My issue wasn't that anybody is entitled to be successful, only an individual can shape one's future. But the post I was replying to made the implication than, in an ideal world, wealthy people shouldn't be able to purchase expensive education for their children.
Many mediocre people with wealthy parent's have gone on to live much better lives then mediocre people with poor parents. It isn't fair, but a fair system isn't what works nor has it even been proven to be possible. A working system gives incentive for people to be productive, and few things are a more powerful motivational force than the desire to protect/promote one's children.
Again, competitive school grants SHOULD exist because the loss of an exceptional mind due to social factors is abhorrent and antiproducive. But, just as we should help those less fortunate, we should continue to reward those who, by the standards of capitalism, have become successful.
Congratulations. In one simple statement, you've managed to put all Law outside the realm of the common man, who (without the immediate aid of a lawyer) is doomed to getting screwed by The Man.
No, I didn't do it. It's how the law is designed in this country. I'm entirely serious, go ask a lawyer.
Because precedent can be broken, (or even conflicting) is the reason why not even lawyers are perfect at law.
The Common Law system is built upon tradition, and not strictly codified laws.
Any law that requires a lawyer to properly understand it should be scrapped and/or rewritten.
If you want to be able to be able to read a law and know exactly what it means, move to a place where the Civil Law system is practiced.
In France (a nation with a Civil Law system) their supreme court cannot hand down legally binding precedents. The opinions returned by their highest court are very short, brief and say "of the two laws presented, law XY prevails in this particular instance."
This is however, unlikely to occur in the USA, because lawyers are in power, and they will use the legal mechanics to stay there. (For instance, the government decided it would only pay people according to the level of degree that they have earned. So, Lawyers switched from getting a second bachelor's in law to getting a doctorate of law.)
"Rights" come from the Constitution and its amendments, not the Law itself. Laws are relatively simple matters to repeal, so any "right" they seem to grant aren't really rights, but "privileges". Constitutional rights, on the other hand, are much more difficult to take away, though Congress (and to some extent state and local authorities) have been slowly chipping away at them for more than a hundred years.
"Rights" as a legal term does not meet your definition. As an example, if someone has standing to sue, then they are said to have a "right of action".
You have numerous rights granted by statutes and common law traditions. If you have possession of property (meaning you live somewhere, whether or not you own it) you have a right of entry, a right of passage, among the more recognized right of privacy.
A court of law cannot take your right of entry to a property that you possess without due process. This is why you have to evict even squatters, (an individual who took possession of your property illegally).
However, I must point out that your side does not have an argument to invalidity because this is forcing individuals to buy something.
Again, as I've said before, because some governments can force individuals to buy something.
It is much the same with health care: if I chose to utilize a strictly homeopathic approach to medicine, then I shouldn't be required to buy health care insurance, because I wouldn't need it. According to this law, I would be required to buy health care insurance, whether I used it or not.
To apply this to your favorite "car insurance" example, it would be exactly like requiring you to buy auto insurance, even if you don't own a car or have a license.
Actually, if you object to health care for religious reasons you have an exception from getting health insurance.
...and if they did, it would only show just how completely incompetent they are: information does not now, nor has it ever, required any particular operating system to be transmitted.
No, it does not require physically any particular operating system, however they could require it as a legal compulsion to do business. And this would likely be upheld on the same grounds as the slaughterhouse cases.
...and why it is critical that the law-makers be held responsible for their work. Having the sort of power you have (rightly) explained is not difficult to abuse.
Or, rather than using the word "abuse", just "use" in general. There was never any belief that 8 U.S.C. is an abuse of Federal power against the individual states.
I'm going to simply tell you that if you think states have the right to legislate immigration that you can cry me a river, because that's about all anything you can do is worth.
Shall I continue? It's all over the place, if you Google for "Obamacare terrorist" [google.com].
Obamacare is a right-wing term that the left-wing doesn't use except to make fun of the right-wing for. Your first example had "terrorist" in quotes , which places it in a grammatical case of "so called", as in... we're not using this term of our own choice.
If the left calls a right-winger a terrorist because he disagrees with government, it's because we're mocking the way that they called their opposition terrorists... as evidence, see your first link.
As for the Times Square bomber, there's no question that some homegrown terrorists have attacked in order to advance their political agenda... a certain plane flying into an IRS building comes to mind.
We do not blatantly assume though that every person from the Tea Party is going to blow something or someone up in order to prove their point.
Uh, no. The term they chose was "Tea Party". The term "tea bagger" is rather derogatory [washingtontimes.com].
The media assigned the term before they were aware of its negative connotations. When I see "tea bagger" I don't think someone stuffing their balls in someone else's face, I think of a person who is a part of the Tea Party.
However, I will personally stop using it since you all get offended by it... however, they did use the term "to tea bag [a politician]" a lot before it was pointed out to them what the negative connotation was.
...and if the feds are going to have a law on the books, they should either enforce it or remove it from the books. Challenging Arizona on this matter should result in one or the other.
Governments selectively enforce all sorts of laws. When is the last time you heard of someone being arrested for jay walking? Speeding 5mph over? Following too close? Too fast for conditions?
There are certain laws that are there only to assess guilt after the shit hits the fan.
(Also: what religions are incompatible with alien life? Out of curiosity? Islam perhaps?)
Virtually all religions include a bit in their creation myth where humans were created as some sort of 'special' creature. Some think that finding intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would cause a theological crisis since it proves humans aren't special....personally I think the especially devout will just insist we're superior to the aliens.
With neutrality rules in place, every search engine will:
(1) Need a license or certificate showing that they have been tested and validated. This, in itself, is a barrier to entry.
(2) Results of the search engine will expect to follow the pre-existing norms. Anything innovative, original or experimental will not likely fit into the existing set of regulations and will automatically be out-of-compliance.
Supposed if I wanted to develop a search engine to promote free and open source software. It's not really intended to be a "general purpose" search engine but, instead, is designed to find free alternatives to commercial software. The idea is that you can search for "excel" and it will find you info about Open Office, koffice, etc. It's my own website that I'm paying for at my expense to promote my own personal beliefs.
Along comes Microsoft, a licensed search company. They are, to be sure, not happy that a search engine helps people find alternatives to their software. They complain to the license board that I don't have a license and my site is shut down. Or, I suppose, I could get a license (and have to pass certification on topics unrelated to my search niche). And since the goal of this license is "neutrality," I can't have results that leave out proprietary software. In fact, my search engine can't even legally endorse free software.
Licensing boards exist to maintain the status quo. Innovation is about changing the status quo.
I paid $12 in Bellevue WA. Desperately wanted popcorn, but despite being thronged, the place only had 1/3 of the concession counters open, so the line was absurd.
Nobody wants to go to the cinema any more.
Maybe they just want to avoid eurotrash who go out of their way to use the word "cinema" and talk about "attending university" rather than going to college.
We have lasers, NOW, why on Earth would we still be using bullets in 140 years?
Because projectile weapons might still have the combat advantage due to the weight of the ammunition required. A laser weapon (or phaser, or blaster, etc) will require some source of power. Making a significant source of power small enough for a handheld weapon is non-trivial. Even a taser is bulky compared to a regular pistol.
To illustrate the import of this, the M-16 was chambered for the
People talk about the race to the bottom when it comes to quality and cost, but I think this is the real race to the bottom. We have so much market speak that pretty much says "Better than what you have" but uses all the extreme words available. We have already crossed the most extreme possible in coherent English so now we just invent random definitions.
Predictable enough, society has evolved to just comprehend such things as everyday "commodities" thou we still expect to see those odd words. Sad part is, in a global scale, most things conveying "Better than..." is actually average or lower quality than the rest of the world (ex: broadband, music, sports, cellphones, cars, renewable resources, math & sciences
"But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?"