He said that they'll have to migrate further and further north each year, so that those in the bay area in 1997 would have to be all the way in CANADA within 100 years. So roughly 20 miles per year, or 340 miles in 17 years since he made rhat statement. Has anyone or anything moved an inch, much less 340 miles?
Your next step is to say he's a fringe kook, not representative of what people have been saying. Well, he's a tenured professor of climate science at Berkeley, a position as well respected (by the left) as a constitutional law professor / community organizer.
For intelligent forms, that seems to be the case here on earth.
There are about 1.5 billion smartphones on the planet. If you ask a smartphone "who is the vice president of the united states", approximately all of them will say (speak) "Joe Biden is the vice president".
Based on surveys I've seen, only a couple million people reach the same level of intelligence, knowing who the vice president is. Therefore, silicon can be considered to be the most common form of intelligence on earth.
Even more so on the coasts of the US, of course, as humans are becoming more silicone, leaving all intelligence to the silicon.
Thanks for taking the time to type that out. It gave me a starting point to learn more, and I learned that if you release particles one a time, each particle makes one mark, one dot. One particle doesn't interfere with itself, and can't because the interference pattern is seen in the density of collisions over an area.
As many of these single dots build up, they tend to cluster around an interference pattern - as if some particles went through one slit, and some particles went through the other slit. Well yeah, if I turn on the light in my living room, some photons go out through one window, some photons go through the other. Each goes through one or the other.
So I do very much appreciate it, yet I'm as yet unsure where to go to "get it", to have the ahah moment of "this is what it's all about!"
> you'd expect is to get a pattern that's the SUM of the pattern you get through each slit.... But instead what you get is an INTERFERENCE pattern
I thought the definition of the word "interference pattern" is "the SUM of two waves". So you'd expect a sum, and you get a sum, which is called an interference pattern.
Here's the California Energy Commission STILL saying it. SInce 2010 has passed, as of 2012 they pushed the "underwater by" date to 2050: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012p...
Asked about the effect on California, professor of climatology at the University of California at Berkeley Orman Granger said in 1997:
"Climatologic records over the last 10,000 years show that species move north (in the Northern hemisphere) roughly 500km for every degree C temperature increase... in order to survive they have 100 years to move to Canada".
With a few more simplifications maybe I can "get it". So far, much of quantum physics sounds like goobly-gook to me, and I had no trouble with relativity in 6th grade. I had to learn a little calculus to read Einstein, bit that wasn't a big deal.
If you understand quantum physics, or think you do, explain this. There is a cat, in a box. You can't see the cat. Is the cat alive or dead?
Wrong, asshole. YOU can't see the cat, but I can see the cat shitting in his litter box right now. I can assure you he's very much alive. So SchrÃdinger was full of shit.
Unless by "both alive and dead " what you actually mean is "the cat is either alive or dead, I just don't happen to know which", in which case - no shit, Sherlock. You don't know everything. Is that supposed to be a revolutionary new discovery?
I suppose I'm a global warming denier, by the common standard here on Slashdot. The global warming alarmists and pitchmen said "San Francisco will be underwater by 2010". Unfortunately, it's still there.
That's one of two big problems for the global warming camp. Well-known leaders of that movement have publicly admitted to organized, widespread lying and intentional exaggeration in order to "spur the public to action". I deny that they've been telling the truth, and they agree! Has the "science" gotten any better? Well, we know that a typical volcano releases a couple tons of CO2 each day. A few months ago, there was an "OMG Global Warming!" story here on Slashdot that reported atmospheric CO2 levels rising more than expected - based on measuring CO2 on a friggin a volcano! Which is kind of like reporting global average humidity based on moisture measurements taken below Niagra Falls.
There IS some good science supporting global warming, but the alarmist stuff makes better headlines, so 90% of the "science" reported is complete junk, obviously so. I reject all claims based on this utter junk pseudo-science.
The second problem is more recent. Every president has their slush fund, a federal program or two which they use to send tax money to their donors, who send some back as campaign donations. It just so happens that THIS president's slush funds are included in the $100 billion we're spending on "green". For example, the tax payers loaned over a half a billion dollars to Fisker to develop their electric car. Fisker turned right around and handed millions of it to Obama and other Democrats. There's nothing new about that, of course, other than the exchange of greenbacks is normally labeled "green energy" right now. That makes anything labeled "green energy" or "save the planet" inherently suspicious, just like Haliburton contracts were suspicious when Cheney was in the White House. We know that any proposal to spend "half a billion for green energy" means $10 million for the DNC, $10 million for Hillary's campaign, $10 million split between a few congress-critters, $50 million for their CEO friend's golden parachute, and $420 million to who-knows-where. Again, not new - Haliburton was the same. "Green" is the new "Haliburton".
Two years ago, the intelligent, thinking people realized that the most powerful person in the US government, the president, can't even get a blow job without the whole country hearing about it. When the government a couple of guns for a hostage or two and everybody finds out about it - the US government just completely sucks at keeping secrets.
Therefore, when people claimed that there was a massive conspiracy involving thousands of people throughout the NSA, FBI, and other agencies, covering up wholesale spying on the entire US population, they were obviously nut jobs. That was a ridiculous idea.
Then Snowden. The nut jobs were _right_. After Snowden, I'm much less dismissive of nut jobs of all types. They just might be right.
Yes, in the first hours there were various workarounds and fixes suggested, and people came up with ways to get around those first workarounds. About 48 hours after the release, consensus congealed around using Red Hat's fix.
There is a very limited set of cases where it could be a compatibility issue if you had custom scripts relying on the old behavior, but that was judged to be fairly insignificant.
I partially agree, but remeber this was SPEAR phishing. When you get an email from your boss, with your boss's normal signature, using terms and abbreviations that your company normally uses, your first thought probably isn't "is this a phish?"
That's just silly to act like someone would need to attack 18,000 theatres simultaneously for it to be bad. ONE pipe bomb in ONE theater would be a problem. The capability to do so? I made pyrotechnic devices in 6th grade. I knew, in 6th grade, that if I used a metal pipe as the casing instead of a cardboard tube I'd have a bomb. This guy is pretending bad guys don't or can't do what many of us could do in elementary school.
If I see this guy at a cybersecurity conference I may have to call him out on his BS.
> Why didn't we ever hear anything from them after the escape?
Because they'd be sent back to prison if they revealed themselves. They had also embarrassed the warden of the "escape proof" Alcatraz in a very public way. Their first week back likely would have been rather unpleasant.
Do Walmart, Amazon, eBay, and Google exist in your world, or does everybody shop at niche boutiques, who "sell little at a high price, rather than sell a lot at a low price"?
In my world, Costco sold $100 billion last year, and Walmart $473 billion. Google brought in $60 billion by giving stuff away free, to anyone who wants it - the most extreme form of "a lot at a low price" one can imagine.
In my world, the "sell little at a high price" places normally provide a job for the owner and nothing more, no profit.
I'm glad you like California. Really. There are some grest things about California, like Ghiradeli, and the weather.
Since you like it so much, please stay there. You wouldn't like it here. It's boring here, no gangs roaming up and down the streets, no blackouts. Nothing at all going on after midnight; and very few boob jobs. Plenty of Miss America winners, but no butt implants to be found, so you probably wouldn't like it.
I am really glad you enjoy the California way, though.
The Supreme Court says they are null and void, iow not law. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and other founders also expressed this principle.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.â (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)
âoeEvery law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.â (Thomas Jefferson, Elliot, p. 4:187-88.)
âoeâ¦the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner the states have certain independent power, in which their laws are supreme.â (Alexander Hamilton, Elliot, 2:362.)
âoeThis Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land.⦠It is not the supreme law in the exercise of a power not granted.â (William Davie, Pennsylvania, p. 277.)
âoeIt will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitutionâ (Alexander Hamilton, concerning the supremacy clause The Federalist Papers, #33.)
âoeThere is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.â (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, #78.)
> Or can they just execute the criminals responsible for it? > Yeah, that will include Gray Davis
Ken Lay is now dead. Gray Davis yours, and from what I understand you like to emphasize with your criminals, and understand why they became victims/ criminals. We jail em or kill em back , as appropriate.
There may be too many Californians, but please don't solve your California problems of unemployment, crime, high taxes, ridiculous cost of living, etc. by moving to Texas. If you do, as so many have, please leave your failed political ideology in California. You're coming to Texas because here you can get a good paying job that you can't get in California, you can buy a nice house for $100,000, etc. In other words, because the Texas way is working better.
Since you've decided life will be better in Texas, we don't want to hear "we should tax it more like we did in California ", or "in California we set minimum wage high enough that a high school student working at McDonald's can support a family". Here in Texas, where our approach is working, you show up on time and at least become the manager of the McDonald's if you want to make that a career. If you want to do things the California way, pleae stay in California. You might also like Canada. You won't like the Texas way.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms". Do you think that visitors from Syria have the right to keep and bear arms? Do you think SCOTUS ruled that way?
> So unless you are claiming better qualifications than the SCOTUS, you are definitely wrong.
Let's have a look at what the court has ruled:
Demore v. Kim - the 8th amendment (bail) doesn't apply to foreign nationals Yamataya v. Fisher - Racial discrimination okay in respect to foreign nationals Porterfield v. Webb, - States may bar foreign nationals from owning land Foley v. Connelie - States may require citizenship for hiring
Would you like a dozen more? They've been pretty consistent in following the plain language of the 14th amendment - everyone gets due process - a hearing with a lawyer, etc. Citizens have the various rights listed in the bill of rights and elsewhere.
Did you notice the one part of the 5th you quoted regarding "no person" is - surprise - the due process part, that "no person shall.. unless under indictment of a grand jury... without due process of law"? Like I said, several times now, the 14th applies due process (right to a fair trial) to all persons. It does not give the right to vote, bear arms, etc. to visitors.
I don't necessarily disagree with you as to what I'd LIKE it to say. I'm talking about what it DOES say.
The first 10 amendments say "CONGRESS shall make no law..." etc. By themselves, prior to the 14th amendment, they (like the rest of federal Constitution) talk about what the FEDERAL government may and may not do. You seem to acknowledge this when you write "Federal law and what the federal government may do is unchanged by [the 14th]".
For 76 years, the Constitution limited only the feds, and everybody was pretty clear about that fact. 76 years later, the 14th put two limitations on the states. The 14th says, in plain English, that states may not abridge the rights of "citizens of the United States" (the Bill of Rights). It's right there, it says "citizens of the United States" get protection from state government abuses. What part of "citizens of the United States" do you not understand? It then goes on to say the one thing states must do regarding "all persons" (non-citizens) - they must have due process (a hearing, with a lawyer, etc.).
> And Federal law trumps any State ones, so the first ten stand as the ultimate law of the land.
Since you were just talking about "the first ten", read the tenth amendment. It's a sentence or two, easy to read. That's one of several places in the Constitution where it makes clear that the states delegate specific powers to the feds - it's the states who have the power, and they allow the feds to act under a grant of power from the states, not the other way around.
> the 14th somehow takes away rights enumerated in the first ten... > You also seem to entirely miss the framing of the document, what "natural", "inalienable", and "all men" fundamentally mean, and the part where the people grant the power to the government, which presupposes that the natural rights are inherent before any governmental construct is created
See the problem there? You're supposing that the Bill of Rights grants rights, in order to argue that the 14th can't take them away. As you correctly state, the rights existed before the Constitution. The first 10 amendments bar the feds from VIOLATING those (pre-existing) rights. Seventy-six years later, the 14th amendment barred the STATES from violating the rights "of citizens of the United States". Neither CREATES rights. The first ten say the feds can't legally violate rights, the 14th says the sates can't legally violate the rights _of_citizens_. Lest anyone think that the authors merely forgot to mention non-citizens, the second sentence of the 14th then says that all people get DUE PROCESS (only).
If you think about it in certain practical terms, this makes perfect sense. Citizens have the right to bear arms (5th amendment). Guests who are Syrian nationals don't necessarily need the right to bear arms while they are visiting here. The revolution was fought, in part, about "taxation without representation". Does that mean foreign visitors don't have to pay any taxes, no sales taxes, no income taxes for H1-B visitors? Nope, visitors to a place don't have exactly the same rights.
I cut out pretty much the entire list of powers, because the exact list isn't the point.
If you want to make the argument that the "general welfare" clause essentially strikes the rest of the article, you then have to answer the question "why would the authors write out a list of allowed powers, then nullify that list by saying 'or anything else they want to do'?" There an old, old principle of law, going back thousands of years, that essentially says when interpreting law, any sentence in the law means SOMETHING. When the framers said "the federal government can only do the things in this list", that has to mean SOMETHING. What do you think it means, if not exactly what it says?
If we stop with just that article, we do have a bit of a conundrum - the list must be there for a reason, but then again the phrase "general welfare" must mean something too. That would leave room for debate.
Fortunately, the framers later came back and AMENDED the Constitution with the 10th amendment. The later amendment changes, or overrides, the earlier wording. This amendment, or change, is one simple sentence:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Pretty clear, that. The states and the people reserve all powers not delegated to the feds. The feds have only those powers delegated to them.
My original subject line and message mentioned Big Blue Button, an open source web-based video chat application. It did translation for free, using Google's API. Google now charges $10 per half-million words (or is it half-million characters? ). Technically not free, but awfully close - half a million words is a LOT of chat messages.
The powers of the federal government are lusted in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution says:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You might want to read that last part twice. Anything not explicitly allowed to the feds is reserved to the states and the people.
By 1819, Chief Justice Marshall said the meaning of that is so clear that McCulloch didn't need to spend time belaboring the point, everyone knows the feds can only do what they are specifically authorized to do. Marshall wrote:
"This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted."
Slashdot Mirror
He said that they'll have to migrate further and further north each year, so that those in the bay area in 1997 would have to be all the way in CANADA within 100 years. So roughly 20 miles per year, or 340 miles in 17 years since he made rhat statement. Has anyone or anything moved an inch, much less 340 miles?
Your next step is to say he's a fringe kook, not representative of what people have been saying. Well, he's a tenured professor of climate science at Berkeley, a position as well respected (by the left) as a constitutional law professor / community organizer.
For intelligent forms, that seems to be the case here on earth.
There are about 1.5 billion smartphones on the planet. If you ask a smartphone "who is the vice president of the united states", approximately all of them will say (speak) "Joe Biden is the vice president".
Based on surveys I've seen, only a couple million people reach the same level of intelligence, knowing who the vice president is. Therefore, silicon can be considered to be the most common form of intelligence on earth.
Even more so on the coasts of the US, of course, as humans are becoming more silicone, leaving all intelligence to the silicon.
Thanks for taking the time to type that out. It gave me a starting point to learn more, and I learned that if you release particles one a time, each particle makes one mark, one dot. One particle doesn't interfere with itself, and can't because the interference pattern is seen in the density of collisions over an area.
As many of these single dots build up, they tend to cluster around an interference pattern - as if some particles went through one slit, and some particles went through the other slit. Well yeah, if I turn on the light in my living room, some photons go out through one window, some photons go through the other. Each goes through one or the other.
So I do very much appreciate it, yet I'm as yet unsure where to go to "get it", to have the ahah moment of "this is what it's all about!"
> you'd expect is to get a pattern that's the SUM of the pattern you get through each slit. ... But instead what you get is an INTERFERENCE pattern
I thought the definition of the word "interference pattern" is "the SUM of two waves". So you'd expect a sum, and you get a sum, which is called an interference pattern.
Again, thanks.
Here's the California Energy Commission STILL saying it. SInce 2010 has passed, as of 2012 they pushed the "underwater by" date to 2050:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012p...
Here's an "underwater San Francisco" map that GW alarmists were circulating in 1997:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/art...
Asked about the effect on California, professor of climatology at the University of California at Berkeley Orman Granger said in 1997:
"Climatologic records over the last 10,000 years show that species move north (in the Northern hemisphere) roughly 500km for every degree C temperature increase ... in order to survive they have 100 years to move to Canada".
With a few more simplifications maybe I can "get it". So far, much of quantum physics sounds like goobly-gook to me, and I had no trouble with relativity in 6th grade. I had to learn a little calculus to read Einstein, bit that wasn't a big deal.
If you understand quantum physics, or think you do, explain this. There is a cat, in a box. You can't see the cat. Is the cat alive or dead?
Wrong, asshole. YOU can't see the cat, but I can see the cat shitting in his litter box right now. I can assure you he's very much alive. So SchrÃdinger was full of shit.
Unless by "both alive and dead " what you actually mean is "the cat is either alive or dead, I just don't happen to know which", in which case - no shit, Sherlock. You don't know everything. Is that supposed to be a revolutionary new discovery?
Do you think W could get a BJ without bragging to his buddies, and without forgetting to turn off his mic first? We'd have heard about it.
I suppose I'm a global warming denier, by the common standard here on Slashdot. The global warming alarmists and pitchmen said "San Francisco will be underwater by 2010". Unfortunately, it's still there.
That's one of two big problems for the global warming camp. Well-known leaders of that movement have publicly admitted to organized, widespread lying and intentional exaggeration in order to "spur the public to action". I deny that they've been telling the truth, and they agree! Has the "science" gotten any better? Well, we know that a typical volcano releases a couple tons of CO2 each day. A few months ago, there was an "OMG Global Warming!" story here on Slashdot that reported atmospheric CO2 levels rising more than expected - based on measuring CO2 on a friggin a volcano! Which is kind of like reporting global average humidity based on moisture measurements taken below Niagra Falls.
There IS some good science supporting global warming, but the alarmist stuff makes better headlines, so 90% of the "science" reported is complete junk, obviously so. I reject all claims based on this utter junk pseudo-science.
The second problem is more recent. Every president has their slush fund, a federal program or two which they use to send tax money to their donors, who send some back as campaign donations. It just so happens that THIS president's slush funds are included in the $100 billion we're spending on "green". For example, the tax payers loaned over a half a billion dollars to Fisker to develop their electric car. Fisker turned right around and handed millions of it to Obama and other Democrats. There's nothing new about that, of course, other than the exchange of greenbacks is normally labeled "green energy" right now. That makes anything labeled "green energy" or "save the planet" inherently suspicious, just like Haliburton contracts were suspicious when Cheney was in the White House. We know that any proposal to spend "half a billion for green energy" means $10 million for the DNC, $10 million for Hillary's campaign, $10 million split between a few congress-critters, $50 million for their CEO friend's golden parachute, and $420 million to who-knows-where. Again, not new - Haliburton was the same. "Green" is the new "Haliburton".
Two years ago, the intelligent, thinking people realized that the most powerful person in the US government, the president, can't even get a blow job without the whole country hearing about it. When the government a couple of guns for a hostage or two and everybody finds out about it - the US government just completely sucks at keeping secrets.
Therefore, when people claimed that there was a massive conspiracy involving thousands of people throughout the NSA, FBI, and other agencies, covering up wholesale spying on the entire US population, they were obviously nut jobs. That was a ridiculous idea.
Then Snowden. The nut jobs were _right_. After Snowden, I'm much less dismissive of nut jobs of all types. They just might be right.
Yes, in the first hours there were various workarounds and fixes suggested, and people came up with ways to get around those first workarounds. About 48 hours after the release, consensus congealed around using Red Hat's fix.
There is a very limited set of cases where it could be a compatibility issue if you had custom scripts relying on the old behavior, but that was judged to be fairly insignificant.
I partially agree, but remeber this was SPEAR phishing. When you get an email from your boss, with your boss's normal signature, using terms and abbreviations that your company normally uses, your first thought probably isn't "is this a phish?"
That's just silly to act like someone would need to attack 18,000 theatres simultaneously for it to be bad. ONE pipe bomb in ONE theater would be a problem. The capability to do so? I made pyrotechnic devices in 6th grade. I knew, in 6th grade, that if I used a metal pipe as the casing instead of a cardboard tube I'd have a bomb. This guy is pretending bad guys don't or can't do what many of us could do in elementary school.
If I see this guy at a cybersecurity conference I may have to call him out on his BS.
> Why didn't we ever hear anything from them after the escape?
Because they'd be sent back to prison if they revealed themselves. They had also embarrassed the warden of the "escape proof" Alcatraz in a very public way. Their first week back likely would have been rather unpleasant.
Do Walmart, Amazon, eBay, and Google exist in your world, or does everybody shop at niche boutiques, who "sell little at a high price, rather than sell a lot at a low price"?
In my world, Costco sold $100 billion last year, and Walmart $473 billion. Google brought in $60 billion by giving stuff away free, to anyone who wants it - the most extreme form of "a lot at a low price" one can imagine.
In my world, the "sell little at a high price" places normally provide a job for the owner and nothing more, no profit.
I'm glad you like California. Really. There are some grest things about California, like Ghiradeli, and the weather.
Since you like it so much, please stay there. You wouldn't like it here. It's boring here, no gangs roaming up and down the streets, no blackouts. Nothing at all going on after midnight; and very few boob jobs. Plenty of Miss America winners, but no butt implants to be found, so you probably wouldn't like it.
I am really glad you enjoy the California way, though.
The Supreme Court says they are null and void, iow not law.
Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and other founders also expressed this principle.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.â (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)
âoeEvery law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.â (Thomas Jefferson, Elliot, p. 4:187-88.)
âoeâ¦the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner the states have certain independent power, in which their laws are supreme.â (Alexander Hamilton, Elliot, 2:362.)
âoeThis Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land.⦠It is not the supreme law in the exercise of a power not granted.â (William Davie, Pennsylvania, p. 277.)
âoeIt will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitutionâ (Alexander Hamilton, concerning the supremacy clause The Federalist Papers, #33.)
âoeThere is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.â (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, #78.)
That's empathize, not emphasize, of course.
> Or can they just execute the criminals responsible for it?
> Yeah, that will include Gray Davis
Ken Lay is now dead. Gray Davis yours, and from what I understand you like to emphasize with your criminals, and understand why they became victims/ criminals. We jail em or kill em back , as appropriate.
There may be too many Californians, but please don't solve your California problems of unemployment, crime, high taxes, ridiculous cost of living, etc. by moving to Texas. If you do, as so many have, please leave your failed political ideology in California. You're coming to Texas because here you can get a good paying job that you can't get in California, you can buy a nice house for $100,000, etc. In other words, because the Texas way is working better.
Since you've decided life will be better in Texas, we don't want to hear "we should tax it more like we did in California ", or "in California we set minimum wage high enough that a high school student working at McDonald's can support a family". Here in Texas, where our approach is working, you show up on time and at least become the manager of the McDonald's if you want to make that a career. If you want to do things the California way, pleae stay in California. You might also like Canada. You won't like the Texas way.
> Of the people. The others are the same.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms". Do you think that visitors from Syria have the right to keep and bear arms? Do you think SCOTUS ruled that way?
> So unless you are claiming better qualifications than the SCOTUS, you are definitely wrong.
Let's have a look at what the court has ruled:
Demore v. Kim - the 8th amendment (bail) doesn't apply to foreign nationals
Yamataya v. Fisher - Racial discrimination okay in respect to foreign nationals
Porterfield v. Webb, - States may bar foreign nationals from owning land
Foley v. Connelie - States may require citizenship for hiring
Would you like a dozen more? They've been pretty consistent in following the plain language of the 14th amendment - everyone gets due process - a hearing with a lawyer, etc. Citizens have the various rights listed in the bill of rights and elsewhere.
Did you notice the one part of the 5th you quoted regarding "no person" is - surprise - the due process part, that "no person shall .. unless under indictment of a grand jury ... without due process of law"? Like I said, several times now, the 14th applies due process (right to a fair trial) to all persons. It does not give the right to vote, bear arms, etc. to visitors.
I don't necessarily disagree with you as to what I'd LIKE it to say. I'm talking about what it DOES say.
The first 10 amendments say "CONGRESS shall make no law ..." etc. By themselves, prior to the 14th amendment, they (like the rest of federal Constitution) talk about what the FEDERAL government may and may not do. You seem to acknowledge this when you write "Federal law and what the federal government may do is unchanged by [the 14th]".
For 76 years, the Constitution limited only the feds, and everybody was pretty clear about that fact. 76 years later, the 14th put two limitations on the states. The 14th says, in plain English, that states may not abridge the rights of "citizens of the United States" (the Bill of Rights). It's right there, it says "citizens of the United States" get protection from state government abuses. What part of "citizens of the United States" do you not understand? It then goes on to say the one thing states must do regarding "all persons" (non-citizens) - they must have due process (a hearing, with a lawyer, etc.).
> And Federal law trumps any State ones, so the first ten stand as the ultimate law of the land.
Since you were just talking about "the first ten", read the tenth amendment. It's a sentence or two, easy to read. That's one of several places in the Constitution where it makes clear that the states delegate specific powers to the feds - it's the states who have the power, and they allow the feds to act under a grant of power from the states, not the other way around.
> the 14th somehow takes away rights enumerated in the first ten ...
> You also seem to entirely miss the framing of the document, what "natural", "inalienable", and "all men" fundamentally mean, and the part where the people grant the power to the government, which presupposes that the natural rights are inherent before any governmental construct is created
See the problem there? You're supposing that the Bill of Rights grants rights, in order to argue that the 14th can't take them away. As you correctly state, the rights existed before the Constitution. The first 10 amendments bar the feds from VIOLATING those (pre-existing) rights. Seventy-six years later, the 14th amendment barred the STATES from violating the rights "of citizens of the United States". Neither CREATES rights. The first ten say the feds can't legally violate rights, the 14th says the sates can't legally violate the rights _of_citizens_. Lest anyone think that the authors merely forgot to mention non-citizens, the second sentence of the 14th then says that all people get DUE PROCESS (only).
If you think about it in certain practical terms, this makes perfect sense. Citizens have the right to bear arms (5th amendment). Guests who are Syrian nationals don't necessarily need the right to bear arms while they are visiting here. The revolution was fought, in part, about "taxation without representation". Does that mean foreign visitors don't have to pay any taxes, no sales taxes, no income taxes for H1-B visitors? Nope, visitors to a place don't have exactly the same rights.
I cut out pretty much the entire list of powers, because the exact list isn't the point.
If you want to make the argument that the "general welfare" clause essentially strikes the rest of the article, you then have to answer the question "why would the authors write out a list of allowed powers, then nullify that list by saying 'or anything else they want to do'?" There an old, old principle of law, going back thousands of years, that essentially says when interpreting law, any sentence in the law means SOMETHING. When the framers said "the federal government can only do the things in this list", that has to mean SOMETHING. What do you think it means, if not exactly what it says?
If we stop with just that article, we do have a bit of a conundrum - the list must be there for a reason, but then again the phrase "general welfare" must mean something too. That would leave room for debate.
Fortunately, the framers later came back and AMENDED the Constitution with the 10th amendment. The later amendment changes, or overrides, the earlier wording. This amendment, or change, is one simple sentence:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Pretty clear, that. The states and the people reserve all powers not delegated to the feds. The feds have only those powers delegated to them.
Since you utterly failed to read the first time, I'll try very short, Dr. Sues sentences for you this time.
Citizens have rights and privileges. ...
Citizens have 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th amendments
Non-citizens get a hearing before they go to jail.
It's two sentences. Really not that complicated.
Since you utterly failed to read the first time, I'll try very short, Dr. Sues sentences for you this time.
Citizens have rights and privileges. ...
Citizens have 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th amendments
Non-citizens get a hearing before they go to jail.
It's two sentences. Really not that complicated.
Here's a bunch of Android apps that do. Some are text and voice, some are text-only.
https://www.google.com/search?...
My original subject line and message mentioned Big Blue Button, an open source web-based video chat application. It did translation for free, using Google's API. Google now charges $10 per half-million words (or is it half-million characters? ). Technically not free, but awfully close - half a million words is a LOT of chat messages.
The powers of the federal government are lusted in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution says:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts ...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You might want to read that last part twice. Anything not explicitly allowed to the feds is reserved to the states and the people.
By 1819, Chief Justice Marshall said the meaning of that is so clear that McCulloch didn't need to spend time belaboring the point, everyone knows the feds can only do what they are specifically authorized to do. Marshall wrote:
"This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted."