Hts121

It's colder than Philly in the winter... but not THAT much colder. Average yearly tempature is about 5 degrees colder. Average winter temp might be a little greater in disparity, but not more than a couple of degrees. I would also say that Philly is probably muggier in the summertime. You will see a significant increase in snow. Cleveland gets an avg of about 50-60 inches of snow per year, while Philly gets about 20. However, we usually don't get those massive all of a sudden snow storms of 2-3 feet like the east coast of the country gets. We rarely go above 1 foot in any given snowfall. Usually just a couple inches at a time, albeit they can pile up if we don't have a thawing in between. The east side of town does get more snow... but the "snow belt" is far east and a bit south of the lake. Contrary to what was posted above, the snow does not increase as you get closer to the lake, although the windchill might. It is quite the opposite actually. The snowbelt does not begin in the cleveland area until you are several miles off the lake. No part of the City of Cleveland or any of its inner-ring suburbs are in the "snowbelt"

The G1 I bought a couple months ago has, for better or worse, been an "enabler"

That's what they call a state of denial.

Great location... but that building needs a serious facelift and, more than anyting IMO, a more inviting lobby.

I see your point Mr. Mayor... but the public did just make a significant investment in Euclid Avenue. That said, I like what I hear about the DoD. And as the proud owner of several pieces of furniture from my favorite little shop on Navoo Rd. in Middlefield, I especially like the inclusion of an Amish component.

How does the Utah Jazz franchise sign up?

They're not going to.

From the article: "Workers who previously spent their days in Tower City Center are leaving the office more, to explore the city and to return with take-out menus and stories about downtown businesses they'd never noticed before. " As silly as this might sound for most of us, it shows the negative effect a "complex" or skyscraper can have on street activity.

^You misread Strap. Prepare.... try to telegraph it Regarding our square footage, how is that measured - entire building? or just the "showrooms"?

Well... good luck getting 65% of that filled (to secure financing), especially with the competition for tenants coming from NYC and Cleveland.

Yes they WERE... for the 18th at least ;) It was a restriction on the rights of an individual and should never have been included in the Constitution. Luckily, another brilliant move by our Founders was to create a system where Amendments could be repealed.

Right.... sort of. Constitutions should never limit individual rights (cough... cough OHIO). Constitutions secure and guarantee individual rights. That said, the Feds can regulate the interstate commerce of firearms. The Constitution protects our rights from government intrusion. The states can do whatever so long as they don't abridge the Constitutional rights. Not so fast cowboy... you are forgetting about the Supremacy Clause. Lawfully enacted Federal law trumps State law. So, no... the States can not do whatever so long as they don't abridge the Constitutional rights. You know, you're really right but not because of the Supremacy Clause. The 10th amendent shuts down that logic pretty well. The 14th amendment's "Privileges and Immunities" clause is what really killed the original intent of the framers and federalism. Among thinking 'conservatives' or libertarians, this is a hot topic of debate. Most believe respecting the Constitution will restore the Republic to the little people but really the 14th Amendment killed any limit to federal authority. Sad really. The 14th Amendment was ratified by "thinking" Americans just as was the 13th and 15th Amendments and every Amendment to the Constitution which the Framers did not originally include. You may realize one day that the Framers acknowledged they did not know everything and could not foresee all things that have yet to pass. They left us (the people) the ability to amend the Constitution in our wisdom and judgment. The 14th Amendment was ratified through the proper channels and has been effectively used to uphold most every civil rights law of the past half century. And I wouldn't minimize the Supremacy Clause. How can the 10th Amendment "shut down that logic." It has a very real effect to make the properly enacted Federal law the supreme law of the land. The clause is clear. The debate your YAL buddies are harping on centers on the "properly enacted" component.

Right.... sort of. Constitutions should never limit individual rights (cough... cough OHIO). Constitutions secure and guarantee individual rights. That said, the Feds can regulate the interstate commerce of firearms. The Constitution protects our rights from government intrusion. The states can do whatever so long as they don't abridge the Constitutional rights. Not so fast cowboy... you are forgetting about the Supremacy Clause. Lawfully enacted Federal law trumps State law. So, no... the States can not do whatever so long as they don't abridge the Constitutional rights.

Right.... sort of. Constitutions should never limit individual rights (cough... cough OHIO). Constitutions secure and guarantee individual rights. That said, the Feds can regulate the interstate commerce of firearms.

I don't read it that way. The comma separates the militia from the people. If they only meant the militia, it would have read that way. 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 One problem is that the text of the 2nd Amendment which was distributed to the States for ratification varied. For instance, some states received text with a comma only between "State" and "the right". Others recieved the text produced above. Either way though, IMO, the meaning is the same. In modern prose it would probably read more like - "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed." If the purpose behind the Amendment was not limited to the desire to grant the right to maintain a well regulated militia, then it would have simply read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed."

It sounds like you saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover any right to bear arms outside of being in a well-regulated state militia. If you read the 2nd Amendment the way Justices Scalia and Thomas would read any OTHER constitutional amendment, very strictly and very narrowly, then that argument could certainly be made - i.e., while the 2nd Amendment in no way forbids/precludes your ability to own a gun, it only "grants a right" to do so in that limited circumstance and for that limited purpose yet the States can expand upon that "right" as they desire under their own laws.

Listen Latin Geek, you have to read the entire clause in pari materia.

KJP in the Cleveland District of Design Thread: And leave it to EC to find a way to bring "soil erosion" into the District of Design topic. Wow...

Grumpy has a point. The term "well regulated" has led some, certainly not all, to arrive at the conclusion that the Founders intended the States to "regulate" the keeping and bearing of arms. Under that argument, the States cannot eliminate the right to keep and bear arms, but they may "regulate" it.

YES! Sort of like when people demand a loose interpretation of the Constitution when it does and doesn't fit their needs?!?! :-D Seriously, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the whole 2nd amend debate. The dems try to read it as narrowly and strictly as possible and the repubs try to read it as broadly and loosely as possible. Both totally contradict their MO on constitutional interpretation.

... And based on the angle of that shot, his attic would have to have been somewhere on the Burke Lakefront Airport tarmac. Like I said though, it is only something a Clevelander would even notice. Totally irrelevant for Hollywood purposes. EDIT: On second thought, I suppose it could have been from Asiatown and that would have been consistent with some other scenes in the movie (like him being the favorite customer of some chinese restaraunt). But IIRC that was supposed to be when he was living at his sister's house and that particular house is not reflective of the housing stock in that area. That was one scene I was thinking of... but the bus tour scene is much more out of whack. They leave downtown Cleveland heading west on a highway and then all of a sudden they are on E 9th driving past the RRHOF.

I would argue that the 'original intent' of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the right to organize and maintain a private militia so that the citizens could defend themselves against the government if need be. In this day and age, what kind of fire power is necessary to form a militia that would not be laughed off any battle field by our government run military? Do the laws even allow us, as private citizens, to arm ourselves on par with the military? Are there weapons the military is allowed to possess that a private citizen cannot? I don't think that guns should be outlawed by any means. If that happened, the illegal gun trade would operate akin to the illegal drug trade. However, I just don't see how the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, which was drafted during a time when back-woods militias realistically could fight off governemnt forces, can be translated to the realities of this day and age.

I saw the Rocker. Had some funny moments in it, but I thought the shots/angles of Cleveland were rather poor. And some of the sequences - like when he was wandering around the RRHOF and when the tour bus was leaving Cleveland - were geographically way off base. Not that the mass audience, or many natives to NEO, would even notice.

Yes. I just don't think I have an inalienable right to have an .50 caliber M2 gun affixed to my front porch. These aren't merely semantics. There are some very real issues that must be dealt with in application of the 2nd Amendment.

WARNING: