Because our constitution/system of government was supposed to be based on the principal of defending the individual against the "tyrrany of the majority." Therefore what "the people" want isn't supposed to destroy my individual decisions about how I run my life, business, etc. (within reason and the limits set in the constitution. QED)
Ok, the principle of of defending the individual against the majority is a commendable one. And therefore the ability to have the freedom of way of life is fantastic. However, the limits on that freedom are the laws. I am not free to kill someone I don't like, etc. So freedoms are restricted by the legal system. But why does one need a constitution for that? Why can't laws just be passed and repealed? More particularly why do the intentions of the founding fathers matter more than the intentions of people alive now (individually or collectively)? Just because the founding fathers intentions were clear and simple should not make them the basis of government for ever. What if a citizen disagrees with the constitution in a small or large part? An indivudual does not have the power to make an amendment. Changes to law have to be made by the people's elected representatives, whether individuals agree or not. I see a constitution as merely a way of blocking progress. This may be its intention. People may also see this is as a good thing. But I think people change and so should the rules.
Admission, I am not sure what particularly defines an "interstate commerce". But in the UK and many parts or Europe, the company or companies that supplies water, electricity, gas, etc. can be located anywhere. The pipes or cables that originally were laid are local, but the billing centre, employess, etc could be in France, Spain, or the US. This then, as far as I can tell, is a business that works across states.
On a completely different point, possibly flamebait. Why do the intentions of the founding fathers mean so much to Americans. Those ideals were set down a long time ago and times have changed a lot. Surely what the people want now is more important.
In the UK, Rover makes and sells the Mini One, Mini Cooper and Mini Cooper S. The One and the Cooper are the same care with different firmware in the chips. (The Cooper S really is a different faster car). The Cooper costs £1000 more than the One. The One can be chipped to make it the same car as the Cooper for about £200.
I'd never use the term in reference to searching using another engine, that wouldn't make much sense.
I don't know about the US, but here in Britain it is quite common to use the verb "hoover" to mean sweep the floor with an electric vacuum cleaner of any brand.
Slashdot Mirror
Because our constitution/system of government was supposed to be based on the principal of defending the individual against the "tyrrany of the majority." Therefore what "the people" want isn't supposed to destroy my individual decisions about how I run my life, business, etc. (within reason and the limits set in the constitution. QED) Ok, the principle of of defending the individual against the majority is a commendable one. And therefore the ability to have the freedom of way of life is fantastic. However, the limits on that freedom are the laws. I am not free to kill someone I don't like, etc. So freedoms are restricted by the legal system. But why does one need a constitution for that? Why can't laws just be passed and repealed? More particularly why do the intentions of the founding fathers matter more than the intentions of people alive now (individually or collectively)? Just because the founding fathers intentions were clear and simple should not make them the basis of government for ever. What if a citizen disagrees with the constitution in a small or large part? An indivudual does not have the power to make an amendment. Changes to law have to be made by the people's elected representatives, whether individuals agree or not. I see a constitution as merely a way of blocking progress. This may be its intention. People may also see this is as a good thing. But I think people change and so should the rules.
Admission, I am not sure what particularly defines an "interstate commerce". But in the UK and many parts or Europe, the company or companies that supplies water, electricity, gas, etc. can be located anywhere. The pipes or cables that originally were laid are local, but the billing centre, employess, etc could be in France, Spain, or the US. This then, as far as I can tell, is a business that works across states. On a completely different point, possibly flamebait. Why do the intentions of the founding fathers mean so much to Americans. Those ideals were set down a long time ago and times have changed a lot. Surely what the people want now is more important.
No, but Catholics and Protestants have had a good go at each other for several decades in Northern Ireland.
Just like a hour? And for the record I pronounce the H in HTML and PHP just the same, it is aitch in both cases.
In the UK, Rover makes and sells the Mini One, Mini Cooper and Mini Cooper S. The One and the Cooper are the same care with different firmware in the chips. (The Cooper S really is a different faster car). The Cooper costs £1000 more than the One. The One can be chipped to make it the same car as the Cooper for about £200.
I'd never use the term in reference to searching using another engine, that wouldn't make much sense.
I don't know about the US, but here in Britain it is quite common to use the verb "hoover" to mean sweep the floor with an electric vacuum cleaner of any brand.