You're really just a sad, pathetic person who just proved you're stupidity in front of us all.
Please, I'm not you wife. Don't attempt to browbeat me, it won't work.
I called the guy a dork and a tool, fairly benign pejoratives, not paticularly harsh. The entire tone of his post suggested betrayed a complete misunderstanding of the geek factor of what Mark did. It wan't a suggested course of action, it was a hack. This is/. news for nerds, and the great-grandparent doesn't seem to belong.
This girl will grow up without a father. And not because he got killed in a car wreck or hit by lightning, but because dad decided to have a kid knowing he wasn't long for the world. In a way it's sort of premeditated child abandonment.
To understand the founding father's intent you have to dig a little deeper than the federalist papers. First of all remember that the federalist papers were an apologia for the new constitution and as such sought to minimize the fears of a public suspicious of a strong national government. The overall theme of the FP were that a strong national government was necessary, and that the government created by the new constitution wasn't terribly strong.
On the first point they were absolutely correct and made many convincing arguments. On the second point they weren't being entirely honest. Hamilton and Madison, before he became so enamored of Jefferson, wanted to assuage the fears of those who mistrusted the new Constitution. To do this, in their arguments they suggested that power that the document gave the government was actually rather minimal, when in fact, it wasn't.
However once Congress assembled and had to start doing actual work, the real power of the national government was revealed. First by the assumption of the state's Revolutionary war debt and by the chartering of the national bank. Congress, which included many of the founding fathers, recognized that the Constitution gave the government strong implied powers and the right to exercise such power for the general welfare. Agreeing with this, Washington dismissed the critics, such as Jefferson and now Madison, who felt that the government didn't have such powers, and that is how the government has operated for 220 years.
To understand the times and the issues I'd really suggest reading Chernow's Alexander Hamilton. He does a wonderful job of documenting how the Republicans (the antifederalists) fought Hamilton and Washington at every turn, yet in the end Congress nearly always found the Jefersonians arguments lacking.
You seem to be assigning legal force to the Preamble. How can it override the document it introduces?
It doesn't it outlines the purposes of the government. Purposes you seem to disagree with.
A1S8 restates the principle that the government should provide for the common good and gives the Congress the authority to do so, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Read the 9th and 10th amendments for more info. Ok.
Ammendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That says nothing about Congress' authority to establish the FCC or determine it's function. What's your point?
Ammendment 10: 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.
Well since A1S9 gave Congress the right to tax and spend for the general welfare, and A1S8 gives Congress the right to regulate business, the 10th Ammendment doesn't apply either.
No to be too harsh, but, some of you folkss who espouse the "limited government", "strict contructionalist", and "founder's intent" mantras would do well to educate yourself on basic Constitutional Law and History. Most of the founders themselves, as can be seen by their votes in the 1st and 2nd Congresses, didn't believe such poppycock and neither should we.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There you have it: Order, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, Liberty.
Your notion of laissez fair was thrown on the scrapheap of stupid ideas in Washington's first term. Read up on Alexander Hamilton's Reports on Credit and Manufacturing and Congress' endorsement of them, including many of the "founding fathers", for more info.
The focus needs to be on the 3 R's. Reading, writing and arithmetic. These core areas will develop the students ability to think analytically and express themselves clearly.
The last thing we need are a bunch of silly special interest classes to allow the the students to "find themselves."
The ESRB rates what's submitted to them. Excel wasn't submitted hence no rating.
The issue with GTA:SA is that it was submitted and given an inappropriate rating. It recieved a MA, Mature Audience, and, __based on the ESRB's own published criteria__,it should have gotten an AO, Adults Only.
This really isn't all that different from the mail order industry. You can't sell guns, cigars, and booze to a kid and then claim that you didn't realize what the laws were in that state. If you do business in a state, you are subject to that state's laws. Just because the medium of communication is the Internets doesn't change this.
How's Gun crime around schools raises insurance rates, so the feds have the right to pass gun free school zones via the Interstate Commerce Clause, for innovative legal theory?
Or how about Breyer and Ginsburg's "We should consider how foreign countries courts have ruled, but only liberal countries that share our personal biases?"
Slashdot Mirror
8a - "plain and simple".
If you're not smart enough to leave when a hurricane is coming, should we really be spend billions of dollars to keep you alive?
just for comparison?
You're really just a sad, pathetic person who just proved you're stupidity in front of us all.
/. news for nerds, and the great-grandparent doesn't seem to belong.
Please, I'm not you wife. Don't attempt to browbeat me, it won't work.
I called the guy a dork and a tool, fairly benign pejoratives, not paticularly harsh. The entire tone of his post suggested betrayed a complete misunderstanding of the geek factor of what Mark did. It wan't a suggested course of action, it was a hack. This is
Now buzz off AC.
I don't think this stripped-down Windows provides even the most basic functionality expected by many users nowadays.
This was a proof of concept dork. A hack. Something to be done just because it can be. Mark's not suggesting everyone try this.
So you spent thousands of dollars on a HD TV before it was clear if it was going to play HD DVD's?
yikes
come from Uranus.
This girl will grow up without a father. And not because he got killed in a car wreck or hit by lightning, but because dad decided to have a kid knowing he wasn't long for the world. In a way it's sort of premeditated child abandonment.
To understand the founding father's intent you have to dig a little deeper than the federalist papers. First of all remember that the federalist papers were an apologia for the new constitution and as such sought to minimize the fears of a public suspicious of a strong national government. The overall theme of the FP were that a strong national government was necessary, and that the government created by the new constitution wasn't terribly strong.
On the first point they were absolutely correct and made many convincing arguments. On the second point they weren't being entirely honest. Hamilton and Madison, before he became so enamored of Jefferson, wanted to assuage the fears of those who mistrusted the new Constitution. To do this, in their arguments they suggested that power that the document gave the government was actually rather minimal, when in fact, it wasn't.
However once Congress assembled and had to start doing actual work, the real power of the national government was revealed. First by the assumption of the state's Revolutionary war debt and by the chartering of the national bank. Congress, which included many of the founding fathers, recognized that the Constitution gave the government strong implied powers and the right to exercise such power for the general welfare. Agreeing with this, Washington dismissed the critics, such as Jefferson and now Madison, who felt that the government didn't have such powers, and that is how the government has operated for 220 years.
To understand the times and the issues I'd really suggest reading Chernow's Alexander Hamilton. He does a wonderful job of documenting how the Republicans (the antifederalists) fought Hamilton and Washington at every turn, yet in the end Congress nearly always found the Jefersonians arguments lacking.
You seem to be assigning legal force to the Preamble. How can it override the document it introduces?
It doesn't it outlines the purposes of the government. Purposes you seem to disagree with.
A1S8 restates the principle that the government should provide for the common good and gives the Congress the authority to do so, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Read the 9th and 10th amendments for more info.
Ok.
Ammendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That says nothing about Congress' authority to establish the FCC or determine it's function. What's your point?
Ammendment 10: 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.
Well since A1S9 gave Congress the right to tax and spend for the general welfare, and A1S8 gives Congress the right to regulate business, the 10th Ammendment doesn't apply either.
No to be too harsh, but, some of you folkss who espouse the "limited government", "strict contructionalist", and "founder's intent" mantras would do well to educate yourself on basic Constitutional Law and History. Most of the founders themselves, as can be seen by their votes in the 1st and 2nd Congresses, didn't believe such poppycock and neither should we.
There you have it: Order, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, Liberty.
Your notion of laissez fair was thrown on the scrapheap of stupid ideas in Washington's first term. Read up on Alexander Hamilton's Reports on Credit and Manufacturing and Congress' endorsement of them, including many of the "founding fathers", for more info.
Explain your point please.
Doesn't anyone remember PReP / CHRP / OS2-PPC?
and damaged a tile. Yikes.
The focus needs to be on the 3 R's. Reading, writing and arithmetic. These core areas will develop the students ability to think analytically and express themselves clearly.
The last thing we need are a bunch of silly special interest classes to allow the the students to "find themselves."
The ESRB rates what's submitted to them. Excel wasn't submitted hence no rating.
,it should have gotten an AO, Adults Only.
The issue with GTA:SA is that it was submitted and given an inappropriate rating. It recieved a MA, Mature Audience, and, __based on the ESRB's own published criteria__
This really isn't all that different from the mail order industry. You can't sell guns, cigars, and booze to a kid and then claim that you didn't realize what the laws were in that state. If you do business in a state, you are subject to that state's laws. Just because the medium of communication is the Internets doesn't change this.
the executive or legislative branch can check the power of the Court, but since they have never done it
Ever heard of FDR?
I was only disagreeing with the statement that there hasn't been any innovative legal thinking in the past 20 years.
Nice kneejerk rant though.
The point of the judicial branch is to make sure that the other branches don't abuse their powers
I've read Article 3 numerous times and don't see anything even remotely supporting that statement.
How's Gun crime around schools raises insurance rates, so the feds have the right to pass gun free school zones via the Interstate Commerce Clause, for innovative legal theory?
Or how about Breyer and Ginsburg's "We should consider how foreign countries courts have ruled, but only liberal countries that share our personal biases?"
It looks like he got modded back down. I didn't even notice his nick, "confusednoise", how appropriate.
Her opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger was proof enough of the onset of dementia.
Perhaps now we may get a justice that understands that "strict scrutiny" doesn't mean "if the state says it's fair, that's good enough for me."
How can an agenda that is "fairly marginal" also be "truly radical" ?
I think you need to go back to Democratic Underground to get your talking points straight, because what you said made no sense whatsoever.
My guess would be someone like Hatch. How could the 'rats filibuster one of their own?