I just ensured that your medical records have been compromised. Btw, as of now, you have been pregnant twice ending with abortions, have had the clap and are still being treated for syphilis. Looks like you tested positive for cocaine and heroin recently too but have yet to receive any treatment.
Oh, and yes, i understand how being pregnant could present something of a mystery so it is clear that you are a male "now". Nothing for you to worry about though. I bet you could create a fabulous backstory that all your friends would love but unfortunately prospective job opportunities would never hear because they would either care or not care long before giving you a chance to explain it away.
I don't think he was advocating the banning of them, just pointing out that California has already banned certain types of them and completely failed in its implementation (as the latest terrorist attack point out )
I think it is more of a dig on the idea that passing another law is pointless because existing laws are being ignored or are so difficult to enforce it is unrealistic.
Wouldn't to kill be covered by hunting animals? And even if you insist it is separate and humans, aren't there some people that just need killed? I mean the drugged out thug about to molest your kid or kill you because you came home before he could find enough cash for another score in the random house he broke into? What about Hitler and the Nazis or Stalin or whoever and their legions of supporters? If you saw someone killing others, would you want to just stand there defenseless, have a bolt gun, or a gun designed to kill something? Remember that guy who shot up the school in Oregon not to long ago? He lined people up and asked what their religion was before killing them. Imagine sitting there knowing this guy is going to kill you and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
How exactly would that work? I mean i usually buy 5or6 tickets so we can all sit together. The people going to the concert with me pay me back. There has been a time or two that i couldn't go and gave my ticket to someone else too. Once was a funeral and the other was some inservice meeting at work called up by corporate a week before and attendance was mandatory.
So how would that work? Or do you think it should be a thing of the past?
Why can't they just build levies around the island an canals. Other countries build entire islands so it shouldn't be impossible. I think the drama might have something to do with getting money more than climate change.
Well we know it wasn't in this case and with the boston bombing so the question to contemplate is if it ever was intended to be effective at stopping this crap or if the goals are something else m
It's not the visit to Saudi Arabia that concerns me. Its all the spying that turned out to be useless. The same happened with the Boston bombers who were warned about by Russia and found that members of a mosque they went to warned the FBI.
It seems that the spying is only harassing honest citizens who not only do nothing wrong but aren't even realistically suspected of doing anything terrorist related.
And with all this government spying, a very large no fly list that often ends up in old ladies and young children being groped at the airport, why was she allowed in the US in the first place if that is true?
He is likely comparing the taste of supermarket bananas to ones ripened on the tree. A lot , if not all north American supermarket bananas are picked green and shipped to ripen either in transit or in a controlled environment before being put out to sell. Apple's are somewhat treated the same where they are doused with gasses and refrigerated to last almost a year out of season.
With both fruits, there is a big noticable difference in tastes between ones ripened on the plant verses ripening in storage. We have a large orchard near here and they allow the apples to ripen on the tree for the product they sell to the public and make cider. I'm not sure if they even store apples for outside the season. Compared to the same apple from a supermarket that may have traveled 1000 or more miles and sat in storage, it is like two different varieties and you end up looking to see if the name is spelled different or something. Likewise, i had fresh bananas when i was at a plantation in south America and couldn't believe how much sweeter and banana tasting they where. It makes the stuff I can get at home seem more like a plantain than a banana. I made a comment about how they should ship those instead of the ones we get and the response was they are the same, its a matter of shipping, storage and so on.
I bet what he is experiencing is the difference between fresh verses handled for three months or whatever. To this day, i find apples from the supermarket to be deficient in flavor.
What kind of nonsense is going through your mind? The only people that intended something like that were the ones who wrote the Constitution of Alabama, and it shows. That abomination is a literal book. Almost 900 Amendments. Over 300,000 words. And they still have other laws outside it!
It's the kind of nonesense that is supported by the constitution itself, the amendments, the federalist and anti federalist papers, and notes taken by James Madison at the constitutional convention. And no, there would not be 900 amendments because they set the bar extremely high for amending it.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I swear, your education is deficient.
That doesn't mean what you think it means. Hell, just reading it should be enough to get the idea. It says " for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,"
Now where does that imply unlimited anything goes laws? It specifically states the foregoing powers (powers listed) and all other powers the constitution gives the federal government in other places. You really should not criticize someone's education when you seem to not be able to comprehend a simple statement.
The Amendment process is not inherently necessary, it is used to establish authoritative supremacy, but not necessarily requisite, except in certain matters where they were overruling judicial precedent or revising the Constitution for various reasons, like changing the meeting of the electoral college.
Yes it is necessary. The constitution grants powers to a federal government that was originally the power of the thirteen countries that became the United States. It is a limited set of powers and other places in the constitution make this clear. For instance, article 6 has this in it "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;" It doesn't say that laws can be at congress's will, it says the laws shall be made in accordance with the constitution.
And no, it does not mean the bill of rights, those twelve amendments were created after the Constitution by the first congress almost 2 years later. The constitution was signed and sent for ratification on september 17, 1787 and the bill of rights was created September 25, 1789.
Even some of the hallmarks of the Constitution like the 13th, 19th, and 23rd Amendments could be handled different ways. For example, all persons in DC could have been required to have residence in another state, Congress could even have BOUGHT them houses and made them live in them.
Outside congress having legislative control over D.C., not they could not. The constitution doesn't give them any other powers to do so.
But instead, they have a non-voting delegate.
Which does not come directly from the Constitution, but still exists.
Actually, it does. Article one section 5 specifically says Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members". This means they can have delegates from outside elected officials and even the speaker of the house (which is second in line for the presidency after the vice president if the president leaves office) can be a non elected official. However, in order to comply with section one of the same article, these non-voting members cannot participate in any of the legislative powers. They cannot propose laws or amendments to laws or vote on them. They can advise and contribute to the discussion and advocacy of laws constitutionally proposed. The are essentially sitting lobbyist.
Congress authorized the creation of the EPA, that is, in fact, an action. You simply cannot get around that.
42 U.S.C. 4321â"4347 and numerous other laws and acts of legislation.
Your fault for claiming "without any action of Congress" which set the bar very very low.
Congress surely did create the EPA. However, the constitution says congress has to vote on the laws and only way to make laws is for congress to vote on them. There is no way around it. When any government agency creates law outside of congress, it is outside the constitution. You cannot say congress voted on the Co2 regulation and passed it like the constitution requires because here we see they just passed a law denying it but if it is vetoed, the regulations will become law. As I said, you cannot get around this.
Then we'd have the situation that exists today.
And that situation would not be constitutionally supported just like today.
Entirely. I see nothing in the Constitution that would make such a definition of a treaty invalid. In fact, it doesn't define treaties at all, but I'd say the "two or more countries" is going to be part of the definition, not sure why containing those numbers is important, but since you didn't create an exclusionary definition, so what?
Article I, Section 10, bans states from entering treaties. Article II, Section 2, says the President can negotiate treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, Article III, Section 2, says that the federal judiciary covers treaties, and Article VI, puts it under the Supremacy clause.
I see nothing to say otherwise regarding defining one in that fashion. The Senate would be well within its power to withhold consent until those numbers were added, even if I personally think it is trivial.
And the courts would be loathe to touch such a political question.
I see where your problem is now. You think the government has the right and ability to do anything it wants. It does not. The US constitution sets out what the government (federal anyways) can do and specifically limits it in certain areas. This was by design as originally the confederation was composed of thirteen original states who were concerned about giving up their sovereignty. This is outlined pretty clearly in the federalist and anti federalist papers as well as the notes taken by James Madison who attempted to thoroughly document the first constitutional convention. It is also why ever single amendment that requires government action or allows government action contains wording to the extent congress shall have the power to enact legislation to enable this. For instance, the 13th and 15th amendments contain "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." and the 14th amendment says "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The 18th amendment changes it some more but carries the same message "The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Now I understand that the government comes off as if it can do anything it wants so it can get confusing but there is no constitutional authority for much of it like the EPA making laws or the illegalization of Marijuana.
Then they'd probably lose the federal court challenge since that would run afoul of a lot of things. Though I'll note, right now, there are examples of governments breaking up assemblages for similar reasons.
They may purport otherwise, but they are.
Still, there is some case law regarding the right to assemble, based on a certain Amendment.
Sure there is case law. What is to stop congress or this agency from passing a law saying the courts have no jurisdiction like they did with the telecoms helping the NSA spy on citiz
But that is all illegal now. The new robber barons of tech simply cannot get away with it. Comparing them to Stalin is like comparing them to a four sided triangle. It simply doesn't make sense.
So you are convinced it is subjective then. Interesting. Do you own a dictionary? And if so, do you use it for anything other than filling space on a shelve or to level out a crooked table?
Lol.. no law existed then all the sudden a law exists without any action of congress. You simply cannot get around that.
As for your EPA gets to interpret and make up laws at will because congress said so, ask yourself what if congress passed other laws allowing unelected officials to create or change laws. So what if congress create a commission on treaties and they decided that any document signed by two or more countries is a treaty as long as it contains the numbers 1,2,and 3. Would that be constitutional? Well suppose the agency is to decrease crime and they decide that to combat gangs you need a permit any time more than 10 people not directly related assemble? How about if they made a law saying all schools will instruct students on the fundamentals of christianity but allows for them to be of different or no religion at all? What if they decide overpopulation is the cause of crime and limit every person born on an even date to one child?
The books are full of unconstitutional shit congress has passed into law. Just because congress makes a law does not mean it is constitutional. And the constitution actually specifies that congress has to vote on the text of the law and that becomes law not a framework for some agency to make law.
A pistol is more maneuverable simply because moving the wrist will change the aim. However - i do not disagree with you in point because accuracy is more important than convenience and you will have to move similarly to keep the accuracy. If holding like you mentioned, the rifle becomes an extension of your arm and much easier to keep in line with your sight for accuracy.
Your take on it is not off by much. The courts interpreting the law is adjudication or where they derive internet and limits of laws that are or because of circumstances become ambiguous. Conflicts in law are of the same stripe but they do not create law, they determine if a new law repealed an existing law. Or that is the way it is supposed to be. Neither situation do I consider that to be creating or changing a law. It is simply applying the law as intended as far as can reasonably be derived from it as passed by congress.
Bullshit. You have absolutely no historical context of the constitution at all. It was written with the powers of government explicitly spelled out. Do you seriously think they were wasting time over composing those sections or that the amendments authorizing new powers include the phrases congress shall have to power to make law because they had a surplus of ink?
The founders intended the constitution to be flexible through the amendment process. Not through inventing powers and processes to make law outside of the constitution.
I never said it was unconstitutional. I said it was not constitutional. Not having a specific constitutional authority evidently doesn't mean unconstitutional but nowhere does it even suggest in the constitution that some unelected body can create or change laws without congressional actions as outlined in the constitution.
Yes, congress has abdicated their duties in this regard but there is no constitutional authority to do this. The courts have said it is not unconstitutional (as it doesn't violate any provision ) but there is no provision allowing it either.
No sain reading of any provision in the constitution suggests anywhere that an unelected body as part of the government can create laws or modify them without going through the constitutional process. Only congress has that ability according to the constitution and it requires the president to sign off or override his veto.
Common law is outlined in the constitution. But no, judges cannot create law or change laws that are constitutional. All they can do is adjudicate law and declare portions unconstitutional which are invalid according to the supremacy clause of the constitution. This btw is not a constitutional process either as there is no provision in the constitution granting the authority to the judges.
Lol.. no someone is going to manufacture 3d printed guns illegally and sell them while other guns will get smuggled into the country. It happens with drugs and other crap already so there is nothing to suggest it won't happen if all guns get outlawed.
Where in the constitution does it say unelected officials at the direction of the president can create laws or regulations that are treated as law. I'll give you a hint, absolutely nowhere. It spells out specific ways law can be made or changed and this is not it.
Take your like hell and trade it for an actual copy of the constitution then read it. And no, this has not been happening for 240 years.
There are only two constitutionally proscribed ways to create or change a law. That is either by congress passing and the president signing a law or the congress overriding a veto or amending the constitution.
Congress has abdicated portions of it's constitutional authority to the administration. Not just Obama's administration but anyone who is president. Part of this was a rule making process in which unelected bodies (in this case, the EPA) can make regulation independent of any constitutionally authorized way and have the same effect as law.
In this case, the administration has used this power in ways congress doesn't like so it attempted to pass a law disallowing the changes in regulation. The administration can veto the will of congress and allow the changes to take effect. You are correct to be confused. This is neither a constitutional or ordinary process.
What you (or dictionary.com) missed is that one is a proper noun and the other is just a noun. So God with a capital G is a specific god and god with a lowercase g is reference to the idea of a god and or the defined attributes in and of itself (assuming it isn't the start of a sentence)
It's like naming your dog "Dog". It would be proper to say "That dog over there is named Dog" or "Dog is just a dog". One use is a specific reference or proper noun and the other is a noun in general.
If you allow any, upper or lower case god, you defeat the definition of atheist given. In other words, if there is a distinction that matter, you are not Atheist as lowercase god would encompasses all gods including God. To be fair, the dictionary.com definition also includes "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" which would cover lower case gods.
Slashdot Mirror
I just ensured that your medical records have been compromised. Btw, as of now, you have been pregnant twice ending with abortions, have had the clap and are still being treated for syphilis. Looks like you tested positive for cocaine and heroin recently too but have yet to receive any treatment.
Oh, and yes, i understand how being pregnant could present something of a mystery so it is clear that you are a male "now". Nothing for you to worry about though. I bet you could create a fabulous backstory that all your friends would love but unfortunately prospective job opportunities would never hear because they would either care or not care long before giving you a chance to explain it away.
I don't think he was advocating the banning of them, just pointing out that California has already banned certain types of them and completely failed in its implementation (as the latest terrorist attack point out )
I think it is more of a dig on the idea that passing another law is pointless because existing laws are being ignored or are so difficult to enforce it is unrealistic.
Wouldn't to kill be covered by hunting animals? And even if you insist it is separate and humans, aren't there some people that just need killed? I mean the drugged out thug about to molest your kid or kill you because you came home before he could find enough cash for another score in the random house he broke into? What about Hitler and the Nazis or Stalin or whoever and their legions of supporters? If you saw someone killing others, would you want to just stand there defenseless, have a bolt gun, or a gun designed to kill something? Remember that guy who shot up the school in Oregon not to long ago? He lined people up and asked what their religion was before killing them. Imagine sitting there knowing this guy is going to kill you and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
How exactly would that work? I mean i usually buy 5or6 tickets so we can all sit together. The people going to the concert with me pay me back. There has been a time or two that i couldn't go and gave my ticket to someone else too. Once was a funeral and the other was some inservice meeting at work called up by corporate a week before and attendance was mandatory.
So how would that work? Or do you think it should be a thing of the past?
Why can't they just build levies around the island an canals. Other countries build entire islands so it shouldn't be impossible. I think the drama might have something to do with getting money more than climate change.
Well we know it wasn't in this case and with the boston bombing so the question to contemplate is if it ever was intended to be effective at stopping this crap or if the goals are something else m
It's not the visit to Saudi Arabia that concerns me. Its all the spying that turned out to be useless. The same happened with the Boston bombers who were warned about by Russia and found that members of a mosque they went to warned the FBI.
It seems that the spying is only harassing honest citizens who not only do nothing wrong but aren't even realistically suspected of doing anything terrorist related.
And with all this government spying, a very large no fly list that often ends up in old ladies and young children being groped at the airport, why was she allowed in the US in the first place if that is true?
He is likely comparing the taste of supermarket bananas to ones ripened on the tree. A lot , if not all north American supermarket bananas are picked green and shipped to ripen either in transit or in a controlled environment before being put out to sell. Apple's are somewhat treated the same where they are doused with gasses and refrigerated to last almost a year out of season.
With both fruits, there is a big noticable difference in tastes between ones ripened on the plant verses ripening in storage. We have a large orchard near here and they allow the apples to ripen on the tree for the product they sell to the public and make cider. I'm not sure if they even store apples for outside the season. Compared to the same apple from a supermarket that may have traveled 1000 or more miles and sat in storage, it is like two different varieties and you end up looking to see if the name is spelled different or something. Likewise, i had fresh bananas when i was at a plantation in south America and couldn't believe how much sweeter and banana tasting they where. It makes the stuff I can get at home seem more like a plantain than a banana. I made a comment about how they should ship those instead of the ones we get and the response was they are the same, its a matter of shipping, storage and so on.
I bet what he is experiencing is the difference between fresh verses handled for three months or whatever. To this day, i find apples from the supermarket to be deficient in flavor.
It's the kind of nonesense that is supported by the constitution itself, the amendments, the federalist and anti federalist papers, and notes taken by James Madison at the constitutional convention. And no, there would not be 900 amendments because they set the bar extremely high for amending it.
That doesn't mean what you think it means. Hell, just reading it should be enough to get the idea. It says " for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,"
Now where does that imply unlimited anything goes laws? It specifically states the foregoing powers (powers listed) and all other powers the constitution gives the federal government in other places. You really should not criticize someone's education when you seem to not be able to comprehend a simple statement.
Yes it is necessary. The constitution grants powers to a federal government that was originally the power of the thirteen countries that became the United States. It is a limited set of powers and other places in the constitution make this clear. For instance, article 6 has this in it "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;" It doesn't say that laws can be at congress's will, it says the laws shall be made in accordance with the constitution.
And no, it does not mean the bill of rights, those twelve amendments were created after the Constitution by the first congress almost 2 years later. The constitution was signed and sent for ratification on september 17, 1787 and the bill of rights was created September 25, 1789.
Outside congress having legislative control over D.C., not they could not. The constitution doesn't give them any other powers to do so.
Actually, it does. Article one section 5 specifically says Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members". This means they can have delegates from outside elected officials and even the speaker of the house
(which is second in line for the presidency after the vice president if the president leaves office) can be a non elected official. However, in order to comply with section one of the same article, these non-voting members cannot participate in any of the legislative powers. They cannot propose laws or amendments to laws or vote on them. They can advise and contribute to the discussion and advocacy of laws constitutionally proposed. The are essentially sitting lobbyist.
Congress surely did create the EPA. However, the constitution says congress has to vote on the laws and only way to make laws is for congress to vote on them. There is no way around it. When any government agency creates law outside of congress, it is outside the constitution. You cannot say congress voted on the Co2 regulation and passed it like the constitution requires because here we see they just passed a law denying it but if it is vetoed, the regulations will become law. As I said, you cannot get around this.
And that situation would not be constitutionally supported just like today.
I see where your problem is now. You think the government has the right and ability to do anything it wants. It does not. The US constitution sets out what the government (federal anyways) can do and specifically limits it in certain areas. This was by design as originally the confederation was composed of thirteen original states who were concerned about giving up their sovereignty. This is outlined pretty clearly in the federalist and anti federalist papers as well as the notes taken by James Madison who attempted to thoroughly document the first constitutional convention. It is also why ever single amendment that requires government action or allows government action contains wording to the extent congress shall have the power to enact legislation to enable this. For instance, the 13th and 15th amendments contain "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." and the 14th amendment says "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The 18th amendment changes it some more but carries the same message "The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Now I understand that the government comes off as if it can do anything it wants so it can get confusing but there is no constitutional authority for much of it like the EPA making laws or the illegalization of Marijuana.
Sure there is case law. What is to stop congress or this agency from passing a law saying the courts have no jurisdiction like they did with the telecoms helping the NSA spy on citiz
But that is all illegal now. The new robber barons of tech simply cannot get away with it. Comparing them to Stalin is like comparing them to a four sided triangle. It simply doesn't make sense.
So you are convinced it is subjective then. Interesting. Do you own a dictionary? And if so, do you use it for anything other than filling space on a shelve or to level out a crooked table?
Lol.. no law existed then all the sudden a law exists without any action of congress. You simply cannot get around that.
As for your EPA gets to interpret and make up laws at will because congress said so, ask yourself what if congress passed other laws allowing unelected officials to create or change laws. So what if congress create a commission on treaties and they decided that any document signed by two or more countries is a treaty as long as it contains the numbers 1,2,and 3. Would that be constitutional? Well suppose the agency is to decrease crime and they decide that to combat gangs you need a permit any time more than 10 people not directly related assemble? How about if they made a law saying all schools will instruct students on the fundamentals of christianity but allows for them to be of different or no religion at all? What if they decide overpopulation is the cause of crime and limit every person born on an even date to one child?
The books are full of unconstitutional shit congress has passed into law. Just because congress makes a law does not mean it is constitutional. And the constitution actually specifies that congress has to vote on the text of the law and that becomes law not a framework for some agency to make law.
A pistol is more maneuverable simply because moving the wrist will change the aim. However - i do not disagree with you in point because accuracy is more important than convenience and you will have to move similarly to keep the accuracy. If holding like you mentioned, the rifle becomes an extension of your arm and much easier to keep in line with your sight for accuracy.
Your take on it is not off by much. The courts interpreting the law is adjudication or where they derive internet and limits of laws that are or because of circumstances become ambiguous. Conflicts in law are of the same stripe but they do not create law, they determine if a new law repealed an existing law. Or that is the way it is supposed to be. Neither situation do I consider that to be creating or changing a law. It is simply applying the law as intended as far as can reasonably be derived from it as passed by congress.
Bullshit. You have absolutely no historical context of the constitution at all. It was written with the powers of government explicitly spelled out. Do you seriously think they were wasting time over composing those sections or that the amendments authorizing new powers include the phrases congress shall have to power to make law because they had a surplus of ink?
The founders intended the constitution to be flexible through the amendment process. Not through inventing powers and processes to make law outside of the constitution.
I never said it was unconstitutional. I said it was not constitutional. Not having a specific constitutional authority evidently doesn't mean unconstitutional but nowhere does it even suggest in the constitution that some unelected body can create or change laws without congressional actions as outlined in the constitution.
Yes, congress has abdicated their duties in this regard but there is no constitutional authority to do this. The courts have said it is not unconstitutional (as it doesn't violate any provision ) but there is no provision allowing it either.
No sain reading of any provision in the constitution suggests anywhere that an unelected body as part of the government can create laws or modify them without going through the constitutional process. Only congress has that ability according to the constitution and it requires the president to sign off or override his veto.
Common law is outlined in the constitution. But no, judges cannot create law or change laws that are constitutional. All they can do is adjudicate law and declare portions unconstitutional which are invalid according to the supremacy clause of the constitution. This btw is not a constitutional process either as there is no provision in the constitution granting the authority to the judges.
Lol.. no someone is going to manufacture 3d printed guns illegally and sell them while other guns will get smuggled into the country. It happens with drugs and other crap already so there is nothing to suggest it won't happen if all guns get outlawed.
Where in the constitution does it say unelected officials at the direction of the president can create laws or regulations that are treated as law. I'll give you a hint, absolutely nowhere. It spells out specific ways law can be made or changed and this is not it.
Take your like hell and trade it for an actual copy of the constitution then read it. And no, this has not been happening for 240 years.
There are only two constitutionally proscribed ways to create or change a law. That is either by congress passing and the president signing a law or the congress overriding a veto or amending the constitution.
Any other way is outside the constitution.
Congress has abdicated portions of it's constitutional authority to the administration. Not just Obama's administration but anyone who is president. Part of this was a rule making process in which unelected bodies (in this case, the EPA) can make regulation independent of any constitutionally authorized way and have the same effect as law.
In this case, the administration has used this power in ways congress doesn't like so it attempted to pass a law disallowing the changes in regulation. The administration can veto the will of congress and allow the changes to take effect. You are correct to be confused. This is neither a constitutional or ordinary process.
What you (or dictionary.com) missed is that one is a proper noun and the other is just a noun. So God with a capital G is a specific god and god with a lowercase g is reference to the idea of a god and or the defined attributes in and of itself (assuming it isn't the start of a sentence)
It's like naming your dog "Dog". It would be proper to say "That dog over there is named Dog" or "Dog is just a dog". One use is a specific reference or proper noun and the other is a noun in general.
If you allow any, upper or lower case god, you defeat the definition of atheist given. In other words, if there is a distinction that matter, you are not Atheist as lowercase god would encompasses all gods including God. To be fair, the dictionary.com definition also includes "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" which would cover lower case gods.