14th Amendment

Louis Brandeis' Partial Justice

How the famous jurist shaped-and misshaped-American law

|

Louis D. Brandeis: A Life, by Melvin I. Urofsky, Pantheon Books, 976 pages, $40

In June 1928, the Harvard law professor and future Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter received a letter from his patron and ally, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. In it, Brandeis gave the perfect quick description of the constitutional philosophy he had been honing during the previous five decades, first as one of America's leading lawyers and then on the nation's highest court, where he sat from 1916 until 1939.

"In favor of property," Brandeis wrote, "the Constitution is liberally constructed—in favor of liberty, strictly." In other words, when it came to laws restricting property rights and economic freedom, the courts should defer to the judgment of lawmakers and vote to uphold the vast majority of regulations, a practice known then and now as judicial restraint. But when it came to laws restricting "liberty," by which Brandeis meant free speech, the right to privacy, and other civil liberties, the courts should carefully scrutinize each law and, if they detected the slightest whiff of unconstitutionality, strike it down without hesitation.

That double standard, which asks the courts to favor some rights over others, has dominated the American legal system since the late 1930s, essentially leaving economic liberty at the mercy of state and federal lawmakers while "fundamental" rights receive aggressive judicial protection. As Melvin Urofsky, a historian at Virginia Commonwealth University, helps explain in his exhaustive and sympathetic new biography, Louis D. Brandeis: A Life, no one did more to bring about this uneven state of affairs than Brandeis himself.

Born in 1856 to a family of wealthy Bohemian immigrants in Louisville, Kentucky, Louis Brandeis "had the good fortune," Urofsky writes, "to live in an age when the causes that mattered to him could be shaped by a man with a powerful vision and the intellect and personality to transform ideas into action." We call that age the Progressive Era, named after the idealistic reformers who drastically expanded the size and scope of the regulatory state between roughly 1890 and 1920. After graduating from Harvard Law School and establishing himself as one of the country's wealthiest and most successful lawyers, Brandeis was soon "counted among the preeminent progressives of the era."

A brilliant attorney and skilled political operative, Brandeis left an impressive record. As a judicial champion of free speech and the "right to be let alone," he has had few equals on the bench. He was the author of several landmark free speech opinions, but his greatest achievement arguably came with the 1928 case Olmstead v. United States, where the Supreme Court considered government use of a warrantless wiretap in the prosecution of Seattle bootlegger (and police officer) Roy Olmstead. Writing for the Court's 5-to-4 majority, Chief Justice William Howard Taft upheld the conviction, arguing that wiretapping did not amount to an invasion of Olmstead's home by the authorities and that Olmstead's private conversations were not protected by the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

Brandeis saw things differently, and his dissent revolutionized Fourth Amendment law. "The makers of our Constitution," he wrote, "conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment." It hardly mattered "that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement." As Brandeis explained, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." By the late 1960s, the Court finally came around to this position. In the 2001 case Kyllo v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia relied on Brandeis' reasoning to strike down the government's warrantless use of thermal imaging to search for signs of marijuana cultivation in the defendant's home.

Urofsky suggests that Brandeis' sweepingly libertarian dissent "should be read every day by government officials, including presidents," and it's hard to disagree. Yet for all the eloquence of his Olmstead opinion, when it came to the "insidious encroachments" of the regulatory state Brandeis was all too happy to defer to "men of zeal."

The most vivid example of this double standard came five years later in the case of New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932). While the facts behind that case have mostly been forgotten, Brandeis' colorful dissent produced one of the most quoted passages in American jurisprudence. "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system," Brandeis wrote, "that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

At issue was a 1925 Oklahoma statute granting a handful of companies the exclusive authority to manufacture, sell, and distribute ice. Under the law, anyone who wanted to enter the ice business had to first justify his plans by providing "competent testimony and proof showing the necessity for the manufacture, sale or distribution of ice" at all proposed locations. In other words, upstart ice vendors faced the virtually impossible task of securing the government's permission to compete against a state-sanctioned ice monopoly.

That's the "courageous" experiment Brandeis waxed so poetic about. But what's so "novel" about a business currying favor with the government in order to suppress competition? That's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Contrast Brandeis' quick deference to the state with conservative Justice George Sutherland's majority opinion striking the monopoly down. "In our constitutional system," Sutherland wrote, "there are certain essentials of liberty with which the state is not entitled to dispense in the interests of experiments."

Exactly. As his Olmstead dissent showed, Brandeis sometimes shared this skepticism of state power—at least when it came to state "experiments" on the rights he held dear. Just one year before New State Ice Co., in the case of Near v. Minnesota, Brandeis joined the Court in striking down a Minnesota defamation law as a violation of the freedom of the press. So much for allowing a courageous state to serve as a laboratory for bold experiments.

It was Sutherland's majority opinion in New State Ice Co., not Brandeis' famous dissent, that got it right. "In [Near v. Minnesota] the theory of experimentation in censorship was not permitted to interfere with the fundamental doctrine of the freedom of the press," Sutherland wrote. "The opportunity to apply one's labor and skill in an ordinary occupation with proper regard for all reasonable regulations is no less entitled to protection."

Unfortunately, it was Brandeis, not Sutherland, who won out in the end. While Sutherland was fighting a rearguard action in defense of economic liberty, Brandeis stood at the vanguard of a sweeping new legal movement that advocated a "sociological jurisprudence," which meant the law should adapt to new social and economic "facts."

Brandeis made a big deal out of that little word, facts, and Urofsky gets a lot of mileage out of it as well, writing that the facts put forward by Brandeis and his allies "embarrassed the assumptions of conservative advocates of substantive due process and liberty of contract, and so were ignored"; that laissez-faire lawyers and judges maintained a "deliberate ignorance of the facts of industrial society"; and that one of Sutherland's opinions exhibited "a complete disregard for the real world."

But consider the two decisions that most offended Brandeis and his progressive friends: Lochner v. New York (1905) and Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923). In Lochner, the Supreme Court ruled that the maximum working hours provision in New York's 1895 Bakeshop Act, which forbade bakery employees to work more than 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week, violated the liberty of contract secured by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which reads, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

As Justice Rufus Peckham wrote for the majority, while New York certainly possessed the power to enact health and safety regulations (as all good progressives wanted), the maximum hours provision of the Bakeshop Act "is not, within any fair meaning of the term, a health law." Not only was the baking trade "not dangerous in any degree to morals, or in any real and substantial degree to the health of the employee," but the limit on working hours involved "neither the safety, the morals, nor the welfare, of the public."

So what was the purpose of the law? As George Mason University legal historian David Bernstein has shown, the origins of the Bakeshop Act lie in an economic conflict between unionized New York bakers, who labored in large shops and lobbied for the law, and their nonunionized, mostly immigrant competitors, who tended to work longer hours in small, old-fashioned bakeries. As Bernstein observed, "a ten-hour day law would not only aid those unionized workers who had not successfully demanded that their hours be reduced, but would also help reduce competition from nonunionized workers." So Lochner not only protected a fundamental economic right, it thwarted an act of economic protectionism as well.

Something similar happened in Adkins v. Children's Hospital, where the Court struck down the District of Columbia's minimum wage law for women as a violation of liberty of contract. This was the case where Urofsky claimed Sutherland exhibited "a complete disregard for the real world." Well, here are some facts about that world. One of the figures in the case was an elevator operator named Willie Lyons, who had earned $35 per month from the Congress Hotel. Under the new minimum wage law, the hotel would have had to pay her $71.50 per month. So they fired Lyons and replaced her with a man willing to work at her old wage. That's why she sued. As the legal scholar Hadley Arkes memorably put it, "the law, in its liberal tenderness, in its concern to protect women, had brought about a situation in which women were being replaced, in their jobs, by men."

Had the Progressives cared to look, they would have discovered all sorts of equally inconvenient facts about their various regulatory schemes. More to the point, had Justice Louis Brandeis given economic rights the same constitutional respect he gave to free speech and privacy, the Willie Lyonses of the world might still have a fighting chance in the legal system that Brandeis did so much to reshape. 

Damon W. Root (droot@reason.com) is an associate editor of reason.

NEXT: George Skumanick's Provocative Pose

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Somehow I am reminded of the Jack Benny joke–that when an armed robber demanded, “Your money or your life!,” Mr. Benny paused for quite some while and replied, “Just a minute. I’m thinking.”

    1. Look, trade and profit might be a social necessity for future generations, but it’s dirty and shameful and commercial intercourse should only occur in a committed, lifelong relationship between an employer and an employee.

      While extremists might suggest that our society’s wanton over-commercialization will bring Gaia’s wrath upon us in the form of hurricanes and other natural disasters, most of us accept the need for some freedom “in the boardroom”. However, we also have to accept that reckless and irresponsible commercial activity is a threat to public health and social order. Consider how much advertising kids are exposed to on TV, on the radio, or even (perhaps especially) online. Parents can try to use ad-blockers or fast-forward past commercials, but it’s almost impossible to keep our kids completely innocent of the world of trade. The first amendment exists to protect political speech and set journalists at mainstream newspapers above the law — it was never intended to protect something as coarse and degrading as commercial speech, and it certainly doesn’t give advertisers free reign to expose children to these things.

      How many more families will be torn apart before we understand how these so-called “rights”* are destroying our society? How many more teenagers will experience their first job not in a safe, rewarding union position, but in a car (delivering pizza) or awkwardly fumbling around in the storeroom of the Gap? How many kids will consume, heedless of the consequences, and end up with the overwhelming responsibility of a large credit card debt — and of those, how many will take the easy way out and have a bankruptcy? (Food for thought: studies have shown that getting a bankruptcy can have a negative impact on their ability to have a credit card debt later in life when they are more prepared to take care of it.)

      Frankly, some freedoms cost our children — our future — too much to be worth protecting. We don’t need to buy more cheap shit from China than Chad deems acceptable. We don’t need to give deadbeat employers a chance to bail on their faithful employees for an attractive younger worker, just because they’re “overpaid”, or “incompetent”, or because they “slept through their whole shift”. We don’t need to sacrifice our childrens’ chance to see true athleticism in person in Barclays Center (once they become incredibly wealthy), just so they can be forced to grow up in blighted middle class slums. If attaining the society our children deserve means the end of these “rights”, then so be it. Will anyone really miss them once they’re gone?

      * The phrase “right to property” never appears in the Constitution. Did our Founders really intend for us to have such a right, when it obviously did not exist in their day?

      Best regards, Yuriy, CEO of youtube downloader

  2. Root certainly provides a good capsule of history in these and related pieces, but I wonder: what does he want the reader to conclude from his exposition? Does he seriously think that the public would, or should, tolerate a Supreme Court that struck down wage-and-hours laws with the same exactness that it strikes down free-speech limits?

    I also seriously doubt that there is such a wide discontinuity between civil liberties and economic rights before the Supreme Court. True, speech-censorship fares poorly under the Court’s 1st Amendment jurisprudence, but most of the other civil liberties in the Bill of Rights are extremely under-enforced. Prison conditions remain barbaric; a savage regime of capital punishment remains in force; there is almost no consequence to violating 4th-Amendment rights; well-nigh harmless herbal highs and retail sex work remain under brutally-enforced punitive prohibitions. I would say that our economic liberties are subject to the same deep discount as most of our civil liberties, excepting the conspicuous outlier of free-speech rights (and free speech itself arriving at its extensive current protections only in the last 50 years after fits and starts).

    Put another way, I would say that the problem is not so much that economic rights fall short of 1st-Amendment standards; it is that economic rights fare as poorly as important 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights.

    1. In other words there is no more importance placed on rights than on limits of governmental powers.

      1. come on guy you must be kidding. addominali are worse than them!

  3. Look, trade and profit might be a social necessity for future generations, but it’s dirty and shameful and commercial intercourse should only occur in a committed, lifelong relationship between an employer and an employee.

    While extremists might suggest that our society’s wanton over-commercialization will bring Gaia’s wrath upon us in the form of hurricanes and other natural disasters, most of us accept the need for some freedom “in the boardroom”. However, we also have to accept that reckless and irresponsible commercial activity is a threat to public health and social order. Consider how much advertising kids are exposed to on TV, on the radio, or even (perhaps especially) online. Parents can try to use ad-blockers or fast-forward past commercials, but it’s almost impossible to keep our kids completely innocent of the world of trade. The first amendment exists to protect political speech and set journalists at mainstream newspapers above the law — it was never intended to protect something as coarse and degrading as commercial speech, and it certainly doesn’t give advertisers free reign to expose children to these things.

    How many more families will be torn apart before we understand how these so-called “rights”* are destroying our society? How many more teenagers will experience their first job not in a safe, rewarding union position, but in a car (delivering pizza) or awkwardly fumbling around in the storeroom of the Gap? How many kids will consume, heedless of the consequences, and end up with the overwhelming responsibility of a large credit card debt — and of those, how many will take the easy way out and have a bankruptcy? (Food for thought: studies have shown that getting a bankruptcy can have a negative impact on their ability to have a credit card debt later in life when they are more prepared to take care of it.)

    Frankly, some freedoms cost our children — our future — too much to be worth protecting. We don’t need to buy more cheap shit from China than Chad deems acceptable. We don’t need to give deadbeat employers a chance to bail on their faithful employees for an attractive younger worker, just because they’re “overpaid”, or “incompetent”, or because they “slept through their whole shift”. We don’t need to sacrifice our childrens’ chance to see true athleticism in person in Barclays Center (once they become incredibly wealthy), just so they can be forced to grow up in blighted middle class slums. If attaining the society our children deserve means the end of these “rights”, then so be it. Will anyone really miss them once they’re gone?

    * The phrase “right to property” never appears in the Constitution. Did our Founders really intend for us to have such a right, when it obviously did not exist in their day?

    1. I only want to say … (sniff) That’s beautiful.

    2. Well, of course, but ice cream has no bones.

    3. Breathtaking — I wish I could say the obvious so well. You are a credit to us all and our public education system.

  4. Thank you for another great article. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a perfect way of presentation. As a rule I download everything I need by search on mp3 but I’m really glad to find your site for a change. frankly speaking, I’ve never thought about this issue in such a way. just really need time to think;)

  5. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke.

  6. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke.

  7. Like Urofsky suggests that Brandeis’ sweepingly libertarian dissent should be read every day by government officials, including presidents, – I agee with this statement which can be used as a quotation in my essay writing in college.

  8. pronostic pmu fr links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

    …At issue was a 1925 Oklahoma statute granting a handful of companies the exclusive authority to manufacture, sell, and distribute ice….

  9. Supra sneakers

    Mens Supra shoes

    There are some classic Supra sneakers, and I am sure that everyone knows, the unstoppable Supra Skytop. This is easily the most popular Supra footwear per minute, simply go to the MTV and shows the cult by wearing them. Supra Thunder shoes becomes the most popular style of the Mens Supra shoeson 2010. You should know that Supra Suprano shoes are loving by the most young people who also like the skateboarding. In particular, Supra Indy should continue with the Skate scene in recent years their cause. Supra Strapped NSabove was recently that II of the above are the same love, said above Supra Skytop NS world tour. It is the prefect design that wearing the Supra Society shoes while you are playing the skateboarding. Supra Cruizer on the hot sale for you.

  10. Supra sneakers

    Mens Supra shoes

    There are some classic Supra sneakers, and I am sure that everyone knows, the unstoppable Supra Skytop. This is easily the most popular Supra footwear per minute, simply go to the MTV and shows the cult by wearing them. Supra Thunder shoes becomes the most popular style of the Mens Supra shoeson 2010. You should know that Supra Suprano shoes are loving by the most young people who also like the skateboarding. In particular, Supra Indy should continue with the Skate scene in recent years their cause. Supra Strapped NSabove was recently that II of the above are the same love, said above Supra Skytop NS world tour. It is the prefect design that wearing the Supra Society shoes while you are playing the skateboarding. Supra Cruizer on the hot sale for you.

  11. Supra sneakers

    Mens Supra shoes

    There are some classic Supra sneakers, and I am sure that everyone knows, the unstoppable Supra Skytop. This is easily the most popular Supra footwear per minute, simply go to the MTV and shows the cult by wearing them. Supra Thunder shoes becomes the most popular style of the Mens Supra shoeson 2010. You should know that Supra Suprano shoes are loving by the most young people who also like the skateboarding. In particular, Supra Indy should continue with the Skate scene in recent years their cause. Supra Strapped NSabove was recently that II of the above are the same love, said above Supra Skytop NS world tour. It is the prefect design that wearing the Supra Society shoes while you are playing the skateboarding. Supra Cruizer on the hot sale for you.

  12. He says Brandeis set a double-standard of judicial restraint: That it should be used when considering economic freedom but should?

  13. I’ve never thought about this issue in such a way. just really need time to think.

  14. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a perfect way of presentation.

  15. This was a very interesting article. Louis Brandeis was an amazing supreme court justice who made some legendary decisions.

    Thanks Ruth Miller
    Sport Sandals

  16. merci pour les info

  17. Sometimes I sound like I’m arguing, when I’m actually not. I just have a way of putting my posts stronger than intended.It’s easier to keep out of the conversation and not take the chance of being misunderstood.

  18. Do you have the dutch version of this article?Thanks for posting, your article presents ultra healthy tips.

  19. The progressives have just gotten worse over the years. Instead of ruling by the constitution, they make rules based on their beliefs. Speed Up My PC

  20. Cok guzele bir site tecekurler

  21. That was a 1923 case in which the Supreme Court struck down a law that required employers to pay female employees a certain minimum wage. So, of course, the net effect was that it prevented many women workers from getting a legal guarantee that they would be paid that minimum wage. But I have no other knowledge about what effect it had, so I would …

  22. Look, trade and profit might be a social necessity for future generations, but it’s dirty and shameful and commercial intercourse should only occur in a committed, lifelong relationship between an employer and an employee. ?bersetzer ?bersetzung Deutsch Norwegisch

  23. It is really interesting to learn about Louis Brandeis’ Partial Justice and how the famous jurist shaped?and misshaped?American law with that little word, facts. Thanks.

  24. It is a useful article on justice and facts. How facts can be manipulated to suit one’s designs. Thanks for the nice post.

  25. That it should be used when considering economic freedom but should 🙂

  26. Thanks for the awesome post, never really thought about it at first tho!

  27. Awesome post its really an amazing and insightful one

    Daniel Perl
    pass4sure 642-456

  28. Another excellent post, thank you, this is why I continue visiting here!

  29. This is a very interesting story. I like to read about outstanding people. Brandeis’ contribution is essential. He must have been a very brilliant person.
    Best wishes from Mark Spenser http://www.mp3hounddog.com

  30. Super post, reason.com is a great resource and this is just another example of great content online.

  31. The discussion of rights brings up the topic of rights to treatment. breast cancer options are often limited by insurance exclusions and treatment approval processes.

  32. It is a good news that no need to go at the match place, because we can see that game live on our T.V. Really a blatant post uggs outlet

  33. in please feel free to contact me. I will be back to look at out more of your articles laterthank you! I like this news, I also have information to share, here is my message.
    I think you will like the leading China wholesale electronics marketplaces, uggs outlet and you will like this blog

  34. Protecting our first amendment is crucial to America, and all of it’s citizens. Freedom of speech, freedom to bare arms, amongst other things. I mean could you imagine in today’s day and age not being able to say what you want when you want? I know I can’t. I’m a free spirit. I need to voice my opinion. It makes me wonder how business phone systems would work if we didn’t have all the rights we have today. I notice a lot of people taking advantage of this, like the tea baggers out in Washington. They look like fools, and have no idea how to run a country. At least not like Louis Brandeis. This man would be ashamed of how the tea baggers are acting. What a pitiful sight they are.

  35. we say that these Ugg Sheepskin Boots can absorb its power across the bottom phonetics of the day. It seems as access Sheepskin Boots Sale us achieve access album this winter. ?

  36. we say that these Ugg Sheepskin Boots can absorb its power across the bottom phonetics of the day. It seems as access Sheepskin Boots Sale us achieve access album this winter. ?

  37. As apperceive Cheap Womens Uggs may be the designation of origin issued in the name acclaimed all added compared with the world. without achieving any vision or not you like it or not, Women Uggs is really an alarming array

  38. The prestige of negotiating bulk Uggs Australia Outlet cloud has evolved into the current day can fit into Ugg Boots On Sale boots and stores up.

  39. youtube downloader lets you save videos from YouTube and play them on your computer, and best of all, it’s free!

  40. That’s the “courageous” experiment Brandeis waxed so poetic about. But what’s so “novel” about a business currying favor with the government in order to suppress competition? That’s one of the oldest tricks in the book. Contrast Brandeis’ quick deference to the state with conservative Justice George Sutherland’s majority opinion striking the monopoly down. “In our constitutional system,” Sutherland wrote, “there are certain essentials of liberty with which the state is not entitled to dispense in the interests of experiments.”

    Exactly. As his Olmstead dissent showed, Brandeis sometimes shared this skepticism of state power?at least when it came to state “experiments” on the rights he held dear. Just one year before New State Ice Co., in the case of Near v. Minnesota, Brandeis joined the Court in striking down a Minnesota defamation law as a violation of the freedom of the press. So much for allowing a courageous state to serve as a laboratory for bold experiments.

  41. I was fortunate when I found your site.
    High School Diploma

  42. Some laws are hard to digest, but still, they are there to protect us. Some old laws are still fit in modern times, but some laws need to be adjusted with accordance to the modern culture.

    Simon Cardenas
    Sport Betting Analyst

  43. come on guy you must be kidding. addominali are worse than them!Just wear my Sneakers

  44. Exercises that increase muscle tone are extremely beneficial in stopping hemorrhoids. Acid Cure Bacterial Vaginosis.

  45. yes, the louis you said was great,thanks here

  46. i found this article on google search. great discuss. I also seriously doubt that there is such a wide discontinuity between civil liberties and economic rights before the Supreme Court. True, speech-censorship fares poorly under the Court’s 1st Amendment jurisprudence, but most of the other civil liberties in the Bill of Rights are extremely under-enforced. so please keep up the informative posts! Telemarketing Leads

  47. I found your thoughts very interesting, thanks.!

  48. Herve leger dress are the best design dress for us to wear.

  49. Wow! I am glad that I found this article because this subject is over my head.

  50. Thanks for this history not really happiness if i understood all things written here.
    trading

  51. Thanks for posting! Your job won’t be left unnoticed and unappreciated. It helps me understand much in this sphere. I like the intelligible way you present information so that it became comprehensible, transparent and accessible for ordinary people like me. Well done!
    michigan auto insurance

  52. It is an article whose interesting really. Nice site here. Trading

  53. scaled-down fonts just permit much more products to acquire seen.

  54. I find it hilarious that an article about property rights has been picked over so carefully by spambots.

  55. One thing I’d prefer to say is that often before getting more laptop memory, check out the machine in to which it could well be installed. In the event the machine is actually running Windows XP, for instance, the memory limit is 3.25GB. Adding above this would basically constitute a waste. Make sure one’s mother board can handle the upgrade amount, as well. Thanks for your blog post.

  56. You must see additional sufficient admonition about this post…..Thanks for administering advantageous posts….

    1. Hmm seems like as if your site ate my first comment (it absolutely was super long) so I guess Ill just sum it up a few things I submitted and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your site. I as well am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still not used to everything. Do you have any helpful hints for inexperienced blog writers? I’d genuinely be thankful.

  57. This site is very interesting and also great. I’m glad to find out this ste immediately. It’s very informative. tax debt

  58. It is nice to find a site about my interest. My first visit to your site is been a big help. Thank you for the efforts you been putting on making your site such an interesting and informative place to browse through. I’ll be visiting your site again to gather some more valuable information. You truly did a good job.

  59. It is nice to find a site about my interest. My first visit to your site is been a big help. Thank you for the efforts you been putting on making your site such an interesting and informative place to browse through. I’ll be visiting your site again to gather some more valuable information. You truly did a good job.

  60. I could tell that we’re on the same interest and obsession. Good to know someone I could share my ideas. Looking forward to know and learn some more from you. I’ll be glad to share my own thoughts to you soon. Thank you for sharing such valuable articles. More power!

  61. I admire the way you express yourself through writing. Your post is such a refreshing one to read. This is such an interesting and informative article to share with others. Keep up the good work and more power. Thanks!

  62. It is nice to find a site about my interest. My first visit to your site is been a big help. Thank you for the efforts you been putting on making your site such an interesting and informative place to browse through. I’ll be visiting your site again to gather some more valuable information. You truly did a good job.

  63. The thoughts are very well laid out and it was refreshing to read. I was able to find the information that I was looking for. I just wanted to leave a comment as a token of appreciation. Thanks!

    tax lawyer | tax lawyers

  64. This story was very inspiring and inspirational.

  65. this story was very inspiring and inspirational. Check out http://www.nextiva.com for your business phone system needs

  66. But once the briefing is just a produce a distinction of sitting quickly and hearing having a brief lecture without a Q&A followup…

  67. I just added your website to my bookmarks. I really like reading you

  68. I do believe he should utilize the Liam Neeson photo being a campaign graphic and credit rating himself regarding saving all of those Jews any time he has been a manufacturer inside the Reich in the course of WWII.
    Klimmzugstange

  69. Do you have the dutch version of this good article ? Thanks for posting, your article presents ultra healthy tips.

  70. I am particular my web page web site visitors will discover that quite helpful.

  71. So true that is a double standard and today there is even more people who favor some rights over others than back in the 30’s. The only thing that is better today is our availability to buy gold online, I definitely favor that.

  72. Lots of thanks for this info..

  73. Lots of thanks for this info..

  74. I was wondering how will i find quality article on Louis Brandeis. Google failed, Stumbled UP.

  75. I mean could you imagine in today’s day and age not being able to say what you want when you want? I know I can’t. I’m a free spirit.

  76. Fluffy fusion hair strewn at random on the shoulder, it seems that does not have amorous feelings.

  77. eech, the right to privacy, and other civil liberties, the courts s

  78. ophy he had been honing during the previous five decades, firs

  79. deis gave the perfect quick description of the constitutional p

  80. d the vast majority of regulations, a practice known then and now as judicial restraint. But when it came to l

  81. fil5edma cleaning company in riyadh

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.