Not sure if you replied to who you wanted to. But I was saying that Ending no-fault divorce would create an uptick in domestic violence and that the other provisions listed by MikeRT would create an uptick in jail population. Your response has nothing to do with that.
Yes, and it was a decocrat presidency that shot it off when the environment seems to change: more American programmers now may mean more Americans with a decent job, not more price erosion of programmer's wages.
So you AREN'T paying attention. It's the republican Congress that refuses to fund it.
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.
The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
Though you may think your opinion is final, it's SCOTUS that decides such matters - so far no challenges. You may think that the DoED was created in the Carter Admin, but it dates WAY back before that. You are aware that Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, which dates back to 1939? That was created from the Dept of Education which Congress created in 1867. And land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785. Oh, now your 180 years claim vaporized.
No it didn't. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. Public schools are a function of the states. I don't know how it was handled here in TN, but where I'm from in Indiana the counties are made up of townships, each being 36 square miles. Of those, 1 was set aside for schools with part of the land sold to raise money.
It's not a federal issue, and never was.
Yes it is, hence there is a Dept of Education. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Go sue the feds if you don't like it. Maybe the Supreme Court will see it your way, but I bet they won't.
Like most "originalists" you think your interpretation of the constitution is the only one. I didn't say "general welfare" was THE justification for DoED, but it is adequate in my opinion. And of course you think the Federalist Papers have any weight at all.
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.
The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
Though you may think your opinion is final, it's SCOTUS that decides such matters - so far no challenges. You may think that the DoED was created in the Carter Admin, but it dates WAY back before that. You are aware that Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, which dates back to 1939? That was created from the Dept of Education which Congress created in 1867. And land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785. Oh, now your 180 years claim vaporized.
Would you say that a presidential order restricting speech could act in ways that a Congressional law could not? That would technically avoid violating the 1st, since Congress has made no law. Your general point is correct, that private entities aren't subject to the first amendment directly. But it's important to note that the US constitution is more than just the written document, it is also all the court precedents which surround it. The UK has *no* written constitution the way the US has, it is all precedent and tradition. My point is you don't need to be quite so tired.
A presidential order restricting speech would have absolutely no force of law (regardless of what Trump may think). I agree whole-heartedly that the US Constitution is more than the words, and includes all the court precedents which surround it. Still, this is not a First Amendment issue and I wish people would get that whenever ZOMG censorship happens.
Have you ever read the US (or foreign) antitrust laws? This kind of converted action by dominant market participants -- especially if (as seems likely) they get caught putting anything except terrorist media in the database -- is extremely easy to prosecute as illegal collusion.
Yet, as was my point, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law......instead make a bunch of regulations that make corporations liable or put financial pressure on them for the expressions of free speech of others and get what they want by proxy.
I don't see any regulations, financial pressures, or threats regarding this. Isn't it just possible they think this will just make them look good and have decided to do it on their own?
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Here's my homework, teacher: Article 1, section 8: Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States.
Tell me how this is any different than what China does, then. You might as well have a Ministry of Truth.
I'll be glad to tell you the difference. In China, the censorship is from the government; this article is referring to private businesses. Clear enough?
of everyone who thinks this system will ever only be used to flag and filter " extremist " content.
While I realize this will be a global system, I'm curious how this will butt heads with the First Amendment in the United States as this will inevitably be a system that will censor information that is embarrassing or uncomfortable to the chosen few who will decide what is " extremist".
So tired of everyone not understanding what the First Amendment is. Go read it. It's short and sweet. I'll even give you a hint: "Congress shall make no law..."
Here's hoping the bullshit valuation driving obscene commercial costs shrinks to where it should be.
Let's hope not. If commercial costs drop, you can bet they'll have to shoehorn more in per hour - or the quality of shows will drop precipitously.
Or, you know, maybe not pay obscene paychecks.
Gets rather ridiculous when established A-list actors and actresses earn $10 - 15 million for working on a movie set for 12-24 months, while TV celebrities earn a million dollars per episode.
Agreed, but if you think pay cuts would happen over more commercials or product placement, you're dreaming.
And you typically don't want to be caught watching a game that has already been decided.
Especially since yelling at the players from your couch can't affect the outcome if it's already over. Or even if just the play has already happened. Or even if it hasn't.
The Employment-population ratio is down significantly, but that doesn't necessarily indicate people who want work can't find it. Things like "retirement" and "wages that don't cover daycare" come in to play.
Please stop using facts. They don't apply in today's world of the alt-truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure if you replied to who you wanted to. But I was saying that Ending no-fault divorce would create an uptick in domestic violence and that the other provisions listed by MikeRT would create an uptick in jail population. Your response has nothing to do with that.
Yes, and it was a decocrat presidency that shot it off when the environment seems to change: more American programmers now may mean more Americans with a decent job, not more price erosion of programmer's wages.
So you AREN'T paying attention. It's the republican Congress that refuses to fund it.
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.
The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
Though you may think your opinion is final, it's SCOTUS that decides such matters - so far no challenges. You may think that the DoED was created in the Carter Admin, but it dates WAY back before that. You are aware that Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, which dates back to 1939? That was created from the Dept of Education which Congress created in 1867. And land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785. Oh, now your 180 years claim vaporized.
No it didn't. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. Public schools are a function of the states. I don't know how it was handled here in TN, but where I'm from in Indiana the counties are made up of townships, each being 36 square miles. Of those, 1 was set aside for schools with part of the land sold to raise money.
It's not a federal issue, and never was.
Yes it is, hence there is a Dept of Education. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Go sue the feds if you don't like it. Maybe the Supreme Court will see it your way, but I bet they won't.
Like most "originalists" you think your interpretation of the constitution is the only one. I didn't say "general welfare" was THE justification for DoED, but it is adequate in my opinion. And of course you think the Federalist Papers have any weight at all.
Actually, yes, until such time as SCOTUS says otherwise.
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
It's so sad reading bullshit like this. The "general welfare" there was never interpreted to give them the power to do *anything*, which is what confused people like you believe. It also doesn't give the federal government the ability to get into healthcare, and not even the left-wingers on the current SCOTUS believe that.
The federal government literally has no legal authority to do anything with education. The Department of Education was created during the Carter presidency int he late 1970s - 180 years after the Constitution was put into place. Every other actual legal function of the US government was put into place immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
Though you may think your opinion is final, it's SCOTUS that decides such matters - so far no challenges. You may think that the DoED was created in the Carter Admin, but it dates WAY back before that. You are aware that Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, which dates back to 1939? That was created from the Dept of Education which Congress created in 1867. And land was set aside for public schools by the Congress of the Confederation in 1785. Oh, now your 180 years claim vaporized.
Bitchin' info. They should have built-in gas-discharge lamps so my windows would glow purple.
Would you say that a presidential order restricting speech could act in ways that a Congressional law could not? That would technically avoid violating the 1st, since Congress has made no law. Your general point is correct, that private entities aren't subject to the first amendment directly. But it's important to note that the US constitution is more than just the written document, it is also all the court precedents which surround it. The UK has *no* written constitution the way the US has, it is all precedent and tradition. My point is you don't need to be quite so tired.
A presidential order restricting speech would have absolutely no force of law (regardless of what Trump may think). I agree whole-heartedly that the US Constitution is more than the words, and includes all the court precedents which surround it. Still, this is not a First Amendment issue and I wish people would get that whenever ZOMG censorship happens.
...I mean, I don't believe every conspiracy theory...
But you do believe this one.
it's an open carry state, holster or sling up and stop by for pizza
WTF? First DC is NOT a state; second, DC does NOT allow open carry. Here's your cheat sheet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Have you ever read the US (or foreign) antitrust laws? This kind of converted action by dominant market participants -- especially if (as seems likely) they get caught putting anything except terrorist media in the database -- is extremely easy to prosecute as illegal collusion.
Yet, as was my point, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
It's the governments that are pushing for this.
Congress shall make no law......instead make a bunch of regulations that make corporations liable or put financial pressure on them for the expressions of free speech of others and get what they want by proxy.
I don't see any regulations, financial pressures, or threats regarding this. Isn't it just possible they think this will just make them look good and have decided to do it on their own?
>" I am hopeful that this language may translate into support for funding K-12 computer science at a federal level."
The Constitution does not grant the Fed power or authority over education in any way and so those rights/powers/responsibilities belong solely to the States. Of course, 3/4 of what the Fed does is unconstitutional so why even point this out?
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
The democrats want to make sure there are no American programmers left so he can't cut those H1B visas their bribers want so much.
WTF? Are you even paying attention to the topic? It's a democratic initiative to get MORE American programmers that the republicans are killing.
Um, no. You're just creating an environment for a huge uptick in both domestic violence and jail population.
So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Here's my homework, teacher: Article 1, section 8: Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States.
Tell me how this is any different than what China does, then. You might as well have a Ministry of Truth.
I'll be glad to tell you the difference. In China, the censorship is from the government; this article is referring to private businesses. Clear enough?
of everyone who thinks this system will ever only be used to flag and filter " extremist " content.
While I realize this will be a global system, I'm curious how this will butt heads with the First Amendment in the United States as this will inevitably be a system that will censor information that is embarrassing or uncomfortable to the chosen few who will decide what is " extremist".
So tired of everyone not understanding what the First Amendment is. Go read it. It's short and sweet. I'll even give you a hint: "Congress shall make no law..."
Here's hoping the bullshit valuation driving obscene commercial costs shrinks to where it should be.
Let's hope not. If commercial costs drop, you can bet they'll have to shoehorn more in per hour - or the quality of shows will drop precipitously.
Or, you know, maybe not pay obscene paychecks.
Gets rather ridiculous when established A-list actors and actresses earn $10 - 15 million for working on a movie set for 12-24 months, while TV celebrities earn a million dollars per episode.
Agreed, but if you think pay cuts would happen over more commercials or product placement, you're dreaming.
....and I still don't care.
Apparently you care enough to be the first post.
And you typically don't want to be caught watching a game that has already been decided.
Especially since yelling at the players from your couch can't affect the outcome if it's already over. Or even if just the play has already happened. Or even if it hasn't.
Here's hoping the bullshit valuation driving obscene commercial costs shrinks to where it should be.
Let's hope not. If commercial costs drop, you can bet they'll have to shoehorn more in per hour - or the quality of shows will drop precipitously.
Actually, in 2013, it's estimated that undocumented immigrants paid $11.64 billion in state and local taxes.
Please stop using facts. They don't apply in today's world of the alt-truth.
Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office
Nope. U3 in January 2009 was 7.9% U3 today is 4.6%. Here's a graph of U3 during Obama's time in office.
The Employment-population ratio is down significantly, but that doesn't necessarily indicate people who want work can't find it. Things like "retirement" and "wages that don't cover daycare" come in to play.
Please stop using facts. They don't apply in today's world of the alt-truth.
That's because these numbers don't include the people who have given up looking for jobs.
And it never has. What's the point of comparing apples to oranges?