*CONGRESS* shall make no law respecting an established religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This is a State issue, not a Federal one.
Yes, I know, the State making similar laws is forbidden as well.
They're also not saying "You must teach Creationism" or "You must teach ID". They're saying you can "present *scientific information* relevant to the full range of scientific views related to chemical and biological evolution" - where in that sentence do you see religion mentioned?
There was a time when that kind of wording would have caused scientists to do the happy dance because it would legally give them a voice. My how things change...
About the scholarship part, well, since you'll have to serve as a slave for half your life just to repay it, there's no WONDER they'd give up their right to vote. In the U.S. you repay loans - scholarships are *typically* "free" money.
Congress (or, if you prefer to be a bit more sensible about it, the American People) is responsible for holding the President and VP accountable. If you really want to go after impeachment for lying you subpoena the party to a Congressional hearing, you place them under oath and then you wait for them to lie.
Is it arguable that we should modify the oath of office to clarify that any address towards Congress or the American People should be under oath? That's for the People to decide.
Though it's not on the same level, my girlfriend and I had to answer similar questions upon landing in Glasgow. We had to provide the name/address/phone number of the places we were staying, how long we were planning to stay at each location, the sum of our credit cards and the total available to us via our bank cards. It wasn't really a hassle, just took a few minutes to get the address/phone number information. I assumed (and still assume) that it's just standard procedure.
When we landed in Toronto, though, we had to do little more than provide our passports and after a quick chat with Customs about being college students and just passing through, we were on our way. Very nice people.
Slashdot Mirror
*CONGRESS* shall make no law respecting an established religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
This is a State issue, not a Federal one.
Yes, I know, the State making similar laws is forbidden as well.
They're also not saying "You must teach Creationism" or "You must teach ID". They're saying you can "present *scientific information* relevant to the full range of scientific views related to chemical and biological evolution" - where in that sentence do you see religion mentioned?
There was a time when that kind of wording would have caused scientists to do the happy dance because it would legally give them a voice. My how things change...
They must be slower than the NetBSD crowd.
Congress (or, if you prefer to be a bit more sensible about it, the American People) is responsible for holding the President and VP accountable. If you really want to go after impeachment for lying you subpoena the party to a Congressional hearing, you place them under oath and then you wait for them to lie.
Is it arguable that we should modify the oath of office to clarify that any address towards Congress or the American People should be under oath? That's for the People to decide.
Agreed. That's about as *on* topic a response as you can have!
Perhaps someone fears allusion over illusion...
Though it's not on the same level, my girlfriend and I had to answer similar questions upon landing in Glasgow. We had to provide the name/address/phone number of the places we were staying, how long we were planning to stay at each location, the sum of our credit cards and the total available to us via our bank cards. It wasn't really a hassle, just took a few minutes to get the address/phone number information. I assumed (and still assume) that it's just standard procedure. When we landed in Toronto, though, we had to do little more than provide our passports and after a quick chat with Customs about being college students and just passing through, we were on our way. Very nice people.