Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 192

Here's my homework, teacher: Article 1, section 8: Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States.

This does not equate to a power to spend tax money on (or regulate) anything "for the 'common defense' or 'general welfare'". If Congress's enumerated powers included getting involved in education, this clause would grant them the power to raise money toward that end. It does not grant that power by itself. If it did, the remainder of the section (and the entire concept of enumerated powers) would be rendered meaningless, which was obviously not the authors' or signers' intent.

Don't worry, this is a very common mistake. Your reading comprehension will improve with practice. In the meantime, perhaps you would care to read what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had to say on the subject.

Comment Re:Not Fed (Score 1) 192

Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt and provide for the common defense and the general welfare.

You skipped some critical words and punctuation:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ...

Notice the comma after "Excises"—these are two separate lists, not a single broad power. The power described here is simply "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises". That's it: to collect money, not to spend it. The purpose of that power is described by the next phrase, "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". That is merely clarifying language, tacked on to explain why the money is being collected and not intended to grant any additional powers. In other words, the nature of this power is merely to fund the enumerated powers given by the remainder of the section. If this sentence alone were intended to authorize absolutely anything which might be argued to "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare" then the remainder of the section would be superfluous. That (false) interpretation does away with the entire concept of enumerated powers. The authors and signers obviously did not intend for the enumeration of powers granted to Congress to be superfluous, or Section 8 would have ended immediately after the words "general Welfare".

Don't just take my word for it, though. Consider instead the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the subject.

Comment Re:and tomorrow (Score 1) 169

Like that nut who recently shot up the sandwich shop, because fake news made it seem like they were doing human trafficking from those Evil Democrats. Other than blind censoring where the radicalized people just discuss off the grid, and build up their anger from not feeling the ability to speak their believes. I would like to find some way to flag truthfulness of stories. So we can get a good idea on the nature of the story.

Well, you can start by not embellishing stories to make a point. The guy that went into Comet Ping Pong fired one shot into the floor, which is bad enough, but your description made it sound like he did lots of damage with multiple gunshots. Should your post be censored as "fake news"? I would flag it "mostly true", since he did fire a shot inside the place. 7 out of 10 for truthfulness, but still misleading.

Unfortunately I think you'd be hard pressed to find much that fits into the "News - Validated: News with validated facts" category, even using mainstream sources. They send out LOTS of stuff with nothing to back it up but some vague "sources say" statement, indicating some anonymous statement from who-knows-who, far from anything "validated". How long did the story about Libyan soldier using viagra to rape thousands of women before it was outed as bullshit?

Comment Re:It was a joke to begin with (Score 1) 192

When the time comes to start specializing in something (i.e. choosing a major in college), they will have a good idea of what subjects they enjoy and have an aptitude for. That's where they'll pick up the math and analytical skills and other foundational stuff.

Math and analytical skills are foundational skills for far more than just computer programming, and ought to be taught long before the student enters college. It is undeniably true that not every student needs to be trained as a large-system software developer, but everyone should learn at least the most basic fundamentals of computer design, both practical and theoretical, and more importantly the problem-solving skills such as abstract thinking, divide-and-conquer, proofs, etc. which are necessary to understand how complex systems function, including—but not limited to—software. Introductory computer coding is one context in which these skills can be taught, so long as it is recognized as a means to an end and not the end itself.

Comment Re:Liberty To Censor (Score 1) 169

Social networks are TWO-WAY. Its a VERY different thing, which is why different rules should apply. You want to start applying rules to private companies telling them what they can and cannot publish? THAT'S totalitarian.

These companies already take advantage of rules that were provided to protect them, so if they are doing that, it's certainly within our purview to provide some restrictions on them in exchange for that. Providers of Internet services are protected under the DMCA and other laws from being held liable for user-provided content. Well, if they're going to start censoring that content, shouldn't they lose their protection from liability?

Comment Re:Better be ready to be beat up when layed off wo (Score 1) 435

Mississippi has one of the larger percentages of union employees in the south. Not sure why you are so butthurt about unions? Do you have a problem with people getting together to try and get a better deal for themselves?

No, I have a problem with workers that are being exploited by an overbearing corporation and its overpaid bosses to also have to deal with being exploited by an overbearing and often corrupt union and its overpaid bosses. Mississippi has lots of union workers, and yet it's a right to work state. So why do the unions in Michigan and elsewhere think they need laws and the violent power of the state to force people to join a union against their will, and even take money out of the paychecks of people that get NO benefit from the union? Or extract union money from workers' paychecks for partisan lobbying activities?

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 192

Actually, yes, until such time as SCOTUS says otherwise.

As if there is anyone that could sue to eliminate the Dept. of Ed. and be considered to have standing...

In any case, as stated in the Federalist Papers #41 quoted above, the "general welfare" provides no specific powers at all beyond the enumerated ones, and, according to Madison, it's a ludicrous argument to claim that it does. The Department was actually justified based on the Commerce Clause (like so many of the laws instituting Federal overreach), so you're not even correct about the Constitutional justification that was used to establish it.

Comment Re:China's Trump is named Xi (Score 1) 185

Well, I don't think anyone thinks many non-Chinese speaking Americans are going to move there. I think this is targeted at the top tier of immigrant talent, particularly people who may have come from China to the US for school and stayed. For them the equation is more complicated than the one you present, particularly if they feel unsafe, or even unwelcome in the US.

Just to put some perspective on this, as I write this there are 328,547 current graduate students in the US from China. Ten years ago nearly all of these people would have remained in the US -- and these are valuable people to have. Today far fewer do because it's become harder to get a green card, and opportunities.

Likewise there are 166K Indian graduate students in the US, many of whom China would like to lure away when they graduate. It would be better for us that they stay here, but China would very much like to obtain the services of these bright young people with shiny new graduate degrees from American universities.

I'm not talking about the cheap contract labor your IT consultant uses to run your Exchange server; I'm talking about the intellectual elites who create technologies, companies, and jobs. China may be a police state, but that doesn't make them stupid; they value these people. America... not so much. In fact there are places in this country where being an educated white American makes you the object of suspicion.

Comment Re:Fake news? (Score -1, Flamebait) 185

Thanks. This is proof that any time anyone says something is left wing, someone will post that it's "strongly right wing". I wasn't sure it would happen with this China post, but you came through. I can now confidently look forward to someday hearing how Che Guevara is strongly right wing.

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 192

So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...

Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....

Here's my homework, teacher: Article 1, section 8: Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States.


It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

Slashdot Top Deals

"If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong." -- Norm Schryer