Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Constitution? (Score 0) 135

I don't disagree. Personally I think the Federal government got too powerful after the civil war & we really don't even have the same type of government that the founders envisioned.

I'd be somewhat in favor of an Article 5 convention so long as any changes had to be subject to a vote like the President is elected. The Electoral Collage system is absolutely brilliant & gives the individual vote maximum power because a handful of voters can change the outcome of an entire election. If people really want something they need to get out and vote. If you stay home you can't complain if the other side doesn't.

Anyway, good luck to us all.

Comment Re:Constitution? (Score 4, Informative) 135

Well you're not wrong. Most people forget the 9th & 10th amendments and what they actually say.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
        - Basically saying, "just because we listed a few specific Rights here, that doesn't mean those are the only ones The People have."

10. 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.
        - The Federal Government is not permitted to just assume new powers because we didn't specifically restrict it here. If it's not specifically listed in this document the government cannot do it.

How far afield of these rules has the Federal strayed? How much longer will The People tolerate it?

Comment Re:Constitution? (Score 1) 135

Wait, what?

The Constitution is a restriction on the powers of the Federal Government, not on Anthropic. The Federal Government does have the ability to "regulate commerce" under what is called the Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

I'm not sure what particular law(s) c/would apply here - if any - however I'm certain various courts might have to render a judgement.

Comment Re:You can't have it all. (Score 1) 214

So which is it? Is the women ...

Ask her, not me.

And does the ambitious woman also get a man who's happy to hang out in the background?

Margaret Thatcher found one.

I've seen the wives of researchers at these conferences taking care of the kids.

Maybe, just maybe, those women were happy to be there chatting amongst themselves watching the children.

Or maybe they were frustrated, etc. Or maybe some of both.

I just know that there's only 168 hours in a week.

You'll have to ask them.

Why aren't the husbands coming along to baby sit while the wives attend meetings?

Probably because they don't want to be constantly harassed by women about why they're staring at these children instead of being at the conference.

Comment Re:It's not about that at all (Score 1) 214

Meanwhile we live in a society where almost no one can properly support a family with just one parent working.

Except for the very richest in society, and just a few decades in just a few rich countries, that's been the human condition since at least the beginning of agriculture.

Women's work was H-A-R-D.

Just 90 years ago, in what is now a really up-scale New Orleans neighborhood, one of the ways that my great-grandmother -- who didn't "work" -- fixed dinner was to start by catching a chicken in the back yard and whack it's head off with a hatchet

And it was only around 1900 that gas-powered kitchen ovens existed. Before that, women had to wake up early to start the fire to warm the stove/oven to cook everyone's breakfast.

Etc, etc, etc.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ask not what A Group of Employees can do for you. But ask what can All Employees do for A Group of Employees." -- Mike Dennison

Working...