frogandbanjo

You're acting like it's some kind of benefit. It's a consequence of her having so little control over her own assets and life that it's the least-bad option on paper. You know what the other option is? Having the people currently controlling her money and her life deciding which lawyer she'd be allowed to retain privately to dispute that control over her assets and her life.

I'm no expert on her situation, but it kinda sounds like it's already way too close to that in other ways.

...wat.

Cain's punishment wasn't medicinal. It was proto-ironic. God also didn't seem super interested in "restoring" Abel to his prior-to-head-bashed-in-by-a-rock state, which raises a bunch of questions too.

If you do this, you should also add some default comment options. Clearly, you could do all sorts of creative promotion around a "this is when I came" button. However, if you really wanted to do the Lord's work, you could also add some warning buttons. For het-male oriented porn, a "warning: dude's O-face" default comment would be super useful.

...and doesn't have access to mind-blowing technology that gives them total domination of most of the oceans and seas on earth, plus the air.

When in doubt, the argument is nearly always that the Reconstruction Amendments secretly amended the Constitution in radical ways.

Now, I'm not going to pretend that I'm totally innocent in that regard. I believe that the Privileges and Immunities Clause and Equal Protection Clause are both much broader and more powerful than the courts have been willing to concede, but when it comes to something like the EC being unconstitutional, that's the kind of specific and formal change that you'd think the amendment's drafters and ratifiers would've said something about either before, during, or after ratification. Like, the 1868 election comes around and nobody says "uh... guys... that amendment we drafted and you ratified eliminated the EC. Whatcha still doin'?" That beggars belief.