Is the establishment clause talking about *an* establishment of religion or is it an *establishment* of religion. The verbal emphasis matters and history is on the side of the first reading. The strict segregationists like the latter.
It isn't a matter of the 2nd being absolute, it's not even considered binding on the states for the most part. If it were, you could get a license to carry a handgun in Alabama and NYC would have to respect that license. People could choose to incorporate a private militia in one of the 9 states where that's legal and the other states couldn't bar them from operating as a foreign corporation.
2nd amendment law is highly restrictive with few/no penumbras compared to 1st amendment law.
The right to vote was granted by amendment. Pray tell what was the amendment that made a general promotion of belief over unbelief unconstitutional? It isn't that the founders were infallible IMO, just that they knew what they were writing.
Funny, adult stem cells seem to be plentiful in fat and have been coaxed into transforming themselves into many other types of cells.
Embryonic stem cells will always be genetically different from you and will be subject to attack by your immune system unless they're in immune isolated areas (eyes, gonads) or you take immunosuppressants which means big bucks to the pharma companies for the rest of your life.
I'd rather have a bit of liposuction and use my own.
Any ruling to overturn the (much overturned) 9th circuit *must* be because of outside pressure and not because the 9th circuit is populated by a bunch of nutballs who refuse to do their job and judge instead of legislating from the bench.
And the name of the religion that is being promoted by the pledge of alliegence is? Oh, it's not a particular religion but merely a promotion of faith in general? Why that would mean it's constitutional!
In other words the majority of the founders' belief in God resulted in the wording being put in. So the founders weren't a bunch of atheists after all.
The 14th amendment sort of, kind of applies the Bill of Rights to the states. If it well and truly did that for all amendments most gun control legislation would fall by the wayside and 41 states would have their anti-private militia/anti-paramilitary statutes struck down.
Incorporation is a tricky doctrine and I'm not sure they've got it right quite yet.
Actually, the right to tax an institution is the right to destroy it as the ability to levy a tax implies the ability to levy a punitive tax. As government is not constitutionally permitted to destroy churches (1st amendment, free exercise clause), churches must be tax exempt in their religious affairs operations.
As for qualifying for tax exempt status, every church has the same rules they have to comply. If anything, religious favoritism has been on a political speech basis with left-wing churches getting away with a lot more than right-wing churches.
Actually, it's likely not to stand and will provide a splendid opportunity to clarify whether the strict segregationists of church and state are correct or whether there is a legitimate public interest in promoting faith that is constitutional.
Let's face it. If the strict segregationists were right, the first Congress would have never ponied up for chaplains for Senate and House, George Washington would have never declared national days of prayer, and the SC would never have had their own tradition of an opening prayer each day before court.
The idea that a 3 judge panel 200 years+ after the passing of the constitution know better than the writers and all the intervening legislators, presidents, and judges is laughable.
That would occur only if this wasn't appealed. Since this has been adjudicated before and found to be perfectly constitutional, it's clearly going to be accepted by the supreme court and slam dunked down this appeals court's throat.
The phrase 'under God' is no more unconstitutional than the prayers that start off the SC, Senate, and House of Representative daily sessions. I doubt that a majority of SC justices have been guilty of unconstitutional action by publicly paid for prayer for so long.
It's more like a letter of reprisal. The question is if a generalized letter of reprisal is passed (entirely constitutional) would this legalize hacking the RIAA et al for any copyright violations they might be doing?
The case should determine what OS is running? You mean I can't run Linux servers on my white box consumer machine? Talk about a double standard.
The guts are the guts and the plastic should fit with the room but if it doesn't, I won't cry because that's *really* putting form over function.
I'm just waiting for the Mac home server to come out with Inkwell and voice recognition built in. $10k for the modular, expandable setup and you get your talking home running computer from a million science fiction stories. The technology should be affordably in place by OS 11 and it'll get folded into new home construction costs.
Oh, and the plastic is not likely to be rack mounted but wall mounted like a lot of PBXs.
Or, you could just take some stem cells from your fat (fat's full of stem cells) and grow the requisite organ(s) so that you no longer need any immunosuppresants or have any worries about rejection.
I keep hearing that the best grade of stem cells are embryonic but I never seem to get any evidence that this is so, just a lot of hemming and hawing at the early stage the research is in.
From what I understand, embryonic stem cells have three patrons, the researchers, the pharma companies who increase their market for immunosuppressors, and the abortion industry who makes a buck from harvesting the cells.
Adult stem cells have 2 patrons, the researchers and the pro-life movement.
The hype board is stacked against adult cells but that doesn't mean that embryonic is the best.
Same quality? Sorry, using your own adult stem cells is the way to go for two reasons
1. Since their genetically identical, you don't have to worry about rejection and immune suppressors for the rest of your life. Adult stem cell procedures are a one time cost. Fetal cell procedures are a continuing cost. 2. You don't have to enhance the profitability of big abortion. The abortion industry makes good money off of baby body parts. No thanks.
Conservatives are just fine with stem cell research from adult stem cells. In terms of real, measurable progress, adult stem cells seem to be providing more practical benefits (people staying alive longer through treatment today) than embryonic stem cell treatments which seem to court an awful big risk of rejection and are likely to stick you with large immunosuppression drug bills for the rest of your life. Embryonic stem cells do seem to have the advantage of making abortion and pharmeceutical companies more profitable but I don't see how that leads to a superior moral position but the liberals sure seem to think so which is why they make up lies like conservatives are against all stem cell research when the reality is they just like the better kind.
Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to say which kind of stem cells (adult or embryonic) were used in the experiment so the political jihad will have to take a small time out for the facts to catch up.
IBM is certainly making Wintel less attractive compared to its hardware line by selling their accounts on the idea that all IBM hardware will be able to run one OS and you can rip and replace hardware to scale up to new needs without changing the software. With Wintel, there's a fairly low ceiling for how high they can scale up in one box (though they are trying to raise that). Certainly, the idea of no longer having to rewrite your apps for a different OS because you've topped out a particular IBM hardware line has got to be attractive in the real world.
There are lots of devices that don't have a web browser in them but could. While pioneers have actually made the refrigerators with browsers in them, I don't think that anybody's done that with ovens, dish washers, stereos (download mp3s to your stereo system!), car diagnostics panels, toilets (well maybe the japanese), or a host of other devices. browsers and servers are likely to become ubiquitous, light bulbs will report when they've burned out and their neighbors will burn brighter to make the up the difference, etc.
And how is all this innovative useage going to come into being? Certainly not from browsers that don't let you get at the guts of the code.
Low unemployment causes inflation is a distillation of a keynesian idea called the Phillips curve. In the graphed relationship between inflation and unemployment, the line drawn is always negatively (downward) sloped like a demand curve.
There's one problem, this nice theory doesn't conform to reality. Carter proved this by having rising unemployment and rising inflation at the same time. Reagen proved it by cutting both inflation and unemployment at the same time.
It is possible to have a positively sloped line so the article wasn't trolling on macroeconomics, it was just a little bit more conformant to observed reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the establishment clause talking about *an* establishment of religion or is it an *establishment* of religion. The verbal emphasis matters and history is on the side of the first reading. The strict segregationists like the latter.
It isn't a matter of the 2nd being absolute, it's not even considered binding on the states for the most part. If it were, you could get a license to carry a handgun in Alabama and NYC would have to respect that license. People could choose to incorporate a private militia in one of the 9 states where that's legal and the other states couldn't bar them from operating as a foreign corporation.
2nd amendment law is highly restrictive with few/no penumbras compared to 1st amendment law.
The right to vote was granted by amendment. Pray tell what was the amendment that made a general promotion of belief over unbelief unconstitutional? It isn't that the founders were infallible IMO, just that they knew what they were writing.
Sure, no problem
1 80 9000/1809322.stm
http://www.whitaker.org/news/guilak.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_
http://www.nature.com/nsu/010412/010412-6.html
No, I'm not a doctor, I'm just married to one and have discussed the issue with her in all the gory details. Screw off.
Funny, adult stem cells seem to be plentiful in fat and have been coaxed into transforming themselves into many other types of cells.
Embryonic stem cells will always be genetically different from you and will be subject to attack by your immune system unless they're in immune isolated areas (eyes, gonads) or you take immunosuppressants which means big bucks to the pharma companies for the rest of your life.
I'd rather have a bit of liposuction and use my own.
Pray tell, what is the name of the particular religion and who is the head of that religion?
Any ruling to overturn the (much overturned) 9th circuit *must* be because of outside pressure and not because the 9th circuit is populated by a bunch of nutballs who refuse to do their job and judge instead of legislating from the bench.
Yeah. Right.
And the name of the religion that is being promoted by the pledge of alliegence is? Oh, it's not a particular religion but merely a promotion of faith in general? Why that would mean it's constitutional!
In other words the majority of the founders' belief in God resulted in the wording being put in. So the founders weren't a bunch of atheists after all.
The 14th amendment sort of, kind of applies the Bill of Rights to the states. If it well and truly did that for all amendments most gun control legislation would fall by the wayside and 41 states would have their anti-private militia/anti-paramilitary statutes struck down.
Incorporation is a tricky doctrine and I'm not sure they've got it right quite yet.
Actually, the right to tax an institution is the right to destroy it as the ability to levy a tax implies the ability to levy a punitive tax. As government is not constitutionally permitted to destroy churches (1st amendment, free exercise clause), churches must be tax exempt in their religious affairs operations.
As for qualifying for tax exempt status, every church has the same rules they have to comply. If anything, religious favoritism has been on a political speech basis with left-wing churches getting away with a lot more than right-wing churches.
Actually, it's likely not to stand and will provide a splendid opportunity to clarify whether the strict segregationists of church and state are correct or whether there is a legitimate public interest in promoting faith that is constitutional.
Let's face it. If the strict segregationists were right, the first Congress would have never ponied up for chaplains for Senate and House, George Washington would have never declared national days of prayer, and the SC would never have had their own tradition of an opening prayer each day before court.
The idea that a 3 judge panel 200 years+ after the passing of the constitution know better than the writers and all the intervening legislators, presidents, and judges is laughable.
That would occur only if this wasn't appealed. Since this has been adjudicated before and found to be perfectly constitutional, it's clearly going to be accepted by the supreme court and slam dunked down this appeals court's throat.
The phrase 'under God' is no more unconstitutional than the prayers that start off the SC, Senate, and House of Representative daily sessions. I doubt that a majority of SC justices have been guilty of unconstitutional action by publicly paid for prayer for so long.
It's more like a letter of reprisal. The question is if a generalized letter of reprisal is passed (entirely constitutional) would this legalize hacking the RIAA et al for any copyright violations they might be doing?
The case should determine what OS is running? You mean I can't run Linux servers on my white box consumer machine? Talk about a double standard.
The guts are the guts and the plastic should fit with the room but if it doesn't, I won't cry because that's *really* putting form over function.
I'm just waiting for the Mac home server to come out with Inkwell and voice recognition built in. $10k for the modular, expandable setup and you get your talking home running computer from a million science fiction stories. The technology should be affordably in place by OS 11 and it'll get folded into new home construction costs.
Oh, and the plastic is not likely to be rack mounted but wall mounted like a lot of PBXs.
It's actually closer to saying BMW because nobody has come up with anything really revolutionary in automobiles in decades.
bzzzt! Nobody's talking about banning adult stem cell research. That's just made up propaganda. Cloning is not the same as stem cell research.
Or, you could just take some stem cells from your fat (fat's full of stem cells) and grow the requisite organ(s) so that you no longer need any immunosuppresants or have any worries about rejection.
Wouldn't that just be much simpler and cheaper?
I keep hearing that the best grade of stem cells are embryonic but I never seem to get any evidence that this is so, just a lot of hemming and hawing at the early stage the research is in.
From what I understand, embryonic stem cells have three patrons, the researchers, the pharma companies who increase their market for immunosuppressors, and the abortion industry who makes a buck from harvesting the cells.
Adult stem cells have 2 patrons, the researchers and the pro-life movement.
The hype board is stacked against adult cells but that doesn't mean that embryonic is the best.
Same quality? Sorry, using your own adult stem cells is the way to go for two reasons
1. Since their genetically identical, you don't have to worry about rejection and immune suppressors for the rest of your life. Adult stem cell procedures are a one time cost. Fetal cell procedures are a continuing cost.
2. You don't have to enhance the profitability of big abortion. The abortion industry makes good money off of baby body parts. No thanks.
Conservatives are just fine with stem cell research from adult stem cells. In terms of real, measurable progress, adult stem cells seem to be providing more practical benefits (people staying alive longer through treatment today) than embryonic stem cell treatments which seem to court an awful big risk of rejection and are likely to stick you with large immunosuppression drug bills for the rest of your life. Embryonic stem cells do seem to have the advantage of making abortion and pharmeceutical companies more profitable but I don't see how that leads to a superior moral position but the liberals sure seem to think so which is why they make up lies like conservatives are against all stem cell research when the reality is they just like the better kind.
Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to say which kind of stem cells (adult or embryonic) were used in the experiment so the political jihad will have to take a small time out for the facts to catch up.
Darn.
IBM is certainly making Wintel less attractive compared to its hardware line by selling their accounts on the idea that all IBM hardware will be able to run one OS and you can rip and replace hardware to scale up to new needs without changing the software. With Wintel, there's a fairly low ceiling for how high they can scale up in one box (though they are trying to raise that). Certainly, the idea of no longer having to rewrite your apps for a different OS because you've topped out a particular IBM hardware line has got to be attractive in the real world.
There are lots of devices that don't have a web browser in them but could. While pioneers have actually made the refrigerators with browsers in them, I don't think that anybody's done that with ovens, dish washers, stereos (download mp3s to your stereo system!), car diagnostics panels, toilets (well maybe the japanese), or a host of other devices. browsers and servers are likely to become ubiquitous, light bulbs will report when they've burned out and their neighbors will burn brighter to make the up the difference, etc.
And how is all this innovative useage going to come into being? Certainly not from browsers that don't let you get at the guts of the code.
Low unemployment causes inflation is a distillation of a keynesian idea called the Phillips curve. In the graphed relationship between inflation and unemployment, the line drawn is always negatively (downward) sloped like a demand curve.
There's one problem, this nice theory doesn't conform to reality. Carter proved this by having rising unemployment and rising inflation at the same time. Reagen proved it by cutting both inflation and unemployment at the same time.
It is possible to have a positively sloped line so the article wasn't trolling on macroeconomics, it was just a little bit more conformant to observed reality.