There may be too many Californians, but please don't solve your California problems of unemployment, crime, high taxes, ridiculous cost of living, etc. by moving to Texas. If you do, as so many have, please leave your failed political ideology in California. You're coming to Texas because here you can get a good paying job that you can't get in California, you can buy a nice house for $100,000, etc. In other words, because the Texas way is working better.

Since you've decided life will be better in Texas, we don't want to hear "we should tax it more like we did in California ", or "in California we set minimum wage high enough that a high school student working at McDonald's can support a family". Here in Texas, where our approach is working, you show up on time and at least become the manager of the McDonald's if you want to make that a career. If you want to do things the California way, pleae stay in California. You might also like Canada. You won't like the Texas way.

> Of the people. The others are the same.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms". Do you think that visitors from Syria have the right to keep and bear arms? Do you think SCOTUS ruled that way?

> So unless you are claiming better qualifications than the SCOTUS, you are definitely wrong.

Let's have a look at what the court has ruled:

Demore v. Kim - the 8th amendment (bail) doesn't apply to foreign nationals
Yamataya v. Fisher - Racial discrimination okay in respect to foreign nationals
Porterfield v. Webb, - States may bar foreign nationals from owning land
Foley v. Connelie - States may require citizenship for hiring

Would you like a dozen more? They've been pretty consistent in following the plain language of the 14th amendment - everyone gets due process - a hearing with a lawyer, etc. Citizens have the various rights listed in the bill of rights and elsewhere.

Did you notice the one part of the 5th you quoted regarding "no person" is - surprise - the due process part, that "no person shall .. unless under indictment of a grand jury ... without due process of law"? Like I said, several times now, the 14th applies due process (right to a fair trial) to all persons. It does not give the right to vote, bear arms, etc. to visitors.

I don't necessarily disagree with you as to what I'd LIKE it to say. I'm talking about what it DOES say.

The first 10 amendments say "CONGRESS shall make no law ..." etc. By themselves, prior to the 14th amendment, they (like the rest of federal Constitution) talk about what the FEDERAL government may and may not do. You seem to acknowledge this when you write "Federal law and what the federal government may do is unchanged by [the 14th]".

For 76 years, the Constitution limited only the feds, and everybody was pretty clear about that fact. 76 years later, the 14th put two limitations on the states. The 14th says, in plain English, that states may not abridge the rights of "citizens of the United States" (the Bill of Rights). It's right there, it says "citizens of the United States" get protection from state government abuses. What part of "citizens of the United States" do you not understand? It then goes on to say the one thing states must do regarding "all persons" (non-citizens) - they must have due process (a hearing, with a lawyer, etc.).

> And Federal law trumps any State ones, so the first ten stand as the ultimate law of the land.

Since you were just talking about "the first ten", read the tenth amendment. It's a sentence or two, easy to read. That's one of several places in the Constitution where it makes clear that the states delegate specific powers to the feds - it's the states who have the power, and they allow the feds to act under a grant of power from the states, not the other way around.

> the 14th somehow takes away rights enumerated in the first ten ...
> You also seem to entirely miss the framing of the document, what "natural", "inalienable", and "all men" fundamentally mean, and the part where the people grant the power to the government, which presupposes that the natural rights are inherent before any governmental construct is created

See the problem there? You're supposing that the Bill of Rights grants rights, in order to argue that the 14th can't take them away. As you correctly state, the rights existed before the Constitution. The first 10 amendments bar the feds from VIOLATING those (pre-existing) rights. Seventy-six years later, the 14th amendment barred the STATES from violating the rights "of citizens of the United States". Neither CREATES rights. The first ten say the feds can't legally violate rights, the 14th says the sates can't legally violate the rights _of_citizens_. Lest anyone think that the authors merely forgot to mention non-citizens, the second sentence of the 14th then says that all people get DUE PROCESS (only).

If you think about it in certain practical terms, this makes perfect sense. Citizens have the right to bear arms (5th amendment). Guests who are Syrian nationals don't necessarily need the right to bear arms while they are visiting here. The revolution was fought, in part, about "taxation without representation". Does that mean foreign visitors don't have to pay any taxes, no sales taxes, no income taxes for H1-B visitors? Nope, visitors to a place don't have exactly the same rights.

I cut out pretty much the entire list of powers, because the exact list isn't the point.

If you want to make the argument that the "general welfare" clause essentially strikes the rest of the article, you then have to answer the question "why would the authors write out a list of allowed powers, then nullify that list by saying 'or anything else they want to do'?" There an old, old principle of law, going back thousands of years, that essentially says when interpreting law, any sentence in the law means SOMETHING. When the framers said "the federal government can only do the things in this list", that has to mean SOMETHING. What do you think it means, if not exactly what it says?

If we stop with just that article, we do have a bit of a conundrum - the list must be there for a reason, but then again the phrase "general welfare" must mean something too. That would leave room for debate.

Fortunately, the framers later came back and AMENDED the Constitution with the 10th amendment. The later amendment changes, or overrides, the earlier wording. This amendment, or change, is one simple sentence:

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Pretty clear, that. The states and the people reserve all powers not delegated to the feds. The feds have only those powers delegated to them.

Since you utterly failed to read the first time, I'll try very short, Dr. Sues sentences for you this time.

Citizens have rights and privileges.
Citizens have 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th amendments ...
Non-citizens get a hearing before they go to jail.

It's two sentences. Really not that complicated.

Since you utterly failed to read the first time, I'll try very short, Dr. Sues sentences for you this time.

Citizens have rights and privileges.
Citizens have 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th amendments ...
Non-citizens get a hearing before they go to jail.

It's two sentences. Really not that complicated.

Here's a bunch of Android apps that do. Some are text and voice, some are text-only.

https://www.google.com/search?...

My original subject line and message mentioned Big Blue Button, an open source web-based video chat application. It did translation for free, using Google's API. Google now charges $10 per half-million words (or is it half-million characters? ). Technically not free, but awfully close - half a million words is a LOT of chat messages.

The powers of the federal government are lusted in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution says:

      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts ...

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You might want to read that last part twice. Anything not explicitly allowed to the feds is reserved to the states and the people.

By 1819, Chief Justice Marshall said the meaning of that is so clear that McCulloch didn't need to spend time belaboring the point, everyone knows the feds can only do what they are specifically authorized to do. Marshall wrote:

      "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted."

The word should be "jailed", of course, not nailed.
Jesus did have a hearing before Pilate before he was nailed, but in the US people get a hearing when they are jailed.

The Bill of Rights is extended to state governments by the 14th amendment, which says:

      No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

So yeah, you're simply wrong. The Consitution applies only due process applies to non-citizens. The first, second, fourth, and fifth amendments, at least are protected for "citizens of the United States". People here illegally are entitled to due process, a hearing, before they are nailed or their property is taken. Other than that, they are intruders and have about the same rights as someone who broke into your home. Legal immigrants are guests in the country and you can think about the difference in rights between a guest you invite into your home versus you in your own home. Only one of two is allowed to touch the thermostat, or go upstairs.

I don't know about "most", since I haven't done a survey. I'm guessing you haven't either. What I can say is the freemoviestorrents.com is completely and obviously all about infringement, of Hollywood movies specifically. http://linuxtracker.org/ , on the other hand, is clearly not.

The protocol is as neutral as http. There are lawful web pages, and there are unlawful web pages.

I, and my customer, thought it was cool as heck when the open source video conferencing system Big Blue Button added auto-translate back in 2010. It's good to see Microsoft catching on too.

Yeah, except for the YouTube part. They believe (and courts agree) that sites made for specifically unlawful purposes are unlawful, but Sony themselves wouldn't be doing anything unlawful, they'd just be "hanging out with criminal gangs". That's something I personally avoid.

Additionally, and maybe more importantly, under the 1984 Sony case, "substantial non-infringing use" is hugely important. Sony wants to argue that the sites contain virtually no legal content. It's harder to make that argument if Sony PUT the legal content there.

Contrast that with YouTube- YouTube is mostly non-infringing videos now, so it certainly meets the "substantial non-infringing use" criterion.

Let's let the court speak for itself, rather than you making shit up right out of your ass. The court ruled:

"one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

That's a restatement of the Sony rule (1984), in Grokster this time. See also Napster, in which the court ruled that Napster was "promoting its use to infringe copyright".

Sony's lawyers are quite familiar with the rule since it was decided in the Sony Betamax case is is therefore called "the Sony rule". In Sony, the court ruled that VCRs could legally be sold, if the seller didn't promote their use for infringement of copyright, but only becuase they had "substantial non-infringing use". So the two-prong test under Sony is a) does'the product have substantial non-infringing use and b) does the seller / manufacturer/ superior promote the product as useful for infringement.

> and as a last step, they give the money to Bob (or his account) and I don't think either that for that it is neccessary or even helping, to check Bobs credit score or IP address. He is going to RECEIVE money.

Remember we're trying to fight real-world fraud, where people do dumb things, malware exists, etc. There is a request to empty Alice's bank account and send all her money to Bob. We happen to know that Bob is a Nigerian prince. What are the odds that this transaction is fraudulent?

The next day, April 15th, there is a request to send $1,200 from Alice to the IRS. What is the probability that this transaction is unauthorized?

The likelihood that the recipient is a scammer is not just relevant, it's the crux of the issue. Even if Alice uses ten factor authentication, if "she" is sending money from her US account to a check-cashing store in Nigeria which is known for fraud , she's probably getting scammed. She might have even authorized the payment, but it's still fraud.