Maximum RAM for Dell Dimension 4550 is 2 GB

Although many memory sites and even Dell proclaim that the Dimension 4550 has a memory limit of 1 Gigabyte, many will run two 1 GB sticks.

See an article located at http://en.community.dell.com/wikis/desktop/dimension-4550-maximum-memory-2gb-not-1gb.aspx, which led me to attempt to upgrade an old 4550’s memory to 2 Gigs.

While some commenters complained that they could not do so, they didn’t specify whether they had also upgraded to BIOS A08 or if they had the 400 Mhz FSB motherbourd or a 533.

The one I worked with was upgraded to the A08 BIOS and it had a 400 FSB board.  Its original CPU was previously upgraded to 2.8 GHz. The RAM used was 2 two DDR DIMMs of PC 3200 Kingston Value Ram with a clock speed of 400 Mhz.  The Dimension 4550 ran it at 333 MHz.

The only reason I am posting this info here is I had so much difficulty finding something on the net about the problem.  Most posts said it couldn’t be done.

The Willy-Nilly Protection of the California Supreme Court

During oral hearing before the California Supreme Court, Justice Joyce L. Kennard voiced concern as to whether the court could invalidate Proposition 8 on any willy-nilly ground. While the Justice’s willy-nilly comments, and others, indicated some personal hostility to the proposition’s challengers, other of the Kennard’s questions and comments suggest that it is too early to call her vote.

Bear in mind Kennard’s reputation for stubborn adherence to her intellectual perception and law.

Such a call seeks out of place, given Justice Kennard’s vote to limit the hearing to the issue of the retroactive application of the proposition to same sex marriages entered into before the passage of prop 8. Then and at time of hearing, her vote likely indeed betrayed a proclivity to uphold the fourteen word Constitutional amendment on the ground that Kennard believed the power of amendment was indisputably retained in the People of California.

Still, at least one observer believes they saw something else in the Dutch Justice’s demeanor during the March 5 hearing. Her infamous probing examination of attorney’s for the proposition’s challengers at times verged on being over the top; at times mean spirited. There had to be a reason for the Associate Justice’s conduct. Could it be that she questions the compatibility of upholding those same sex marriages performed with the apparent sanction of the State, while denying recognition to or validation of marriages performed since the vote on 8?

Think about it. The Supreme Court made clear in the Marriage Cases the court’s concern that same sex partners are indeed denied equal rights under the law if their union is accorded any less than the full panoply of rights and dignities, including the name of “marriage”, afforded heterosexuals. What then would those early same-sex marriages be, if Court votes to continue to uphold their validity and recognize the couples’ unions, while the same is denied to others.

The answer may be especially troubling to Justice Kennard, since even were those past marriages ostensibly left inviolate, the partners joined thereunder couldn’t be considered to enjoy the same equal protection under the law to which the Court and Kennard already voted they are entitled. While the few early marriages would be legal, those marriages would unavoidably suffer harm and indignity if the law treats them as little more than the spawn of a gap in the law. Instead of same-sex marriage gaining acceptance, as it would as they became more common, the dearth of same sex couples would tend to enhance their lack of acceptance.

Hence, the High State Court and Justice Kennard is truly challenged, should they wish to rationally deny same sex marriage to all, while upholding it for a few.

One line of questioning by the Bench, which did not seem to be impressed the arguments of the Office of the California Attorney General, indicates that the Court may see fit to invalidate 8 by extending the definition of a Constitutional “revision”. A small body of Court precedent had established that an initiative could amend but not revise the Constitution and, until Thursday’s hearing, it appeared that revisions were limited to “quantitative” changes, as where 20,000 words out of a 50,000 constitution were changed, or a “qualitative” change in the structure of government was enacted.

Kennard repeatedly emphasized that the enactment of Proposition 8 added a mere fourteen words to the Constitution. No one seriously proposed that it amounted to a “quantitative” constitutional revision and the argument that it changed the structure of government was not that persuasive. However, some of the judicial questioning asked whether revisions “must” be limited to the existing two prong “quantitative/qualitative” test. They seemed interested in whether or not something less than a restructuring of the business of government would effectively amount to a constitutional revision, were it to significantly impact an “inalienable right”.

At this early date, when the Court has ninety days to render its ruling, expect the Supremes will fashion a rule that a limitation to a the constitutional guarantee of an inalienable right may is a revision that may not be enacted by the initiative process.

Proposition 8 may put an end to marriage in California

The California Supreme Court very well could solve Proposition 8 by ruling that state cease issuing marriage licenses and directing the State to limit civil union licenses making no mention of the word marriage.

Should the Court have the votes to set aside the purported Constitutional amendment, it will, but that it will is less than certain; especially given the Justice Kennard’s announcement that she would dismiss the instant challenge to the proposition and rule on the validity of 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted prior to the vote on Proposition 8.

Perhaps a brief look at what In re Marriage Cases actually ruled would be helpful.  One of its conclusions was

that the distinction drawn by the current California statutes between the designation of the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the designation available to same-sex couples impinges upon the fundamental interest of same-sex couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.

There is no reason to believe that the Court is going to willingly reverse itself or permit itself to be reversed by an initiative, and it need permit the focus of its decision to be so treated.  Not when it sharpens its upcoming decision on the true focus of In re Marrige Cases:

 the state’s {Slip Opn. Page 101} assignment of a different name to the couple’s relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple’s relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled.

In short, the unconstitutional inequity found by the SCOC was the denial of the name “marriage” to same-sex unions, while permitting the same to opposite-sex unions.  The cure the Court fashioned was to extend marriage to same-sex couples.

If Proposition 8 is upheld, the Court may no longer have the authority to order that same-sex marriage be permitted, if marriage is Constitutionally limited to a man and a woman, but the Court still has its Constitutional obligation to protect lesbian and gays from in-equal treatment under the law.  The two mandates seem irreconcilable.

The California Supreme Court Justices may have a surprise in store for those that would bludgeon it and the California Charter with the initiative power.  By denying licenses to “marry” to all without discrimination, the Court would avoid recognizing or validating marriages between anyone.  Hence it upholds the Constitutional amendment, while protecting same-sex couples from the stigma of being limited to a differently named union.

Such a ruling may sound harsh, but it would be a logical extension of the Court’s ruling in In re Marriage Cases.  At the same time, it would send a clear signal to the effect that the Supreme Court of California takes its Constitutional responsibilities very seriously, especially where the majority openly attacks a protected minority.

The rights of the 18,000 married and Proposition 8

Propostion 8 supporters would have everyone believing that those same-sex couples married between the time the Suprieme Court of California (SCOC) declared their right to marry and the passage of Propostion 8 have no stake in the current challenge to amendment of the Constitution to provide that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Pacific Justice Institute raises the argument in the letter brief it file in oppositon to the Petition filed in Tyler v. Horton.

The Petitioners, having been married prior to the passage of Propostion 8, have not demonstrated that they are beneficially interested in the status of the marriage amendment.

One wonders if Chif Justice George will ask the proponents of 8’s validity to stipulate that those marriages, let’s call them early marriages, are valid and recognized.  Don’t expect it will happen.

Even should the early marriages be upheld, those so wedded will suffer greatly should the right to marry be denied others.

The right to remarry:  The Court must consider how Proposition 8 affects the rights of the early same-sex marriers to remarry.  Yes, Virginia, married homosexuals are likely to find their marriages ended by divorce and death, just like the marriages of heterosexuals, in which case heteros often remarry.  We all know how statistics can be used to lie, but it is safe to assume that, should the divorce rate amongst homosexuals be the same as that of heterosexuals, several thousand of the early same-sex marriages will fall prey to divorce in the next five years. 

Freedom of Association:  Then there is the early marrieds freedom of association, an extremely important right and especially in the case of an impacted minority.  The right not only encompasses a right of privacy in one’s association, but the right to petition government as to one’s greviances.  That the value of the right of association is often directly proportional to the size of the association is patent.  Similarly, an association limited per se to the members of 18,000 marriages will likely be much weaker than one drawing its membership from a pool of, for example, 180,000 same-sex weddings.

Diminished dignity:  The SCOC has rightfully paid a great deal of attention to the question of the injury that same-sex unions suffer to their dignity by the denial of the marriage word.  Even should the few 18,000 marriages be held to be legal, their participants will suffer in dignity unless the same right be preserved for all homosexuals.  It takes little imagination to realize that many will assume that legitimately married same-sex couples are not legitimately marriage, if the purported Constitutional amendment is upheld.

Even when the validity of those early marrieds is recognized, their participants will be looked at as though they were social experiment or a freak of society, unless the right to marry is expanded to all homosexual persons.

The children:  Nor are the potential injuries limited to the wedding participants.  Homosexuals have children.  They adopt children and, in part, they can biologically conceive.  Nor are the children of same-sex couples necessarily not heterosexual.

The SCOC may also consider the harm the children of early marrieds may suffer, should the right be limited to the early 18,000.  By encouraging these legal marital unions to be perceived as illegitimate, it is all the more likely that the legal children will be perceived as illegitimate.

Harking back to the right to remarry in case of divorce, how many early marriers with children might remain in a bad, evan a harmful marriage, if they are denied the right to remarry?  Just as their are mentally and physically abusive heterosexual marriages, there will be abusive homosexual marriages.  All too often dangerously harmful marriages go on for way too long, due to the need to provide children with a home.  Think of the postion the parent of a child is placed in, when they know that if they leave their same-sex marriage they will be barred from providing their chidren with the safey of another same-sex marriage. 

There are certainly other concrete examples of the injury risked by early marriers in the instant proceedings over Propostion 8, but the above is surely enough to demontrate that the early marrieds have a very real stake in not only the validity of their marriages, but the right of others to same sex marriage.

Standing of political subdivisions to challenge Proposition 8

Supporters of Proposition 8 argue that political subdivisions of the state do not have standing to challenge constitutional amendments.

The argument raised by the Pacific Justice Institute, citing Community Television of So. Cal. v. County of Los Angeles (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 990, misses the point of the instant litigation. 

The issue of the constitutionality of statutes limiting marriage to a man and a woman has been litigated and found to violate the equal protection guarantee of the California Constitution.  See In re Marriage Cases. 

The instant original proceeding is to determine if, subsequent to the Marriage Cases, the State Charter was changed by the passage of Proposition 8.  The argument being whether the proposition sought to enact an amendment, which was within the province of an initiative, or a revision, which the power to enact need be inititatied in the Legislature.

Hence , the standing or lack of standing of a political subdivision to challenge a law on the ground of constitutionality is irrelevant. 

But even if this were considered to be a challenge to the constitutionality of a law, the City and County of San Francisco has standing.  See Zee Toys, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 763, 777, 149 Cal.Rptr. 750, which discusses, amongst other decisions, Community Television of So. Cal. v. County of Los Angeles (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 990, which Pacific offers to challenge the standing of political subdivisions.  

Zee Toys notes that Community Television is not “controlling” where a challenge is not made on equal protection grounds as is the case where, as here,  “the interest herein sought to be protected . . . relates more to the national interest in observing the boundaries of state and federal power.” 

Citing Board of Education v. Allen (1968) 392 U.S. 236, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060, 88 S.Ct. 1923, Zee Toys, supra at 777 to 781, clearly held that although an action may in form be in the name of a political subdivision, the person controlling the subdivision, in reality is a party to the litigation and there is no doubt that there is standing.

One can only hope that the rest of the Proposition 8 support arguments will be so shallow.

The problem with the legal challenge to Proposition 8

Forgive one for disagreeing with the ACLU’s most recent legal challenge to California’s propostion limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

The San Francisco  Chronicle reports that suit has already been filed by the ACLU and others to block Proposition 8 from taking effect. 

The suit is filed on the ground that, because the proposition would so fundamentally change the California Constitution, by taking away the rights of a minority group, that the proposition is no less than a constitutional revision requiring approval of the legislature.

Or, as the Chronicle puts it,

The suit argued that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in such fundamental ways – taking important rights away from a minority group – that it amounted to a constitutional revision, which requires approval by the Legislature before being submitted to the voters.

Forgive my confusion, but I have yet to see a copy of the pleading, but it is difficult to comprehend that indeed is the sum and substance of the legal challenge to be waged.

I do not pretend to be a constitutional scholar or to have done more than rarely touched on constitutional principals in the most mundane, low profile matters, but it seems that the above argument conceeds that were the legislature could constitutionally enact law identical to Proposition 8.  I cannot agree.

I do agree that the ACLU and co-litigants should raise all challenges to the proposition and that the argument that a fundamental constitutional revision is well put.  That, however, does not mean that the Legislature has the power to revise the constitution so as to deny fundamental rights and liberties.

I acknowledge the strength and merit of the constituional revision argument, as is well explained by Kevin Norte of the Los Angeles Metropolitan News-Enterprise, but it falls short.

As stated by the Legislative Analyst in the states Official Voter Information Guide,

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

To empower the Legislature to pass constitutional revisions is one thing; to pass revisions in denial of equal protection is quire another.

I simply do not see how the Legislature could validly revise the California Constitution to deny equal protection to all, which is exactly what would result.  See the May 15, 2008,  California Supreme Court decision, In Re Marriage Cases, which is here found online.

Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution…. In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.

It seems patent that the argument should be made that even the Legislature cannot  deny the equal protection guaranteed by the California Constitution in Article One, Section 7(a) of the Declaration of Rights.

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

One should also argue that it is an ex post facto law, prohibited by Section 9 of Article One of the Declaration of Rights of the California Constitution:

A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed.

Proposition 8 invalidates same sex marriages entered into, prior to the proposition’s passage, in California or other places,  and that is the classic definition of an ex post facto law.

Lastly, and on a more personal note, I would like to say that I have been happily married for over 25 years and that we have two wonderful children.  While I can have some empathy with those fearing that same sex marriage will somehow harm the “institution of marriage”, I fear a great deal more harm is done to those that would be denied the right to enter into marriage. 

I also gave a great deal of thought to the historic argument; that marriage has always been traditionally limited to members of the opposite sex.  Assuming that to be true, and disregarding exceptions, that does not make it right. 

Slavery was a time honored tradition here and in many countries.  That does not mean it was right.

The so-called 2nd independent counsel’s report embarasses the State of Alaska

The gravamen of the report is that the independent counsel failed to find sufficient evidence that Sarah Palin had used her office to affect a personal interest; the dismissal of her brother in law.B

To get to where Mr. Petumenos wants to take you, he first opines that a court could find that the Alaska Ethics Act required a finding that Palin sought both a personal and a financial gain, since Alaska Statutes only prohibit substantial impropriety if, as to a specific matter, a public officer’s personal or financial interest is significant and their interest is not shared by the general public ro a large class of persons to which Palin belongs.  See AK (Alaska Statute) 39.52.110(b)(1).

Unethical conduct is prohibited, but there is no substantial impropriety if, as to a specific matter, a public officer’s

            (1) personal or financial interest in the matter is insignificant, or of  a type that is possessed generally by the public or a large class of persons to which the public officer belongs;

 

[The report is availble here, courtesy of the Alaska Daily News.  Links to pertinent Alaska Statutes and Regulations are at the bottom of this page of the Alaska Department of Law website.}

 

Arguing that the use of both words may be the kind of argument that high priced advocates are routinely paid to make, but where they are connected by the disjunctive, it is just the kind of arguments that the courts routinely dismiss.

 

Attorney Petumenos them makes the better argument, which is that Palin’s personal interest in getting her brother in law is speculative, while Alaskan law requires a personal interest must be significant for it to be the basis of an ethics charge.  Petumenos then proceeds to confuse the weight of the proffered evidence with the magnitude of  the personal interest that it was offered for in Branchwater’s report.

 

The accumulated evidence of Palin’s efforts to get  her sister’s ex leaves no room to doubt the significance of the Gubernatorial vendetta.

 

The report leaves little doubt as to why it was released so late on the eve of  the election,when there would be little if any time for scrutiny. 

State personnel board members owing their jobs to Palin find her innocent

The State Personnel Board, the members of which are appointed by the Governor of Alaska, issued a so-called surprise report finding the Governor innocent of ethics charges.

See James Grimaldi’s 2nd Alaska Probe Finds Palin Did Not Violate Ethics Rules in today’s online edition of the Washington Post:

After McCain selected Palin as his vice presidential nominee, her attorneys attempted to take the investigation out of the hands of the legislative investigator by asking the State Personnel Board to intervene. At a routine meeting this afternoon, the State Personnel Board, which is appointed by Palin, surprised attendees by announcing that its investigator would release his findings today.

Lets try to understand the scope of this ”surprise”.  A panel of 8 Republican and 4 Democrats voted to conduct an ethics investigation and Palin agreed to cooperate with it.  Then, when she was picked by McCain for his Vice Presidential candidate, she not only refused to coopertate, but tried to get the investigation transferred to the State Personnel Board, which is solely comprised of appointees of the Governor.  When the Alaska Supreme Court refused to block the legislative investigation.  The Legislative Council, comprised by Republican and Democrats, voted to release their independent investigator’s report.  That report found Palin guilty of abusing a state ethics law.  Now, on the eve of the election, Palin’s cronies issue a report absolving thier boss of any wrongdoing. 

The only surprise is that the woman had the report released on the eve of the election, when all it can do is remind the public of her ethics problem.

If interested, see my earlier evaluation of this investigator’s “independence” or lack thereof; Sarah Palin to be deposed by Michael Clayton.

Palin releases medical records

Not.  Why should she do anything as unmaverick as keep her word and release what she promised.

Hopefully, she will fade into the Alaskan mountains and we will never hear of the whako diva after tomorrow.  That means we will never know what was concealed in those records, but we will some how bear up – knowing that she is history.

Wall Street Journal puts the lie to McCain-Palin on clean coal

The Wall Street Journal confirms that Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s coal policy is essentially the same.

Noting that Sarah Palin’s accusations in Ohio had fired up a campaign rally, the Journal, which is widely considered to be country’s financial organ of record, reports in Coal Warriors: Palin, Obama Camp Spar Over ‘Bankrupting’ Big Coal, that,

. . . Sen. Obama’s stance on the future of coal power doesn’t appear to differ much from Republican proposals. Both candidates say that climate change and global warming is a problem, and both want to spark a transition away from traditional coal-fired plants. Both candidateshave proffered support for “clean coal,” a new generation of plants that can capture and bury carbon emissions. Spokemen for the Obama campaign stressed that he never called for the abolition of the coal industry and underscored similarities between his proposals and Sen. McCain’s.

Shame on John McCain for lending his reputation to a campaign of half-truths, deception, and flat lies.

One special note about the WSJ article.  The knuckle draggers have attacked it with such vicious comments that they  leave no doubt that the article hit its mark.