There is no separation in the constitution though. The same exact constitutional provision (1st amendment) that is used for the separation claim would be violated if the state funded other things and discriminated against a religion for wanting to participate. Intetestingly, the constitution has a fix built into it for conflicts like this. Its the 9th amendment.
Read into is more like it. The language of the times were more limited that of today. There is room for debate in some places but the different denominations of christianity largely differ on dogma not the wording of the bible. Stuff like the age of the earth, whether the seventh day or sabath is saturday or sunday is not in the bible. That is all dogma
You do understand that it wasn't his science that got him in trouble, it was his personal attacks on the church and he fared quit well considering at the time- death was the more common punishment.
You would have a point if 99% of the people were scientits. However, they are not scientist and even the ones who are will just have to believe something they read in a book to be true because they lack the resources to test everything.
You may believe that because someone could some day check the results or that because someone else has claimed to have validated them, but make no mistake, those are the same claims being made by religions and this conference illistrates it. For the vast majority of people there is no practicle difference period.
That is all that is there for science 99% of the time. Very few people even have the skills let alone the resources to repeat any experiments. Something tells me you might be in that group too.
Anyways, for the vast majority of people out there, you just described their complete understanding of about anything science or religion.
lol.. But this is not your house and it isn't someone asking _you_ to listen. Your analogy would be more apt if you attempted to stop the Jehovah's witness from going door to door in the first place or having a radio station because you might hear them. If you don't have time, then don't participate. Someone else will but that still doesn't need to involve you.
well, originally, penalties were not needed because the constitution was originally designed to grant specific privileges/abilities to a federal government and that was all. the rest was left up to the countries which became the states. The bill of rights, all 12 of them (10 passed and are considered the bill of rights today but originally there were 12 with one becoming an amendment in 1992 and the other still not) were suggested as being redundant as the federal government actually had no powers to do anything that could violate them.
Things have changed quite a bit since then. Some might say for the better, some say for the worse, but it is definitely different. SO originally, no need for punishment because the founders never thought the government would be this large and powerful.
Nothing stops Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.
Presumable, their oath of office would but technically, you are correct.
Sure it is.
Nope. It most certainly is not. Following law until it is deemed unconstitutional is not conspiring to violate anyone's constitutional rights. The laws are presumed constitutional until it is deemed unconstitutional by an authority. It really is that simple.
Sounds like you invented that. I have debated several christian literalisms and I have never heard that argument. In fact, the argument I hear the most is that the creation was created in order to allow what is known as science because man has dominion over the living things on earth and needs to discover the tools to use our surroundings to our advantage for this purpose. In short, if genisis 1:26 is to be believed, we would need a scientific understanding of everything.
Are you afraid science cannot stand up for itself?
I mean seriously, its like they might say something that would convince you to go full christian or something and you are scared. Either their points will have merit and science should consider it, or they will not and science should ignore it while pointing out why it is proper to ignore it. but refusing the discussion on the basis of you do not like what might be said certainly is unscientific.
Except we are talking about zealots so they will take your ridicule as a sign that their thoughts are true and scare you.
You are much better off letting them speak their mind and then pointing out where it is wrong. However, most of it will be opinions so you will essentially be saying their opinion is wrong.
No, there is a conspiracy that defined chemtrails. That is not real. However, the definition of chemtrails meets the activities i described and they had actually happened.
The cloud seeding program we learned about in highschool- some 10-15 years before the term chemtrail was created or the conspiracy that surrounds it. The airforce tests were also a few years before and likely part of the reason the conspiracy was born. It happened after the first gulf war but before the ok city bombing. I was part of a group that collected soil samples accross the mid west from nation and state parks. It was a flame retardent foam with chemical identifyers- completely non hazzardous and supposedly biodegradable.. We filled a ville, put a power in it, capped it, some paper work and it was mailed off to a lab in the same box it came in.
I'm not even going to bother looking for a citation- i gave enough information that your google fingers should be able to find it. But note, i'm not saying it is still happening or there is any truth to the conspiracy or not. I didn't even pay attention to it until you brought it up.
Actually, a federal law will trump any state law. The supremecy clause of the constitution makes it supreme. That is your dificulty in applying them to a federal agency.
Good or well functioning government does not need to be big. I'll jump to the conclusion that government has already started going bad before it got big. There likely is no big government that was not bad.
My opinion is it needs to be fixed when it concerns the citizens of the USA and should continue concerning foreign nationals and other countries.
My opinion is also that he likely would have been revered unniversally as a hero if he filtered ehat was exposed and did the release entirely within the US instead of to a foreign journalist on foreign soil while giving foreign countries access to all the information before it is even revieled.
Chemtrails certainly do exst- or they did exist. We know that because the US airfotce sprayed chemically identifyable fire retardting foam at different altitudes to determine dispersion zones for use in biological or chemical weapons defense during the late 80s and again in the 90s. NASA has done similar in cooperation with NOAA in the 70s to determine if it was possible to seed rain clouds and force it to rain.
And the point was maybe is isn't connected or maybe it is. But for some reasons, even after Bush warned of it, our government seemed clueless about ISIS until it forced us to pay attention. That reason could be because we didn't want the political damage, we didn't care about them, or because they were able to evade our abilities to detect and asses them. The later being made easier with all our secrets out and the manpower devoted to repairing our abilities.
High crimes and misdemeanors are such immoral and unlawful acts as are nearly allied and equal in guilt to felony, yet, owing to some technical circumstance, do I not fall within the definition of "felony." State " v. Knapp, 6 Conn. 417, 16 Am. Dec. 68.
High crimes can include felonies but does not mean felonies. Misdemeanors and other offenses or a combination of offenses that are not felonies or not criminal can be included as high crimes. And example of this might be sexual harassment in the workplace which isn't a criminal offense unless a crime happens in order to facilitate the harassment. This would/could be counted as a high crime with or without the criminal qualifier and grounds for impeachment even though it would not be a felony or misdemeanor or criminal in and of itself.
Sigh.. Where in the constitution does it delve into any punishment for any violation of anything within it? There is a limit on punishment but nowhere does it prescribe any punishment or prison sentence. Congress has to make laws that do that. Therefore a violation of the US constitution cannot be a felony unless a law makes it so.
I know what I wrote. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean you can change it just to challenge it.
Well, just like chemtrails didn't exist before radio was invented, ISIS didn't exist before Snowden leaked those documents and this government certainly seemed clueless about them until they beheaded a gold club and a few citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no separation in the constitution though. The same exact constitutional provision (1st amendment) that is used for the separation claim would be violated if the state funded other things and discriminated against a religion for wanting to participate. Intetestingly, the constitution has a fix built into it for conflicts like this. Its the 9th amendment.
Payload.. the rockets was not the only thing to go boom.
Although i think the parent may have been dabbling in fish stories (exageration) a bit. It doesn't detract from his point though.
Read into is more like it. The language of the times were more limited that of today. There is room for debate in some places but the different denominations of christianity largely differ on dogma not the wording of the bible. Stuff like the age of the earth, whether the seventh day or sabath is saturday or sunday is not in the bible. That is all dogma
As for science, i agreee. And it should be so.
Then he never should have attacked the pope.
You do understand that it wasn't his science that got him in trouble, it was his personal attacks on the church and he fared quit well considering at the time- death was the more common punishment.
You would have a point if 99% of the people were scientits. However, they are not scientist and even the ones who are will just have to believe something they read in a book to be true because they lack the resources to test everything.
You may believe that because someone could some day check the results or that because someone else has claimed to have validated them, but make no mistake, those are the same claims being made by religions and this conference illistrates it. For the vast majority of people there is no practicle difference period.
That is all that is there for science 99% of the time. Very few people even have the skills let alone the resources to repeat any experiments. Something tells me you might be in that group too.
Anyways, for the vast majority of people out there, you just described their complete understanding of about anything science or religion.
lol.. But this is not your house and it isn't someone asking _you_ to listen. Your analogy would be more apt if you attempted to stop the Jehovah's witness from going door to door in the first place or having a radio station because you might hear them. If you don't have time, then don't participate. Someone else will but that still doesn't need to involve you.
well, originally, penalties were not needed because the constitution was originally designed to grant specific privileges/abilities to a federal government and that was all. the rest was left up to the countries which became the states. The bill of rights, all 12 of them (10 passed and are considered the bill of rights today but originally there were 12 with one becoming an amendment in 1992 and the other still not) were suggested as being redundant as the federal government actually had no powers to do anything that could violate them.
Things have changed quite a bit since then. Some might say for the better, some say for the worse, but it is definitely different. SO originally, no need for punishment because the founders never thought the government would be this large and powerful.
Presumable, their oath of office would but technically, you are correct.
Nope. It most certainly is not. Following law until it is deemed unconstitutional is not conspiring to violate anyone's constitutional rights. The laws are presumed constitutional until it is deemed unconstitutional by an authority. It really is that simple.
Sounds like you invented that. I have debated several christian literalisms and I have never heard that argument. In fact, the argument I hear the most is that the creation was created in order to allow what is known as science because man has dominion over the living things on earth and needs to discover the tools to use our surroundings to our advantage for this purpose. In short, if genisis 1:26 is to be believed, we would need a scientific understanding of everything.
Are you afraid science cannot stand up for itself?
I mean seriously, its like they might say something that would convince you to go full christian or something and you are scared. Either their points will have merit and science should consider it, or they will not and science should ignore it while pointing out why it is proper to ignore it. but refusing the discussion on the basis of you do not like what might be said certainly is unscientific.
Except we are talking about zealots so they will take your ridicule as a sign that their thoughts are true and scare you.
You are much better off letting them speak their mind and then pointing out where it is wrong. However, most of it will be opinions so you will essentially be saying their opinion is wrong.
No, there is a conspiracy that defined chemtrails. That is not real. However, the definition of chemtrails meets the activities i described and they had actually happened.
The cloud seeding program we learned about in highschool- some 10-15 years before the term chemtrail was created or the conspiracy that surrounds it. The airforce tests were also a few years before and likely part of the reason the conspiracy was born. It happened after the first gulf war but before the ok city bombing. I was part of a group that collected soil samples accross the mid west from nation and state parks. It was a flame retardent foam with chemical identifyers- completely non hazzardous and supposedly biodegradable.. We filled a ville, put a power in it, capped it, some paper work and it was mailed off to a lab in the same box it came in.
I'm not even going to bother looking for a citation- i gave enough information that your google fingers should be able to find it. But note, i'm not saying it is still happening or there is any truth to the conspiracy or not. I didn't even pay attention to it until you brought it up.
Actually, a federal law will trump any state law. The supremecy clause of the constitution makes it supreme. That is your dificulty in applying them to a federal agency.
If the money does anyyhing other than sit in an account indefinately until retutned, just compensation absolutely is a constitution part of this.
The problem here is the money is being used to fund the government if not successfully challenged and returned.
Good or well functioning government does not need to be big. I'll jump to the conclusion that government has already started going bad before it got big. There likely is no big government that was not bad.
Nothing in my post was factually incorect. Perhaps you are looking in a mirror and thought you were talking to yourself.
My opinion is it needs to be fixed when it concerns the citizens of the USA and should continue concerning foreign nationals and other countries.
My opinion is also that he likely would have been revered unniversally as a hero if he filtered ehat was exposed and did the release entirely within the US instead of to a foreign journalist on foreign soil while giving foreign countries access to all the information before it is even revieled.
Please reviee the FISA and Patriot act laws which specifically allow violations of those laws which supersede the felonies you suggest.
Also, both sets of laws you brought up have exceptions for law enforcement engaged in legal activities which those other laws do satisfy.
I hope you understand that there is a lot more than six films out there involving star wars. Quite a bit more actually.
A lot of it is fan fiction but a lot is sanctioned too.
That being said, i am not sure it invalidates your premiss.
Chemtrails certainly do exst- or they did exist. We know that because the US airfotce sprayed chemically identifyable fire retardting foam at different altitudes to determine dispersion zones for use in biological or chemical weapons defense during the late 80s and again in the 90s. NASA has done similar in cooperation with NOAA in the 70s to determine if it was possible to seed rain clouds and force it to rain.
And the point was maybe is isn't connected or maybe it is. But for some reasons, even after Bush warned of it, our government seemed clueless about ISIS until it forced us to pay attention. That reason could be because we didn't want the political damage, we didn't care about them, or because they were able to evade our abilities to detect and asses them. The later being made easier with all our secrets out and the manpower devoted to repairing our abilities.
Good catch, I hadn't thought of that. There likely was plenty of redundant industry that could have been shuttered when the wall came down.
High crimes and misdemeanors are such immoral and unlawful acts as are nearly allied and equal in guilt to felony, yet, owing to some technical circumstance, do I not fall within the definition of "felony." State " v. Knapp, 6 Conn. 417, 16 Am. Dec. 68.
Law Dictionary: What is HIGH CRIMES? definition of HIGH CRIMES (Black's Law Dictionary)
High crimes can include felonies but does not mean felonies. Misdemeanors and other offenses or a combination of offenses that are not felonies or not criminal can be included as high crimes. And example of this might be sexual harassment in the workplace which isn't a criminal offense unless a crime happens in order to facilitate the harassment. This would/could be counted as a high crime with or without the criminal qualifier and grounds for impeachment even though it would not be a felony or misdemeanor or criminal in and of itself.
Sigh.. Where in the constitution does it delve into any punishment for any violation of anything within it? There is a limit on punishment but nowhere does it prescribe any punishment or prison sentence. Congress has to make laws that do that. Therefore a violation of the US constitution cannot be a felony unless a law makes it so.
I know what I wrote. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean you can change it just to challenge it.
Well, just like chemtrails didn't exist before radio was invented, ISIS didn't exist before Snowden leaked those documents and this government certainly seemed clueless about them until they beheaded a gold club and a few citizens.