No. People like you are the problem. YOU fuck off. We're all just trying to get somewhere. If you aren't driving faster than the person in the lane to your left, then you are driving like an asshole.
What, seriously? The speed limit in the US is usually 65 MPH. Are you seriously claiming that drivers on the Autobahn go "many times" that fast? Let's conservatively interpret your statement as "three times" -- do Autobahn drivers drive 200 miles per hour?
I honestly don't know the answer to that, but I find it difficult to believe.
Be careful when saying things like "mental illness is as real as any physical illness". In order to equate mental illness with physical illness, you must equate imagination with reality. If I imagine my arm is broken, that doesn't make it physically broken. If I imagine I have a brain tumor, that doesn't mean I have a brain tumor.
But, if I imagine I feel pain, then that might be equal to "actually" feeling pain, since pain is an imaginary symptom (occurring literally only in your head).
So, it's true in some ways, and untrue in other ways. Just make sure to be clear on what you mean.
The WiFi-using neighbor should counter-sue, saying that she, too, is sensitive to electromagnetic signals, except that her symptoms only occur in the *absence* of such signals. Thus, the crazy dude's unwillingness to use WiFi causes her harm.
Holy shit, it would be infinite recursion of idiocy.
This question has been settled law for a long, long time. I am not a lawyer, so I forget the court case, but I'm aware of a case where a landlord rented an upper room to a tenant, with permission for the tenant to practice his occupation, which was making specialty paper. Meanwhile, downstairs, the landlord was doing something that generated enough heat to negatively affect the tenant's paper.
The tenant sued the landlord for, uh, for whatever. The judge decided for the landlord, saying that the heat-generating activity was "reasonable", and that if the tenant wanted protection from something reasonable, he would have to negotiate it in the rental agreement.
So, I figure that using WiFi is "reasonable", so the neighbor has no case.
Oh, also, the guy is nucking futs, so that will probably work against him.
We don't have extra resources to retest implausible claims. If we aren't allowed to kill people like this (and, in the name of humanity, that's probably for the best), then we should shame or ignore them, whichever is more effective.
The tests for magical claims were all done years and years ago. There's no such thing as magic, so we don't need to keep testing the world for signs of magic.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the "vector" is an essential part of the claim in a lawsuit. If you get that wrong, then your complaint is wrong, and you have no case. The law obliges you to get the "vector" right.
Again, we agree. We both agree that you choose to ignore the legal reality of the country and tradition we live in, in favor of a legal fantasy which exists only in your head.
Seriously. Get with the program. Not only does Congress have the constitutional right to do things which are necessary and proper, but in addition it is a damn good thing they have their finger in the education pie. It sounds reasonable that localities should regulate education, but history shows that they do a very poor job of it indeed, and that a little federal oversight helps a lot.
The courts have gone badly astray for most of the 20th century, tending to follow public policy preference rather than the text of the constitution. It all really started with FDR's court-packing threat.
I'm glad you have finally come around to my position, which is that your former claims were untenably out of touch with the legal traditions of this country going back for many decades, or perhaps to the very beginning of the union. Cheers!
Wow, your deep understanding perplexes me. If the constitution is so abundantly clear on how the census must be performed, why has it never, not once, never ever in the history of the country, not even the first time way back when, ever been done the way you say it must? If it is so clear, why are you the only one to understand it, and apparently all other constitutional law scholars see it another way?
But no, obviously you are the only person who sees so clearly what everyone else is blind to. Thank you for opening my eyes! You are like a prophet!
The necessary and proper clause is the constitutional authority.
And I don't need to continue a disagreement with you. It is completely obvious that I'm right and you are wrong, because the federal government has in fact been regulating and dealing with education for decades. If it were unconstitutional, which it isn't, then opponents of federal education administration would have defeated it in courts, which they haven't.
There it is, plainly stated -- the reason you are wrong. You probably won't change your mind about it, which is fine, you are allowed to have absurd legal theories. Good luck with that.
You're totally right. Even though education is NECESSARY and PROPER to the functioning of the government, including at the national level, there is no Constitutional way for Congress to address it. If only there were a way for Congress to pass laws which were NECESSARY and PROPER for the country. Alas, we will have to live without such NECESSARY and PROPER laws. Thank you for teaching me about our legal tradition based on your obviously deep understanding of Constitutional law.
Oh, no, not "require", merely "make reasonable". I don't think the government should be required to record race; I merely think that today, for many reasons, such a policy is better than not. I share your dream for a post-racial society, and we might get there in another couple hundred years (or more).
But I think a court might not agree with you that "information" is synonymous with "no information". In fact I imagine that is exactly the crux of the law in question.
Care to name one "legitimate governmental racial policy"?
Sure. [Thinks about it silently for a minute.] Okay, I just named a few to myself, but I don't want to argue with you about them. (I thought for five seconds and came up with four policies, BTW, so I didn't think about it for very long.)
The relevant question, rather, is how does it permit it?
I'm going to take that rhetorical question as if you meant it as a question to which you were open for an answer, although I suspect you are not. Here is the answer:
The actual Enumeration shall be made... every... ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
The answer to your question lies in that last clause: in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
That is literally the answer to your question "how does it permit it?". That is how. It's right there in the plain text of the Constitution. And even if it weren't, which it is, it could be pinned under one of the other enumerated powers.
Yawn. I'm glad most citizens realize the beneficial purpose of demographic data collection. Luckily, we can ignore people like you because you don't matter very much, and even if people like you became significant, your lack of answers would only hurt yourselves and help the rest of us because government services would be tailored for us and against you. So, yeah, way to stick it to the man, you rebel you.
Also, your understanding of Constitutional law is astounding.
You make a good point, but just so you know, the rules of the census sufficiently work around the problem of visitors. The question then becomes why are we counting non-citizen residents -- and I imagine there is a reasonable and good answer. Perhaps it's because non-citizens still use government services, I'm not really sure.
Huh, that's funny, because last time I checked, white and black were in fact races. They are also colors. They also have non-race and non-color meanings.
I'm actually very surprised that you weren't aware of the racial meanings of "white" and "black". You should look them up -- you are apparently walking around profoundly ignorant of the world around you.
That, or you were trying to make a point by not saying what you mean. I'm not very smart, so it's hard for me to understand when people are being facetious.
Slashdot Mirror
No. People like you are the problem. YOU fuck off. We're all just trying to get somewhere. If you aren't driving faster than the person in the lane to your left, then you are driving like an asshole.
What, seriously? The speed limit in the US is usually 65 MPH. Are you seriously claiming that drivers on the Autobahn go "many times" that fast? Let's conservatively interpret your statement as "three times" -- do Autobahn drivers drive 200 miles per hour?
I honestly don't know the answer to that, but I find it difficult to believe.
There's an easier way to tell if he is a liar:
1) If he makes absurd implausible claims which have already been tested and found to be bogus, he's a liar.
Phew, that's four steps easier than your way.
To escape EM, he'd have to move pretty far, considering the magnetic field of the Earth.
Be careful when saying things like "mental illness is as real as any physical illness". In order to equate mental illness with physical illness, you must equate imagination with reality. If I imagine my arm is broken, that doesn't make it physically broken. If I imagine I have a brain tumor, that doesn't mean I have a brain tumor.
But, if I imagine I feel pain, then that might be equal to "actually" feeling pain, since pain is an imaginary symptom (occurring literally only in your head).
So, it's true in some ways, and untrue in other ways. Just make sure to be clear on what you mean.
The WiFi-using neighbor should counter-sue, saying that she, too, is sensitive to electromagnetic signals, except that her symptoms only occur in the *absence* of such signals. Thus, the crazy dude's unwillingness to use WiFi causes her harm.
Holy shit, it would be infinite recursion of idiocy.
This question has been settled law for a long, long time. I am not a lawyer, so I forget the court case, but I'm aware of a case where a landlord rented an upper room to a tenant, with permission for the tenant to practice his occupation, which was making specialty paper. Meanwhile, downstairs, the landlord was doing something that generated enough heat to negatively affect the tenant's paper.
The tenant sued the landlord for, uh, for whatever. The judge decided for the landlord, saying that the heat-generating activity was "reasonable", and that if the tenant wanted protection from something reasonable, he would have to negotiate it in the rental agreement.
So, I figure that using WiFi is "reasonable", so the neighbor has no case.
Oh, also, the guy is nucking futs, so that will probably work against him.
Yeah, you could do that and cowtow to his ridiculous assertions. If it were me, I'd prefer the more direct approach: fuck off, loser!
We don't have extra resources to retest implausible claims. If we aren't allowed to kill people like this (and, in the name of humanity, that's probably for the best), then we should shame or ignore them, whichever is more effective.
The tests for magical claims were all done years and years ago. There's no such thing as magic, so we don't need to keep testing the world for signs of magic.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the "vector" is an essential part of the claim in a lawsuit. If you get that wrong, then your complaint is wrong, and you have no case. The law obliges you to get the "vector" right.
Again, we agree. We both agree that you choose to ignore the legal reality of the country and tradition we live in, in favor of a legal fantasy which exists only in your head.
Seriously. Get with the program. Not only does Congress have the constitutional right to do things which are necessary and proper, but in addition it is a damn good thing they have their finger in the education pie. It sounds reasonable that localities should regulate education, but history shows that they do a very poor job of it indeed, and that a little federal oversight helps a lot.
The courts have gone badly astray for most of the 20th century, tending to follow public policy preference rather than the text of the constitution. It all really started with FDR's court-packing threat.
I'm glad you have finally come around to my position, which is that your former claims were untenably out of touch with the legal traditions of this country going back for many decades, or perhaps to the very beginning of the union. Cheers!
Of course "a conservative" advocated rounding up Arabs.
Great! I stopped reading after this sentence, because apparently we agree and so have nothing to argue about. Cheers!
Fair enough. I don't disagree. Be well.
Wow, your deep understanding perplexes me. If the constitution is so abundantly clear on how the census must be performed, why has it never, not once, never ever in the history of the country, not even the first time way back when, ever been done the way you say it must? If it is so clear, why are you the only one to understand it, and apparently all other constitutional law scholars see it another way?
But no, obviously you are the only person who sees so clearly what everyone else is blind to. Thank you for opening my eyes! You are like a prophet!
The necessary and proper clause is the constitutional authority.
And I don't need to continue a disagreement with you. It is completely obvious that I'm right and you are wrong, because the federal government has in fact been regulating and dealing with education for decades. If it were unconstitutional, which it isn't, then opponents of federal education administration would have defeated it in courts, which they haven't.
There it is, plainly stated -- the reason you are wrong. You probably won't change your mind about it, which is fine, you are allowed to have absurd legal theories. Good luck with that.
You're totally right. Even though education is NECESSARY and PROPER to the functioning of the government, including at the national level, there is no Constitutional way for Congress to address it. If only there were a way for Congress to pass laws which were NECESSARY and PROPER for the country. Alas, we will have to live without such NECESSARY and PROPER laws. Thank you for teaching me about our legal tradition based on your obviously deep understanding of Constitutional law.
Oh, no, not "require", merely "make reasonable". I don't think the government should be required to record race; I merely think that today, for many reasons, such a policy is better than not. I share your dream for a post-racial society, and we might get there in another couple hundred years (or more).
Yeah, I filled out mine too.
But I think a court might not agree with you that "information" is synonymous with "no information". In fact I imagine that is exactly the crux of the law in question.
Care to name one "legitimate governmental racial policy"?
Sure. [Thinks about it silently for a minute.] Okay, I just named a few to myself, but I don't want to argue with you about them. (I thought for five seconds and came up with four policies, BTW, so I didn't think about it for very long.)
The relevant question, rather, is how does it permit it?
I'm going to take that rhetorical question as if you meant it as a question to which you were open for an answer, although I suspect you are not. Here is the answer:
The actual Enumeration shall be made ... every ... ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
The answer to your question lies in that last clause: in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
That is literally the answer to your question "how does it permit it?". That is how. It's right there in the plain text of the Constitution. And even if it weren't, which it is, it could be pinned under one of the other enumerated powers.
The constitution ... forbids racial classification of the American People.
[citation needed]
Yawn. I'm glad most citizens realize the beneficial purpose of demographic data collection. Luckily, we can ignore people like you because you don't matter very much, and even if people like you became significant, your lack of answers would only hurt yourselves and help the rest of us because government services would be tailored for us and against you. So, yeah, way to stick it to the man, you rebel you.
Also, your understanding of Constitutional law is astounding.
You make a good point, but just so you know, the rules of the census sufficiently work around the problem of visitors. The question then becomes why are we counting non-citizen residents -- and I imagine there is a reasonable and good answer. Perhaps it's because non-citizens still use government services, I'm not really sure.
Huh, that's funny, because last time I checked, white and black were in fact races. They are also colors. They also have non-race and non-color meanings.
I'm actually very surprised that you weren't aware of the racial meanings of "white" and "black". You should look them up -- you are apparently walking around profoundly ignorant of the world around you.
That, or you were trying to make a point by not saying what you mean. I'm not very smart, so it's hard for me to understand when people are being facetious.