First off, French is not a "cultural hegemony" within Canada, it's a minority. And if you lived in Montreal before the language laws came into force, you would have barely believed you were in a province where 90% of the people spoke French: everything was in English, and people were forced to speak it in the workplace lest they lose their jobs.
The enforcement of a cultural hegemony is exactly why these laws exist. It's just not the French one.
Here's an idea: talk to your child about sex early (and I mean very early, like 5-6 years old). That way you won't have to bother with a useless filter and they will be better able to protect themselves against sexual predators.
And don't worry about them having "premature" sex or whatever. Once you've satisfied their initial curiosity about sex they won't do it until they feel an urge for it at adolescence. Now, having "the talk" with your teenager is another matter. If you did things well though, you shouldn't even have to have it.
Like anon said in his reply, we are all required to learn English as a second language here in Quebec (previously from third grade, now from the first), although Anglo-Quebecois do not have the same obligation towards French. In fact, in some parts of Montreal it is difficult to be served in French and many French speakers will default to English to accommodate the Anglo-Quebecois and immigrant population (not to mention the tourists). But learning English as a second language is also required in France and many other countries so we're not against that. What we're against is the Anglo-Quebecois trying to run the province like it's their own (they account for only 10% of the population and are concentrated on the west of Montreal) and the rest of Canada (the infamous ROC) that undermines or objects to everything we do or try to do, like becoming an independent nation.
Anyway in Quebec we do not have this sense of grandeur that France has and many Quebecois do not know French was once the lingua franca of the world (and they certainly don't know that "lingua franca" means "French Language"). After all, we were a mere colony, a very small and unimportant one at that. We still speak French like Louis XIV and like it that way. It does after all sound more frankish and less gay.
All federal documents and communications are required by constitutional law to be made available in both official languages. Know what you're talking about before trying to be funny.
Well you accept the fact that tanks aren't legal to possess individually in any way, right? You say it's because they aren't popular (for any reason, price,etc.). I say that it's because a tank is not an "arm". It can't be brought in your arms, so even technically it's not an "arm". Technically it's an engine of war or vehicule of war or whatever you want to call it except "arm". So imagine this: let's say people can legally buy machine guns, and they decide it would be well within their rights to affix one to their cars. Cars are legal to own, machine guns are legal to own, so there's no problem, right? As long as it's "popular", it's okay right? WRONG. The second amendment says you shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep and bear (how would you "bear" a car anyway?) a machine gun mounted car. Why? Because this kind of car would be classified as an engine of war (and the first tanks were indeed armored cars mounted with machine guns).
If you've got it, then we can look at a closer analogy, an RPG (or a simple grenade if you prefer something more historically close). This is something you can bear on yourself, so it can potentially be called an "arm". It's popular with terrorists, and so it could become popular here since against a modern army it would serve a militia well. So then legalize it as being something the right of possession of should not be infringed. Then it becomes popular and you can't regulate it? And you have to wait until it becomes not so popular to regulate it? Popularity as a criterion for being an "arm" makes no sense. It makes no sense because if you can create a de facto shortage of what would otherwise be legally considered an "arm", you can make it illegal to obtain as being "not popular enough" to qualify. That's why the majority opinion says you can regulate the possession, but cannot ban the possession in whatsoever way. And this brings us to the case of the handgun ban of D.C. The only reason for the majority to bring the point of the popularity of handguns in D.C. is to show that the law retroactively makes criminals out of everyone that bought and still keeps a handgun, unless he renders said handgun uneffective for self-defense or other lawful uses inside his own individual property. This makes it as if he didn't effectively have an "arm" in his possession, only a simulacrum uneffective for actual lawful use, and this goes contrary to the spirit, if not the exact letter, of the second amendment, which says you shall not infringe the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. It doesn't say anything about BUY or EXCHANGE or BARTER. Of course, if you ban the sale of arms, de facto you can't keep and bear one either so this of kind extreme "regulation" would be unconstitutional too. Thus the simple fact that you cannot keep a handgun in working order without being branded a criminal, is already unconstitutional in the eyes of the majority. Also, the argument of popularity of the handgun serves to show how stupid it would be to even try to make the case that a handgun is somehow not an "arm". But this kind of "common sense" argument is weak, which is why they don't base their case solely on this: its simply a rhetorical device to make fun of the minority opinion. Even the Framers would have laughed their ass off.
By the way, don't try and convince me that guns are bad or whatnot, I'm not an NRA member nor do I own a gun. But the american constitution is what it is, and if you don't agree, abrogate the damn amendment and don't try to fuck around it with underhanded regulations that try to circumvent the second amendment in order to outright ban the lawful possession of arms or some types of arms (again it all depends on what falls under the category "arms", but as I've shown there is ample ground to judge a handgun as an arm without using a popularity argument: you just have to define the category "arms", either positively or negatively, with some other criteria).
Mod grandparent down. The judgment addresses the question of what constitutes "arms" quite well. Basically it's anything a militiaman (any able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45,etc.) would bring with him personally when called to arms in a militia. Of course nowadays a millionaire might want to try and bring a rocket launcher or whatnot, but a rocket launcher would simply then be classified strictly as a "weapon of war" because most militiamen can't afford one and wouldn't be able to defend themselves with it in a daily life situation (for example inside their home). The same can be said of personal weapons used by the military, and in these cases, a civilian version could be classified as "arms" while the more powerful version could remain a "weapon of war". It would obviously preclude things like cannons and tanks which are engines of war. The fact that without those advanced weapons a militia could not win against a modern standing army does not change a thing, since it is not the duty of each citizen to provide the militia with anything other than his personal armament: everything else would come from whomever organizes the militia proper, within the limits of state law. It is also the state which defines what qualifies as "weapons of war" and what as "arms", within reason. In this case, the ban by the D.C. of handguns was considered by the majority opinion to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, because many citizens would choose a handgun for self-defense and would thus bring it when or if called to militia duty as it is more convenient and easier to use and whatnot. This does not limit the ban on concealed weapons and other dangerous weapons, because the right to keep and bear arms was also found to be tied to primarily defensive actions and not offensive ones. For example, you may use a concealed weapon in a militia if the state permits it, but you may not be able to keep it after your tour of duty if the law says that you cannot use it for personal defense, and this wouldn't be unconstitutional (concealed weapons do not deter and thus cannot be used properly as a defensive weapon, etc.).
In light of this, it seems Breyer didn't read the majority opinion carefully, as it doesn't use popularity as a factor: it simply says that the handgun is a popular defensive weapon for good reasons and that banning it is effectively banning a kind of "arms", which could open a slippery slope to eventually banning all arms, which would be even more unconstitutional. It's as if the D.C. rebranded the handgun as an offensive "weapon of war", which it is not and has never been, not even in the time of the Framers.
Interestingly, the majority opinions doesn't say if a legislature could impose mandatory training as a requirement for arm bearing, but I suppose this would be acceptable as long as access to the training is not limited for citizens who could be part of a militia.
It's exactly as you said, except product B is eco-friendly and product A is not eco-friendly and is overpriced. Thus product B wins. And can eat it's cake too.
Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Wow. This must indeed be slashdot, where such nonsense is modded interesting (it should be modded funny or simply down). Your logic isn't faulty per se, but you do not seem to understand what atheism means. Atheism is a statement of belief, just as theism or deism is, but it is not a religion. A religion is a set of beliefs and practices held by a community. Individuals sharing a belief does not make a religion, or else Judaism, Christianity and Islam would all be considered the same religion since they all believe in only one God (and the same too!). Also, not collecting something is not a hobby: a hobby is an activity of some sort, not collecting is not an activity by any meaningful definition of the word 'activity'. If you want to call it something, it would have to be 'not-hobby'.
Using the word 'must' in the phrase "the government shall not tell the public what religion they MUST practice", does not mean the public must practice a religion, it is only there to emphasize that the government cannot command anyone in the practice of the religion of their choice: the 'must' is rhetorical flourish, not strict and overly logico-formal grammar (it is a text intended to be read and understood by all literate 18th century citizens, not logicians). The writers of the constitution were well aware of the atheistic beliefs of the times since they had contact with the Frenchmen who borne them. They even had contact with those who had a strict non-religious or irreligious views of the world (d'Holbach and co.). Saying that they intended for all humans to obligatorily adhere to some form of religion is idiotic. They were educated men of their time, and the constitution they crafted (with the first couple of amendments) reflects that fact.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, French is not a "cultural hegemony" within Canada, it's a minority. And if you lived in Montreal before the language laws came into force, you would have barely believed you were in a province where 90% of the people spoke French: everything was in English, and people were forced to speak it in the workplace lest they lose their jobs.
The enforcement of a cultural hegemony is exactly why these laws exist. It's just not the French one.
Here's an idea: talk to your child about sex early (and I mean very early, like 5-6 years old). That way you won't have to bother with a useless filter and they will be better able to protect themselves against sexual predators. And don't worry about them having "premature" sex or whatever. Once you've satisfied their initial curiosity about sex they won't do it until they feel an urge for it at adolescence. Now, having "the talk" with your teenager is another matter. If you did things well though, you shouldn't even have to have it.
Like anon said in his reply, we are all required to learn English as a second language here in Quebec (previously from third grade, now from the first), although Anglo-Quebecois do not have the same obligation towards French. In fact, in some parts of Montreal it is difficult to be served in French and many French speakers will default to English to accommodate the Anglo-Quebecois and immigrant population (not to mention the tourists). But learning English as a second language is also required in France and many other countries so we're not against that. What we're against is the Anglo-Quebecois trying to run the province like it's their own (they account for only 10% of the population and are concentrated on the west of Montreal) and the rest of Canada (the infamous ROC) that undermines or objects to everything we do or try to do, like becoming an independent nation. Anyway in Quebec we do not have this sense of grandeur that France has and many Quebecois do not know French was once the lingua franca of the world (and they certainly don't know that "lingua franca" means "French Language"). After all, we were a mere colony, a very small and unimportant one at that. We still speak French like Louis XIV and like it that way. It does after all sound more frankish and less gay.
Socialism? This looks more like corporatism to me. Try opening a dictionary for once.
All federal documents and communications are required by constitutional law to be made available in both official languages. Know what you're talking about before trying to be funny.
Well you accept the fact that tanks aren't legal to possess individually in any way, right? You say it's because they aren't popular (for any reason, price,etc.). I say that it's because a tank is not an "arm". It can't be brought in your arms, so even technically it's not an "arm". Technically it's an engine of war or vehicule of war or whatever you want to call it except "arm". So imagine this: let's say people can legally buy machine guns, and they decide it would be well within their rights to affix one to their cars. Cars are legal to own, machine guns are legal to own, so there's no problem, right? As long as it's "popular", it's okay right? WRONG. The second amendment says you shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep and bear (how would you "bear" a car anyway?) a machine gun mounted car. Why? Because this kind of car would be classified as an engine of war (and the first tanks were indeed armored cars mounted with machine guns).
If you've got it, then we can look at a closer analogy, an RPG (or a simple grenade if you prefer something more historically close). This is something you can bear on yourself, so it can potentially be called an "arm". It's popular with terrorists, and so it could become popular here since against a modern army it would serve a militia well. So then legalize it as being something the right of possession of should not be infringed. Then it becomes popular and you can't regulate it? And you have to wait until it becomes not so popular to regulate it? Popularity as a criterion for being an "arm" makes no sense. It makes no sense because if you can create a de facto shortage of what would otherwise be legally considered an "arm", you can make it illegal to obtain as being "not popular enough" to qualify. That's why the majority opinion says you can regulate the possession, but cannot ban the possession in whatsoever way. And this brings us to the case of the handgun ban of D.C. The only reason for the majority to bring the point of the popularity of handguns in D.C. is to show that the law retroactively makes criminals out of everyone that bought and still keeps a handgun, unless he renders said handgun uneffective for self-defense or other lawful uses inside his own individual property. This makes it as if he didn't effectively have an "arm" in his possession, only a simulacrum uneffective for actual lawful use, and this goes contrary to the spirit, if not the exact letter, of the second amendment, which says you shall not infringe the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. It doesn't say anything about BUY or EXCHANGE or BARTER. Of course, if you ban the sale of arms, de facto you can't keep and bear one either so this of kind extreme "regulation" would be unconstitutional too. Thus the simple fact that you cannot keep a handgun in working order without being branded a criminal, is already unconstitutional in the eyes of the majority. Also, the argument of popularity of the handgun serves to show how stupid it would be to even try to make the case that a handgun is somehow not an "arm". But this kind of "common sense" argument is weak, which is why they don't base their case solely on this: its simply a rhetorical device to make fun of the minority opinion. Even the Framers would have laughed their ass off.
By the way, don't try and convince me that guns are bad or whatnot, I'm not an NRA member nor do I own a gun. But the american constitution is what it is, and if you don't agree, abrogate the damn amendment and don't try to fuck around it with underhanded regulations that try to circumvent the second amendment in order to outright ban the lawful possession of arms or some types of arms (again it all depends on what falls under the category "arms", but as I've shown there is ample ground to judge a handgun as an arm without using a popularity argument: you just have to define the category "arms", either positively or negatively, with some other criteria).
Mod grandparent down. The judgment addresses the question of what constitutes "arms" quite well. Basically it's anything a militiaman (any able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45,etc.) would bring with him personally when called to arms in a militia. Of course nowadays a millionaire might want to try and bring a rocket launcher or whatnot, but a rocket launcher would simply then be classified strictly as a "weapon of war" because most militiamen can't afford one and wouldn't be able to defend themselves with it in a daily life situation (for example inside their home). The same can be said of personal weapons used by the military, and in these cases, a civilian version could be classified as "arms" while the more powerful version could remain a "weapon of war". It would obviously preclude things like cannons and tanks which are engines of war. The fact that without those advanced weapons a militia could not win against a modern standing army does not change a thing, since it is not the duty of each citizen to provide the militia with anything other than his personal armament: everything else would come from whomever organizes the militia proper, within the limits of state law. It is also the state which defines what qualifies as "weapons of war" and what as "arms", within reason. In this case, the ban by the D.C. of handguns was considered by the majority opinion to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, because many citizens would choose a handgun for self-defense and would thus bring it when or if called to militia duty as it is more convenient and easier to use and whatnot. This does not limit the ban on concealed weapons and other dangerous weapons, because the right to keep and bear arms was also found to be tied to primarily defensive actions and not offensive ones. For example, you may use a concealed weapon in a militia if the state permits it, but you may not be able to keep it after your tour of duty if the law says that you cannot use it for personal defense, and this wouldn't be unconstitutional (concealed weapons do not deter and thus cannot be used properly as a defensive weapon, etc.).
In light of this, it seems Breyer didn't read the majority opinion carefully, as it doesn't use popularity as a factor: it simply says that the handgun is a popular defensive weapon for good reasons and that banning it is effectively banning a kind of "arms", which could open a slippery slope to eventually banning all arms, which would be even more unconstitutional. It's as if the D.C. rebranded the handgun as an offensive "weapon of war", which it is not and has never been, not even in the time of the Framers.
Interestingly, the majority opinions doesn't say if a legislature could impose mandatory training as a requirement for arm bearing, but I suppose this would be acceptable as long as access to the training is not limited for citizens who could be part of a militia.
It's exactly as you said, except product B is eco-friendly and product A is not eco-friendly and is overpriced. Thus product B wins. And can eat it's cake too.
Using the word 'must' in the phrase "the government shall not tell the public what religion they MUST practice", does not mean the public must practice a religion, it is only there to emphasize that the government cannot command anyone in the practice of the religion of their choice: the 'must' is rhetorical flourish, not strict and overly logico-formal grammar (it is a text intended to be read and understood by all literate 18th century citizens, not logicians). The writers of the constitution were well aware of the atheistic beliefs of the times since they had contact with the Frenchmen who borne them. They even had contact with those who had a strict non-religious or irreligious views of the world (d'Holbach and co.). Saying that they intended for all humans to obligatorily adhere to some form of religion is idiotic. They were educated men of their time, and the constitution they crafted (with the first couple of amendments) reflects that fact.