the inheritance. If there was three spouses, they would all have to act as one unit for the transfer then figure out what to do after that. It's no different than a company being owned by 20 people that dissolves or is somehow transferred. In fact, I have two minor stakes in partnerships that one says upon my death the companies will be sold and 30% of the value will go to the first heir in the estate of the deceased and the other says my stake is to be transferred upon death to the partners. Both of those will happen before any inheritance or probate takes place.

How so? While polygamous marriage happened, the bible starts off saying man will leave his father and mother to be with his wife and the two will become one flesh.

Seems pretty clear to me, two into one.

Gay couples could always enter into the same contracts that straight couples could. They could all get married to someone of the opposite sex. But they didn't want to do that, they wanted to marry someone of the same sex.

Now here is the problem with that. A legal contract that requires a license from a state. Concealed carry is the same thing, a legal contract that requires a license from the state. Many states already have reciprocal agreements with other states but under this same principle, the 14th now allows concealed carry permit holders in Ohio to conceal carry in New York City, Maryland, or anywhere else that makes it inconceivably impossible if not outright bans the act. Furthermore, it means they cannot ban it now either- because it is entering a legal contract that others can enter into the same as marriage.

and before it is somehow claimed it is different, you actually have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the same for marriages. There is the problem with this wording.

It's rather simply. Roosevelt is what happened.

Before the New Deal and expansion of the interstate commerce clause into some umbrella concept that grants the federal government powers unlimited jurisdiction, the US seemed to be a small constitutional government that acted as if the constitution mattered. Then with Roosevelt's fight over the New Deal legislation and the courts opening the commerce clause, its now the federal jurisdiction on about anything they can casually connect to any other power they constitutionally have. This is what big government does for you.

It's not. You have it backwards in thinking. The federal government used to believe it never had the power to regulate drugs, that in order to prohibit them, it would take a constitutional amendment to grant them the power to do so. This is most obvious with prohibition, they had to create a constitutional amendment in order to ban alcohol and another in order to allow it again. But now it seems that anyone claims 14th amendment or interstate commerce clause and all the sudden the US government has the power to do anything it wants.

Prove me wrong. You cannot.

Your reply is so vague and meaningless that I don't even know where to start. Because you said so doesn't carry any weight either.

I've seen idiots with guns. They are the type that will purchase a hand cannon like a .357 or .44mag for home defense. The ones who choose a shotgun likely did so for reasons that put them out of the range of stupid. And even if they are the type who asked the clerk some advice, they are at least asking which makes it much more likely they wouldn't be stupid idiots.

You do not need to belong to some gun club or have some associates degree in firepower in order to be knowledgeable about guns. I learned most of what I know from my grandfather before I was 10. I suppose there will be idiots who inherit a gun and decide to keep it for home defense but I doubt the majority of them are in that league.

Actually, explosives might be right for this situation.

Anti aircraft weapons since WWII had altitude and proximity fused which causes them to explode more near an aircraft than when striking one. It then causes the aircraft to fly through shrapnel and be damaged by the percussion of the explosion.

A small air to air or surface to air missile and radar could likely be employed to take these drones out without much danger to anything below or other aircraft.

Alternatively, a laser of some sort mounted on another plane flying lead of the tankers or from the ground stationed along the flight path could possible render the drones unusable.

This brings me to another question. Lasers. It seems that the intense heat of lasers could flash burn combustible materials in the fire's path so I'm wondering why several couldn't be used to either back burn or create a fire break along the fire's path. Is it a matter of power consumption or would it just not burn the material fast enough to not create other out of control fires?

One of the problems here is information- dissemination.

First, how did the drone operator know he was in the path of the flights. It could very well be that the flight path changed because the winds shifted a bit and they needed to approach differently to hit the intended targets. You also have the problem of the targets changing. These planes were dropping retardant which means they would want to drop on different spots with each flight. Finally, why not- if you have to abort and I assume drop the retardants anyways due to duel considerations, why not drop it on the drone which was at least near the intended target. The drone would likely have been taken out and the next run could fill in the gap and the only lost value would be dropping out of order in the runs.

But seriously, where does a drone operator get the information from or more importantly, how does the fire crew disseminate it so the drone operator would have known?

Why wouldn't they be dumb?

Most people who use a shot gun for home defense are either smart enough to understand how a bullet or shot penetrates (because a shot gun will go through walls but often not be deadly a few feet away from the wall on the other side where a bullet can go through multiple walls and remain deadly depending on the gun) or they picked it because they have other things to be concerned about besides humans invading. Wild animals and rodents are around a lot of places and just as viable of a concern in home defense as an intruding human might be.

I keep several loaded shotguns around. My favorite, a bolt action savage, I keep one round of 000 buck and two rounds of #8 or #6 shot loaded at all times and I have a stock wrap which 8 more of the same ammo is present if needed. I have coyotes, a certain type of vulture, and rodents like rabbits
(that eat my garden) and groundhogs
(that destroy beans and create holes for the cattle to step in and break a leg) to deal with. The vultures I only have to worry about right after a birth until it is weaned. Black vultures will attack young calves, piglets, chicks, and so on. And yes, I know it is illegal to kill them, but just like speeding, you got to be caught first.

But if you think someone with a shotgun for home defense is stupid, you are going to be really surprised when you meet them. You have either been watching too many movies or hanging out with the wrong people.

any employer worth their salt

Where do you find them?

Its not just three years, Its three years regardless of the outcome of the ISP lawsuit over the FCC's move. That means if the lawsuit gets the rules tossed out next month, they are still going to give it a go for the three years. If the lawsuit fails, they should already be there and positioned to be compliant.

That - i can agree with. The example you gave or that was given didn't follow though. Perhaps semantics got in the way of the point.

BTW, lack of action - refusing to grant certiorari is not addressing the question outside of saying it is either not important enough for their time of more pressing issues occupied their time. Sometimes issues of standings block it but that is still not addressing the question.

Nah; i like it this way more. Can you imagine - you think you might have gotten an STD and someone hands you a condum and says go get fucked.

Hmmm. Was not aware that you could turn the exit node off. Maybe i should look into it again. Been a long time.