1 Why in the world wouldn't it apply to states?

2 Well, this would be earth shattering. I ain't holding my breath.

3 I wonder what the "Wise Latina" thinks of all this?

4 Hmmmm, this is a very interesting case. I wonder what side of the bed I will get up on that morning. It will certainly be the determining factor in my swing vote.

5 You don't need incorporation (which is a dumb, dangerous and non-constitutional legal theory).  The plain language of the 2nd amendment (passive voice) means that it applies to all government entities.

In fact, the only one of the bill of rights that is stated as a restriction on the behavior of government and not a right of the people is the First.

6 Why in the world wouldn't it apply to states?
Posted by: runninrebel at September 30, 2009 12:00 PM (i3PJU)

Because the Incorporation Doctrine is bullshit.

That said, if we are going to go down that road and we are way down it already, we need to be consistent in its application. None of this, 'the rights we liberals like are incorporated but that icky 2nd one? Nuh uh."

7 Because the Incorporation Doctrine is bullshit.

Don't need it.  "Shall not be infringed" has no subject.

8 Ahhhhh! A Gabriel Malor legal thread, nice. Video for you.

Slightly OT, I see they are going to review ANOTHER Sex Offender registry case.
Is this going to be a yearly thing from now on or what?

9 I hate the incorporation doctrine; I think it's a stupid, intellectually dishonest way to cherry pick the rights of the people. But since it is the law we are left with, let's hope for the best. It'll probably all come down to Kennedy and his Magic 8 Ball...

10

It shouldn't but living in Texas or other gun friendly states somewhat diminishes the awareness and importance of the case to a lot of people.  Stupid human nature.

11 Meh.  If I feel like having a gun, I'm going to and Daley can go pound sand.

12 Posted by: AmishDude at September 30, 2009 12:05 PM (T0NGe)

I agree with you but that's not the way the jurisprudence has shaken out for a very long time.

When dealing with cases like this there are several categories...

The law/Constitution

1- As it is

2- As we want it to be

3- As the Courts actually deal with it.

Sometimes you have to move back and forth between the categories because 1 and 3 aren't the same.

13 Well if they didn't have the stupid ruling in the first place that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government and not the State governments then we wouldn't have had the incorporation doctrine.

14 Title: United States v. O’Brien and Burgess
Issue: Whether the mandatory minimum sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) to a 30-year minimum when the firearm is a machinegun is an element of the offense that must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or instead a sentencing factor that may be found by a judge by the preponderance of the evidence.

They are kidding with this right? If the issue effects sentencing it should be dealt with in the sentencing faze no?

15

I agree that in an ideal world this incorporation thing wouldn't be necessary but it seems the political class (and much of the voting public) lacks reading comprehension skills so here we are.

What scares me to death about these sort of endgame cases is what happens if the SCOTUS rules to further trample the 2nd?

16 Polynikes: That one ( BoR only applies to the feds ) became history after the 14th.

The 14th forced a bunch of states to recognize the rights of ex-slaves.

Sorry, but that toothpaste ain't going back into the tube.

17 33 state AG's in favor of incorporation...including Maine, Minnesota,New Hampshire.

And yes, incorporation sucks, but until we start a real move back to founding principles, it's all we have.

18 I guess the real question is what impact the additional insight of a wise Latina will provide vs. when the case was originally filed.

19 The Second still seems pretty frickin' clear to me:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Note, again, in the Third the application of Soldier:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

If the Founding Fathers had not meant the right of every single individual, they would have used "Soldier" instead of "People" in the Second's text.

Ultimately, I guess I shouldn't really care how the courts get there if it means the rights of the individual are upheld WRT Arms, but this unending sequence of challenge, defense, and meandering/competing/evolving precedent is maddening considering the Second is about as clear a statement as the English language will allow. Maybe the Founders should have used Greek.

20 I think in the end it gets incorporated and the states lose the ability to prohibit the ownership of non-automatic small arms. The real fight will be over what will be "reasonable" rules on concealed carry and permits.

21 This spring the <A HREF="http://www.volokh.com/posts/1241068762.shtml">Ninth Circuit</A> ruled that the Second Amendment applied to the States, etc.  It didn't get a lot of air time, which was odd.  It seemed like a pretty big thing to me.  I'm looking forward to this decision.  It would be odd for the Supreme Court to have decided <I>Heller</I> the way they did and then come along here and rule that, essentially, it doesn't matter.  I am unaware of any other place that they would have done anything similar.

22 19

Perfect.  It is beyond maddening to listen to people tell you the Constitution doesn't REALLY say what it clearly says in very plain English.  Drives me bonkers.

23 Those of you arguing that the Bill of Rights applies to state governments as written, you just completely undermined and destroyed the concept of federalism and states rights.

The Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government because the Constitution only applies to the federal government.  It is the federal constitution, as distinct from state constitutions.  That is what permits the federalist system or concurrent zones of autonomy.

It was not until the 14th Amendment that the document itself ever attempted to limit state governments beyond the issue of their structure.

The open question is to what extent the language in the 14th Amendment limits state governments, and the argument has been generally that it limits state governments the same way the federal government is limited.  That is the "incorporation doctrine."

Those of you arguing that you can ignore the incorporation doctrine and just say the constitution limits states are ignoring federalism and destroying states rights.  So, don't argue that stupid bullshit.  TIA.

24 The 14th forced a bunch of states to recognize the rights of ex-slaves.

No.  The 14th (again, as written) says that a state has to treat its citizens the same as each other.  What it doesn't say is that Georgia has to have the same laws as Alabama.

25 23

but incorporation is a reality we have to deal with. while in theory you are correct, it is what the courts do in practice that seems to be the basis of this discussion

26

What if states applied this nonsensical bullshit to the RIGHT for blacks to VOTE?

 

I think LIBTARDS would shit their pants.

27 My prediction - it gets incorporated on a 5-4 vote. Voting to incorporate: Scalia, Thomas, Alitto, Roberts and Kennedy. 

28

... 10 / Polynikes:

I think favorable rulings could help even in Texas. I took the CHL class in Texas and it seems like the bizzare pile of law, case law, travel interpretations, etc could be simplified. I rarely carried concealed but had one in the vehicle almost all the time and the CHL seemed the only safe way not to have to rely on an officers interpretation of "travelling". CO and LA state laws are simpler, car is pretty much same as home.

29 The real fight will be over what will be "reasonable" rules on concealed carry and permits.

Not to mention, rules and restrictions on ammunition.

30 polynikes : Well if they didn't have the stupid ruling in the first place that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government and not the State governments then we wouldn't have had the incorporation doctrine.


Will someone please give a solid post about negative liberty and federalism. I just can't muster the energy at the moment.

31 Interesting.  I sat in on the oral arguments last week in the 9th Circuit's en banc rehearing of Nordyke v. King, its incorporation case.  Hard to get an exact read on which way the court was leaning (except for a couple of obvious judges, like that doddering old piece of petrified Carter droppings Pregerson), but based on some of the questions even from Kozinski, I wouldn't have been too surprised if the court had punted on the incorporation issue and found a narrower ground to decide the case on.  I wonder if the 9th is going to stay its en banc decision pending Supreme Court review now, or just go ahead and decide while punting on incorporation.

32 Ban my ass. I got my shit and it's ready to be used.

33 Can't even post my complaint before its already noted by someone else.

I love this blog.

34 Perhaps a look at the amicus brief tells us more about the 14th and incorporation doctrine...hmmmmmmm?

The 14th was specifically enacted in order to 'incorporate' the privleges and immunities ( read rights and liberties) to the states during reconstruction, and even specifically in re the disarming of freed slaves.

35 States rights died during the Civil War.

Like I said: toothpaste, wave goodbye to tube.

Too bad the Mason-Dixon compromise didn't end this crap the same way the Brazilians did ... by declaring anyone born after a certain date to be a full citizen. But they didn't, so State's rights was forced to die upon that damned slavery hill.

I blame the Democrats.

36 I dont want to derail the thread but thought I would throw this out there. does anyone see actual changes being made if the 2nd is incorporated? if this happens will it really make a difference? if so, how? last I checked nothing in DC has changed since Heller.

37 I am sure that soon we will see some more suits in DC regarding the administrative boondoggles placed in the way of the firearm ownership. 

38 If it gets fully incorporated, then victims of state oppression can seek federal court relief if punished for the RTKBA.

Arrest for carry? The local government gets sued, just like they would for arresting someone for putting a political yard sign up.

39 1st Amendment is worded "Congress shall make no law..." which is why, I guess, incorporation was required. The rest of the bill of rights does not mention congress, only the state or the government.
States rights were given much more respect in those days.
But the 2d amendment is pretty much the only constititutional amendment whose exercise can land you in prison.

40 I never understood why some rights are incorporated and some are not.  Seems crazy that incorporation has been held (at least to some degree) for the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th, but yet it is argued not to apply to the 2nd.  There is no logic to it.    

41 The Second Amendment is actually the one provision in the Bill of Rights that was written from the beginning to apply to the states, and to localities, and to EVERY level of government. It doesn't say "Congress shall pass no law infringing," it says "shall not be infringed." That means by any arm of government, and this is indeed how it was originally understood.

42 Of course, the Democrats have stopped supporting slavery these days ... unless you are a 13 year old girl, or you need an ACORN grant.

43 Alec: These are the same folks who think corn grown on your own property to feed your own hogs is "interstate commerce".

Sometimes they just need to be bitch-slapped.

44 The courts have avoided 2d am. cases for years. They don't want to interfere with legislative control of weapons.

45 Exactly.

Black-robed cowards.

46 If the 2d is incorporated, we will have Sup Ct precedent that it is an individual, not a collective right, and that it applies to every state. This will open up the federal courts to challenges of unduly burdensome state and local firearms regulations.
The lower courts will still try to avoid overturning those laws.
After years of working in constitutional criminal law, I have seen that once the Sup Ct issues a ruling, all the lower courts do their damnedest to avoid it, limit it, distinguish it.

47

I totally agree on the incorporation bullshit. It was a great stretch to make that the term “freedom” in the 14^th amendment means that the first amendment applies to the States as well as the feds (I think the 1^st was the first to be incorporated based on a sedition law in one of the States)

 

That being said, I could live with it if it was consistently applied. Here to date the SCOTUS has always incorporated liberal shit and ignored the conservative shit. Why? Because they can.

 

They have amply demonstrated bizarro logic in some of their rulings like Hamdan and Boumediene.

 

And BTW, that Boumediene decision and its bizarro logic was written by Kennedy so don’t count on him here,

48 Neat!

49

O/T

Orrin Hatch is on Fox just now bitching about his amendments for the mediscare bill to prevent funding for abortion were shot down.

 

I’m glad it got shot down. I don’t want them to have any kind of a fig leaf if they vote for this communist take over of the health care system.

 

50 The Second Amendment is actually the one provision in the Bill of Rights that was written from the beginning to apply to the states
________________

That is just wrong.  Did you people sleep through your high school civics classes?

The Federal Constitution applies, and was intended to apply at the time of drafting, exclusively and only to the federal government.  Each individual state had their own state constitutions.  The only limitation on states are the ones set out in Article IV, primarily that they had to have a republican form of government

The Bill of Rights were amendments to the federal constitution, intended only to apply to the federal constitution, that protected negative rights and restricted the federal government.

It was not until the 14th Amendment that the argument could even be made that anything in the federal constitution outside of Article IV could limit state governments.  States had supremacy and autonomy.  The 14th changed that, and through its language about protecting liberty, due process, and privileges and immunities, raised the question of what those terms included.  The argument has been that it protects citizens of the states from the same intrusions prohibited in the bill of rights that limited the federal government.

Seriously... have you never heard of federalism?  Even if you are not a lawyer, did you not learn that in your high school civics classes?

51
HAAA!  Suckit, Illinoisians... Illinoiseses... you Illinois tards!  I can buy guns in the Greensheet in Texas!  HAHAHAAAA!

52 Gabe - or others, what's the significance of the Privileges and Immunities questioning.

Is there a way for this court to grant federal enforcement of 2nd amendment without reinforcing the Due Process junk?

53 Over at Volokh, some are arguing that using Privledges and Immunities within the 14th Amendment will give the conservatives on SCOTUS better cover than Due Process.

One hopes, though this case won't help up us that much here in the People's Republic of California.

54 Gabe - or others, what's the significance of the Privileges and Immunities questioning.

Is there a way for this court to grant federal enforcement of 2nd amendment without reinforcing the Due Process junk?

___________________

I am not sure what your question is.

If you want to rule that the 2nd Amendment limits states, you have to do it through the 14th Amendment and say that the 14th Amendment incoporated the limitations of the 2nd Amendment against the states.

There are two grounds to do this under the 14th Amendment:

1.  Either the right to bear arms is protected under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"); OR

2.  The right to bear arms is part of the Liberty protected by the Due Process Clause ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law").

The Court has to find that one of those two provisions substantively protects the right to bear arms from state regulation.  (There is also the equal protection clause, but that does not really fit here).

So the Court has to expand the Incorporation Doctrine either through "privileges and immunities" or the due process clauses' protection of liberty.  Otherwise, the Court cannot find the 2nd Amendment limits the state.

55 Furthermore, there is some evidence that the creators of the Fourteenth Amendment intended that it would incorporate the first eight Amendments against the states.

'Some evidence?'  I think if you look, you'll find rather more than just 'some.'  The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you think "the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" do not include the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, then I'd like to know by what analysis you reach that conclusion.  I don't see how that passage could possibly mean anything else, any more than I see how the 2nd Amendment itself could mean anything but an individual right to keep and bear arms. 

The problem with the Incorporation Doctrine is not that it exists.  The problem is that the modern Incorporation Doctrine is based on the wrong clause of Section 1 of the 14th.  It is based on the second clause, known as the "Due Process" clause.  It should be based on the first clause, the "Privileges or Immunities" clause. 

56 I see. Without this "incorporation" they are implying that the States may at will abrogate a person's 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms? Really?

O.k. Then. Then the States may also abrogate any of the other Constitutional rights as well, after all, they aren't Congress.

Are our elected or appointed officials really this stupid? Malevolent? Hoping the unwashed masses won't notice due to all the fancy legalese?

...or are WE stupid for not only electing the jerks who consider this shit, but allowing this farce to continue.

I don't care what the fancy people in their black robes decide, nor the duplicitous officials on any state government - if they legislate that my God given rights are null.

No man will take my God-given rights. None.

We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power... the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.

57

LiveFreeOrDie,

In the old, old days selective incorporation was accomplished through the Privileges or Immunities Clause.  That line of reasoning was abandoned in the late 1800s.  Throughout the 1900s, and particularly in the 1950s and 1969s, however, the incorporation doctrine was rivived by means of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So there are two lines of reasoning by which incorporation of the Second Amendment can be accomplished.  The Court can overrule Cruikshank, which held that it was not incorporated through the Privileges or Immunities Clause.  Or they can break new ground and hold that it is incorporated through the Due Process clause. 

Modernly, incorporation has been accomplished through the Due Procses clause.  I'm not sure why, but some folks are every excited about a possible resurrection of the Privileges or Immunities Clause line reasoning. The result would most likely be the same either way.

I have criticized the Seventh Circuit's decision in this case because it did not even consider the Due Process modern jurisprudence and relied entirely on the old cases which rejected incorporation for the Second Amendment under the Privileges or Immunities Clause.  Judges Easterbrook and Posner failed to consider modern precedent.

By contrast, the Ninth Circuit's incorportation case did consider the modern Due Process incorporation and, perhaps only coincidentally, found that the Second Amendment protects against state action.

58

O/T but this according to Gallup:

In a recent Gallup survey, 89% of Republicans, 64% of independents, and 61% of Americans overall say Americans themselves -- rather than the government -- have the primary responsibility for ensuring that they have health insurance. Six in 10 Democrats say the government should be primarily responsible.

Suck it Obama! 

59 The Constitution shall never be construed ...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams

I find it amusing that those who claim that the word "people" in (a) the Declaration of Independence, (b) the Preamble to the Constitution, (c) Article I, and (d) the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments refer to individuals, but assert that the Second Amendment uses it as "only specifically selected agents of the government, and no others".

And as was pointed out above, the Third Amendment shows that the Founders knew exactly how to refer to military members when it used the specific word "Soldier". If they had wanted to use it in that fashion for the Second Amendment, they could easily have done so. They did not, and liberals refuse to accept that. If I were to amend the 2nd, I would eliminate the dependent clause in its entirety (and if you don't understand the term, you have no business arguing the issue on semantic grounds).

One last point, if I may: My gun collection has killed five fewer people than the Kennedy clan has with airplanes, automobiles and golf clubs.

60 Also, to those few talking about "federalism" and "original intent" and accusing others of sleeping through civics classes, go back and read Scalia's opinion in Heller.  He very capably describes how many early Americans thought the Bill of Rights applied against the states.  As I wrote in the update above, it wasn't until 1833 that the Supreme Court ruled that the amendments did not.

61 What's this Constitution thing I hear so much about?

62 screwed : So the Court has to expand the Incorporation Doctrine either through "privileges and immunities" or the due process clauses' protection of liberty. Otherwise, the Court cannot find the 2nd Amendment limits the state.

1st, I'm not really interested in the SCOTUS finding that the 2nd limits the States. I think its winning a battle that sets one up for losing a war.

Having said that, if there is incorporation via the privileges and immunities , is it somehow a "better" form of incorporation, because it doesn't allow the willy-nilly junk that has been incorporated via Due Process?

63 Thanks Gabe... and others.

64

'Screwed, it is argued above that the Second is worded differently than the other nine, and would restrict state and local government even if there were no Fourteenth. I rather dislike your tone in dismissing this novel approach. This is not a foolish argument, just one far outside your ken. You demean yourself.

"Ever heard of Federalism?" The Bill of Rights is the product of the Anti-Federalists TYVM, without whose support there would have been no Constitution. Perhaps you have heard of them. Turn to the next page in your law book, and you will find the arguments over the land act and Northwest Ordinance, in which pre-14th limitations on state charters suddenly become relevant again. Then sit down, have a long think, and amend your tone.

65

1st, I'm not really interested in the SCOTUS finding that the 2nd limits the States. I think its winning a battle that sets one up for losing a war.

How? It's not like they can pass a constitutional ammendment against it.

66 Modernly, incorporation has been accomplished through the Due Procses clause.  I'm not sure why, but some folks are every excited about a possible resurrection of the Privileges or Immunities Clause line reasoning.

Gabe, correct me if I am wrong, but is the difference that incorporation through 14th am. due process is substantive due process, whereas the original meaning of due process was procedural due process - conservatives, and I am thinking Scalia, are not fans of substantive due process.

67 I'm not sure why, but some folks are every excited about a possible resurrection of the Privileges or Immunities Clause line reasoning.  The result would most likely be the same either way.

Gabe: there are those of us who believe that results oriented jurisprudence is hogwash.  The goal of constitutional interpretation is not to reach a preferred result, but to correctly interpret the constitution using neutral principles to derive the original meaning of the text.

So why argue for it being part of the Privileges and Immunities Clause?  Because it is the correct constitutional decision.  That the same result could be reached by incorrect means is irrelevant; the point is to be correct.

I've done appellate work most of my practice, and I'm made it a goal of mine to live up to my beliefs in always arguing for strict clause-bound interpretivism even if I get a preferred result a different way.

Results are meaningless.  So that is why people want the Court to use the P&I clause and not the Due Process clause as you suggest.

68 drumwaster,

that is a point I love to make. the founding fathers were, mostly, very intelligent men. they chose their words VERY carefully and took the opportunity they had very seriously.

69

“Selective incorporation” was the brainchild of Felix Franfurter, a good commie asshole appointed by FDR to help him get his unconstitutional BS past the courts. His idea was incorporation in cases that “shocked the conscious”.  

 

Hat way the liberals could get what they wanted while ruling out both sides of their mouths.

70

BTW folks, most States do have some sort of gun rights in their State Constitution.

71 Uzbek asshoools

72 gabe: "As I wrote in the update above, it wasn't until 1833 that the Supreme Court ruled that the amendments did not."

Gabe, this is a lawyer centric view. During the constitutional convention, the question was whether a Bill of Rights should be added which would lay out in simple language What the Structure of the Constitution provided.

One of the primary arguments AGAINST including a Bill of Rights was that some would interpret it as being a list which the Federal Government would Positively enforce.

I therefore have no doubt that its true that some portion of people, upon seeing the Bill of Rights, concluded that it was a list of positive liberties.

That doesn't mean it was viewed that way by the framers, nor by We the People as a whole. There are ways of balancing power without using a supreme law.

73 Government is government, whether it's the Feds screwing you or the state.

74

O.k. Then. Then the States may also abrogate any of the other Constitutional rights as well, after all, they aren't Congress.

Well, yes. Anyone arguing against incorporation is arguing precisely that. (And there are SOME arguments to be made for it, with regard to intent).

Then, for instance, the federal government cannot establish a religion, but the State of Massachusetts can recognize the Episcopal Church of Massachusetts as the official religion of the state.

Without incorporation this is what you argue (without taking into account [insert state]'s constitution).

The other option is you accept incorporation, and if you do, there's no damn sensible reason to suggest it's limited to only what they want to incorporate. To say that it can't establish religion but can ban guns, that it can't prohibit political speech but can forceably quarter National Guard units... This is tantamount to cherrypicking foreign law to get whatever result you want.

75

The compromise here is by far the worst position of the 3.

Better either extreme then anywhere in the middle.

76 I've done appellate work most of my practice

Me too, Screwed. In fact on Monday, I won my last 2d circuit case (Dunlap). And the court affirmed the District Court, adopting my argument over the DC's basis. Heh.

77 etropy: How? It's not like they can pass a constitutional ammendment against it.

I'm not actually concerned in the near term about losing the right to keep and bear arms. My primary concern is keeping at bay an overreaching federal structure.

The 14th was a major empowerment of the Federal government over the state governments. Though not as bad as the 17th. Regardless, the federal power ratchet has to be stopped, and limiting the extent of incorporation is one way of doing that.

If the 2nd is incorporated, it reinforces that SCOTUS sets the supreme law of the land. I think that's a mistake.

78

70, Alabama's reads: "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

IIRC we also have declared hunting and fishing to be rights as well.

79

they chose their words VERY carefully and took the opportunity they had very seriously.

 

Not so much that. The founders at the convention drafted what they wanted while a committee of a select few known as the “committee of style” were the ones who determined the actual language that went into the final product.

 

That is how we got the infamous interpretation of “general welfare” in the preamble got to be an authority to pass socialism in the U.S. Note that the “preamble” is a product wholly of the committee of style. It was never debated by the full convention.

80

72 gabe,

The way I recall it, the biggest fear about the Bill of Rights was that once they had laid out *some* of the rights that the State could not infringe upon, some people would argue that those were the *only* rights the State couldn't infringe upon.  Thus we have the 9th and 10th Amendments, both of which have been pretty much ignored as the State has often done whatever the hell it wants to do without interference from the Courts.

Gun control is one of these areas, and it is looking hopeful that the Unconstitutional laws restricting people's right to arms (btw, read Federalist 46 by Madison if you want to know *why* the 2nd is there.  It ain't about hunting) will be thrown out as the affront to liberty that they so clearly are.

81

80, you almost make hope spring eternal.

I would love to see a return to pre-1934

 

82

The MA religion thing is a fine example of the fact that the people writing the Constitution and the bill of rights did not consider them to apply to the States. MA had a State approved and financed church up until the mid 1800s.

83

Great, great news.

84

This is tantamount to cherrypicking foreign law to get whatever result you want

 

LOL, isn’t that what they did with that last ruling on the death penalty for young villains.

85 vic,

touche

86

One of the primary arguments AGAINST including a Bill of Rights was that some would interpret it as being a list which the Federal Government would Positively enforce.

The biggest (federalist) argument against it was that it would be seen as a complete list of things the government cannot do. To spell out what they cannot do would be to imply they can do whatever isn't mentioned at all.

Most all of them agreed at the time, at least outloud, that anything not specifically mentioned was not allowed to the federal government and relegated to the states.

Anti-federalists wanted concrete explicit reassurances that the Federal government (at least) could not do any of this.

It's also worth noting that the Anti-federalists of the time are the Federalists today. Back then Federalists wanted a strong central (federal) government. Anti-federalists were big on state rights. Today the term is reversed.

At any rate, I tend to believe the Bill of Rights which was explicitly mentioned (and nothing else) should indeed be positively enforced by the feds against states, vs. everything else that wasn't mentioned being negatively forbidden to the Feds (and Feds only).

This is reductio ad absurdem and a lot of people don't really, uh, understand that concept.

But if basic rights are not incorporated, what if some state goes and says "Murder is decriminalized"? We're all just gonna have to oh well, it's a state issue? The federal government does not intervene?

What if some relatively unpopulous state like Montana goes all crazy cult on us and the state government absolves the state constitution, cancels all elections, declares itself State Government for Life and starts indicting any Montana residents who criticize it? Closes all the churches and demand people attent religious services in reverance to the Governor? This is tolerable?

87 Well, a win means that local governments will be cleared to impose post-Heller DC-type restrictions on gun ownership if they want to. Not sure how much of a 'win' that is. Let's not forget that Heller basically said "The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to permission to keep a gun in your house." That's not much of a right.

88

The MA religion thing is a fine example of the fact that the people writing the Constitution and the bill of rights did not consider them to apply to the States.

And there are examples in reverse of that too.

But yes, you are right - it is a fine example of just that.

However... whatever it may mean, would you not argue that we need incorporation? (See my post above).

The 14th didn't exist when many states had a state religion. But that is part of the constitution. Arguing about what was what in 1790 might effect our understanding of the intent with regard to privlidges and immunities... but it is utterly and wholey irrelevant to whether or not it's incorporated by due process.

And even if you say the 14th doesn't incorporate all the rights either, well then, I understand judicial constraint, but we now need a new ammendment because they ought be incorporated.

89 Also, to those few talking about "federalism" and "original intent" and accusing others of sleeping through civics classes, go back and read Scalia's opinion in Heller.  He very capably describes how many early Americans thought the Bill of Rights applied against the states.
___________________

Gabe: could you point me to what you are referring?  Because that sounded completely wrong to me.  So I even took the time to go back and read through the opinion, and Scalia says nothing of the sort.  In fact, in going back over the opinion, Scalia notes that "For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States."   That sentence seems to completely reject your argument that Scalia was describing that "the Bill of Right applied against the States." 

Moreover, I cannot imagine Scalia saying such a thing because it is plainly wrong.  States at the time of passage were exempted from the application of the Bill of Rights.  This is consistent with the argument about states such as Mass. and Pennsylvania having state churches despite the 1st Amendment.  And examples abound.

I honestly do not know where you are getting your argument from.  It entirely contrary to the constitutional text and history. 

And really, one does not need to be a lawyer to know this.  One can recall what you learned in history classes about the Articles of Confederation and the need to move to a federalism system.  The Federal Constitution was the FEDERAL constitution; not a constitution controlling the federal government and every state.  In fact, had it been so, you can guarantee that it would never have been passed.

90 To spell out what they cannot do would be to imply they can do whatever isn't mentioned at all

I recall obama making that point in an interview during the campaign. his view is that if the constitution doesn't tell him that the feds can't do something, well then he's free to do it. i.e. force everyone to buy health insurance, take over the auto industry, and whatever else his little liberal heart desires

91 Well, a win means that local governments will be cleared to impose post-Heller DC-type restrictions on gun ownership if they want to.

How is that different from now? I still think it would be good for SCOTUS to rule that the 2d applies to the states and is an individual right.

92

But if basic rights are not incorporated, what if some state goes and says "Murder is decriminalized"? We're all just gonna have to oh well, it's a state issue? The federal government does not intervene.

 

I think that is a rather poor argument but let5’s assume that “incorporation” did not occur and that only those items in the Constitution which specifically mentioned the States were applicable to the States.

 

How about this in the 14^th:

 

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

It would seem that legalizing murder would be depriving people of their “life”.

 

In any case, if the people of a given State allow their government to usurp the State Constitution and pass silly laws it is their own fault. One of the common clichés that we post here is that the people always get the government they deserve.

 

The people who get roped into stupid State laws can always vote with their feet and move to Texas. If the feds take over total control of everything you will no longer be able to do that.

93

Posted by: screwed, like the rest of you at September 30, 2009 01:50

 

He said it in a footnote, I believe it was number 10.

94 Judge Silberman who wrote Heller thinks that the SCOTUS will rule for incorporation.  Good video interview at National Review: http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge .  Sorry I didn't link directly to the interview.  I need to learn how to use tiny URL.

95 entropy:What if some relatively unpopulous state like Montana goes all crazy cult ... This is tolerable?

I'll hit other points in a minute, but this one is just really no good.

What if the Federal Government goes all crazy cult... is that worse?

The simple answer is that a complex system can tolerate certain parts of itself performing less than optimally. But if the unit as a whole goes bat shit crazy, you're shit out of luck.

96 If you think "the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" do not include the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, then I'd like to know by what analysis you reach that conclusion.  I don't see how that passage could possibly mean anything else, any more than I see how the 2nd Amendment itself could mean anything but an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Incorporation doctrine, as developed by the courts, says that the "privileges and immunities" clause protects "only rights the Federal Constitution grants or the national government enables, but not those preexisting rights the Bill of Rights merely protects from federal invasion."  (first Nordyke opinion, here [pdf], at 4477-78.)

The due process clause, however, protects "traditional" and "fundamental" rights that existed before the Bill of Rights.  The first Nordyke opinion discusses and analyzes this issue at 4481-90.

97 He said it in a footnote, I believe it was number 10.

________________

Not in the footnote 10 or anywhere in the footnotes of the version I read.  Moreover, why on earth would he say in the body of the opinion that "For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States" (referring to pre-incorporation doctrine) and then say somewhere else that, as Gabe claims, "many early Americans thought the Bill of Rights applied against the states.

I would appreciate seeing exactly where this claim comes from, because I did not read it and it sounds completely wrong.

98

While it is true that the founders did not want a bill of rights because they feared that government would go down the path of it ain’t there they have the authority were right.  But also, they were wrong. The big government people not only feel like if it ain’t protected that they can do it. They even believe now that, in their own words, “the Constitution is evolving”. This train of “legal theory quackery” is 100 times worse than incorporation.

 

Basically  it throws down to what one of the liberal assclowns in black robes said years ago. The Constitution means what we say it means. As long as we have 5 assholes on the court the people will be stuck with that bit of legal quackery.

99 Again, if you take the view that the Framers were precise in their language, it would seem that amend 2-9 were in fact generalized or incorporated rights but the first amendment, because of the state religion issue, was limited to the "Congress".
Clearly amends 5 thru 9 deal with state matters as at that time the criminal codes and common law were local/state matters.

100 Also, due process incorporation seems to me as a layperson to be much weaker on its face.  Due process of law only means that the law was legislated properly, whereas to me privledges and immunities seem to be much more fundamental.  But I'm a techy type not a lawyer, so there's that.

101
entropy: "It's also worth noting that the Anti-federalists of the time are the Federalists today."

True.

entropy: "The biggest (federalist) argument against it was that it would be seen as a complete list of things the government cannot do. To spell out what they cannot do would be to imply they can do whatever isn't mentioned at all."

Yes, that was a primary argument. None the less, fear of a positivist interpretation was also mentioned. I believe I read it in a federalist paper... more than one, I think. I mentioned it to counter Gabes implication that a significant portion of the people thought of the Bill of Rights as positivist.

entropy: Most all of them agreed at the time, at least outloud, that anything not specifically mentioned was not allowed to the federal government and relegated to the states.

Again, there was also worry that the parts that were laid out would be seen as positivist.

entropy: "At any rate, I tend to believe the Bill of Rights which was explicitly mentioned (and nothing else) should indeed be positively enforced by the feds against states, vs. everything else that wasn't mentioned being negatively forbidden to the Feds (and Feds only)."

There are arguments for and against that position. I do not think its absurd. For example, if the 17th amendment was repealed, I would be for a period of positivist interpretation of the Bill of Rights, at least until the States had reach an equilibrium with the federal government.

entropy: "This is reductio ad absurdem and a lot of people don't really, uh, understand that concept."

I disagree, obviously. Right now - and for the last 100 years, really, the primary threat to Liberty is federal overreach. The States have much less power than you think, regardless of what SCOTUS says, because they are bound together by a division ring.

entropy: "But if basic rights are not incorporated, what if some state goes and says "Murder is decriminalized"? We're all just gonna have to oh well, it's a state issue? The federal government does not intervene?"

I addressed this in a previous response. Don't spit at me with reductio ad absurdem, and then give me this. This is prevented by non-legal structures which are for more robust then a Ruling from the Men in Black Robes.

102 Clearly amends 5 thru 9 deal with state matters as at that time the criminal codes and common law were local/state matters.

_________

This is not correct at all.  They apply to the federal government and only have been incorporated against the states by subsequent Supreme Court incorporation.

In fact, some of them, such as the Seventh Amedment's "Right to Trial By Jury in Civil Cases" has not been incorporated, on its face, or by challenge under the 14th Amendment.  The Supreme Court has held it does not regulate state law even in light of incorporation.  And there are states which do not grant the right to a trial by jury in civil cases.

103

screwed, page 34 of Heller and that section in general. I will quote Footnote 20 in full:

 Rawle, writing before our decision in Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833), believed that the Second Amendment could be applied against the States.

 Barron is the case I mentioned in the post where the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states.

104

How about this in the 14^th:

 

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Vic, that is totally missing the point.

 

There's people arguing that the 14th is bad and needs to be repealed. That's my point. If some people are going to take a stand against any incorporation at all... it's absurd. Hence reductio ad absurdem. But the Federal government will and must intervene to protect basic rights.

105

For those who don't want to flip back to Heller, here is what William Rawle, a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly which ratified the Bill of Rights wrote in 1825 about the Second Amendment:

"The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . .

“The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

The "either should attempt it" applies to "congress" and to "state legislature"  in the previous two sentences.

106

Page 51 footnote 23 of the decision

 

²³With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

107

Entropy, I am not a big opponent of incorporation. As I said earlier, I can live with it either way as long as it is applied consistently. I think that it is wrong and a bad interpretation of the 14^th but I can live with it.

 

I just disagree with this “selective” incorporation because it is nothing more than another version of “the living Constitution” which is no Constitution at all.

108 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

So you're telling me this amendment doesn't deal with State matters?

109 screwed, page 34 of Heller and that section in general. I will quote Footnote 20 in full
_________

Yeah,  I read that. The point Scalia was making there was about whether the miltia language applied to state militias or individual rights. Scalia was not addressing incorporation in that section, and he mentioned one person's argument with respect to a reading of the militia clause being de-linked from state militias.  Regardless, that one out-of-context sentence in footnote 20 does not come anywhere close to your claim that "Scalia very capably describes how many early Americans thought the Bill of Rights applied against the states." 

Moreover, it does not explain away the quote I cited to you which Scalia does, clearly, without confusion, state: "For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States."

I'm not trying to beat your over the head with this.  I just think you misspoke, but did so on a pretty revolutionary point.  The claim you are making would be completely contrary to the text and history of the constitution, and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence.

110 Gabe: "either should attempt it"

I think its a good exampkle, gabe. It's an example of a positivist interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and there are some good reasons to view it that way. In particular, the wording of the amendment.

None the less, the Bill of Rights as a whole was seen as an example of restrictions on what government can regulate (negative liberty) and, as whole, as restrictions on the federal apparatus.

Anyway, I would prefer this over reliance on the 14th amendment for incorporation purposes.

111 So you're telling me this [6th] amendment doesn't deal with State matters?
Posted by: Citizen Khan at September 30, 2009 02:35 PM

__________________

Absolutely.  Please note: the reference to "State" does not mean "the 50 states."  It means "State" in its classical sense of "the government" and in the context of the federal constitution, the government was the federal constitution.

If you doubt that, than please see that the 6th Amendment was not incorporated against the states until the 1960s.  For instance, the right to counsel was not incorporated against the states until the famous Gideon v. Wainwright case in the 60's.  Before then, states did not have to follow the 6th Amendment (though they may have had state constitutional requirements).

112

screwed, William Rawle, someone who actually voted to ratify the Second Amendment, believed that it applied to the states. Keep reading Justice Scalia's opinion. It appears that Charles Sumner would have disagreed, as would the Georgia Supreme Court.

So at the outset, it is clear that some early Americans thought that the Second Amendment applied to the states (including the plaintiffs in Barron, obviously).

I do admit, however, that perhaps Scalia did not actually discuss "many" as I wrote. You may consider my argument amended: "Scalia very capably describes how some early Americans thought the Bill of Rights applied against the states."

And it appears that this belief of some early Americans runs contrary to your own beliefs about what they believed.  The error is, I think, with your beliefs, not theirs.

113

The States have much less power than you think

I don't know if you live in Texas or what, but I live in Illinois.

The Feds do do a lot of direct meddling right into my damn personal life that I stumble over just going to work.  No doubt. And the feds have a far broader range of power and states are rather paltry.

But the degree to which they can meddle with your personal life with frivolous petty things is extreme.

Locally as well, not just at the state level, the degree to which they'll penetrate into your life with micromanagement is absurd at this level. Like the school dictating how you travel to school. Whether or not you can talk on a phone while walking across the street. Whether you wear your seatbelt.

A state or county government will come along and litterally try to tell you how to wipe your ass.

And they may be, any one of them individually, petty things. But taken cumulatively you're a serf to the arbitrary whims of a corrupt bureaucracy.

The feds will do most things they do and it relates to you personally indirectly. They regulate the energy sector which directly affects your electricity bill, for instance.

But it's the localities who will literally come into your home and tell you no, you may not babysit little Bobby. They have far less people to try to micromanage so they're more 'hands on', they're far more likely to actually come knocking on your damn door.

For the federal government to enforce positively at least the very basic Constitutional rights (and that's all I'd argue for positively enforcing), would be a hefty net contributor to liberty around here, not a detractor.

And do not think that one state or a bunch of states can go fruitloops but the system as a whole will just survive peachy. The actions of these states set expectations, proprieties, general understandings, and beat down boundaries at a local level, which is reflected nationally. 1 state cannot just tear down the constitution, but a half dozen states drifting slow and steady leftward can drag the federal edifice off course with it.

You cannot have states regulating every aspect of a person's life, and not have those millions of people become complacent with servitude and have that reflect on the national scene as well. You let states establish churches, and people wind up having to accept that, they won't make much fuss at all when the Federal government wants to as well.

Just look - it's all the places where guns are already banned that are pushing for more (federal) gun control and have the least resistance to it.

114

I just disagree with this “selective” incorporation because it is nothing more than another version of “the living Constitution” which is no Constitution at all.

I said as much myself.

Better either extreme then anywhere in the middle.

Incorporate all, or incorporate none. Else if you just incorporate whatever you want, you may as well go cherrypicking a new constitution out of randomly selected snippets from The Complete Works of William Shakespeare Vol. 3.

115 Gabe,

Again, you are mis-reading what that portion of the brief is arguing.  I explained it above.  You are really stretching here.

But, let's make this real simple.

Please harmonize these two statements:

1.  Gabe: "Scalia very capably describes how many early Americans thought the Bill of Rights applied against the states."

2.  Scalia's actual words in Heller:  "For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States."

I took the position that the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the states until the 14th was ratified and it was understood it only applied to the federal government.  You threw Scalia's opinion in my face when in fact Scalia confirms my point of view.

So please, harmonize your claim with Scalia's actual words.  (And no, pointing at his reference to Rawle does not harmonize your claim).

116

And that, by the way, is the context of my reductio ad absurdem.

It's the "incorporate none" bit that I'm saying is just really not viable.

The US cannot simply be a Federation of petty kleptocracies and remain in any way classically liberal at the federal level.

Hell, most of the federal politicians come from local and state level politics.

And what they did before, they'll want to keep doing.

117 entropy, if you send me your email, I would like to send you some stuff.

I won't get to it until tonight.

Regards,
josh dot davenport at myfairpoint dot net

118

While Kelo vs. New London was a federal case, recall that it was a local government that done started it.

Again, at a local personal level, people get use to the idea in their daily lives that 'the government' (even if it's Mayor Bob of New London or whatever) can just go around siezing property because he wants more revenue, that expectation will carry over to the federal level.

119 And how did the federal government fix that? They ruled in favor of the local government.

120

The NY Times take on this?  No big deal it doesn't matter.  They have their heads in the sand.

Kemp

121

And how did the federal government fix that? They ruled in favor of the local government

Yes, precisely, they failed to positively protect the negative liberty from local government.

Yeah... yeah, I know.. they didn't deny incorporation they arbitrarily redefined the definition of  'public use'. So they'll do the same thing at the federal level.

That's a different jurisprudence problem though.

122 LiveFreeOrDie, I think you're way off base with this "positivist" stuff, at least so far as you seem to think I have such a view or that Rawle's statement would support such a view. Rawle seems clear (and so did I in the original post) that the Amendments served to place restraints on the national government and perhaps the state governments too.

123 A couple questions (to direct a line of thought, not lack of information, mind you):

First, does the US (federal) Constitution contain any sections or clauses concerning states?  If it does so without explicitly restricting state concerns to those segments, the argument that said document and its amendments apply exclusively to the federal level is bunk.  The Constitution's applicability to the states either exists or it does not.  If Article IV is binding on the states, then all parts not relegated to only the federal level are likewise binding.

Second, the actions of which entities are curtailed by the language of the Second Amendment?  Unlike the First, which explicitly restricts Congress and not the states (regarding the state religion issue, this is why states were still permitted to have their own religions under the 1A), the Second simply declares that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".  The lack of "by Congress", "by the states", or any other targeted entity implicitly includes all entities.  By the language, someone stealing your firearm is violating your civil right as much as the sheriff who bans guns in his town, the state requiring citizens to pay a fee when purchasing a gun, or the federal government banning "assault" weapons.  In all cases, the right to keep and bear arms has been infringed, a violation of the exact language of the Second Amendment.

It's worthwhile to note that, of the original ten amendments in the BoR, only the First and Tenth are restrictions placed solely upon the federal government.  The rest take forms similar to that of the Second, wherein it is simply forbidden for a particular right to be violated, without regard to the particular entity making the violation.

Also interesting is the uniqueness of the Second Amendment, in that, of the BoR, it is not reliant on any apparatus of the government.  What I mean by this is that the others all target a particular function of the government (state or federal):  1A targets the federal lawmaking progress through Congress; 3A targets the military; 4-8A target law-enforcement, the criminal system, and the courts; 9A is essentially an "including but not limited to" clause which may thereby target any given process and/or entity (arguably like 2A, but the anti-loopholing concept of it is reliant on a government entity trying to make/exploit such a loophole); and 10A targets the federal government in general.  Only the Second describes and protects a right wholly independent of the government at all levels.

To get back on topic, the 1833 SC ruling against this common sense reading of the Constitution was a terribly destructive blow to the federal system on the basis of nothing more than the Court's whim.  Unintuitive as that may seem, one only has to look at the consequences to understand the reason.  States were effectively granted de jure powers to ignore every right not included in their own constitution, and this situation was seized as an opportunity to recreate the federal guarantee of these rights through incorporation.  Incorporation relies on the courts a second time to restore the rights in a piecemeal fashion, meaning that rights may be selectively restored, denied, or altered in restoration, and established the dominance of the courts over both the federal and state governments.  In short, the original 1833 ruling, whether this was intentional or not, set the stage for the courts to become the final arbiter of our rights, a massive shift in power, and an effective rewriting of the BoR by the whims of the justices.

124

Even if incorporation  is granted, it won't mean that much for 'may' issue states...like Jersey.

Jersey has a mechanism for granting CCW licenses...they just don't - except for that .03% that are former LEOs, judges, etc.  Just enough to look good.

I'm not holding my breath.

125

LiveFreeOrDie, I think you're way off base with this "positivist" stuff

For whatever it's worth... it's not entirely posivitist that I was arguing.

The right is still and remains a negative right. I do not object, because it's fair to say (with a bit of confusing nuance) I'm arguing for positive enforcement of a negative right. A bit positivistic. Yes.

But a truly 'positive liberty' interpretation of the 2nd ammendment would amount to me saying the government needs to give me a gun.

A truly positive take on the right to assembly might say that to be truly FREE to assemble, assembly must be free of any cost or consequence, so government must provide me with on-demand cost-free transportation to meet my assembling needs.

The way I'm suggesting it these rights are still negative liberties. Freedom FROM laws that would prohibit you. Merely applied (positivistically) to state and localities.

126

Although, even almost uniformly against though I'm against 'positive liberty' as to provide it to anyone requires imposing on someone else... to be perfectly honest with you... if the government took a 'positive liberty'/welfare stance on the very basic Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights only....

I probably wouldn't bitch much.

127

Extreme lameness, screwed. You ask:

Please harmonize these two statements:

1.  Gabe: "Scalia very capably describes how many early Americans thought the Bill of Rights applied against the states."

2.  Scalia's actual words in Heller:  "For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States."

Quite simply, for "most of our history" -- that is, from 1833 to the mid-1900s -- "the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States."  However, "many early Americans" -- that is, prior to the 1833s -- "thought the Bill of Rights applied against the states."

There. Harmonized.  Now, we can quibble over whether Scalia described "many" early Americans or just a few, but the point is that at least some early Americans, including prominent ratifiers of the Bill of Rights, thought it applied against the states. You very strenuously insist that very thought runs contrary to, well, what you learned in civics class. I suggest your civics class missed a few details.

128 Alex @96: I went to your cite in Nordyke and found exactly what I expected to find: a reference to the infamous Slaughter-House case.  I've read the background on Slaughter-House, along with excerpts from the majority opinion which neutered the Privileges and Immunities Clause.  I agree with the position held by many constitutional scholars that the majority opinion is pure judicial activism: specious reasoning designed solely to reach the conclusion that the majority wanted to reach, regardless of the written law or the facts of the matter.   I believe the Privileges and Immunities clause was specifically and intentionally written to apply to all rights recognized in the Constitution, including those in the Bill of Rights. 

129 "Please note: the reference to "State" [in 6A] does not mean "the 50 states."  It means "State" in its classical sense of "the government" and in the context of the federal constitution, the government was the federal constitution."

"...by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

So the 6A is actually making a provision for international extradition, huh...  Before you say I'm misinterpreting your claim, how else can that part of 6A be taken, assuming your claim is correct?  If the "state" referenced actually means "country" or "nation", 6A is dealing with crimes committed in other nations.  Hmm...

130 gabe: "at least so far as you seem to think I have such a view or that Rawle's statement would support such a view."

Then I stand corrected.

131

So am I to understand that the right to a trial by jury is not incorporated?

What about criminal trials?

I have noted that basically both innocent until proven guilty and trial by jury go right the hell out the window when a cop says you weren't wearing your seatbelt, or were going 12mph over the limit.

Of course, if they had to hold a jury trial and meet the burden of reasonable doubt over these issues, it'd be practically impossible for them to use it as a revenue source and they'd have to stick to just enforcing issues of considerable public safety. Oh heaven's my.

132

ãíß ÇÈ - ÇáãßíÇÌ

ÇáÈÔÑÉ

ÇáÊÑÍíÈ

ÇáÚÇÈ ãíß ÇÈ

ÇÓÊãÇÚ ÇáÞÑÇä ÇáßÑíã

ÇáÚäÇíÉ ÈÇáÔÚÑ

ÇáÚäÇíÉ ÈÇáÈÔÑÉ

ãßíÇÌ ÎáíÌì áÈäÇäì

ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ

ÚÑÇÆí

ÇßÓÓæÑÇÊ

ÇÒíÇÁ

ãÍÌÇÊ

ÇÒíÇÁ ÇØÝÇá

ãØíÎ

ÏíßæÑ

ÑíÌíã

ÇáÍíÇÉ ÇáÒæÍíÉ

ÇáãßíÇÌ

ãíß ÇÈ

ÇÒíÇÁ

ÇáãæÖÉ

ÇáãÑÇå

133 Gabe, it's quite frankly pathetic how far you are going to defend your original incorrect statement.

You've taken one out-of-context statement about the right to bear arms and extrapolated a general belief that many people believed that the entire Bill of Rights applied to the states up until 1833.  And in doing so, you have rejected a clear statement from Scalia to the contrary. 

This is extraordinary bad faith.

It is clear from the Supreme Court's jurisprudence and the history of the Constitution that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government up until the 14th Amendment.  I cannot fathom you are arguing otherwise.  But you said it, so now you are acting like a pit bull in defending it when it is self-evidently wrong.

That would not pass the red face test in front of an appellate panel, and I'm not going to argue it any further with you.

134

You've taken one out-of-context statement about the right to bear arms and extrapolated a general belief that many people believed that the entire Bill of Rights applied to the states up until 1833.  And in doing so, you have rejected a clear statement from Scalia to the contrary. 

Scalia did not make a "clear statement" to the contrary. For reasons passing understanding you apparently think it is logically impossible for "many early Americans" to have thought the Bill of Rights applied against the states and yet "for most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States." These are not inconsistent, as I demonstrated above.

It is very clearly possible -- and from the historical record actually what happened -- that early Americans thought the Bill of Rights applied against the states and then (following Barron) that the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the states for the majority of American history.

This is so clearly a "No, duh" issue, that I fail to understand your intransigence.  Are you so invested in your belief that early Americans never would have thought the Bill of Rights applied against the states that you refuse to consider the historical evidence right in front of your face?

135

So am I to understand that the right to a trial by jury is not incorporated?

What about criminal trials?

_________________________

The right to a jury trial in civil cases has NOT been incorporated.
The right to a speedy, public, and impartial jury in criminal trials has been incoporated.
A listing of what has been incorporated and when can be found here.

136 Entropy: I have noted that basically both innocent until proven guilty and trial by jury go right the hell out the window when a cop says you weren't wearing your seatbelt, or were going 12mph over the limit.

Do they?  It's been a long time since I got a speeding ticket (fortunately), and the exact procedure varies from state to state, but typically it goes something like this:
* cop gives you a citation;
* you sign to prove you got the citation form;
* you appear in court at the appointed time and either pay your fine or contest the citation. 

If you choose to contest the citation, you can in fact demand a trial by jury.  Or a trial by judge alone.  In some states there are even attorneys who specialize in defending against traffic violations. 

137 wolfwalker: I tend to agree with you and others on the Slaughter-House Cases being poor case law.  But the ruling remains binding until overturned, so it's what we have to contend with for now.

And re: the later exchange about traffic tickets: states tend to classify those as "infractions," and many states, such as California, have successfully denied jury trial rights for infractions.  The burden of proof remains on the prosecution, but infractions don't carry all the criminal-procedure rights of misdemeanors and felonies.

138

So far these are the rights Not incorporated:

 

The second amendment discussed here

 

Third amendment

 

Fifth amendment part regarding grand jury indictment

 

Seventh amendment “jury trial” in civil court cases discussed above

 

Eighth amendment with regard to excessive fines and bail.

139 The Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government because the Constitution only applies to the federal government. It is the federal constitution, as distinct from state constitutions.
This is nonsense on stilts. First of all, the original text of the Constitution provided for certain requirements of the States, and exclusions to their powers. (Art. I, Sec. 10; Art. IV). To argue that it does not regulate the powers of State governments is absurd on its face. Second, the word "federal" has two different meanings: 1) The system under which a central government has certain limited powers while the more local governments and the people retain others. 2) The central government in such a system. I refuse to use that second definition, because it weakens the first. I call it the "national" government mostly. The Framers were quite good at referring to States in some contexts, to the United States in others, and mentioning neither in others. When the 2nd Amendment says the right "shall not be infringed", and doesn't single out Congress or state Legislatures for a specific prohibition, it means neither of them shall fracking infringe upon that right.

140 HOW DO YOU FORMAT THIS SHIT!

141

The burden of proof remains on the prosecution

Yeah.

But '1 cop says so' meets the burden of proof for the judge.

142 Since there are so many constitutional attorneys on the thread right now, how 'bout someone's opinion on whether or not there is any difference between a Citizen as we are referred to in the original and a citizen, as we are referred to in the 14th amend.

143

123 Cortillaen:

Wind that clock back even further - Marbury's where this started.  It's rather ironic that all of the Court's navel-gazing and equivocation about the Founders' intent is being performed in the course of exercising a power conspicuously absent from Article III.

I wasn't there, but I'm just guessing that giving a handfull of life-term-serving, unaccountable autocrats carte-blanche to tortuously "interpret" the Constitution at their whim was not what the Founders had in mind.

144

For strict constructionists:

In that these amendments were referred to collectively as the Bill of Rights - echoing both the "inalienable rights" cited in the Declaration of Independence and the English Bill of Rights, which applied to all Englishmen, we should err on the side of holding they enjoin both federal and state actions.

For loose constructionists:

My "rights" don't do me much good if California can tell me to pound sand on 5 out of 10 of them - and I live here, not in D.C., so who's more likely to quarter troops in my house and bother my livestock ?

 

 

 

145

Beck is talking to a Chicago lawyer about this case now. He just asked the lawyer if the federalism argument would allow NY to have their strict laws while other States didn’t.  He then went on a break.

 

It will be interesting to see if they talk about the “incorporation” all or none issue.

146

Well, in lose words, the Constitutional attorney just told Beck that the 14^th amendment eliminated federalism.

147

WOW the attorney is the guy taking the case to SCOTUS.

148

Some people like LV handbags,Some people like Chanel handbags,but most popel have been keeping an eye on cheap fashion brand handbags .we often talk about all kinds of designer handbags with my friends,most of my friends also like cheap fashion brand handbags.We admire cheap fashion brand handbags designer who often be able to design so many stylish handbags.We want to be a handbag’s designer in the future too. In our store online，you can buy all series of cheap fashion brand handbags，include: Louis Vuitton,LV Luggage,LV Wallets,LV Agendas,LV Belts,LV Shoes,LV Accessories,Gucci,Gucci Wallets,Gucci Shoes,Marc Jacobs handbags,Marni handbags,Miu Miu handbags,Mulberry handbags,Prada handbags,Thomaswylde handbags,TOD handbags,Bottega Veneta handbags,D&G handbags,Dior handbags,YSL handbags,Coach handbags

149 I like the UGG boots that makes me happy and warm winter.And I think women's ugg boots is a good choice this year.

150 UGG Boots Sale
ugg shoes
ugg classic
cheap ugg
UGG UK
bape shoes
bape shoes sale
cheap bape shoes
UGG UK
UGG boots sale
UGG Classic
discount UGG
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Coquette Casual
UGG Gypsy Sandal
UGG Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG KnightsBridge
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Lo Pro Button
UGG Matala Sandal
UGG Napoule Sandal
UGG New Arrival 5389
UGG New Short Boots

151

High Replica Handbags | Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags | replica fashion Handbags| fendi handbags| designer handbags replica| replica Chanel Handbags| designer replica handbag| replica purses| Replica Louis Vuitton Luggage| Hermes Birkin Handbags| Replica Gucci handbags Louis Vuitton,LV Luggage,LV Wallets,LV Agendas,LV Belts,LV Shoes,LV Accessories,Gucci,Gucci Wallets,Gucci Shoes,Marc Jacobs handbags,Marni handbags,Miu Miu handbags,Mulberry handbags,Prada handbags,Thomaswylde handbags,TOD handbags,Bottega Veneta handbags,D&G handbags,Dior handbags,YSL handbags,Coach handbagsLouis Vuitton LV Luggage LV Wallet Chanel Gucci Alexander Wang Fendi Balenciaga Chloe Marc Jacobs Miu Miu Mulberry Jimmy Choo Hermes Loewe Coach Cartier Valentino Bottega Veneta Burberry Dior Prada Marni YSL Versace Dolce&Gabbana Goyard Givenchy Thomas Wylde Luggage Shoes Collection Belts Collection Bracelets Louis Vuitton ::  Gucci Handbags ::  Chanel Handbags ::  Hermes Birkin :: 

152 UGG Classic Cardy Boot makes me different form the other girls. The UGG Bailey Button Boot is a good choice for female. If you want to be more attractive this winter,the UGG boots will make your dream come true.

153 breitling watch
tiffany rings
discount tiffany jewellery
tiffany ring
tiffany pendants
tiffany jewelry
tiffany jewellery
tiffany earrings
tiffany earring
cheap bags
wallets
breitling watch
tiffany rings
discount tiffany jewellery
tiffany ring
cheap bags
wallets

154 UGG Classic Tall is one of our brand's heritage styles. The UGG Classic Tall features genuine twin-face sheepskin for refreshing comfort.UGG boot Sheepskin boots are the taller version of UGG Australia's signature luxury sheepskin boot.UGG Classic Tall is a classic article for autumn and winter seasons. It has become a new favorite for fashionable ladies.

155 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

156 discountugg boots sale
ugg shoes
tall ugg boots
ugg classic boots
nike shox
air jordan shoes
nike air max
nike air force one
bailey button ugg
rainier ugg boots
ugg classic cardy
ugg crochet boots
ugg mini
ugg classic short
classic tall ugg
ugg coquette
ugg baby boots
ugg knightsbridge
ugg lo pro
new ugg boots
ugg short boots
ugg nightfall boots
ugg skimmer
ugg sundance boots
ultra short ugg
ugg ultra tall
discount ugg slippers
ugg sandals
ugg halendi
ugg slippers
ugg layback
ugg matala sandal
ugg napoule sandal
ugg persephone
tasmina ugg
air force 1 shoes
jordan air shoes
nike shox shoes
air max nike
free shipping!

157 Your post very good,thanks for sharing!Are you also like these:ugg boots uk,buy ugg boots,australia ugg,cheap ugg boots,ugg boots,ugg boots sheepskin,womens ugg boots,ugg australia boots,cheap ugg boots

158 We sell Ugg mens Tasmina Braid Sandal,UGG Classic Cardy,Ugg mens Tasmina Braid Sandal and so on.We are welcome and trusted by our customers from all around the world.http://www.llikeonline.com

159 Our website htttp://www.widelybuy.com provide many kinds of UGG Boots.For example,the UGG Classic Tall,Ugg Classic Short,Ugg Ultra Short,Ugg Sundance and so on.In order to meet your demands as possible.We will give you the best service to satisfy your request.We also will give you the reasonable price on the basis of equality and mutual benefits.Free shipping fee and no tax 1 week to you door!

160 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

161 ugg clsaaic tall ;ugg boots

162 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

163 cheap ugg
buy ugg
ugg usa
ugg boots
ugg uk
ugg australia
ugg shoes
ugg sale
womens ugg boots
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
ugg shoes sale
ugg boots sale
ugg sundance
ugg 5819
ugg 5815
ugg knightsbridge
ugg 5825
ugg rainier

164 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

165 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

166 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

167 one day i went shopping outside,and in an gucci shoes store,I found some kinds of gucci shoes i love most they are: ed hardy ed hardy links of london links of london Gucci shoes Gucci shoes Gucci boots Gucci boots Gucci Mens Shoes Gucci Mens Shoes Gucci Mid Cut Shoes Gucci Mid Cut Shoes Gucci High Cut Shoes Gucci High Cut Shoes Gucci Womens Shoes Gucci Womens Shoes Gucci Womens Boots Gucci Womens Boots cheap Gucci shoes cheap Gucci shoes street lighting street lighting buy wow gold buy wow gold cheap wow gold cheap wow gold Thanks of your infomation i have read it is very help full for me.

168 BJ's Restaurants links of london . Management might be tempted to belly up and drown cheap links of london their sorrows, links of london jewellery since the majority of this chain's 89 restaurants are in links of london jewelry deep-recession states like California, Arizona, links of london sale and Florida. links london

169 Pretty much ugg boots look like casual clogs, loafers, moccasins and ankle boots. This kind of items makes ugg become so prevalent now. The data are also convenient creep on designs like They are cheap ugg boots forced to people who have all varieties of marvelous footwear options. For adult kids you do have great comfort in irksome ugg from Australia. The class of ugg shoes is parallel to its boots. Without shafts uggs don't look like Sullivan, Kohala and Parker. Ladies mocs and loafers include Crawford, Harlow and Thelma. Men on the other time of a year. You have different choices of leather or suede on the scarce. Check out ladies' darling clog styles such as Isabella, Molly and Cassandra. There are ugg boots sale also a focal addition to the world. Check it or not feel overstaffed on your feet anymore in iciness but pounce and summer look. They have to be damaged with scarves and Jones. UGG Classic Tall boots are so cute to take your outcome out right with an infant Ugg. Believe it out. All classic and hottest patterns of ugg have been unruffled.We know that boots are damaged in iciness or fleece slender. Genuine lenient sheepskin brings ugg wearers the ultimate ugg boots uk comfort on snowing ground in chill. Shoes come in different casual laid back shades like sallow, spark, toast, obsidian, ridge and black. You will not There is expansive strain of Ugg is kids' ugg. There are designer limp UGG Cardy boots even for the nominal baby's feet. There is no misgiving to become trendy in the shoes and is the senses why the shoes are as comfortable as the Ugg sheepskin boots.

170 Mexican Grill links of london jewellery . The fast food at these casual links of london eateries feels slow, links london jewelry thanks to organic ingredients cheap links of london , custom combos, link of london and an emphasis on freshness. links of london sale Traffic is down at many locations, links of london jewelry but the company has been able to compensate by raising prices, links london Olive Garden. links of london Charms More food for less money hits the sweet spot these days, links of london Charm which makes the family-style portions at this casual Italian chain a hit with diners. links of london Necklaces Olive Garden is a division of Darden Restaurants, links london Necklace which also operates Red Lobster, links of london Bracelets Longhorn Steakhouse, links london Bracelet and a few smaller chains. links of london Sweetie Bracelets Olive Garden has been the best performer of the bunch, links london Sweetie Bracelet with same-store sales down slightly but overall sales up, links of london Friendship Bracelets thanks to about 35 new outlets that have opened over the past year links london Friendship Bracelet

171 nike sb high
nike dunk high
nike dunk low
nike dunk sb
air force one
nike air
air force nike
six rings shoes
Jordan Six Rings
air jordan six
NBA Shoes
Nike Kobe IV Shoes
Nike LeBron VI Shoes
supra shoes
supra skytop
discount puma shoes
puma sandal
prada shoes
prada men shoes
gucci shoes
women gucci shoes
discount gucci men
obanma shoes
lacoste shoes
ATO Matsumoto Shoes

172 You exchange authentic and mean prices UGG Ultimate Short boots .Many individuals ask where to get sizeable ugg boots at a great cost without getting ripped off. There they can be assured that the inventive and the best australian ugg. Wish you can buy your favourite ugg boots. This kind of spaces to find a trusted and established dealer of d UGG Mayfaire boots .Ensure You should always show your ugg gumboot wisely and ensure that you are made in Australia.Some people buy online because There bags of ugg boots exchange the best eminence.You are ready to buy ugg boots online,and ugg boots promote online worth authentic boots are reduction and real ugg boots and of this you can buy UGG Bailey Button boots .It is the ugg gumboot you buy is authentic but you must elect the mass which has good status then you may buy the ugg boot you like.

173 ÔÇÊ ÇáÑíÇÖ Ïáíá ÔÇÊ ÇáÑíÇÖ ÇáÏÑÏÔÉ ÔÇÊÇÊ ÏÑÏÔÇÊ ÔÇÊ ÍáÇ ÇáÓÚæÏíåÔÇÊ ÇáÑíÇÖ

174 mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

175 Attention, class. Here's a logic question for you: If it's true that everyone loves Nightfall Ugg Boots Nightfall Ugg Boots Nightfall Ugg Boots a deal, and Black Friday offers the best deals of the year, then is it safe to assume that folks will go ugg boots on sales ugg boots on sales ugg boots on sales into a state of high-grade hysteria the day after Thanksgiving? The answer is: duh, of course. Though over a week away, Black Friday is already igniting the Search box. ugg boots shop ugg boots shop ugg boots shop Shoppers have pushed up searches on "black friday 2009" and "black friday ads" to dizzying heights. One might think that retailers would keep the deals a secret until the big day ugg mini boots ugg mini boots ugg mini boots but nothing could be further from the truth. classic cardy ugg boots classic cardy ugg boots classic cardy ugg boots

176 ãäÊÏíÇÊ ãæÞÚ ÍæÇÁ ááÈäÇÊ ááÈäÇÊ ÇÓÊÖÇÝÉ ÈäÇÊ ÇáÓÚæÏíÉ ÈäÊ ÓÚæÏíÉ ãØíÑ ÇáäæÇÏÑ íæÊíæÈ ÚÇáã ÇáÍÈ ÇáÍíÇÉ ÇáÒæÌíÉ åæÇãíÑ ãáæß ÇáÚÑÈ ÊÝÓíÑ ÇáÇÍáÇã ÕæÑ ßÊÈ ÔÇÊ ãÚáæãÇÊ ÇáÚÇÈ ÈäÇÊ ÈË ãÈÇÔÑ ØÈÎ ÇáÚÇÈ ØÈ äßÊ ÏÑæÓ Ïáíá ãÇÓäÌÑ ÌæÇá ÞÕÕ ÓÊáÇíÊ ÓßÑÈÊÇÊ ÔÚÑ ÑÓÇÆá ÈÑäÇãÌ ÊÑÌãÉ ÊÍãíá ÇÝáÇã ÔÇÊ ÕæÊí ÇÝáÇã ÈäÇÊ ÇáÚÇÈ ááÈäÇÊ ÝÞØ áÚÈÉ ÌÏíÏÉ ÈÑæßÓí Óãæ ÇáÍÈ áíá ÇáÍÈ ÝæÑßÓ ÈáÇß ÈíÑí ÊæÈíßÇÊ ÈäÇÊ ÔÇÊ ÈäÇÊ ÔÇÊ ÇáÑíÇÖ

177 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

178

It is a great idea especially for relatively new blogs. I’d like to try this.

ugg bailey button Just got my ugg classic mini! They are absolutely beautiful, and the quality is just amazing. No wearing them in, no blisters just absolutely snug strait out of the box.

Everything dynamic and very positively!

179 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

180
Designer handbags,genuine leather replicas handbags, we retail and wholesale wide range of top quality knockoff bag,purse,wallet at low price including Louis ... A store selling replica Chanel and replica bag , wallets, watches and other goods once appeared on this domain. The site owners were ordered to ...

181 The cheap ugg boots sale for women are stylish, they are comfortable and what¡¯s more, they keep your feet. theres a pair of fellow sufferers,ugg australia uk to complement your personal preferences, why do we not take the traditional high discount ugg boots on salefor cold winter?
As a matter of fact, with the passing time, the love for ugg usa is increasing among girls in this modern world. The growing demand for these womens ugg made the manufacturers UGG Boots Sale to revamp the looks of these boots with different hues.come our website and buy a pair of ugg uk.UGG Classic Cardy are popular as shoes for cowboys. The SHOES close the whole parts of the foot. The ugg cardy are important to protect your feet from any dangerous things during your walking activities. There are many oatmeal ugg available in the Market and if you are interested to get one you can directly go to the store that sells it.

182

Last weekend, I ordered chocolate Ugg Classic Cardy hoping they wouldn't show marks as much as my beige ugg cardy boots and waterproofed them when I first got them. They look so much cleaner than my old beige ugg boots, I wear my Whooga's all year round, they don't make my feet sweat as much as my older pair. I'm very impressed with how they are holding up to my abuse, very well made. My only suggestion to everyone is keep them dry and out of the mud.Ugg Classic Cardy!

183

ÊæÈíßÇÊ ¡ ÃäÇÔíÏ ØíæÑ ÇáÌäå ¡ÞÕÇÆÏ ßÊÇÈíå ¡ ÞÕÇÆÏ ãÓãæÚå ¡ ÎæÇØÑ ¡ ÞÕÕ ÑæÇíÇÊ ¡ÃÒíÇÁ ¡ ÝÓÇÊíä  ¡ ãßíÇÌ ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ¡ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ¡ ÏíßæÑ ¡ ÏíßæÑÇÊ ¡ ÍáæíÇÊ ¡ ãÚÌäÇÊ ¡ äÇÏí ÇáåáÇá ¡ äÇÏí ÇáäÕÑ ¡ äÇÏí ÇáÇÊÍÇÏ ¡ ÓíÇÑÇÊ ¡ ãæÏíáÇÊ ÓíÇÑÇÊ ¡ÃÒíÇÁ ÇÏã ¡ Åäãí ¡ÃÝáÇã Çäãí ¡ ÕæÑ ØÈíÚíå ¡ ÓíäãÇ ¡ ÇÝáÇã ¡ ãÓáÓáÇÊ ÑãÖÇäíå ¡ ÕæÑ ÝäÇäíä ¡ ÕæÑ ããËáíä ¡ ÕæÑ ãØÑÈíä ¡ ãÓáÓá ÚÇÕí ¡ ÒÝÇÊ ¡ ÇÛÇäí ÈÏæä ãæÓíÞì ¡ ßáãÇÊ ÇÛÇäí  ¡ ãÇÓäÌÑ ¡ ÓßÑÈÊÇÊ ¡ ËíãÇÊ ãÇÓäÌÑ ¡ ÈÑÇãÌ ááãÇÓäÌÑ ¡ ÕæÑ ãÇÓäÌÑ ¡ ÕæÑ ÈäÇÊ ááãÇÓäÌÑ ¡ ÕæÑ ÔÈÇÈ ááãÇÓäÌÑ  ¡ ÊæÈíß ¡ äßÇÊ ¡ ÊæÈíßÇÊ ÇÛÇäí ¡ ÊæÈíßÇÊ ßÑÊæäíå ¡ ÊæÈíßÇÊ ãáæäå ¡ ÈÑÇãÌ ÝæÊæÔæÈ ¡ ÎáÝíÇÊ ááÊÕãíã ¡ ÕæÑ ááÊÕãíã ¡ ÎÇãÇÊ ¡ ÝáÇÊÑ ¡ ÇßÔä ¡ÝáÇÊÑ ¡ ÓßÑÇÈÒ ¡ ÎØæØ ¡ ÈÇÊÑä ¡ ÝÑÔ ¡ ÌáÊÑ ¡ ÓæíÊÔ ¡ ÝáÇÔ ¡ ãáÝÇÊ ãÝÊæÍå ¡ ãáÝ ãÝÊæÍ  ¡ ÌæÇá ¡ ÈÑÇãÌ ÌæÇá ¡ ËíãÇÊ ÌæÇá ¡ ÇáÚÇÈ ÌæÇá ¡ ÈáæÊæË ¡ äÛãÇÊ ÌæÇá ¡ íæÊíæÈ ¡ ÑÓÇÆá ¡mms ¡ sms ¡ ãÓÌÇÊ ¡ æÓÇÆØ ÇÛÇäí ¡ ÈÑÇãÌ ßãÈíæÊÑ ¡ ÇáÚÇÈ ßãÈíæÊÑ ¡ ÇáÚÇÈ ÈäÇÊ ¡ ãäÊÏì ¡ ãäÊÏíÇÊ ¡ æÊáæãäí Ýíß ¡ ÔÈßÉ æÊáæãäí Ýíß

äÞÔ ÈÇáÍäÇÁ ÇáÑÓã ÈÇáÍäÇÁÚáì ÇáÌÓã äÞÔ ÇáÍäÇÁþ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÇáÎÈíÑ ÝÇÏí ÅÈÑÇåíã ãßíÇÌ ÝÇÏí ÅÈÑÇåíã ãßíÇÌ æÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÇáÎÈíÑ ÝÇÏí ÅÈÑÇåíã
ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÇáÎÈíÑå ÇáÊæäÓíå ÌãíáÉ ÇáÍÐíÑí ãßíÇÌ ÒæÇÌ ãßíÇÌ ÌãíáÉ ÇáÍÐíÑí
ÚÏÓÇÊ Íáíãå ÈæáäÏ ÚÏÓÇÊ ááÚíä ÃáæÇä ÚÏÓÇÊ
ãßíÇÌ ãÐíÚÇÊ ÇáÎáíÌ ãíßÇÌ ÝäÇäÇÊ ãßíÇÌ Íáíãå ÈæáäÏ ãßíÇÌ Ããá ÇáÚæÖí
ÕæÑ ÚÏÓÇÊ ãÑíÇã ÝÇÑÓ ÚÏÓÇÊ ÇáÝäÇäå ãÑíÇã ÝÇÑÓ ÕæÑ ãÑíÇã ÝÇÑÓ ÚÏÓÇÊ 2009
ãßíÇÌ äÇÚã ÕæÑ ãíß ÇÈ 2009 ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÒæÇÌ 2009
ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÇáããËáå Ããá ÇáÚæÖí ãíß ÇÈ ÇáãÐíÚå Ããá ÇáÚæÖí ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ 2009
ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÚÈíÑ ÃÍãÏ ãíß ÃÈ ÇáããËáå ÚÈíÑ ÃÍãÏ ÕæÑ ãíß ÇÈ 2009
ãßíÇÌ ÎÈíÑ ÇáÊÌãíá ÈÓÇã ÝÊæÍ ãßíÇÌ ÇáíÓÇ ãíß ÇÈ äÌæì ßÑã ãßíÇÌ íÇÑÇ ãíß ÇÈ åíÝÇÁ æåÈí
ãßíÇÌ ÈÍÑíäí ÕæÑ ãíß ÇÈ ÇáÎÈíÑå ÑÈÇÈ ãßíÇÌ Úíæä ãíß ÇÈ 2009
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ äæÇá ÇáÒÛÈí 2009 ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÇáÝäÇäå äæÇá ÇáÒÛÈí ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÇáÝäÇäÇÊ
ÊÓÑíÍå ÇáÈÝ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÓåÑå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÌÏíÏå
ãßíÇÌ ÇáããËáå ÝÇØãå ÚÈÏÇáÑÍíã ÕæÑ ãíß ÇÈ ÝÇØãå ÚÈÏÇáÑÍíã ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÇáÝäÇäå ÈÇÑíÓ åíáÊæä ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÔÚÑ ÈÇÑíÓ åíáÊæä 2009 ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÇáÝäÇäÇÊ 2009
ãßíÇÌ ÔÑíÝå ÇáÔÑíã 2009 ÕæÑ ãíß ÇÈ ÇáÎÈíÑå ÇáÞØÑíå ÔÑíÝÉ ÇáÔÑíã ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÞØÑí 2009þ
ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÇáÚíæä ÕæÑ ãíß ÇÈ Úíæä ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ááÚíæäþ
ÞÕÇÊ ÔÚÑ ÈÇáÕÈÛÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáØæíá ..þ
ãíß ÇÈ ãÓíæ ÚÈÏå ãßíÇÌ ÇáÎÈíÑ ãÓíæ ÚÈÏå ãßíÇÌ 2009 ~ ãßíÇÌ Úíæä
ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ Çãäå ÇáÙÇåÑí ÕæÑ ãíß ÇÈ ÎáíÌí ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæÚÉ
ãßíÇÌ Ìæíá ãßíÇÌ áÈäÇäí ãßíÇÌ ÑÇÆÚ ãßíÇÌ Íáæþ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÚÑÇíÓ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÔÚÑ ~ ÊÓÇÑíÍ ÚÑæÓ ÕæÑ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÔÚÑ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ æÞÕÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáØæíá ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ æÞÕÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáÞÕíÑ ÞÕÇÊ 2009 ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ 2009
ãíß ÇÈ ÇÍãÏ ÞÈíÓí ãßíÇÌ ÇáÎÈíÑ ÃÍãÏ ÞÈíÓí ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ 2009 ááÎÈíÑ ÇÍãÏ ÞÈíÓí
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÚÑÇíÓ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÒæÇÌ ÕæÑ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ äÇÚãå ÊÓÑíÍå
ãßíÇÌ ÇáÎÈíÑå ÎÏíÌå ÇáÚáíþ ÕæÑ ãíß ÇÈ ÎÏíÌÉ ÇáÚáí ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÎÏíÌÉ ÇáÚáí
ãßíÇÌ ÇáÎÈíÑå Òßíå ÃÍãÏ ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ Òßíå ÇÍãÏ ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ
ãßíÇÌ ÇáÎÈíÑå ÑÔÇ ÇáÍÇÝÙ ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ Íáíãå ÈæáäÏ ÕæÑ ãíß ÇÈþ
ãßíÇÌ ÇáÎÈíÑå äæÑÇ ãßíÇÌ ÇáÝäÇäå åäÏ ÇáÈáæÔí ÕæÑ ãíß ÇÈ äæÑÇ ~ ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ 2009 ããËáÇÊþ
ÔÑÍ ØÑíÞÉ Úãá ÇáÔÚÑ ßÊÓÑíÍÉ ÇáÝ - ØÑíÞå ÊÓÑíÍÉ ÇáÈÝ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ æÞÕÇÊ ÔÚÑ Øæäí ãäÏáÞ ÊÓÇÑíÍ ÔÚÑ ÞÕíÑ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ æÕÈÛÇÊ æÞÕÇÊþ
ãíß ÇÈ äÇäÓí ÚÌÑã ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÇáÝäÇäå äÇäÓí ÚÌÑã ãßíÇÌ äÇäÓí ÚÌÑã 2009 ~ ÕæÑ äÇäÓí ÚÌÑã
ãßíÇÌ Úíæä ãíß ÇÈ ÎáíÌí ãßíÇÌ Úíæä ãßíÇÌ ÇãÇÑÇÊí
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÏíÇäÇ ßÑÒæä ãßíÇÌ ÏíÇäÇ ßÑÒæä ÕæÑ ÏíÇäÇ ßÑÒæä ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ æãßíÇÌ ÇáÝäÇäå ÏíÇäÇ ßÑÒæä
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÒíäÈ ÇáÚÓßÑí ãßíÇÌ ÒíäÈ ÇáÚÓßÑí ÕæÑ ÒíäÈ ÇáÚÓßÑí
ÞÕÇÊ æ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÇØÝÇá ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÕÈÇíÇ ÈäæÊÇÊ ááÇØÝÇá ÇáÕÛÇÑ 2009
ãßíÇÌ ãíÓÇÁ ãÛÑÈí ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ãíÓÇÁ ãÛÑÈí ÕæÑ ãíÓÇÁ ãÛÑÈí
ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÈÓÇã ÝÊæÍ ÕæÑ ãíß ÇÈ ÇáÎÈíÑ ÈÓÇã ÝÊæÍ ãßíÇÌ ÝäÇäÇÊ 2009
ãßíÇÌ Íáíãå ÈæáäÏ ãä ßÊÇáæÌ ÓÍÑ ÇáÔÑÞ 2009 , ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ Íáíãå ÈæáäÏ , ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÌÏíÏå .
åÏÇíÇ ááÇÝÑÇÍ ÃÝßÇÑ åÏÇíÇ ÇáÒæÇÌ ØÑÞ ÊÌåíÒ åÏÇíÇ ááÒæÇÌ
ÊÞÔíÑ ÇáæÌå ¡ ÊÞÔíÑ ÇáæÌå ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÊÞÔíÑ ÇáæÌå ¡ æÕÝÇÊ ÊÞÔíÑ ÇáæÌå ¡ æÕÝÇÊ ÊÞÔíÑ ÇáæÌå ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÊÞÔíÑ ÇáæÌå æÕÝÉ ÊÞÔíÑ ÇáÈÔÑå
ÎáØÇÊ ÊÞæíÉ ÇáÃÙÇÝÑ ¡ æÕÝÇÊ ÊÞæíÉ ÇáÃÙÇÝÑ ¡ ÎáØÉ ÊÞæíÉ ÇáÃÙÇÝÑ ¡ æÕÝÉ ÊÞæíÉ ÇáÃÙÇÝÑ ~ ÎáØÇÊ ááÃÙÇÝÑþ
æÕÝå ÊÈííÖ ÇáÌÓã ¡ æÕÝÇÊ ÊØííÈ ÑÇÆÍå ÇáÌÓã ¡ æÕÝÇÊ ÊÚØíÑ ÑÇÆÍå ÇáÌÓã ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÊØíÈ ÑÇÆÍå ÇáÌÓã
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ,ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ 2009 ,ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæÚå ,ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÌÏíÏå ,ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ äÇÚãå ,ãßíÇÌ 2009 ,ãßíÇÌ ÌÏíÏ ,ãßíÇÌ ÑæÚå ,ãßíÇÌ äÇÚã ,ãßíÇÌ åÇÏÆ
ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÇáÝäÇäå ÃãíÑå ãÍãÏ ÕæÑ ãíß ÇÈ ÇáÝäÇäå ÃãíÑå ãÍãÏ ÕæÑ ÃãíÑå ãÍãÏ ÌÏíÏ ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÇáÝäÇäå ÃãíÑå ãÍãÏþ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑÝÚÇÊ ÇáÔÚÑ ÇáØæíá ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáØæíá ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑÝÚÇÊ 2009
ãßíÇÌ Çãá ÇáÚæÖí 2009 ÌÏíÏ ãíß ÇÈ ÇáÝäÇäå Ããá ÇáÚæÖí ÕæÑ Ããá ÇáÚæÖí 2009
ãáÝ áÎáØÇÊ ÊÝÊíÍ áæä ÇáÌÓã, ÎáØÇÊ áÊÈííÖ ÇáÌÓã, ÎáØÇÊ áäÚæãÉ ÇáÌÓã æÊÚØíÑå
æÕÝÇÊ áÊÈííÖ ÇáíÏíä æÕÝÇÊ áÊÈííÖ ãäÇØÞ ÇáÌÓã æÕÝÇÊ ÊÈííÖ ááÌÓã æÕÝÉ áÊÈíÖ ÇáíÏíä
ÊÈíÖ ÇáÑßÈ ¡ æÕÝÇÊ ÊÈíÖ ÇáÑßÈ ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÊÈíÖ ÇáßæÚ ¡ æÕÝÉ ÊÈíÖ ÇáßæÚ æÕÝÇÊ ÊÈíÖ ÇáÑßÈå æÇáßæÚ
æÕÝÉ ÊäÚíã ÇáÔÚÑ ¡ ÎáØÉ ÊäÚíã ÇáÔÚÑ ¡ æÕÝÉ ÝÑÏ ÇáÔÚÑ ¡ ÎáØÉ ÝÑÏ ÇáÔÚÑ ¡ æÕÝÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ááÔÚÑ
ãÓßÇÊ ááÚÑÇíÓ ÃÞäÚÉ ááÚÑæÓÇÊ ãÇÓß ááæÌå ãÇÓß ááÚíæä ãÇÓß ááÔÝÇÁ ãÇÓß ááíÏíä æÇáÑÌáííä
ÎáØÇÊ ãäæÚå áÊÈííÖ ÇáÇÓäÇä ¡ ÊÈííÖ ÇáÇÓäÇä ¡ ÇÓäÇä ÈíÖÇÁ ¡ ÎáØå ÊÈííÖ ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ááÊÈííÖ ¡ áÊÈííÖ
ÎáØÇÊ ÇáÏßÊæÑ ÚÈÏ ÇáÈÇÓØ ÇáÓíÏ ¡ æÕÝÇÊ ÎáØÇÊ ÇáÏßÊæÑ ÚÈÏ ÇáÈÇÓØ ÇáÓíÏ ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÚÈÏ ÇáÈÇÓØ ÇáÓíÏ ááÌãÇá ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÚÈÏ ÇáÈÇÓØ ÇáÓíÏ ááÔÚÑ ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÚÈÏ ÇáÈÇÓØ ÇáÓíÏ ááÈÔÑå
ÎáØÇÊ ÇáÏßÊæÑ ÌÇÈÑ ÇáÞÍØÇäí ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÌÇÈÑ ÇáÞÍØÇäí ¡ ãáÝ ÎáØÇÊ ÌÇÈÑ ÇáÞÍØÇäí ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÌÇÈÑ ÇáÞÍØÇäí ááÌãÇá ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÇáÌãÇá ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÌÇÈÑ ááÌãÇá
ÎáØÇÊ ÊÚØíÑ ÇáÔÚÑ ááÈäÇÊ ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÊÚØíÑ ÔÚÑß ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÊÚØíÑ ÔÚÑ ¡ ÎáØÇÊ áÔÚÑ ãÚØÑ
ÎáØÇÊ áÌãÇá ÇáÚíæä ÎáØÇÊ ááÚíæä ÎáØÇÊ ØÈíÚíå
ÎáØÇÊ áÒíÇÏÉ ÇáæÒä æÕÝÇÊ áÒíÇÏÉ ÇáæÒä ááÊÓãíä
ÎáØå áÊäÚíã ÇáÔÚÑ ÎáØÇÊ ÇáÚäÇíÉ ÈÇáÔÚÑ ÎáØÇÊ ÇáÍäÇÁ ááÔÚÑ ÎáØÇÊ ÇáÚäÇíÉ
ÎáØÇÊ ØÈíÚíÉ ááæÌå ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ááæÌå ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÊÈííÖ ááæÌå ¡ ÎáØÉ ááæÌå
ÎáØÇÊ áÊßÈíÑ ÇáÚíæä ÎáØÇÊ ááÚíæä
ÎáØÇÊ áÊÈíÖ ÇáÑßÈ æÇáÇßæÇÚ ÎáØÇÊ áÇÒÇáÉ ÇáÓæÇÏ ÎáØÇÊ ØÈÚíå
ÎáØÇÊ áÊäÍíÝ ÇáÓÑíÚ ÎáØÇÊ áÔÏ ÇáÌÓã ÎáØÇÊ ÊäÍíÝ æÔÏ
ÎáØÇÊ áÊäÝíÎ ÇáÔÝÇíÝ ÎáØÇÊ ÊäÝíÎ Íáæåþ
ÕÈÛÇÊ ÔÚÑ ÌÏíÏå ÕÈÛÇÊ ÔÚÑ ÑæÚå ÞÕÇÊ ÔÚÑ 2009
ÎáØÇÊ áÊäÚíã ÇáíÏ ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÊäÚíã ¡ ÎáØÇÊ Íáæå ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ãÖãæäå ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ááíÏ
ãíß ÃÈ ÌÏíÏ ãßíÇÌ ÎÝíÝ æÈÓíØ ãßíÇÌ äÇÚã ãíß ÇÈ ÑæÚå
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ 2010 ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÌÏíÏå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæÚå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑÇÆÚå
ãßíÇÌ ÇáÝäÇäå ÇáÈÍÑíäíå ÒíäÈ ÇáÚÓßÑí 2009 ãßíÇÌ ÒíäÈ ÇáÚÓßÑí ÎáíÌí ãßíÇÌ ÒíäÈ ÇáÚÓßÑí ááÚÑÇíÓ ãßíÇÌ ÒíäÈ ÇáÚÓßÑí áÈäÇäí
ÞÕÇÊ ÌÏíÏÉ , ÞÕÇÊ 2009 , ÞÕÇÊ æÕÈÛÇÊ 2009 , ÕÈÛÇÊ 2009 , ÞÕÇÊ æÕÈÛÇÊ ÌÏíÏÉ , ÞÕÇÊ ÔÚÑ 2009 , ÞÕÇÊ ÔÚÑ ÌÏíÏÉ , ÕÈÛÇÊ ÔÚÑ 2009
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáØæíá ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáÞÕíÑ ÊÓÑíÍå ááÔÚÑ ÇáØæíá æÇáÞÕíÑ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ 2009 ááÒæÇÌ
ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ 2009ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÈäÇÊí ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÎáíÌí ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ
ãíß ÂÈ ÇÍãÏ ÞÈíÓí ãßíÇÌ ÇÍãÏ ÞÈíÓí ãßíÇÌ 2009 ÇÍãÏ ÞÈíÓí
ãßíÇÌ ÑæÚå , ãßíÇÌ ááÍÝáÇÊ , ãíß ÂÈ ááãäÇÓÈÇÊ , ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÌÏíÏå , ãßíÇÌ 2009 .þ
ÍæÇÌÈ ãÑÊÈå Ïæä äãÕý , ÃÑæÚ ÇáÍæÇÌÈ ,ØÑíÞÉ ÑÓã ÇáÍæÇÌÈ .
ãÌãæÚÉ ãÇßÓ ÝÇßÊæÑ ßÑíã ÇÓÇÓ ãÇßÓ ÝÇßÊæÑ ÑæÚå ãÓßÑå ãÇßÓ ÝÇßÊæÑ
ãßíÇÌ ÚáÇ ÇáÝÇÑÓ ãíß ÇÈ ÚáÇ ÇáÝÇÑÓ ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÇáãÐíÚå ÚáÇ ÇáÝÇÑÓ ãßíÇÌ ãÐíÚÇÊ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ßíÑáí ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ äÇÚãå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ 2009
ÎáØÇÊ áÔÝÇíÝ ÎáØÇÊ ááãÍÇÝÙå Úáì ÇáÔÝÇíÝ ÎáØÇÊ Íáæåþ
ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ áÈäÇäí åÇÏí ãßíÇÌÇÊ ÑæÚå ãíß ÇÈ áÈäÇäí ãíß ÇÈ äÇÚã
ÕæÑ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÔÚÑ - ÊÓÇÑíÍ - ÞÕÇÊ 2009þ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÍáæÉ , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÌÇãÚÉ , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÈäæÊÇÊ , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæÚÉ , ØÑíÞÉ Úãá ÇáÌÏÇíá , ÌÏÇíá ÍáæÉ , ÌÏÇíá ÑæÚÉ , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÈäÇÊ , ØÑÞ Úãá ÇáÌÏÇíá ÇáÝÑäÓíå , ØÑÞ Úãá ÌÏÇíá ÚäÇÞíÏ Ðíá ÇáÓãßå
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÔÚÑ- ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ãÑÝæÚå - ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ äÇÚãå - ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÔÚ009 - ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ãäÇÓÈÇÊ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæãÇäíå ¡ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÔÚÑ ÑæãÇäíå ¡ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæãÇäíå ááÔÚÑ ÇáØæíá ¡ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæãÇäíå 2010
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÚÑÇíÓ, ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÝÎãå , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ 2009 , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáØæíá
ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÇáÝäÇäå ÇáåÇã ÝÖÇáå ãíß ÇÈ ÇáããËáå ÇáßæíÊíå ÇáåÇã ÝÖÇáå ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ããËáÇÊ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÈäÇÊíå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÒæÇÌ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ 2009 ÕæÑ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæÚåþ
ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ ÇáÎÈíÑå ÍíÇÉ ÇáÊãíãí ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ 2009
ãßíÇÌ ÈËíäÉ ÇáÑÆíÓí ¡ ãíßÇÌ ÇáÝäÇäå ÈËíäÉ ÇáÑÆíÓí ¡ ãíß ÇÈ ÈËíäÉ ÇáÑÆíÓí ¡ ÕæÑ ÈËíäÉ ÇáÑÆíÓí
ÇÍÏË ãßíÇÌ 2009 ãßíÇÌ ÛÑíÈ ãßíÇÌ ÎØíÑ ãßíÇÌ ÌÏíÏþ(
ÊÈííÖ ÇáãÄÎÑÉ ÎáØÉ ÈíÇÖ ÇáãÄÎÑÉþ(
ÕÈÛÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÕæÑ ÇÍÏË ÞÕÇÇÊ ááÔÚÑ 2009 -2010 äÕÇÆÍ ááÔÚÑþ
ßæÔÇÊ 2010 ßæÔÇÊ ÈØÑÇÒ Õíäí ßæÔÇÊ ááÒæÇÌ ßæÔå Õíäí
ÞÕÇÊ Çíãæ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ Çíãæ ÞÕÇÊ ÈäÇÊþ
æÕÝÇÊ ÊØæíá ÇáÔÚÑ ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÊØæíá ÇáÔÚÑ ¡ æÕÝÉ ÊØæíá ÇáÔÚÑ ¡ ÎáØÉ ÊØæíá ÇáÔÚÑ ¡ ÊØæíá ÇáÔÚÑ ~ ÎáØÇÊ ááÔÚÑ
ÍäÇÁ ¡ äÞÔ ÍäÇÁ ¡ äÞÔ ÍäÇÁ ÎáíÌí ¡ äÞÔ ÍäÇÁ åäÏí ¡ äÞÔ ÍäÇÁ ÅãÇÑÇÊí ¡ äÞÔ ÍäÇÁ ááÚÑÇíÓ
ÎáØÇÊ ÊÈíÖ ÇáÈÔÑå ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ÊÝÊíÍ ÇáÈÔÑå ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ááÈÔÑå ¡ æÕÝÇÊ ÊÈíÖ ÇáÈÔÑå ¡ æÕÝÇÊ ÊÝÊíÍ ÇáÈÔÑå ¡ æÕÝÇÊ ááÈÔÑå
ÃÎÊÇÑí ÃÝÖá ãßíÇÌ ãä Èíä ãßíÇÌ ÇáÝäÇäÇÊ !!!
ãßíÇÌ Ìæíá ãßíÇÌ ÓÇÑå ãßíÇÌ ÑæÚå ãßíÇÌ ÎÈíÑÉ ÇáÊÌãíá Ìæíá ãßíÇÌ ÎÈíÑÉ ÇáÊÌãíá ÓÇÑå
ÞÕÇÊ ¡ ÞÕÇÊ ÔÚÑ ¡ ÞÕÉ ÔÚÑ ¡ ÞÕÇÊ 2010 ¡ ÞÕÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáÞÕíÑ ¡ ÞÕÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáØæíá ¡ ÞÕÇÊ 2010 ááÔÚÑ ÇáÞÕíÑ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ Íáíãå ÈæáäÏ ÕæÑ ÞÕÇÊ ÇáãÐíÚå Íáíãå ÈæáäÏ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ æÞÕÇÊ 2009
ÊÓÑíÍÉ ÈÇíÓ åíÊæä . ÕæÑ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ßíæÊ . ØÑíÞå Úãá ÊÓÑíÍÉ ÇáÝíæäßå ÕæÑØÑíÞå Úãá ÊÓÑíÍå ÇáÝíæäßå
ãÌáÉ ßÇãáÉ áÌãÇáß ÊÌåíÒÇÊ ÇáÚÑæÓ, ÇáãßíÇÌ, ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ, ãäÊÌÇÊ ÇáÚäÇíÉ ÈÇáÌÓã, ÇáÇßÓÓæÑÇÊ æÇáãÌåæÑÇÊ, ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÇäíÞÉ, ÞÕÇÊ ÔÚÑ 2008, ÇäÇÞÉ æãßíÇÌ, ÚäÇíÉ ÈÇÈÔÑÉ, ÇÞäÚÉ æÌÉ, ááÈÔÑÉ ÌÇÝÉ,ááÈÔÑÉ ÏåäíÉ, ááÈÔÑÉ
ÊÓÑíÍÉ ááãÏÑÓÉ ÊÓÇÑíÍ ááãÏÑÓÉ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÈäÇÊ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ áÔÚÑ ÇáØæíá ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÓåÑå ÊÓÇÑíÍ ÔÚÑ ÑæÚå
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÚÑÇíÓ 2009 ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÓåÑå 2010 ÎÇÕ áÚÑæÓ
ÍäÇÁ ááÚÑÇíÓ ¡ äÞÔ ÍäÇÁ ááÚÑÇíÓ ¡ ÑÓæãÇÊ ÍäÇÁ ááÚÑÇíÓ ¡ ÍäÇÁ 2010
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑÇÆÚÉ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ áÈäæÊÇÊ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÍáæÉþ
ÕÈÛÇÊ ÔÚÑ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÔÚÑ ÕÈÛÇÊ ÇáæÇä áÔÚÑ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæÚå áÔÚÑ
ÞÕÇÊ ÔÚÑ ÞÕÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáØæíá ÞÕÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáÞÕíÑ ÞÕÇÊ 2009 ááÔÚÑ
ÞÕÇÊ ÔÚÑ ááÕÈÇíÇÊ ÞÕÇÊ ÌÏíÏå áÔÚÑ ÇáÈäÇÊþ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÓåÑå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÇáÔÚÑ ÇáãÑÝæÚ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÓåÑÇÊ ~ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÔÚÑ Øæíá
ÕæÑ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÔÚÑ ááÃØÝÇá ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááãÏÇÑÓ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÃØÝÇá 2009
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÌÇãÚå ¡ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááãÏÇÑÓ ¡ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÈäÇÊ ÇáÌÇãÚå ¡ ÊÓÑíÍÉ ÔÚÑ ááÌÇãÚå ¡ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÔÚÑ ááÌÇãÚå
ãßíÇÌ Úíæä , ãíß ÂÈ Úíæä , ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌ Úíæä , ÕæÑ ÃÍáì ãßíÇÌ Úíæä , ÌÏíÏ ãßíÇÌ ÇáÚíæä ,
ØÑíÞÉ Úãá ãßíÇÌ Úíæä ÎÝíÝ ÈËáÇË ÇáæÇä ÈÇáÕæÑ.
ãßíÇÌ ÇáÇÚáÇãíå Íáíãå ÈæáäÏ 2009 ãßíÇÌ Íáíãå ÈæáäÏ ÎáíÌí 2009 ãßíÇÌ Íáíãå ÈæáäÏ áÈäÇäí 2009
ØÑÍ ÇÓÈäÔ áÝÇÊ ØÑÍ 2009 áÝÇÊ ØÑÍ ÇáÇÓÈäÔ áÝÇÊ ØÑÍ ááãÊÍÌÈÇÊ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÈäæÊÇÊ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÓåÑå ááÈäæÊÇÊ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæÚå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ 2010 ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÇØÝÇáþ
æÕÝå áÊØæíá ÇáÔÚÑ ÈÓÈæÚ æÕÝå ÌÏíÏå æÕÝå áÔÚÑþ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæÚå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÌÏíÏå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑÇÆÚå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ äÇÚãå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ 2010þ
ØÑíÞÉ Úãá ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÇáÈäæÊÇÊ ÈÇáÕæÑ , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÈäæÊÇÊ , ÎØæÇÊ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÈäæÊÇÊ , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÈÇáÕæÑ .
ÍäÇ ÎáíÌí ÍäÇ ÚÑÈí ÍäÇ 2009þ
ãßíÇÌ ÃÍãÏ ÇáÞÈíÓí ãßíÇÌ ÑæÚå ÕæÑ ãßíÇÌþ
ÎáØÇÊ áÊÓãíä ÇáæÌå ÎáØÇÊ áÊÈíÖ ÇáæÌå ÎáØÇÊ ááæÌå ÎáØÇÊ Íáæå ÎáØÇÊ ÑææÚåþ
ãßíÇÌ ÌÏíÏ ,ãßíÇÌ 2010 ,ãßíÇÌ ÑæÚå ,ãßíÇÌ ÎÈíÑå ÇáÊÌãíá Çãäå ÇáÙÇåÑí ,ãßíÇÌ ÚÑÇÆÓ ,ãßíÇÌ ÑÇÆÚ ,ãßíÇÌ Ìãíá ÌÏÇ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ Øæäí ãäÏáÞ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÚÑæÓ ÌÏíÏÉ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÔÚÑ ÇáÚÑæÓ ãæÖÉ 2009
ÕÈÛÇÊ ÔÚÑþ
ÇÍÏË ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ æãßíÇÌ ÇáÝäÇäå ÇáßæíÊíå ãÔÇÚá ÇáÒäßæí 2009 - 2010
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááãÏÇÑÓ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÌÇãÚÇÊ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ äÇÚãå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÈÓíØå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ 2009
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÌÏíÏå , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÍÝáÇÊ ,ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÝÎãå ,ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ 2009
ÕæÑ ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ Íáíãå ÈæáäÏ ÑæææÚå
ãßíÇÌ ÑæÚÉ , ãßíÇÌ ÎíÇá , ãßíÇÌ ÌäÇä , ãßíÇÌ ÎØíÑ , ãßíÇÌ ááÈäÇÊ , ãßíÇÌ ááÈäæÊÇÊ , ãßíÇÌ áãÑÇÉ , ãßíÇÌ ááÚÑÇÆÓ , ãßíÇÌ ÇäíÞ , ãßíÇÌ ÑÇÞí
ÇäæÇÚ ÇáÒãÇã ÇÔßÇá ÇáÒãÇã ÇÔßÇá ÇáÒãÇã ÇáÑæÚÉ ÒãÇã 2009
ÕæÑ ÞÕÇÊ ÔÚÑ, ÞÕÇÊ ÌÏíÏå ááÔÚÑ , ÃÍÏË ÇáÞÕÇÊ , ÞÕÇÊ ÇáÔÚÑ 2009 .
ÔÑÍ ØÑíÞÉ ÊäÚíã ÇáÔÚÑ ÎØæå ÈÎØæå ÈÇáÕæÑ , ØÑíÞÉ ÓÔæÇÑ ÇáÔÚÑ ÈÇáÕæÑ , ØÑíÞÉ ÇÓÊÎÏÇã ãßæÇÉ ÇáÓíÑÇãíß ÈÇáÕæÑ .
ÎáØÇÊ ÎÇÕå ááÚÑÇíÓ ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ááÚÑæÓå ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ááÚÑæÓÇÊ ¡ ÎáØÇÊ ááÚÑæÓÉþ
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÎíÇáíå , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÌÏíÏå , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÚÑæÓ , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ááÃÝÑÇÍ , ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ äÚæãå .
ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæãÇäíå 2009 ÕæÑ ÇáÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÇáÑæãÇäíå ÊÓÑíÍÇÊ ÑæÚå 2009
ÞÕÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáØæíá ÞÕÇÊ ááÔÚÑ ÇáÞÕíÑ ÞÕå ÝßÊæÑíÇ ÞÕÇÊ 2009 ÞÕÇÊ 2009 ááÔÚÑ
ãßíÇÌ Úíæä , ÃÍáì ãßíÇÌ Úíæä , ãíß ÂÈ Úíæä , ãíßÇÌ Úíæä ÎáíÌí æáÈäÇäí ,ÌÏíÏ ãßíÇÌ ÇáÚíæä 2009

áÚÈÉ ÓáÇÍÝ ÇáäíäÌÇ TMNT 2 Battle Nexus ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÓáÇÍÝ ÇáäíäÌÇ TMNT 2 Battle Nexus
áÚÈÉ ãä ÓíÑÈÍ Çáãáíæä ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ãä ÓíÑÈÍ Çáãáíæä ¡ ÇáÚÇÈ ÐßÇÁ æÃÓÃáå ¡ ãä ÓíÑÈÍ Çáãáíæä
áÚÈÉ ãÇÑíæ ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Super Mario 64 1.2 ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ãÇÑíæ
ÊÍãíá ÇáÚÇÈ psp ((ãÌÇäÇ)) æÃíÖÇ ÊÓÊØíÚ ÊÍãíá ÇáÚÇÈ (pc-ps2-wii-xbox360)
ÇáÚÇÈ ÈäÇÊ ÇáÚÇÈ ãßíÇÌ ÇáÚÇÈ ãíß ÇÈ áÚÈÉ ÇáãßíÇÌ ÇáÚÇÈ ÈäÇÊ ÇáãßíÇÌ ÇáÚÇÈ ÈäÇÊ2009
áÚÈÉ ãÇÊÑíßÓ ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ ãÇÊÑíßÓ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ãÇÊÑíßÓ áÚÈÉ Matrix ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Matrix ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ Matrix
áÚÈÉ ÍÑæÝ æÃáæÝ ÈÍÌã 447 ßíáæ ÈÇíÊ ÈÓ ÑæÚÉ
áÚÈÉ ÇáÏíßæÑ ÇáãäÒáí ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÇáÏíßæÑ ÇáãäÒáí áÚÈÉ home sweet homeþ
áÚÈÉ áÚÈÉ ÓíãÈÓæä ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Simpsons ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ Simpsonsþ
áÚÈÉ ßÑíÒì ÊÇßÓì ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ßÑíÒì ÊÇßÓì ¡ ÇáÚÇÈ ßÑíÒì ÊÇßÓì ¡ ßÑíÒì ÊÇßÓì
áÚÈÉ Pet Pals Animal Doctor ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Pet Pals Animal Doctor ááßãÈíæÊÑ
áÚÈÉ IGI 2 - Covert Strike ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ IGI 2 - Covert Strike
áÚÈÉ ÈáíÇÑÏæ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Billiard Íãá ÈáíÇÑÏæ áÚÈÉ Billiardþ
áÚÈÉ light driver 2 ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ light driver 2 ááßãÈíæÊÑ
áÚÈÉ ÏÑÇíÝÑ ÊÍãíá Driver 76 ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ Driver 76 ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÏÑÇíÝÑ ÓíÇÑÇÊ
áÚÈÉ íæÛí ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ íæÛí ááßãÈíæÊÑ áÚÈÉ íæÛí ááßãÈíæÊÑ
áÚÈÉ ÚáÇÁ ÇáÏíä ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ ÚáÇ ÇáÏíä ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÚáÇ ÇáÏíä ÊäÒíá ÚáÇÁ ÇáÏíä
áÚÈÉ Miami Nights Singles In The City ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Miami Nights Singles In The Cityþ
áÚÈÉ Óæäíß ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Sonic Rivals 2 ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ Óæäíß áÚÈÉ Sonic Rivals 2
áÚÈÉ ÈÇÈ ÇáÍÇÑÉ ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÈÇÈ ÇáÍÇÑÉ ¡ áÚÈÉ conter.strike ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ conter.strike
áÚÈÉ ÏÑÇÛæä Èæá ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Dragon Ball ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ ÏÑÇÛæä Èæá áÚÈÉ Dragon Ballþ
ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ spiderman 2 ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ ÇáÑÌá ÇáÚäßÈæÊ áÚÈÉ spiderman 2 ÇáÑÌá ÇáÚäßÈæÊ
áÚÈÉ ÈíÈÓí ãÇä ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÈíÈÓí ãÇä áÚÈÉ ÈíÈÓí ãÇä ááÈáÇí ÓÊíÔä ¡ áÚÈÉ Pepsi Man ¡ ÊÍãá áÚÈÉ Pepsi Man ¡ Pepsi Man
ÇßÈÑ ãßÊÈÉ ÇáÚÇÈ Pc 2009 , ÇßÈÑ ãßÊÈÉ ÇáÚÇÈ Pc ááÊÍãíá ¡ ÇßÈÑ ãßÊÈÉ ÇáÚÇÈ Pc 2009 áÊÍãíá ãÈÇÔÑ
áÚÈÉ æÒäß ÐåÈ ¡ æÒäß ÐåÈ ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ æÒäß ÐåÈ ¡ ÇáÚÇÈ ÃÓÃáå ¡ ÇáÚÇÈ ÐßÇÁ
áÚÈÉ Êæã æÌíÑí ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Êæã æÌíÑí áÚÈÉ Tom And Jerry ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Tom And Jerry
ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ Pro Evolution Soccer 5 ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Pro Evolution Soccer 5 ááßãÈíæÊÑ
áÚÈÉ Real Football 2008 ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Real Football 2008 ÇáÚÇÈ ßÑÉ ÞÏã
ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÓÈÇíÏÑ ãÇä 3 ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ Spiderman 3 ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ ÓÈÇÈÏÑ ãÇä 3
ÇáÚÇÈ ßãÈíæÊÑ - áÚÈÉ Diner Dash 3 ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Diner Dash 3
Live for speed ¡ 2009 Live for speed ÇáÇÕÜÜÏÇÑ x10 ãÚ ÇáßÜÜÑÇß ¡ ÇáÚÇÈ Live for speed ] ÇáÇÕÜÜÏÇÑ x10 ãÚ ÇáßÜÜÑÇß 2009
áÚÈÉ ÑæÈä åæÏ ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÑæÈä åæÏ ¡ áÚÈÉ Robin Hood ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Robin Hood ¡ Robin Hood ¡ ÑæÈä åæÏ
Naruto Ninja Destiny áÚÈÉ Naruto Ninja Destiny ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Naruto Ninja Destiny
áÚÈÉ ßÇÈÊä ãÇÌÏ ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ßÇÈÊä ãÇÌÏ ¡ ßÇÈÊä ãÇÌÏ ¡ ÇáÚÇÈ ßÑÉ ÞÏã ¡ áÚÈÉ ßÇÈÊä ãÇÌÏ ááßãÈíæÊÑ
ÊÍãíá Claw áÚÈÉ ÑæÚå Claw ¡ Íãá áÚÈå Claw
ÍÕÑíÇ áÚÈå G.T.A San.Andreas 2009 ¡ áÚÈÉ G.T.A San.Andreas ãÖÛæØå ÈÍÌã 3 ãíÌÇ ÝÞØ !! ßÇãáå Úáì ÇßËÑ ãä ÓíÑÝÑ
áÚÈÉ Final Fantasy XII Revenant Wings ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Final Fantasy XII Revenant Wings ááßãÈíæÊÑ
áÚÈÉ The Sims 2 Mansion Garden Stuff ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ The Sims 2 Mansion Garden Stuffþ
ÊÍãíá ÇáÚÇÈ ßãÈíæÊÑ ÊÍãíá ÇáÈáÇí ÓÊíÔä áÚÈÉ ÒíäÇ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÒíäÇ áÚÈÉ ÒíäÇ ááÈáÇí ÓÊíÔä
ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ßÑÇÔ ÓíÇÑÇÊ ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ Crash ÓíÇÑÇÊ áÚÈÉ Crash
áÚÈÉ Virtua Tennis 3 áÚÈÉ ÇáÊäÓ ááßãÈíæÊÑ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Virtua Tennis 3
ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ Pocket Tanks 4 ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ ÇáÏÈÇÈÇÊ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÇáÏÈÇÈÇÊþ
ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Naruto áÚÈÉ äÇÑæÊæ ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ Naruto ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ äÇÑæÊæ
áÚÈÉ ßæäÊÑÇ ÓÊÑÇíß ÈæÑÊÇÈá ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ßæäÊÑÇ ÓÊÑÇíß ÈæÑÊÇÈá ¡ áÚÈÉ Portable Counter Strike 1.6
áÚÈÉ ÓÈæäÌ ÈæÈ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÓÈæäÌ ÈæÈ áÚÈÉ Spongebob ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Spongebobþ
áÚÈÉ Harry Potter ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ åÇÑí ÈæÊÑ ááßãÈíæÊÑ ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ Harry Potterþ
ÇáÚÇÈ ãÛÇÑÇÊ áÚÈÉ ÚáÇÁ ÇáÏíä ¡ áÚÈÉ Aladdin ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÚáÇÁ ÇáÏíä ¡ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Aladdin
ÈÑäÇãÌ íÌÚá áÚÈÉ gta san andreas Çæä áÇíä
áÚÈÉ Crash ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ ßÑÇÔ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Crash ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ßÑÇÔ
ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ ÇáÈáæÊ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÇáÈáæÊ áÚÈÉ ÇáÈáæÊ
áÚÈÉ ÈíÈÓì ãÇä ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÈíÈÓì ãÇä ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ ÈíÈÓì ãÇä
ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÑÒÏäÊ ÇíÝá 5 ¡ ÊÍãíá Resident Evil 5 ááßãÈíæÊÑ¡ áÚÈÉ ÑÒÏäÊ ÇíÝá
áÚÈÉ ÏæÑÇ ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ ÏæÑÇ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ ÏæÑÇ ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Dora áÚÈÉ Dora ÊäÒíá áÚÈÉ Dora
ÇáÚÇÈ ßãÈíæÊÑ 2010 áÚÈÉ Fifa Street 3 ÊÍãíá áÚÈÉ Fifa Street 3 ááßãÈíæÊÑ
ÈÑäÇãÌ ÊÔÛíá ÇáÇáÚÇÈ ÈÇáßãÈíæÊÑ ÊÍãíá ÈÑÇãÌ ÊÔÛíá ÇáÇáÚÇÈ ÈÇáßãÈíæÊÑþ 

184 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

185 We supply authentic discount Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Trainers
New Lacoste
Lacoste Sale
Mens Lacoste
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste trainers shoes
lacoste camden retro
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste carnaby shoes
lacoste carnaby retro
lacoste shoes sale
New Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes online
cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoe
mens lacoste shoes
Lacoste Shua Lace
Black Lace shoes
white Lace shoes
lacoste swerve shoes
White Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes sale
Cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste Women Shoes
Women Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Shoes online
on line, cheap price,Top quality,Free shipping!

186 Being the prom queen cheap Pandora or just Pandora sale to look Pandora discount different, unique, discount Pandora fabulous and cheap Pandora sale classy is discount Pandora sale every high cheap Pandora sale school teen¡¯s discount Pandora sale dream. There are Pandora UK different prom dress designs pandora jewellery out there that pandora jewelry suit your thomas sabo preferences. You thomas sabo jewellery can choose thomas sabo sale to have that thomas sabo UK ¡°princess¡± looks cheap thomas sabo with typical ball thomas sabo on sale gowns and tiaras thomas sabo discount or look sweet and discount thomas sabo innocent with cheap thomas sabo on sale simple dress discount thomas sabo on sale gown designs or to have that cute,fun cheap thomas sabo sale and flirty looks. 50¡¯s fashion prom discount thomas sabo sale dress inspired is what you are looking for.

187 Wholesal Plating Cufflink | Stamping Bracelet Best | Corrosion Cufflink Yiwu | New Jewelrys Luxury | Wholesale Casting Bracelet Jewelry | Cutting Bracelet Cheap | Wholesale Casting Bracelet Jewelry | Corrosion Bangle | Casting Rings Wholesale | Zircon Earring Yiwu | Wholesale Stainless Steel Rings Jewelry | Corrosion Cufflink Yiwu | Wholesale Casting Pendant Jewelry | Zircon Cufflink Cheap | Wholesal tiffany silver | Wholesal Zircon Bangles | Wholesale Juicy Jewelry Jewelry | Wholesal Carbon Fiber Cufflink | Corrosion Necklace Cheap | Wholesal Magnet Bracelet

188 Ulysse Nardin Fake Watches | A Lange & Sohne Fake Watches | Replica Mont Blanc Watches | Porsche Design Fake Watches | Watches Swiss Fashion | Watches Omega Fashion | Replica Porsche Design Watches | Cartier Replica Watches | Audemars Piguet Fake Watches | Hublot Fake Watches | Patek Philippe Replica Watches | Christian Dior Fake Watches | Replica Concord Watches | Watches Rado Fashion | Seiko Replica Watches | Movado Fake Watches | Replica Longines Watches | Watches Louis vuitton Belt Fashion | Patek Philippe Replica Watches | Watches Vacheron Constantin Fashion

189 rolex Replica Watches It may be breitling Replica Watches necessary to cartier Replica Watches accurately determine omega Replica Watches the value of a wristwatch. Panerai Replica Watches This might be Patek Philippe Replica Watches for insurance Tag Heuer Replica Watches purposes A Lange Sohne Replica Watches or if you Alain Silberstein Replica Watches are considering Armani Replica Watches buying or selling Audemars Piguet Replica Watches a second hand Baume Mercier Replica Watches watch. While it Bell Ross Replica Watches is possible to Breguet Replica Watches get a good Bulgari Bvlgar Replica Watches idea of the Bvlgari Replica Watches type of Chanel Replica Watches price that a Chopard Replica Watches watch may Concord Replica Watches be valued at Corum Replica Watches by doing your own Ferrari Replica Watches research, getting a professional Franck Muller Replica Watches valuation is the Graham Replica Watches best way to get an Gucci Replica Watches accurate value. Hermes Replica Watches Many specialist Hublot Replica Watches jewelry stores Iwc Replica Watches offer a valuation Jaeger LeCoultre Replica Watches service. They Longines Replica Watches may do this on LV Replica Watches the premises or Miscellaneous Replica Watches send the watch Montblanc Replica Watches away to be Movado Replica Watches valued. The jeweler will Parmigiani Replica Watches provide a certificate that Piaget Replica Watches gives the value of the watch and this is often necessary Rado Replica Watches when insuring an Romain Jerome Replica Watches expensive watch. An Swiss Rolex Replica Watches independent Tissot Replica Watches valuation is also useful when Tudor Replica Watches selling or buying U_boat Replica Watches an expensive watch. Ulysse Nardin Replica Watches It provides both the buyer Vacheron Constantin Replica Watches and seller with an accurate value of Zenith Replica Watches the watch and both parties can be sure of what they are buying and selling.Keep yourself in mind that knowing the value of a wristwatch is extremely rewarding. It is an interesting subject. There are many factors you need to take into consideration, such as the authenticity of the watch, even historical and technical aspects of the watch

190 Life lies in sports.The Air max wants to offer you great comfort while you doing sports.Cheap nike air max shoes is on sale now.The Air max 90 and Nike air max 95 is a good nike shoes for you.You can Buy nike max here,Discount air maxs and Cheap nike air max 2009 waiting for you.

191

Jimmy Choo Handbags

cheap Yves Saint Laurent Shoes

discount Christian Louboutin Pump

discount Christian Louboutin sandal

Jimmy Choo Shoes

192 Cheap replica rolex and tag heuer watches,replica watches of rolex rolex watches replica,buy patek philippe Buy replica watches,fake watches and tag heuer watches.

193 Replica Fashion Marc Jacobs handbags | Juicy Couture Replica bags | Luxury Dior handbags | Replica Louis Vuitton Monogram Denim Handbags | Luxury Gucci Watches handbags | Best Louis Vuitton Cuir Taiga bags | Luxury Louis Vuitton Sport handbags | Best Gucci bags | Best Wallet bags | Best Loewe bags | Marc jacobs Fake Handbags | Replica Fashion Burberry handbags | Louis Vuitton Belts Fake Handbags | Luxury Gucci Watches handbags | Gucci Belts Replica bags | Luxury Louis Vuitton Leather handbags | Replica Fashion Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore handbags | Best Gucci bags | Louis Vuitton Fake Handbags | Chanel Fake Handbags | Balenciaga Replica bags | Replica Chloe Handbags | Gucci Replica bags | Chanel Fake Handbags | Christian Dior Fake Handbags

194 replica rolex rolex and tag heuer watches,replica watches of rolex rolex watches replica,buy patek philippe Buy replica watches,fake watches and tag heuer watches.breitling watches breitling watches at low price.

195

íæÊíæÈ ÝÖÇÆÍ   ÊæÈíßÇÊ ÑæãÇäÓíÉ

äß äíãÇÊ ÊæÈíßÇÊ  äß äíãÇÊ 

ÊæÈíßÇÊ ÌÑÍ   ÇÓãÇÁ ÈäÇÊ  Çíãæ ÎæÇØÑ 2010

ÑÓÇÆá ÍÈ ÑæãÇäÓíÉ 

ãæÏíáÇÊ ÝÓÇÊíä ÓåÑÉ ÍÑÝ m

ÝÓÇÊíä ÎØæÈÉ 2010  ÎæÇØÑ ÑæãÇäÓíÉ  ÇáÚÇÈ ÈäÇÊ ááÊÍãíá  ãáÇÍÙÇÊ ááÌæÇá

ÊæÈíßÇÊ 2010

 ÊæÈíßÇÊ Íáæå  æÓÇÆØ 2010 ÇÎÊÕÇÑÇÊ ÇØÇÑÇÊ æÑæÏ  

ßÇÓÈÑ 2010  ÊæÈíßÇÊ ÑæÚå  ÞÕÇÆÏ ÍÒíäå

ÎáÝíÇÊ ãÓä  ÎæÇØÑ ÍÒíäÉ  ÔÚÑ ÑæãÇäÓí  ÕæÑ ÇÒíÇÁ 2010  ÕíÏ ÇáØíæÑ

ÊæÈíßÇÊ ßÈÑíÇÁ  ÊæÈíßÇÊ ÔãæΠ ÊæÈíßÇÊ ÚÒå

ÊæÈíßÇÊ Çáã  ÊæÈíßÇÊ Ìãíáå

  ÊæÈíßÇÊ ááãÇÓäÌÑ 

 

 ÚÈÇíÇÊ 2010 - ÊæÈíßÇÊ ÔæÞ

ÇÒíÇÁ ÍæÇãá  ÑÓÇÆá ÛíÑå  ÕæÑ ÔÈÇÈ  ÊæíæÊÇ 2010  æÓÇÆØ ÌÏíÏå

 -  ÍãÏÇä ÈÑíÊÔ  - ÇÍáì ÇáÕæÑ  íæÊíæÈ ÇáÔÚÑ

ãæÇÖíÚ ÚÇãÉ - ÇÎÈÇÑ - ÔÚÑ - ÚÇáã ÍæÇÁ - ÝÓÇÊíä - ãßÔÇÊ - ÝÓÇÊíä ÓåÑÉ 2009 - ÕæÑ - ÕæÑ Çäãí

íæÊíæÈ - ÏÑæÓ ÝæÊæÔæÈ - æÓÇÆØ - ÈÑÇãÌ - ãäÊÏíÇÊ - ÊæÈíßÇÊ ãÇÓäÌÑ - ÝÓÇÊíä 2010 - ÕæÑ ãÇÓäÌÑ -ÇáÚÇÈ ÈäÇÊ  

  ãÏæäÇÊ ÇáÇÚÖÇÁ  ÑæÇíÇÊ

ãäÊÏì ÌÇÈÑ ÇáÞÍØÇäí

ÇáÍáÈÉ

ÊÍãíá ÕæÑ

ãæÞÚ

ÊæÈíßÇÊ ÌÏíÏå

ÊæÈíßÇÊ ÍÈ

ÔÚÑ ÝÑÇÞ

  ÊæÈíßÇÊ ãÖÍßÉ  ÊæÈíßÇÊ ÕÏÇÞÉ

ÊæÇÞíÚ

ÊæÈíßÇÊ åã æÍÒä

ÎæÇØÑ

196 Buy rolex watches,tag heuer watches and replica patek philippe patek philippe watches,replica audemars piguet> replica breitling watches breitling watches,chanel watches chanel watches watches replica montblanc watches.Rolex fake watches and replica watches brands,replica rolex: breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer, replica rolex: replica rolex replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches,replica panerai watches: panerai watches,replica armani watches: armani watches,replica audemars piguet: audemars piguet,replica bvlgari watches: bvlgari watches,replica chanel watches: chanel watches,replica gucci watches: gucci watches,replica movado watches: movado watches,replica montblanc watches: montblanc watches,replica patek philippe: patek philippe on sale.replica watches and replica watches.

197 Cheap tag heuer watches,rolex watches that replica watches,fake watches and tag heuer watches,replica breitling breitling watches,cheap replica rolex cartier replica cartier watches,replica omega omega watches and panerai replica panerai watches replica armani armani watches,cheap audemars piguet audemars piguet watches,bvlgari watches replica chanel watches replica gucci gucci watches and movado watches replica montblanc montblanc watches sale patek philippe watches for us.

198 more important than style rolex and tag heuer watches for sale.replica patek philippe watches audemars piguet watches on sale.replica breitling watches and omega watches sale replica montblanc watches on the dial cartier watches and cheap panerai watches for bvlgari watches sports watches might be worth a look.

199 surprising

200 Good replica watches and buy replica watches and replica rolex replica replica tag heuer watches,buy replica replica omega watches and breitling watches replica breitling watches sale at lowest prices.

201 The "Incorporation Doctrine" is nothing more than Legal Quackery! 

The 14th Amendment is and never was needed to "incorporate" the BOR against the individual states. The original text of the US Constitution contained language "incorporating" it entirely against the states. Simply read Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 and Section VI. You know phrases like, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." And, "This Constitution,..., shall be the supreme law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." And, "... all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ...."

Plus, all the States were required to "ratify" the US Constitution. Why be required to ratify something if you're NOT being required to comply with it?

If SCOTUS rules against incorporation of the 2nd Amendment, it will have to go against all the other incorporation cases it has decided the last century or so. And, it will be prima facie evidence of Judicial Activism on the nation's highest court (oh, we already have evidence of that don't we!).
The "Incorporation Doctrine" is nothing more than legal quackery perpetrated by corrupt judges so they could rationalize their violation of both the US Constitution and their Oaths to uphold it as the "supreme law of the land."

And the Justice system has the power to punish citizens for "contempt of court"? My question is, "Just how the hell can any Freedom-loving American have anything but contempt for our courts these days."

202 nike air max 360 shoes
womens air max
nike air max
womens air max
nike air max 360 shoes
air max
kids air max 90
kids air max classic BW
kids air max 360
kids air max 97
nike air max 180
nike air max 2009
nike air max 2010
nike air max 360 shoes
nike air max 87
nike air max 88
nike air max 89
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 93
nike air max 95
nike air max classic BW
nike air max ltd
nike air max TN
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009
womens air max 87
womens air max 90
womens air max 91
womens air max 95
womens air max 97
womens air max classic BW

203 breitling watch Ladies watches at Gilletts Jewellers include like Eco Drive Citizen watches replica watch There are a few ways you rolex watches omega watches can try replica watches Fossil watches DKNY watches Michael Ks watches breitling watches

204 replica handbags Wholesale products louis vuitton handbags louis vuitton handbags beautiful wholesale handbags louis vuitton replica handbags wholesale jewelry wholesale clothing from factory louis vuitton handbags with cheap wholesale price

205 Buy rolex replica watches and replica watches replica replica watches and replica rolex watches patek philippe watches and fake watches and breitling watches,replica tag heuer: tag heuer,replica cartier watches: cartier watches,replica omega watches: omega watches at lowest prices.

206 It is no secret that the designer handbag market is extremely profitable designer handbags are one of the most sought after items by women wholesale handbags replica handbags However louis vuitton handbags louis vuitton handbags if you are like me you probably know that finding legitimate louis vuitton handbags wholesalers of designer handbags is not easy to say the least louis vuitton handbags

207 wholesale handbags louis vuitton It is no secret that the designer handbag market is extremely profitable designer handbags are one of the most sought wholesale handbags after items by women louis vuitton However if you louis vuitton handbags are like me you probably know that finding legitimate louis vuitton handbags wholesalers of designer handbags is not easy to say the least

208 louis vuitton replica handbags replica handbags Buy cheap replica Louis Vuitton Handbags Louis Vuitton Bags from HandbagsAir We have the most LV Bags Louis Vuitton Gucci Chanel wholesale handbags Miu Miu styles louis vuitton handbags louis vuitton

209 The resistant is In a crowded promote that curious charily the slender line between Ed Hardy Clothing sale fashionable and plenty of it significant that it currently Cheap Ed Hardy stocks products that petition to Ed Hardy Sale 197 million. Announced some remarkable numbers after the goal teenagers who watched us try on a budget act Cheap Ed Hardy Clothing I m confident they ll fondness that expansion Discount Ed Hardy Clothing looked well-able, as American Eagle had a Ed Hardy Tops good range of that overdo can be chalked up to my dad Ed Hardy Jeans who was in the mass myself Ed Hardy Hoodies payments money and traditional. Same-pile sales Ed Hardy T Shirts meanwhile, were up more than 32 Ed Hardy Swimwear year over year to him, me, and the signal Ed Hardy Kids While other retailers are responding to Ed Hardy Christian Audigier The circle is intensely protecting its image as a Ed Hardy Kids Clothing strain, and, as a significance Ed Hardy Kids T Shirts it s getting slighted big time by its once cultlike Christian Audigier ever-loyal fan corrupt.Fashion week

210 Replica Handbags have provide replica omega watches replica omega watches the high quality Replica AUDEMARS PIGUET all brand handbags We have the especial price a especial production including coach handbags omega watches replica cartier Replica tag heuer

211 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

212 nike max
air max shoes
nike air max
nike max shoes
air max 1
nike air max 1
air max 2
nike air max 2
air max 89
nike air max 89
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 91
nike air max 91
air max 95
nike air max 95
air max 97
nike air max 97
air max 180
nike air max 180
air max 360
nike air max 360
air max 2003
nike air max 2003
air max 2009
nike air max 2009
air max ltd
nike air max ltd
air max tn
nike air max tn
air max tailwind
nike air max tailwind
womens air max 1
womens air max 90
womens air max 95
womens air max BW
womens air max LTD
womens air max TN
womens air max 360
womens air max 2003
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009

213 vacheron constantin watches Cheap high quality Louis Vuitton Replica AUDEMARS PIGUET Louis Vuitton HandbagsLV bagslouis vuitton luggage Replica omega chanel handbags replica movado gucci handbags omega watches replica movado LV Discoutn Replica Handbags On

214 Special Cheap Discount Wedding Collection list:
Cheap Wedding Dresses
Cheap Wedding Gowns
Beach Wedding Dresses
Color Wedding Dresses
Plus Size Wedding Dresses
Wedding Dresses Styles
Special Occasion Dresses
Cocktail Dresses
Party Dresses
Prom Dresses
Mother of the Bride Dresses
Flower Girl Dresses
Bridesmaid Dresses
Cheap Bridal Gowns Wedding Dresses,Buy Custom Wedding Dresses Online,Cheap Wedding Bridesmaid Dresses Online,Cheap Mother of the Bride Wedding Dresses,Cheap Flower Girl Dresses for Less,Hawaiian Summer Beach Wedding Dresses,Cheap Plus Size Wedding Dress,Black or Red Wedding Dresses,Vintage Modest Wedding Dresses,Women Special Occasion Dresses Plus,Cheap Custom Made Prom Dresses Online,Inexpensive Cheap Cocktail Dresses Online,Cheap Women Evening Party Dresses

215 Cheap replica watches and replica watches 100% copy replica watches of the previous omega watches model: the famous Manchester Logo is located at 3 and the cartier watches chronograph 45-minute breitling watches at 9 with orange figures. Football fans can use the very special 45-minute chronograph to measure the halves of a football match. Black patek philippe hour hand and minute hand features yellow luminescent coating. The hour makers, chronograph audemars piguet and the first 15-minute scale of the tag heuer chronograph counter is montblanc watches presented in eye-catching rolex red. Bright Yellow movado watches tones are found on the minute track, date bvlgari watches rolex on sale.

216

ed hardy bags Shop for the latest Ed Hardy bags ed hardy shoes The official site of Don Ed Hardy Shoes ghd hair Latest ghd hair products & offers ghd straighteners GHD hair straighteners shop online with cheapest coach outlet Coach outlet stores are known for coach purses Coach purse is everyone's favorite coach outlet store online Online Coach Outlet is the place to go online wholesale designer handbags Wholesale products from cheap designer handbags cheap designer handbags We sell cheap Designer Handbags discount designer handbags We sell discount Designer Handbags of all top discount coach handbags Get discount Coach handbags, Cheap Coach designer inspired handbags We carry designer inspired handbags, replica purses and handbags buy purses and handbags with confidence wholesale coach handbags Buy wholesale coach handbags, cheap jordans ed hardy clothing Ed Hardy Clothing Shoes and Accessories On Sale Ed hardy shirts Ed Hardy Shirts On Sale - Free Shipping on cheap Ed hardy swim suit and other cheap ed hardy Discount Ed hardy T-shirts Shoppers Excited about Discount Ed Hardy T Shirts Cheap Ed hardy shoes Cheap Ed Hardy Mens Shoes on Sale Cheap Ed hardy hats Ed Hardy Caps, Cheap Ed Hardy Hats on Sale christian louboutin shoes Where to buy Cheap Christian Louboutin New york Yankees jerseys next sports adventure with New York Yankees Jerseys discount nfl jerseys Discount NFL Jerseys store,on sale wholesale mlb jerseys Wholesale MLB jersey, NBA jersey, NFL jersey mlb baseball jerseys Full selection of licensed custom MLB baseball jerseys discount mlb jerseys Discount MLB jerseys are what new era hats New era hats, Ray Ban, Online buy cheapest Wholesale nfl jerseys Wholesale nfl jerseys, wholesale jordans, cheap Mac cosmetics whole range of MAC Cosmetics makeup Mac brushes such as MAC brush and Bobbi Brown brush etc north face clearance The North Face clothing wholesale bags distributor and supplier of wholesale handbags true religion jeans True Religion Jeans on sale now

217 nike max
air max shoes
nike air max
nike max shoes
air max 1
nike air max 1
air max 2
nike air max 2
air max 89
nike air max 89
air max 90
nike air max 90
air max 91
nike air max 91
air max 95
nike air max 95
air max 97
nike air max 97
air max 180
nike air max 180
air max 360
nike air max 360
air max 2003
nike air max 2003
air max 2009
nike air max 2009

218 TAG HEUER Watches ROLEX Watches OMEGA Watches CARTIER Watches Luxury Cartier watches are available at Essential Watches at discounted prices At Essential Watches we specialize in replica Watches OMEGA Watches all high end watch lines including

219 Included in September with the simultaneous r4 card for nintendo ds relief of shoot and betting gist r4 ds card Unlike many gaming studios that buy licenses from LucasArts nintendo ds r4 card While George Lucas prepares ds r4 card the climactic battles they will have access to show assets cheap r4 cards LucasArts is a colossal gain economically r4 cards for ds technically, and creatively, nintendo r4 card said Ward. Film and the Star Wars Battlefront videogame r4 card ds from picture studios and then desire they have seen on r4 card a high-profile crash course r4 card for ds The synergy between the theatrical and interactive arms of nintendo ds r4 cards the Lucas empire has never been more of a focus r4 card uk said Jim Ward, producer of the Trilogy DVD set r4 cards nintendo ds at a Los Angeles push happening nintendo r4 cards As well as a look at Lucasfilm r4 cards co uk Ward oversees oppose-pollination of the long-awaited classic purchase r4 card Star Wars Trilogy DVD set from Lucasfilm and betting stay on the big check ds r4 cards Sharing assets is directly situated to enroll The cheap r4 card Revenge of the Sith" for picture audiences next year r4 cards london the Star Wars juggernaut daub out in the DVD set is a clip and cheap r4 cards for nintendo ds playable demo of the Battlefront film match As head of LucasArts and VP of r4 card cheapest marketing at the making of the Episode III capture contest.

220 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.

221 TAG HEUER Watches Offering Replica Cartier Watches With High Quality ROLEX Watches CARTIER Watches The hot Cartier Replica Watches the latest Cartier Fake Watches are supplied with lowest price OMEGA Watches replica Watches ROLEX Watches

222 Watches really Replica Watches are a great fashion replica item. This is because watch manufacturers such as Emporio Armani understand their customers wants and needs and rolex Watches know that rolex watches there is a big market for tag heuer Watches fashion tag heuer watches and designer movado watches in the UK. The number of people that demand these fashion watches has grown enormously over the past few years as people all want to have their own unique personality. Buying a watch can be a breitling watches long breitling Watches process. This is because there are so many watches to choose from that people cartier watches can spend a whole lot of time making their decision. One brand that is always popular is Emporio Armani. This is because Emporio Armani are one of the best fashion brands in the UK and they therefore offer customers some of the best fashion omega Watches available watches on omega the market. There are millions mens Watches of watches for a customer to choose when it comes to a watch. It's quite easy to make the right watch purchase decision. Or you just need to know what famous watch brands are and you may find what you like at once. Emporio Armani watches have been very popular for many mens Watches years.Women's watches Emporio Armani is a brand for style sense and mens Watches fashion which it shows in his range of fashion watches. No matter what watch brand you choose, it can be sure that the watch you are going to wear would show some of your personality.

223 CARTIER Watches Shopping OMEGA Watches is the best place to comparison shop replica Watches Cartier Watches Compare products compare prices read reviews BREITLING Watches TAG HEUER Watches BREITLING Watches merchant ratings