The EO doesn't, but the authors of the EO did, and that raises constitutionality. I don't why this is so hard to accept, but intent is the very core of judicial proceedings.
Legislative intent is the purview of the courts, so why would you assert that somehow the Executive is immune from such review over the use of its own statutory instruments?
I can see how your smartphone represents a significant distraction. I'm working towards my Bachelors right now, and had to do a math course, never my strongest suit. I found having my smartphone nearby really did represent a kind of a distraction. The temptation when working on a hard problem was to check my texts or my emails, and so long as that damned smartphone was within easy reach I'd often give into temptation. In the end I'd either leave it in the bedroom, or go into the office in the evening without it and work out of the meeting room without even a computer nearby. Particularly for the last couple of courses I've basically sequestered myself away with printed copies of assignments and the textbooks for the purposes of studying for my final, using pen and paper to write out notes and definitions.
I'm attempting to explain how far right speech came to be censored in Germany. Yes, Britain and the US have both been militaristic, but their chief responsibility for the Second World War was in basically sitting on their hands from the 1920s onward as first the Weimar Republic, and then later the Third Reich violated Versailles with barely a whimper from the two largest Allied Powers. A nice time for Britain and the US to get extremely militaristic would have been in 1935 when Hitler flagrantly violated the Treaty of Versailles and sent a small, largely symbolic military force into the Rhineland. At that point a few divisions of Allied troops marching into Berlin and toppling a still fairly weak Nazi regime would have pretty much solved the problem with little bloodshed.
But back to the point, in both Germany and Japan the Allies were faced with how to deal with militaristic and authoritarian regimes which, even in ruins, might rise again. So whatever you think of British or American belligerence at various points in history, they and the Soviets were the preeminent powers at the end of the Second World War, and their hard-won victory over the Axis delivered into their hands the power and responsibility to prevent another vast conflagration. So, you force laws through in the occupied zones of post-War Germany outlawing the Nazi Party, the public honoring of Hitler or any other Nazi, and putting limits on the ability of far right groups to broadcast their message in. In Japan, you outlaw the Imperial Cult and cull it from the Shinto religion.
And you know what, both policies actually worked. West Germany and Japan became within a couple of decades of the Second World War major economic powers and firm allies of the Western Powers. We can debate all day whether the various restrictions built into the constitutions and laws of the Federal Republic of Germany and in Japan are still necessary, but I'd say in the immediate post-war era they were absolutely critical to the rehabilitation of both nations. And really, it had its historical precedents, in particular the Reconstruction Era in the US after the Civil War where the former Confederate States, after a period of military occupation, were rehabilitated and became proper members of the Union once again.
The issue, again, isn't the wording the Executive Orders, but with the INTENT. SCOTUS as of yet has not decided whether the intent was a Muslim ban, and that will have to wait for the fall.
There are over a billion Muslims, that kind of makes the "cult" claim a bit absurd, and not all Muslims, so far as I'm aware, throw homosexuals off of buildings. In fact, it looks like it's a pretty damned small minority. Not that devout Muslims clearly don't have issues with homosexuals, but then again, I can go to a conservative Catholic forum and see the same anti-gay vitriol.
The entire purpose of hate crimes was to assure that those who terrorized or killed blacks in the southern states wouldn't get off. The Civil Rights acts allowed Federal prosecutors to lay charges in these cases, as opposed to leaving it to states where everyone from the cops to the judges to the juries were inclined to let the "good ol' boys" that burned black churches to the ground or lynched some poor black fellow looking at a white women get away with it. Once the FBI and Federal prosecutors were empowered via these laws to go in, take over investigations, and haul these racist bastards into Federal courts, that was a pretty major step in ending the Jim Crow era.
And yes, you're right in a way. If some nefarious politician secretly plots to violate the First Amendment and can keep his mouth shut, he may get away with it. Why should that preclude the courts from dealing with politicians who blatantly declare their intent to violate the First Amendment?
Yes, intent does. The Constitution strictly forbids religious tests. If an Administration is attempting to use its powers to implement a religious test, then it has violated the First Amendment.
The issue isn't whether the bans are constitutional or not. Clearly, the Executive branch is empowered to secure the borders. The issue was whether or not a religious test was being implemented, and it's an issue because Trump and his proxies spent a good deal of time before and even after the election talking about a "Muslim ban". You see, one of the critical factors in any issue before a court is intent. There's no evidence that the intent of the Obama Administration's restrictions were religious-based, but a helluva lot of evidence that the Trump Administration's ban had a religious component.
That's not to say that there are not legitimate concerns about the ability to vet people coming from these countries, and I imagine that's where SCOTUS is coming from on the partial ruling. It obviously feels there is some sound reason for improving vetting of refugees and immigrants from this region, and that that takes time (though what exactly the Trump Administration has been doing for the last five months seems a bit of a mystery), but it also clearly wants to look into the potential the Administration was using the need for securing the border and improving vetting as cover for trying to implement a Muslim ban.
Germany's limitations on far right speech have been around for seven decades, and were born out of the Allied Occupation and Allied Denazification policies. We can argue whether those laws are justifiable now, but the intent, as with banning the Imperial form of Shinto by the US during the occupation of Japan, was to assure that the militaristic regimes that had killed hundreds of millions would not rise again.
I'm not sure how you can call one of the most successful and prosperous countries in the world a "failed state", but then again I suspect you have private definitions of common words and phrases so you can shock and overawe those of lesser wit than yourself.
How does conspiracy factor into that? In essence, a conspiracy is communicating for the intent to commit a crime. As with treason, conspiracy both involves the use of an accused's words as evidence of intent and as the crime itself.
Even in the United States speech has never been an absolute liberty (also see obscenity laws).
Is there any reason at all that we should believe you didn't do what you were accused of? Anonymously declaring yourself as an anecdotal example of false accusation isn't terribly convincing in my books.
I've worked with women, some as my superior, some as subordinates, virtually my entire working life, and I've never been accused of making unwanted advances, because I haven't. I view coworkers, superiors, equals or subordinates, as off limits, and all the women I have worked with have had the same policy. There are plenty of people outside of work if you're looking for love or one night stands, so why piss in your swimming pool by hitting on women at work?
If I hadn't already nailed them in place I would have. It was my own damned fault, but they were close enough to a 2x6 by sight that I just went about throwing them in.
Nominal sizes are indeed standardized in the US and Canada, so this case is without merit. Building with true dimensional lumber is a huge pain anyways. Rough cut lumber is just that, rough, and you'll be picking slivers out half the day. And then the guy that buys your house in 20 years has to replace a stud or a joists, and realizes he can't just go to the local lumber yard and pick up what he needs, but has to order custom cut or find someone with a mill
I bought a pack of 2x6s cheap from a demo yard several years ago, and was using them to replace some rotted joists. Much to dismay when I went to throw the subfloor down, they were slightly bigger, enough that I had to plane them down! The amount of time it took me more than ate up the savings, and when I told the manager of the local lumberyard, he said those were likely cut for the Japanese market.
I can't speak to the 20s, but I've worked on houses from the 1950s and they used "nominal" dimensions then. The floor joists were 2x10s, and were, like a 2x10 I'd buy now, 1.5x9.25. I can buy true dimensional lumber, either "rough cut" of someone's backyard mill or if I order it from the lumberyard, but why would I?
Slashdot Mirror
Which showed no evidence of fraud. You are just a liar
Why do people always assert the universe gives a flying fuck about political ideology?
The EO doesn't, but the authors of the EO did, and that raises constitutionality. I don't why this is so hard to accept, but intent is the very core of judicial proceedings.
Legislative intent is the purview of the courts, so why would you assert that somehow the Executive is immune from such review over the use of its own statutory instruments?
I can see how your smartphone represents a significant distraction. I'm working towards my Bachelors right now, and had to do a math course, never my strongest suit. I found having my smartphone nearby really did represent a kind of a distraction. The temptation when working on a hard problem was to check my texts or my emails, and so long as that damned smartphone was within easy reach I'd often give into temptation. In the end I'd either leave it in the bedroom, or go into the office in the evening without it and work out of the meeting room without even a computer nearby. Particularly for the last couple of courses I've basically sequestered myself away with printed copies of assignments and the textbooks for the purposes of studying for my final, using pen and paper to write out notes and definitions.
I'm attempting to explain how far right speech came to be censored in Germany. Yes, Britain and the US have both been militaristic, but their chief responsibility for the Second World War was in basically sitting on their hands from the 1920s onward as first the Weimar Republic, and then later the Third Reich violated Versailles with barely a whimper from the two largest Allied Powers. A nice time for Britain and the US to get extremely militaristic would have been in 1935 when Hitler flagrantly violated the Treaty of Versailles and sent a small, largely symbolic military force into the Rhineland. At that point a few divisions of Allied troops marching into Berlin and toppling a still fairly weak Nazi regime would have pretty much solved the problem with little bloodshed.
But back to the point, in both Germany and Japan the Allies were faced with how to deal with militaristic and authoritarian regimes which, even in ruins, might rise again. So whatever you think of British or American belligerence at various points in history, they and the Soviets were the preeminent powers at the end of the Second World War, and their hard-won victory over the Axis delivered into their hands the power and responsibility to prevent another vast conflagration. So, you force laws through in the occupied zones of post-War Germany outlawing the Nazi Party, the public honoring of Hitler or any other Nazi, and putting limits on the ability of far right groups to broadcast their message in. In Japan, you outlaw the Imperial Cult and cull it from the Shinto religion.
And you know what, both policies actually worked. West Germany and Japan became within a couple of decades of the Second World War major economic powers and firm allies of the Western Powers. We can debate all day whether the various restrictions built into the constitutions and laws of the Federal Republic of Germany and in Japan are still necessary, but I'd say in the immediate post-war era they were absolutely critical to the rehabilitation of both nations. And really, it had its historical precedents, in particular the Reconstruction Era in the US after the Civil War where the former Confederate States, after a period of military occupation, were rehabilitated and became proper members of the Union once again.
The issue, again, isn't the wording the Executive Orders, but with the INTENT. SCOTUS as of yet has not decided whether the intent was a Muslim ban, and that will have to wait for the fall.
You would need to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that.
Sure I have a problem with religions that oppress women. That's why I dislike so many Evangelical churches.
There are over a billion Muslims, that kind of makes the "cult" claim a bit absurd, and not all Muslims, so far as I'm aware, throw homosexuals off of buildings. In fact, it looks like it's a pretty damned small minority. Not that devout Muslims clearly don't have issues with homosexuals, but then again, I can go to a conservative Catholic forum and see the same anti-gay vitriol.
You don't see a problem with an irrational fear of someone because of their religion?
The entire purpose of hate crimes was to assure that those who terrorized or killed blacks in the southern states wouldn't get off. The Civil Rights acts allowed Federal prosecutors to lay charges in these cases, as opposed to leaving it to states where everyone from the cops to the judges to the juries were inclined to let the "good ol' boys" that burned black churches to the ground or lynched some poor black fellow looking at a white women get away with it. Once the FBI and Federal prosecutors were empowered via these laws to go in, take over investigations, and haul these racist bastards into Federal courts, that was a pretty major step in ending the Jim Crow era.
And yes, you're right in a way. If some nefarious politician secretly plots to violate the First Amendment and can keep his mouth shut, he may get away with it. Why should that preclude the courts from dealing with politicians who blatantly declare their intent to violate the First Amendment?
Yes, intent does. The Constitution strictly forbids religious tests. If an Administration is attempting to use its powers to implement a religious test, then it has violated the First Amendment.
The issue isn't whether the bans are constitutional or not. Clearly, the Executive branch is empowered to secure the borders. The issue was whether or not a religious test was being implemented, and it's an issue because Trump and his proxies spent a good deal of time before and even after the election talking about a "Muslim ban". You see, one of the critical factors in any issue before a court is intent. There's no evidence that the intent of the Obama Administration's restrictions were religious-based, but a helluva lot of evidence that the Trump Administration's ban had a religious component.
That's not to say that there are not legitimate concerns about the ability to vet people coming from these countries, and I imagine that's where SCOTUS is coming from on the partial ruling. It obviously feels there is some sound reason for improving vetting of refugees and immigrants from this region, and that that takes time (though what exactly the Trump Administration has been doing for the last five months seems a bit of a mystery), but it also clearly wants to look into the potential the Administration was using the need for securing the border and improving vetting as cover for trying to implement a Muslim ban.
Merkel is killing millions of Jews, occupying Europe and bombing Britain?
Germany's limitations on far right speech have been around for seven decades, and were born out of the Allied Occupation and Allied Denazification policies. We can argue whether those laws are justifiable now, but the intent, as with banning the Imperial form of Shinto by the US during the occupation of Japan, was to assure that the militaristic regimes that had killed hundreds of millions would not rise again.
I'm not sure how you can call one of the most successful and prosperous countries in the world a "failed state", but then again I suspect you have private definitions of common words and phrases so you can shock and overawe those of lesser wit than yourself.
How does conspiracy factor into that? In essence, a conspiracy is communicating for the intent to commit a crime. As with treason, conspiracy both involves the use of an accused's words as evidence of intent and as the crime itself.
Even in the United States speech has never been an absolute liberty (also see obscenity laws).
Is there any reason at all that we should believe you didn't do what you were accused of? Anonymously declaring yourself as an anecdotal example of false accusation isn't terribly convincing in my books.
I've worked with women, some as my superior, some as subordinates, virtually my entire working life, and I've never been accused of making unwanted advances, because I haven't. I view coworkers, superiors, equals or subordinates, as off limits, and all the women I have worked with have had the same policy. There are plenty of people outside of work if you're looking for love or one night stands, so why piss in your swimming pool by hitting on women at work?
Apparently it's some sort of male right to be creepy and hit on female subordinates. If you disagree you're a vile SJW.
If I hadn't already nailed them in place I would have. It was my own damned fault, but they were close enough to a 2x6 by sight that I just went about throwing them in.
In other words, lots of work and wastage. The easier solution is just to build with nominal-sized lumber like the rest of North America does.
Nominal sizes are indeed standardized in the US and Canada, so this case is without merit. Building with true dimensional lumber is a huge pain anyways. Rough cut lumber is just that, rough, and you'll be picking slivers out half the day. And then the guy that buys your house in 20 years has to replace a stud or a joists, and realizes he can't just go to the local lumber yard and pick up what he needs, but has to order custom cut or find someone with a mill
I bought a pack of 2x6s cheap from a demo yard several years ago, and was using them to replace some rotted joists. Much to dismay when I went to throw the subfloor down, they were slightly bigger, enough that I had to plane them down! The amount of time it took me more than ate up the savings, and when I told the manager of the local lumberyard, he said those were likely cut for the Japanese market.
I can't speak to the 20s, but I've worked on houses from the 1950s and they used "nominal" dimensions then. The floor joists were 2x10s, and were, like a 2x10 I'd buy now, 1.5x9.25. I can buy true dimensional lumber, either "rough cut" of someone's backyard mill or if I order it from the lumberyard, but why would I?