Federal law normally preempts state law, in cases where both jurisdictions have an interest. However, the courts have generally allowed states to provide more specific regulations so long as they meet the requirements of the federal law. Two examples.
Consider minimum wage laws. The US Government requires a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Many states and jurisdictions require a higher wage, and are fully allowed to do so, because whatever rate they set above $7.25 meets the requirements of the federal minimum wage law.
Consider emissions standards. The EPA sets emission standards for the country as a whole, but, in practice, California does. Because the California standards meet the minimum requirements of the federal statute, they can set more strict standards.
Great news for everyone on the internet in North Korea, they seem to still be able to take Coursera classes! I bet the 1970's Film Appreciation instructor is happy to still have all their students.
Rationale: There is an International Space Station currently in what is commonly known as space. This is manned by astro/cosmo/nauts, which are a subset of an intelligent species. Therefore, yes.
Let me ask you a question. Which more accurately describes America today: a) the government fears the people; or b) the people fear the government.
How about c) you're using a false dichotomy after already having your pants dropped over the use of circular logic. Don't double down on stupid -- there's more than two ways to approach the problem. Pop open your wallet. Flip over the dollar you got in there. What does it say on the back?
E Pluribus Unum.
That is not latin for "Roll over and play dead."
If it is a false dichotomy, it isn't mine. You're the one who brought up Jefferson's quote, not me. I consider it to be a sliding scale, my belief being that the current balance tips towards people fearing the government. While I'd like it to tip the other way, I don't believe that accurately describes the current conditions in the USA. As a result, the only thing with power over the government is itself. Whatever restraints it exercises (or doesn't) over its own power is self imposed. My logic wasn't circular, it was an if-then statement. I didn't even bring up the else:{... } as it wasn't pertinent to the discussion (in my belief).
As someone posted below, one false dichotomy is Republicans vs Democrats, because both are two sides of the same coin, coin (or dollars) being the only thing important to both parties.
I would note that "Out of Many, One" could describe just about every government in the world, from the USA back in the 1790's to the USSR of the 30's up to the present day. And that all governments derive their power from the consent (either implicit or explicit) of the people. It just so happens that the vast majority of the voters of the USA have granted their consent, one way or another.
Again, what should be done is an exercise best left to the reader.
Strangely enough, I was about to cite the opening paragraph. Let me ask you a question. Which more accurately describes America today: a) the government fears the people; or b) the people fear the government.
If the answer is a), then I am wrong, and should be modded into negative oblivion. If the answer is b), then my original answer was correct.
What should be done about it is another question entirely. But the only reason to "dissolve the political bands" is when b) is more correct than a).
The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government.
Wrong. Thomas Jefferson, please excuse me waking you from your long nap, but I need an opinion. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thank you Mr. Jefferson. You can now go lay down again. "Brrraaaaiiinnnss...." Yeah, I know. I miss 'em too, sir.
So... you're saying you agree with me? If the only thing with power over the government is the other parts of the government, then they certainly have nothing to fear from its citizens who can't even sue due to lack of standing (as determined by part of the government).
It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.
The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government. Thus if the executive branch commits an illegal act, the Congress can impeach, the courts can make orders, etc. If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the courts can annul by ruling on the constitutionality. If the courts go overboard, the President and the Congress can appoint new justices. Checks and balances.
This act is on the executive branch side, so it is up to the legislature and/or courts to enforce. Private citizens can speed up the process by trying to sue, but of course, good luck finding someone with standing in this case, based on recent court rulings about domestic surveillance (only the phone companies have standing, not the people whose records were obtained).
I'm glad that there is a significant minority doing this. I invited a co-worker over when I found out he had no-where to go. As a recent transplant, we weren't planning on having family over, but Thanksgiving is meant to be shared. I imagine the motives of the other 23% is probably very similar.
23% and proud!
Unless you move, in which case you pay a title fee each time you move to a different state. I know this, as I've moved frequently for my job and always, always, always have to pay new title fees (and new title taxes, even if I've paid those taxes in the state, yeah).
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like they need to hire Watson, then.
Federal law normally preempts state law, in cases where both jurisdictions have an interest. However, the courts have generally allowed states to provide more specific regulations so long as they meet the requirements of the federal law. Two examples.
Consider minimum wage laws. The US Government requires a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Many states and jurisdictions require a higher wage, and are fully allowed to do so, because whatever rate they set above $7.25 meets the requirements of the federal minimum wage law.
Consider emissions standards. The EPA sets emission standards for the country as a whole, but, in practice, California does. Because the California standards meet the minimum requirements of the federal statute, they can set more strict standards.
Great news for everyone on the internet in North Korea, they seem to still be able to take Coursera classes! I bet the 1970's Film Appreciation instructor is happy to still have all their students.
I'm not picky, I'll take whatever flying cat pictures you got. Honestly, can you go wrong posting flying cat pictures on the internet?
I still expect some level of quality from idle. I don't want to see pictures of your mother's cat.
If the cat is flying in circles due to being caught in a mini-tornado, then I do want to see pictures of your mother's cat.
Because, how often do you get to use the word "catnado," much less actually see it happen?
Here's hoping someone caught it on film and is uploading to the net as we type.
Seriously. Pics or it didn't happen.
Answer: Yes.
Rationale: There is an International Space Station currently in what is commonly known as space. This is manned by astro/cosmo/nauts, which are a subset of an intelligent species. Therefore, yes.
The can is clearly labeled 'refrigerate after opening' but you probably gobble down the whole can.
I, personally, prefer WalMart's generic 'luncheon meat' to the real branded Spam. The WalMart stuff just tastes better.
Steer far clear of the Kroeger 'spam' though. Yech.
You imply that I open a can of the stuff. I store the cans in the root cellar with the rest of my survival goods for the inevitable apocalypse.
Considering that I've never put spam into my fridge, it is indeed surprising to get spam from a fridge.
Actually, the beginning would be: "How do I know you exist?" (and vice versa).
Merriam-Webster states that it is "probably short for gypsy." I trust Merriam-Webster over wikipedia in this case.
Oh, hey, remember this from the internet?
$ man wife
No manual entry for wife
$
$ man fucking
No manual entry for fucking
$
At least in my distro
My wife says: "If you need a manual, you're doing it wrong."
Let me ask you a question. Which more accurately describes America today: a) the government fears the people; or b) the people fear the government.
How about c) you're using a false dichotomy after already having your pants dropped over the use of circular logic. Don't double down on stupid -- there's more than two ways to approach the problem. Pop open your wallet. Flip over the dollar you got in there. What does it say on the back?
E Pluribus Unum.
That is not latin for "Roll over and play dead."
If it is a false dichotomy, it isn't mine. You're the one who brought up Jefferson's quote, not me. I consider it to be a sliding scale, my belief being that the current balance tips towards people fearing the government. While I'd like it to tip the other way, I don't believe that accurately describes the current conditions in the USA. As a result, the only thing with power over the government is itself. Whatever restraints it exercises (or doesn't) over its own power is self imposed. My logic wasn't circular, it was an if-then statement. I didn't even bring up the else:{ ... } as it wasn't pertinent to the discussion (in my belief).
As someone posted below, one false dichotomy is Republicans vs Democrats, because both are two sides of the same coin, coin (or dollars) being the only thing important to both parties.
I would note that "Out of Many, One" could describe just about every government in the world, from the USA back in the 1790's to the USSR of the 30's up to the present day. And that all governments derive their power from the consent (either implicit or explicit) of the people. It just so happens that the vast majority of the voters of the USA have granted their consent, one way or another.
Again, what should be done is an exercise best left to the reader.
Strangely enough, I was about to cite the opening paragraph. Let me ask you a question. Which more accurately describes America today: a) the government fears the people; or b) the people fear the government.
If the answer is a), then I am wrong, and should be modded into negative oblivion. If the answer is b), then my original answer was correct.
What should be done about it is another question entirely. But the only reason to "dissolve the political bands" is when b) is more correct than a).
The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government.
Wrong. Thomas Jefferson, please excuse me waking you from your long nap, but I need an opinion. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thank you Mr. Jefferson. You can now go lay down again. "Brrraaaaiiinnnss...." Yeah, I know. I miss 'em too, sir.
So... you're saying you agree with me? If the only thing with power over the government is the other parts of the government, then they certainly have nothing to fear from its citizens who can't even sue due to lack of standing (as determined by part of the government).
It seems, lately, that there is a clearer-than-ever delineation between legality and enforceability. If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it? Who's able to hold them accountable? I wish I could say I had a good answer to that question.
The only thing with power over the US Government is other parts of the US government. Thus if the executive branch commits an illegal act, the Congress can impeach, the courts can make orders, etc. If the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the courts can annul by ruling on the constitutionality. If the courts go overboard, the President and the Congress can appoint new justices. Checks and balances.
This act is on the executive branch side, so it is up to the legislature and/or courts to enforce. Private citizens can speed up the process by trying to sue, but of course, good luck finding someone with standing in this case, based on recent court rulings about domestic surveillance (only the phone companies have standing, not the people whose records were obtained).
Access control is another good one. Allow someone in your home if you are not there.
We have that now. They are called robbers. Usually not that great a thing when it happens.
I wish I had mod points right now, I could not bump this fast enough.
Eventually it will happen, due to the increasing financial costs of not having essentially real time communications between huge centers of finance.
So, you just discovered Poe's Law? Bully for you!
Where's slashdot on this list? Oh, right, it only posts news that matters.
I'm glad that there is a significant minority doing this. I invited a co-worker over when I found out he had no-where to go. As a recent transplant, we weren't planning on having family over, but Thanksgiving is meant to be shared. I imagine the motives of the other 23% is probably very similar. 23% and proud!
Unless you move, in which case you pay a title fee each time you move to a different state. I know this, as I've moved frequently for my job and always, always, always have to pay new title fees (and new title taxes, even if I've paid those taxes in the state, yeah).
Make sure you have a "carry concealed" permit for the pistol, otherwise you might otherwise face charges anyway.