It's only a compromise in the minds of the school board members. They probably went through the same Florida schools and came out with zero understanding of what scientific terms really mean.
"Theory" to them is supposed to lower the standing of the teaching of evolution, when in fact it will raise it if those same science classes teach accurate scientific terminology.
Ultimately, it brings evolution back into focus in schools while simultaneously showing the school board to be uneducated dweebs. Win/win as far as I'm concerned.
So you are fluent in the cultural context of 1st-2nd century Hebrew? There are probably quite a few organizations who would like to talk to you then...
Maybe Egyptian immigrants WANT to be referred to as African-American.
Then there's always the hilarity that would ensue from an Anglo South African immigrant. Nothing like a white, British-accented person checking off the box "African-American" under race.
Since he was not an oficer, director, or owner of 10% or more of the company stock, and did not receive information from a person fitting one of those descriptions, it was not an insider trade.
Whoever modded this "flamebait" has no idea what flambait actually is.
Public schools by-and-large are the last place you can expect worthwhile study of something controversial. One side or the other always receives more emphasis, depending on the political demographics of the school board in that area.
Yes, it should be. Either they acted legally, or at least in good faith, or they did not. This is a matter that should be easily resolvable to find whether they are culpable or not, but that would require the release of information that the Bush administration does not want to release in their defense. He'd rather axe the legitimate method of determining the truth of the matter with legislation than to actually give up any information on his secret programs.
Sooo, I follow the logic that if the right belongs to the people, the states are banned from infringing on them by the 14th amendment. Arguable? Obviously it is, since people are clearly arguing over it. But it certainly isn't an unreasonable position. I'm not sure where you're saying the Commerce Clause comes into it, since AFAIK (could be wrong of course), the Supreme Court based Roe on the 14th.
The actual justification in the majority Roe decision was the right to privacy and that restriction of that right violated due process somehow. There was really no substantive Constitutional justification in the decision, and there hasn't been one developed since. Even Constitutional scholars who agree with the outcome tend to also agree that the Roe decision is deeply flawed on Constitutional grounds and is virtually unsupportable as written.
The clause you quoted was a means of explicitly stating that the specific protections of the federal Constitution could not be abridged by State governments. Prior to this, State governments could restrict rights protected by the federal Constitution that were not also protected by the given State's constitution (specifically equal protection in regards to former slaves). To read the combination of the 9th and 14th amendments that way would be to completely eliminate the applicability of the 10th amendment section "are reserved to the States respectively". It would mean that no State could actually be granted authority by their populace over something through their constitution that was free of regulation in any other State. Being free of regulation in any other State (reserved to the people) would qualify it for protection under the 14th amendment, which would then make it free of regulation in all States. This rational was specifically denied in the Slaughter-House Cases (which have been specifically reaffirmed since) which held that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment did not apply to State immunities and privileges, only federal ones. If read that way, there would be no reason to distinguish between federal and State privileges and immunities, as all State P&Is would automatically become federally protected. I'd say that was to prevent exactly the infinite legal loop described above.
Public Law 108-105, 2003, upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart, 2007 was the one I came across earlier that relies on the commerce clause for legitimacy. That's the latest incremental federal abortion ban attempt.
If it is a matter that is not explicitly covered by the federal Constitution, and it is an issue covered specifically in a state constitution, then yes, the state does have that regulatory power under the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment protects the ability of the states to be granted additional powers by their populace and within their borders that the federal government does not have. If it is not covered in a state constitution, then it is reserved to the people. If a state constitution allows the restriction of something that the state is not banned from restricting via the federal Constitution, they can restrict it. Period. It's pretty clear cut, even if it isn't respected at all. You can argue the bolded point all you want, but from the standpoint of what the federal Constitution says, there is no room for argument. I understand that this practice is frequently not followed, but that doesn't change the point in the slightest. The only argument becomes which parts of which state constitutions allow them to regulate the practice, and that's a whole other can of semantic worms.
In all of this, you should realize that ultimately I am on the same side you are, and would like to see the same results. It's simply not covered in the federal Constitution, and given that they have claimed de facto power over the issue means that it is quite possible that a federal ban on the practice will occur in the future as a result.
To reiterate, the federal Constitution does not anywhere give the federal government authority to speak on the issue. The section pointed to as authority is the Interstate Commerce Clause, which is absolutely ludicrous (then again, many things that use the ICC as cause are ludicrous). Until some magical clause pops up that gives the federal government the power to speak on the issue of abortion, the 10th amendment should be the controlling factor. That it's not just shows another point where the federal government has exceeded the authority granted to them by the Constitution.
That depends. If the valet company could prove that you always leave your car parked with the keys in it, they wouldn't be liable, because they would have exercised just as much care for your assets as you did.
I'd have to call bullshit on this statement unless you can produce an actual citation of a law that is comparable. Given some of the absurdities in US law, it wouldn't particularly surprise me that there existed such a law, but I've never heard of one. Just because a private party does negligent things with their property does not automatically excuse a third party from the same negligence when the first party's property is under their control.
What each individual state constitution grants those individual states authority over is not at issue in this particular debate, regardless of whether you would like it to be or not. Given the level of office he's at, the position of whether or not interfering is the federal government's business is the beginning and end of the issue. Unless you've got an argument of why the federal Constitution grants the federal government authority to interfere in an issue that is otherwise covered under the 9th and 10th amendments, further argument to the contrary is ultimately irrelevant.
Everything you've described relating to his position is complete supposition on your part, without anything resembling evidence to support it other than your personal opinion.
At least with states in control of the issue, you have the flip side of the coin: there will be states that don't outlaw the practice, even if other states do. With a de facto presumption of federal control, all it takes is a vote of 5-4 to change things once Congress has acted (such as Public Law 108-105, 2003, upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart, 2007, by 5-4). Then there is no safe haven at all in the entire United States. Not exactly a "personal liberties" situation, even if the results at just this point in time are the same. Don't you just love the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Apparently abortion is a form of interstate commerce according to the federal government. Yay for supporting federal control over issues the federal government has no business legislating on.
You can oppose the states' rights (and personal rights) issues. Just don't complain when the "other side" (whichever that may be for any given person) uses that federal control for exactly the opposite of what you'd like to see happen. If you supported states' rights, you could probably move to a state more in line with your views. If you support federal authority over everything, I guess we'll be seeing you moving to another country instead. Your choice of which line to support.
Like many other solutions, the difference is scale. On a small scale, wood-burning has a relatively small carbon footprint. On a large scale, you end up with deforestation and much more carbon entering the atmosphere than can be sequestered in the same amount of time, in addition to less biomass available for said sequestration.
Paul's anti-abortion position is a perfect example of classic libertarian ideals. He can separate his own personal beliefs from what he espouses politically (that the federal government has no business involving itself in an issue that it has no Constitutional authority regarding).
I have to agree with your assessment of how libertarians are easily misrepresented. My personal choices should not be legislated to become requirements to other people who would make different personal choices. I think the very attitude of non-enforcement is why libertarianism is as small as it is though. Non-libertarians usually have little compunction about advocating the institutionalized stomping of anyone who doesn't comply (or at the least act as accessory by turning a blind eye), while libertarians tend to shy away from doing such repugnant things.
Not that I support his socialism, but Obama doesn't come from an "I'm-black-so-I'm-oppressed" background that seems so common among the slavery reparations movement. Hopefully that would reduce the potential for him supporting it.
Sadly I have no mod points to mod this post up. Sarcasm does not instantly equate to flamebait, especially when the sarcastic post happens to be right on the money in regards to all parts of the world having violent, bloody pasts and glorifying their war heroes.
Perhaps not all countries do it all the time, but all peoples have engaged in it at some point or other, and most of them in the not-too-distant past.
Leaving the subject of the article entirely aside, saying there is nothing new to be discovered in any given field marks [b]you[/b] as the moron. To assume that there is nothing more to be discovered is a hallmark of intellectual and educational arrogance in the extreme. Fortunately there are a lot of smart people who don't share your particular penchant for deciding where future technological breakthroughs will be found and instead actually work to find them instead of contributing exactly zero to the discussion.
Not saying whether it's a good idea or not, but to put it into perspective: the entire cost of the coal project is equal to 10-11 days of expenditures in Iraq.
Unless you ask radical feminists who would be perfectly fine with removing men from the population. Then it fits pretty well. Like most words, there are multiple uses of the word "feminism," especially among all of those who use the term to describe themselves.
There are probably not so many differences as say, those who would describe themselves as "Christian," but they certainly exist. Given how commonly the term is used by radicals, it is perfectly reasonable to bring them up in a discussion.
Both your post and the post you were replying to are ignoring an entire segment of people who use the term to describe themselves. Yes, it would be great if those who promote hate didn't hijack terms coined by people who were attempting to promote tolerance, but that isn't likely to happen any time soon.
So, it is about bashing one or the other and about appreciation of both genders. It just depends on which point of reference you choose. Making that clear while understanding that the other exists tends to be a lot more productive than pretending the other side does not exist at all.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only a compromise in the minds of the school board members. They probably went through the same Florida schools and came out with zero understanding of what scientific terms really mean.
"Theory" to them is supposed to lower the standing of the teaching of evolution, when in fact it will raise it if those same science classes teach accurate scientific terminology.
Ultimately, it brings evolution back into focus in schools while simultaneously showing the school board to be uneducated dweebs. Win/win as far as I'm concerned.
So you are fluent in the cultural context of 1st-2nd century Hebrew? There are probably quite a few organizations who would like to talk to you then...
Yes, off-topic. However, it should be pretty clear how it got there. :)
Maybe Egyptian immigrants WANT to be referred to as African-American.
Then there's always the hilarity that would ensue from an Anglo South African immigrant. Nothing like a white, British-accented person checking off the box "African-American" under race.
It's European-American, you insensitive clod!
No, the majority of internet services are not peer-to-peer.
Since he was not an oficer, director, or owner of 10% or more of the company stock, and did not receive information from a person fitting one of those descriptions, it was not an insider trade.
Whoever modded this "flamebait" has no idea what flambait actually is.
Public schools by-and-large are the last place you can expect worthwhile study of something controversial. One side or the other always receives more emphasis, depending on the political demographics of the school board in that area.
The problem is most public school * teachers aren't *.
Maybe that's why the state of education in high school is so bad.
Yes, it should be. Either they acted legally, or at least in good faith, or they did not. This is a matter that should be easily resolvable to find whether they are culpable or not, but that would require the release of information that the Bush administration does not want to release in their defense. He'd rather axe the legitimate method of determining the truth of the matter with legislation than to actually give up any information on his secret programs.
Sooo, I follow the logic that if the right belongs to the people, the states are banned from infringing on them by the 14th amendment. Arguable? Obviously it is, since people are clearly arguing over it. But it certainly isn't an unreasonable position. I'm not sure where you're saying the Commerce Clause comes into it, since AFAIK (could be wrong of course), the Supreme Court based Roe on the 14th.
The actual justification in the majority Roe decision was the right to privacy and that restriction of that right violated due process somehow. There was really no substantive Constitutional justification in the decision, and there hasn't been one developed since. Even Constitutional scholars who agree with the outcome tend to also agree that the Roe decision is deeply flawed on Constitutional grounds and is virtually unsupportable as written.
The clause you quoted was a means of explicitly stating that the specific protections of the federal Constitution could not be abridged by State governments. Prior to this, State governments could restrict rights protected by the federal Constitution that were not also protected by the given State's constitution (specifically equal protection in regards to former slaves). To read the combination of the 9th and 14th amendments that way would be to completely eliminate the applicability of the 10th amendment section "are reserved to the States respectively". It would mean that no State could actually be granted authority by their populace over something through their constitution that was free of regulation in any other State. Being free of regulation in any other State (reserved to the people) would qualify it for protection under the 14th amendment, which would then make it free of regulation in all States. This rational was specifically denied in the Slaughter-House Cases (which have been specifically reaffirmed since) which held that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment did not apply to State immunities and privileges, only federal ones. If read that way, there would be no reason to distinguish between federal and State privileges and immunities, as all State P&Is would automatically become federally protected. I'd say that was to prevent exactly the infinite legal loop described above.
Public Law 108-105, 2003, upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart, 2007 was the one I came across earlier that relies on the commerce clause for legitimacy. That's the latest incremental federal abortion ban attempt.
states can not take this right from U.S. citizens
If it is a matter that is not explicitly covered by the federal Constitution, and it is an issue covered specifically in a state constitution, then yes, the state does have that regulatory power under the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment protects the ability of the states to be granted additional powers by their populace and within their borders that the federal government does not have. If it is not covered in a state constitution, then it is reserved to the people. If a state constitution allows the restriction of something that the state is not banned from restricting via the federal Constitution, they can restrict it. Period. It's pretty clear cut, even if it isn't respected at all. You can argue the bolded point all you want, but from the standpoint of what the federal Constitution says, there is no room for argument. I understand that this practice is frequently not followed, but that doesn't change the point in the slightest. The only argument becomes which parts of which state constitutions allow them to regulate the practice, and that's a whole other can of semantic worms.
In all of this, you should realize that ultimately I am on the same side you are, and would like to see the same results. It's simply not covered in the federal Constitution, and given that they have claimed de facto power over the issue means that it is quite possible that a federal ban on the practice will occur in the future as a result.
To reiterate, the federal Constitution does not anywhere give the federal government authority to speak on the issue. The section pointed to as authority is the Interstate Commerce Clause, which is absolutely ludicrous (then again, many things that use the ICC as cause are ludicrous). Until some magical clause pops up that gives the federal government the power to speak on the issue of abortion, the 10th amendment should be the controlling factor. That it's not just shows another point where the federal government has exceeded the authority granted to them by the Constitution.
That depends. If the valet company could prove that you always leave your car parked with the keys in it, they wouldn't be liable, because they would have exercised just as much care for your assets as you did.
I'd have to call bullshit on this statement unless you can produce an actual citation of a law that is comparable. Given some of the absurdities in US law, it wouldn't particularly surprise me that there existed such a law, but I've never heard of one. Just because a private party does negligent things with their property does not automatically excuse a third party from the same negligence when the first party's property is under their control.
We can only hope the implosion of the empire comes sooner rather than later.
It all sounds like the US has a severe insecurity complex.
I'd wholeheartedly agree with that. Given US aggression in most parts of the world, there's good reason for it too.
I never said anything about justifying fear and hate of China. I was simply citing two examples of aggression since they were asked about.
When have China ever been aggressive? As far as I can tell, they've only been defensive.
Tibet. China invaded and conquered it in 1950. The same Chinese government that is in power today (the PRC).
While they have not yet invaded and conquered Taiwan, they will eventually.
What each individual state constitution grants those individual states authority over is not at issue in this particular debate, regardless of whether you would like it to be or not. Given the level of office he's at, the position of whether or not interfering is the federal government's business is the beginning and end of the issue. Unless you've got an argument of why the federal Constitution grants the federal government authority to interfere in an issue that is otherwise covered under the 9th and 10th amendments, further argument to the contrary is ultimately irrelevant.
Everything you've described relating to his position is complete supposition on your part, without anything resembling evidence to support it other than your personal opinion.
At least with states in control of the issue, you have the flip side of the coin: there will be states that don't outlaw the practice, even if other states do. With a de facto presumption of federal control, all it takes is a vote of 5-4 to change things once Congress has acted (such as Public Law 108-105, 2003, upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart, 2007, by 5-4). Then there is no safe haven at all in the entire United States. Not exactly a "personal liberties" situation, even if the results at just this point in time are the same. Don't you just love the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Apparently abortion is a form of interstate commerce according to the federal government. Yay for supporting federal control over issues the federal government has no business legislating on.
You can oppose the states' rights (and personal rights) issues. Just don't complain when the "other side" (whichever that may be for any given person) uses that federal control for exactly the opposite of what you'd like to see happen. If you supported states' rights, you could probably move to a state more in line with your views. If you support federal authority over everything, I guess we'll be seeing you moving to another country instead. Your choice of which line to support.
Like many other solutions, the difference is scale. On a small scale, wood-burning has a relatively small carbon footprint. On a large scale, you end up with deforestation and much more carbon entering the atmosphere than can be sequestered in the same amount of time, in addition to less biomass available for said sequestration.
As with everything, it's all about balance.
Paul's anti-abortion position is a perfect example of classic libertarian ideals. He can separate his own personal beliefs from what he espouses politically (that the federal government has no business involving itself in an issue that it has no Constitutional authority regarding).
I have to agree with your assessment of how libertarians are easily misrepresented. My personal choices should not be legislated to become requirements to other people who would make different personal choices. I think the very attitude of non-enforcement is why libertarianism is as small as it is though. Non-libertarians usually have little compunction about advocating the institutionalized stomping of anyone who doesn't comply (or at the least act as accessory by turning a blind eye), while libertarians tend to shy away from doing such repugnant things.
Not that I support his socialism, but Obama doesn't come from an "I'm-black-so-I'm-oppressed" background that seems so common among the slavery reparations movement. Hopefully that would reduce the potential for him supporting it.
Sadly I have no mod points to mod this post up. Sarcasm does not instantly equate to flamebait, especially when the sarcastic post happens to be right on the money in regards to all parts of the world having violent, bloody pasts and glorifying their war heroes.
Perhaps not all countries do it all the time, but all peoples have engaged in it at some point or other, and most of them in the not-too-distant past.
Leaving the subject of the article entirely aside, saying there is nothing new to be discovered in any given field marks [b]you[/b] as the moron. To assume that there is nothing more to be discovered is a hallmark of intellectual and educational arrogance in the extreme. Fortunately there are a lot of smart people who don't share your particular penchant for deciding where future technological breakthroughs will be found and instead actually work to find them instead of contributing exactly zero to the discussion.
Not saying whether it's a good idea or not, but to put it into perspective: the entire cost of the coal project is equal to 10-11 days of expenditures in Iraq.
Unless you ask radical feminists who would be perfectly fine with removing men from the population. Then it fits pretty well. Like most words, there are multiple uses of the word "feminism," especially among all of those who use the term to describe themselves.
There are probably not so many differences as say, those who would describe themselves as "Christian," but they certainly exist. Given how commonly the term is used by radicals, it is perfectly reasonable to bring them up in a discussion.
Both your post and the post you were replying to are ignoring an entire segment of people who use the term to describe themselves. Yes, it would be great if those who promote hate didn't hijack terms coined by people who were attempting to promote tolerance, but that isn't likely to happen any time soon.
So, it is about bashing one or the other and about appreciation of both genders. It just depends on which point of reference you choose. Making that clear while understanding that the other exists tends to be a lot more productive than pretending the other side does not exist at all.