Gonzales v Carhart quimbee

Dr. Leroy Carhart (plaintiff), a physician that performed Intact D&E, brought suit in federal district court against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (defendant) seeking to enjoin the PBABA from taking effect Gonzales v. Carhart Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ►.. Following this Court's Stenberg v.Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, decision that Nebraska's partial birth abortion statute violated the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Act) to proscribe a particular method of ending fetal life in.

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act CitationGonzales v. Carhart, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 1133, 546 U.S. 1169, 126 S. Ct. 1314, 164 L. Ed. 2d 46, 74 U.S.L.W. 3471 (U.S. Feb. 21, 2006) Brief Fact Summary. A federal statute was passed that bans so-called partial-birth abortions. Its constitutionality was challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The federal nationwide [

All sizes · Official Shop · Free shipping over 99€ · Free Return

  1. Gonzales v. Carhart as a landmark case established the current precedent for the test applied regarding a woman's right to an abortion. The government ban cannot constitute an undue burden on the woman seeking an abortion. If it does, then the procedure is unconstitutional
  2. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the US Supreme Court held in a five-to-four decision that the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by the US Congress was constitutional. Although the Court previously ruled in Stenberg v
  3. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and related decisions holding that any state regulation on abortion needed to include an exception for the health of the mother. The Supreme Court heard an appeal of the Nebraska and Eighth Circuit case, which had been brought by a doctor named Carhart against the U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales

Official Carhartt WIP Shop - Spring/Summer Collectio

Dr. Leroy Carhart and other physicians who perform late-term abortions sued to stop the Act from going into effect. The plaintiffs argued that the Act could apply to a more common abortion procedure known as D&E (dilation and evacuation), as well as to the less common intact D&E, sometimes called D&X (dilation and extraction) Get Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674 (N.D. Cal. 2006), United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee

Gonzales v. Carhart - Quimbe

In Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the federal act. A sharply divided Court held the act constitutional. The majority concluded that the act described the procedure with sufficient specificity to survive the vagueness challenge Petitioner is Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States. Respondents are Leroy Carhart, William G. Fitzhugh, William H. Knorr, and Jill L. Vibhakar. In the Supreme Court of the United States. No. 05-380. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PETITIONER. v. LEROY CARHART, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT. Carhart v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 791, 793 (8th Cir. 2006). The Ban outlaws the performance of any abortion during which the doctor partially delivers the fetus prior to taking an overt act that causes the death of the fetus. 18 U.S.C. §1531 (b) (2003) A video case brief of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). Read the full-text brief here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/gonzales-v-raichIn 1970, Congress pa.. It found the Act unconstitutional, id., at 493, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, Nat. Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, 437 F. 3d 278 (2006). The three District Courts relied on similar medical evidence; indeed, much of the evidence submitted to the Carhart court previously had been submitted to the other two courts. 331.

In Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the federal act. The Big Apple takes a bite out of Bill Clinton's powers (Clinton v. City of New York Get United States v. Gonzales-Benitez, 537 F.2d 1051 (9th Cir. 1976), United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee Search for: Gonzales v. Carhart Results 1 - 20 of 268. Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date. RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results 13 Jul 2018, 7:00 am by Quimbee. In Gonzales v. Before the Bar Blog - ABA For Law Students. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of law school study materials, including 889 video lessons and 6,400+ practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,800+ case briefs keyed to 224 law school casebooks

Gonzales v

Gonzales v. Carhart Case Brief Summary Law Case ..

Since 2007, Quimbee has helped more than 150,000 law students achieve academic success in law school with expertly written case briefs, engaging video lessons, thousands of multiple-choice. Carhart v. Stenberg, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1099, 1120, 1126 (D. Neb. 1998). The necessary implication of the court of appeals' decision, therefore, is that the factual findings of the district court in Stenberg, based on the particular circumstances of the case before it, precluded Congress from making contrary findings on the same topic

GONZALES v. CARHART - Legal Information Institut

GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CARHART ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 05Œ380. Argued November 8, 2006ŠDecided April 18, 2007* Following this Court™s Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, decision that Nebraska™s fipartial birth abortionfl statute violated the Federal Con Get Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee

Gonzales v. Carhart - Wikipedi

View Test Prep - quimbee con law midterm.docx from POLS 3335 at University of Houston. Separation of Powers and Federalism o SoP (horizontal) o Federalism (vertical) o Congressional Powers Tax an Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld a federal statute granting female Naval officers four more years of commissioned service before mandatory discharge than male Naval officers City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving discrimination against the intellectually disabled. In 1980, Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (CLC) submitted a permit application seeking approval to build a group home for the intellectually disabled. The city of Cleburne, Texas refused to grant CLC a permit on the basis of a municipal. Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that convicted felons could be barred from voting without violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.Such felony disenfranchisement is practiced in a number of U.S. states Gonzales V Carhart Wikipedia Dougie Macdonald S Maire Breatnach S 2 The Antrim Rose Borjal Vs Court Of Appeals Digest Quimbee Quimbee Quimbee Books Pronk Pops Berea College V Kentucky Revolvy Personalized Elmo And Friends Sing Along Digital Album National Coalition For Men V Selective Service System Law And Government Advancing The Use Of.

brown v board of education quimbee. 9th October 2020. 0 Views 0. Save Saved Removed 0. Following is the case brief for Griswold v. Connecticut, Supreme Court of the United States, (1965) Case Summary of Griswold v. Connecticut: Buxton and Griswold were the Director and Executive Director for Connecticut's Planned Parenthood league. Both were arrested and convicted as accessories for providing information, advice and instruction to married couples on how to prevent.

Roe v. Wade was the landmark case which established a woman's right to an abortion is protected under the fundamental right to privacy. It is important to note that, although the court implements a strict scrutiny analysis, later the established (and current) standard will not be strict scrutiny but an undue burden test Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case regarding abortion.In a plurality opinion, the Court upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion that was established in Roe v. Wade (1973), but altered the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the undue burden standard for abortion restrictions Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. In a 6-3 decision announced on June 23, 2003, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, ruled the University's point system's predetermined point allocations that awarded 20 points towards admission to. Pages 57 ; Ratings 100% (1) 1 out of 1 people found this document helpful; This preview shows page 50 - 53 out of 57 pages.preview shows page 50 - 53 out of 57 pages

CitationStenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S. Ct. 2597, 147 L. Ed. 2d 743, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 4484, 68 U.S.L.W. 4702, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5252, 2000 Daily. United States Supreme Court. STENBERG, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, et al. v. CARHART(2000) No. 99-830 Argued: April 25, 2000 Decided: June 28, 2000. The Constitution offers basic protection to a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion

Gonzales V. Carhart; Gonzales V. Planned Parenthood . Cases.lawi.us DA: 13 PA: 50 MOZ Rank: 77. Planned Parenthood Federation of America has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0) licence, which permits unrestricted use and reproduction, provided the author or authors of the Gonzales V Because of the lack of federal funding, additional sources will be needed for funding this type of education and access. Two types of actions can prevent these types of issues CitationEisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 92 S. Ct. 1029, 31 L. Ed. 2d 349, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 145 (U.S. Mar. 22, 1972) Brief Fact Summary. Appellee was convicted for exhibiting and distributing contraceptive articles under a law that forbid single as opposed to married people from obtaining contraceptives. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Dissimilar [ Read our student testimonials. Laidlaw began to discharge various pollutants into the waterway. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. Media. Friends of the Earth (FOTE) and several other environmental groups (plaintiffs) brought suit against Laidlaw Environmental Services (defendant) alleging that the company was violating provisions of the Clean Water.

<br>Employers buy labor on that market, and job seekers sell their labor. <br> <br>Attorney Advertising. They would rather not do that, [choosing] instead to restrict that mobility, making it hard for their employees to find opportunities elsewhere.. Please contact the author at rnewman@hinchnewman.com if you are interested in learning more about this topic and how it impacts digital. Lawrence v. Texas was the landmark case that decriminalized homosexual conduct and keeps the government out of our bedrooms so to speak. The right of consenting adults both homo and heterosexual to engage in sexual conduct was recognized as a constitutional right protected under the right to privacy Citation505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674, 1992 U.S. 4751. Brief Fact Summary. A Pennsylvania law imposed several obligations on women seeking abortions. The constitutionality of the law was brought into question. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place a [ Citation539 US 558 (2003) Brief Fact Summary. Police found two men engaged in sexual conduct, in their home, and they were arrested under a Texas statute that prohibited such conduct between two men. Synopsis of Rule of Law. While homosexual conduct is not a fundamental right, intimate sexual relationships between consenting adults are protected by [ This principle reflect[s] the conviction that under our constitutional system courts are not roving commissions assigned to pass judgment on the validity of the Nation's laws. Id. at 610-11; see also Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 167-68, 127 S.Ct. 1610, 167 L.Ed.2d 480 (2007). Accordingly, we reject Plaintiffs' facial challenge. I

Oyez gonzales v carhart. Compare Search ( Please select at least 2 keywords ) Most Searched Keywords. Topeka mls paragonrels 1 . Costco foam mattress pad 2 . World wide services inc 3 . Prepaid toyota card 4 . Congratulations mom to be 5 . Overseas human resources jobs 6 Carhart, United States Supreme Court, (2007) Case summary for Gonzales v. Carhart: After the passage of legislation banning partial-birth abortions, Dr. Carhart brought suit against the Attorney General claiming the legislation was unconstitutionally overbroad, because it failed to include an exception for the procedure when necessary to. <p>The law's provisions created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to address race and sex discrimination in employment and a Community Relations Service to help local communities solve racial disputes; authorized federal intervention to ensure the desegregation of schools, parks, swimming pools, and other public facilities; and restricted the use of literacy tests as a requirement. <br>Over 79,000 lessons in all major subjects, {{courseNav.course.mDynamicIntFields.lessonCount}}, Levels of Culture: National, International & Subcultural, Understanding the Difference Between Society & Culture, Cultural Variation: Universalities, Generalities & Particularities, Etic and Emic World Views in Anthropology, Culture and the Individual: Real Culture vs. Additionally, Mexico.

Jim Celentano | Hello, I'm a Professional Writer/Consultant with over 10 years of experience in Professional Writing Public speaking A third site, https://www.quimbee.com appears to direct itself more to law students but may be of benefit to those students interested in more details of the case in question. Our Rights, Boyd v United States 116 US 616 (1886) Weeks v United States 232 US 383 (1914) Mapp v Ohio 367 US 643 (1961) Terry v Ohio 392 US 1 (1968 PH 251 Abortion Outline.docx - PH 251 Abortion Philosophy Outline Roe v Wade(1973 \u2013 Britannica https\/www.quimbee.com\/cases\/roe-v-wade legal case i <p> { bidder: 'ix', params: { siteId: '195457', size: [300, 50] }}, { bidder: 'triplelift', params: { inventoryCode: 'Cambridge_Billboard' }}, iasLog Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, legal case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992, that redefined several provisions regarding abortion rights as established in Roe v. Wade (1973).. In 1988 and 1989 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, led by Governor Robert Casey, enacted new abortion statutes that required that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent.

Jun 5, 2017 - Upcoming small business webinars or archived videos/podcasts. Check regularly for new updates!. See more ideas about small biz, business, small business The doctrine of res judicata is similar to the criminal law concept of double jeopardy, but in a civil law setting. Res judicata bars any party to a civil lawsuit from suing again on the same claim or issue that has previously been decided by the court. This includes any issue that was heard and decided in the first lawsuit, even if the subsequent lawsuit attempts to state different reasons. Same with the infamous Spiderman! When I slip and say French words the French way in English, I end up feeling embarrassed because people think I'm trying to show off or be fancy. He asked me, Diane, tu-as fait une pause ? I haven't seen you recently, he explained. PHILADELPHIA: CAREY, LEA, AND BLANCHARD. To the US ear, it sounds more like a long o; shorter in duration, but. rust. artist: Arcade+Fire, Cannot annotate a non-flat selection. Our bodies get bigger but our hearts get torn up. Children, wake up

John Roberts

<p>Bourne, E.J. After all, nobody is more of an expert on your abilities and efforts than you are. Observe, detach, and choose to go your own way as in the Fleetwood Mac song. The New Way to Reverse Even Your Worst Mood, Why Orange Cats Are Special, According to Science. The good news is, you can do acupressure on yourself for instant anxiety relief. I never, ever thought I would be the person. Gonzales v. carhart. Gonzales v. carhart 2007. Carhart v gonzales. Compare Search ( Please select at least 2 keywords ) Most Searched Keywords. Tortuosity of the thoracic aorta 1 . What does the word meander 2 . Florida company name search 3 . Topical ointment for staph infection 4 v) A ban on a particular uncommon abortion technique, Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). The Court found that the State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others if it has a rational basis to act and it does not impose an undue burden

False Choices and the Legacy of &#39;Gonzales v

Why do people call me crazy for wanting to flee the state and go away? Summed up, undue burden means that the Legislature cannot make a particular law that is too burdensome or restrictive of one's fundamental rights According to Aristotle's Poetics, the tragic playwright must create a unified work. Miller produced several modern tragedies about ordinary men with puny dreams and sorrowful finales; the most famous is Death of a Salesman <p>• Privacy Policy, CEO Celebrates National Weatherization Day October 30, http://www.ceoempowers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Weatherization-Video-Clip.mp4. Start studying Con Law 2: 2. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (2003), which prohibited a rarely used abortion procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation. In Whole Woman's Health v

Gonzales v. Carhart Case Brief for Law Student

London Palladium Seating Plan The Palladium contains just over 2200 seats and the auditorium is spread over three vast levels, the stalls, dress circle and upper circle You Might Also Like. Hello world! January 14, 2019. Leave a Reply Cancel repl

<p>This means the idle sequences will not interrupt the (un)equip or attack animations. While you can still enjoy the original Doom and </p> <p>Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: Models representing things (model.thing. The timeline is synchronized with the model's animation sequence, so any scripts set to run at a time past the end of. We now use the interest formula, I = Prt, to determine the interest to be paid at the end of the loan: This value will be rounded to $4.88 by the bank, as it is more profitable to them Planned Parenthood v. Casey SCOTUS- 1992 Facts. Five provisions of the PA Abortion Control Act of 1982 are at issue here. Requires a 24 hour waiting period. Requires parental consent for a minor (with allowance for judicial bypass). Requires a signed statement indicating spousal consent In The Supreme Court Of The United States - SCOTUSblog The Court with the opportunity to reexamine and overrule Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and its Companion, Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), as decided wrongly, a result in which Life Advocates is interested greatly.1----- -----SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Since the Decision and Judgment of the Court of Appeals applies the Decisions in Roe v

Gonzales v. Carhart - Case Summary and Case Brie

Washington v. Glucksberg facts -Dr. Harold Glucksberg -- along with four other physicians, three terminally ill patients who have since died, and a nonprofit organization that counsels individuals contemplating physician assisted-suicide -- brought this suit challenging the state of Washington's ban on physician assisted-suicide Obergefell v. Hodges Facts. Obergefell, the named appellant, traveled to Maryland to marry his ailing partner who was suffering from ALS. His partner died in Ohio, the couple's home state, shortly after they were married; but, because the laws of Ohio did not allow for same-sex marriage, Obergefell could not be listed as his partner's surviving spouse on Obergefell's death certificate In The Supreme Court Of The United States - SCOTUSblog The Court with the opportunity to reexamine and overrule Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and its Companion, Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), as decided wrongly, a result in which Life Advocates is interested greatly.1----- -----SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Since the Decision and Judgment of the Court of Appeals applies the Decisions in Roe. Lonergan | Glynn | degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law. Bezirk: Sherman | In 2008, Murphy successfully added an amendment to rail legislation making it easier for Amtrak and the state of Connecticut to cooperate on the rail project. Murphy has argued that such a plan would not require government financing and would help to introduce competition into monopolized health.

Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) The Embryo Project Encyclopedi

We've listed any clues from our database that match your search. We use cookies on The Crossword Solver to help our site work, to understand how it is used and to tailor the advertisements shown on our site <br>When you press 1-0 on your phone, you will wait and an operator will assign you a line number, at that time you will be placed in the queue for identification. Phone: (916) 651-4120, Secretary of the Senate: Erika Contreras Please do not testify using speakerphone or bluetooth, this can cause acoustic feedback and make it very difficult to hear your testimony. Here's why it's worth. In United States constitutional law, a suspect classification is a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action, or sometimes private action. <p>But if we walk in the light Walking in the light is the state of being obedient to do all that God reveals to you through the Holy Spirit. To the choirmaster. It is good for nothing any more, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.. As a man Jesus continued to. There is no direct testimony in the New Testament that Peter's position as leader of the Apostles was meant to be passed on to his successors, the bishops of Rome, as the primacy of the popes over all of Christianity

Gonzales v. Carhart :: 550 U.S. 124 (2007) :: Justia US ..

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which held that limits to working time violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision has been effectively overturned. A New York State law limited bakery employees' working hours to 10 hours per day and 60 hours per week. A five-judge majority held that the law violated the due process clause, stating. Gonzales v carhart 2007. Gonzales v carhart oyez. Compare Search ( Please select at least 2 keywords ) Most Searched Keywords. 125 park ave new york ny 1 . Rent a skyline gtr 2 . Dental courses near me 3 . Spyware search & destroy 4 . Oculus rift xbox one setup 5 . Delta dental of michigan website 6

Quimbee - YouTube

Gonzales v. Carhart Oye

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island Abrams v. United States Adamson v. California Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena Adderley v. Florida Adkins v. Children's Hospital Agostini v. Felton Alden. This can range from; Each of these inspections can be performed in as much detail as you wish. This way the resident can easily signal issues Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England (2006) Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (2019) June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo (2020

HLI: Gonzales vsAfter Gonzales vThe Pants Fit Guide | LOFTCAT Apparel Men&#39;s Sizing Information
  • No bake recipes with marshmallow fluff.
  • Mobile repair near me.
  • Youtube song baby come to me.
  • How to clean vape pods.
  • Change saturation of one layer Photoshop.
  • Annette's Bridal.
  • How to enter SA Fashion Week.
  • Ramsey hair salon.
  • Carbohydrates in wheat and rice.
  • Mazda 6 2020 price in India.
  • Fat burner foods.
  • How much is business insurance per month.
  • AeroGarden pods lettuce.
  • Inflammatory breast cancer survivors blog.
  • Request Desktop Site YouTube.
  • How to become a games designer.
  • Are comets bigger than asteroids.
  • How to find dealer number.
  • Buffalo Airport to Canada border.
  • Appeal to me.
  • Tuxedo for men.
  • Azerbaijani alphabet pronunciation.
  • 2013 Camaro ZL1 for sale.
  • Elegant Designs trendy romantic sheer shade floor lamp with hanging crystals.
  • Milky Bar ingredients.
  • XCF file Viewer.
  • Average speeding ticket cost in Georgia.
  • Is 70 MGO Manuka honey good.
  • Comfort aluminium radiators.
  • Texas eviction moratorium.
  • Calories in chicken Mushroom stroganoff.
  • Describe the four steps to operate the brake performance tester.
  • Calories in 100g Boiled Beef.
  • Is Chernobyl still radioactive.
  • JQuery child selector.
  • How to level saxophone pads.
  • How to fix uneven hips.
  • Bad intonation on lower frets.
  • Canadian Ag Day 2021.
  • Houston to Miami Drive time.
  • Old radio shows.