Lost in Translation

That's a good point. I suppose the difference comes down to harm vs no harm. If a religion requires that I stone someone then that is harm. If a religion requires that I refrain from an action then that is no harm. In this case refusing to bake a cake or decorate flowers is not an act of harm, but compelling someone to engage in an action that runs counter to their religion is harm.

First Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment The rights listed here: freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom to peaceably assemble; freedom to petition the government; form the cornerstone of our democracy. They are, arguably, the foundation of the American society. Please note the following language: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. In other words Congress shall not make a law adopting a state religion (such as the Church of England in Britain, for example). But neither shall congress make a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We have had cases wherein Congress has done exactly this. For example: anti-discrimination laws prevent a business from refusing service on the grounds of a protected class, such as sexual orientation. Christian vendors have been and are being sued for exercising their Christian beliefs. This is 100% counter to the first amendment. I am curious to see how this will continue to play out in our culture. Will we continue to erode our first amendment rights or will we stand up for our core values?

Bill of Rights The "Bill of Rights" is a name given jointly to the first ten amendments, adopted in 1791, of the Constitution. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmenti These amendments constitute the first modification to the US Constitution and serve to clarify the intents of the founders.

Okay... poking around a bit it seems this refers to the age of the United States in 1787. The country was 12 years old (counting 1776 as 1). This is just saying that the Constitution was written in 1787 and that 1787 was the 12th year of the United States. I guess they wanted to make sure we knew this.

Nevermind. I see it here: I missed that last bit when I read it before. This is interesting. I'll need to research this. Thanks for pointing it out!

Where did you find this?

Article 7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevii At the time of writing there were 13 states in the union. 9/13th is approximately 70%. And this, my friends, is the entirety of the Constitution of the United States as originally written. Here are the names of the signers: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/signers We'll move on to the amendments next, starting with the "Bill of Rights" (the first ten amendments) then moving on to the remainder. I do hope you are enjoying this.

Article 6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi Article 6 states that the new country formed by the Constitution will honor the debts and contracts of the old country, the Constitution shall be considered the supreme law of the land, all Senators and Representatives shall swear to support the Constitution, and lastly there shall be no religions test required for any office of the United States.

Article 5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev Article 5 describes the amendment process. This is the means by which the Constitution is altered. Let's break this down. There are two ways to amend the Constitution The first method is via Congress. If 2/3rd of both houses agree then new amendments can be proposed. Alternately 2/3rd of the state legislatures can call a convention to propose amendments. This second method, a "convention of states", provides a way to work-around Congress in the event that Congress is no longer responsive to the people. Some of you may have heard people talking about this, especially if you listen to US talk radio or subscribe to political podcasts. Once proposed, an amendment must be ratified (approved) by 3/4th of the states' legislatures or by conventions in 3/4th of the states. In this sense the Constitution is a "living document" because it is not fixed and can change with time. But the written text of the Constitution is not "living" and thus is not open to reinterpretation with the times. As discussed earlier, reinterpreting existing text with new meaning is an act of judicial activism and is not in the spirit of the document since it obviates the legislature and the will of the people. I'll pause here for a while in case people want to comment.

Good point. Too bad we can't go back in time and place cameras all over the constitutional convention to watch the debate while they were selecting this wording.

No, it is not.

I did some more research. https://legaldictionary.net/privileges-and-immunities-clause/ The privilege and immunity applies to the rules of a state apropos its citizenry while within a state. This means that US citizens from another state are equal to citizens of a given state while in it. The law treats them equally. For example:

I hear ya. I really do. Short of doing something that is illegal in one state but legal in another, getting arrested, and pushing the issue up to the Supreme Court I don't know what to say.

This poses an interesting question, and one that we have struggled with since day 1. Since the Constitution was written in common language (more or less) and not in "legalese", there are sections that seem quite vague. This is one of them. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privileges_and_immunities_clause This is probably a good indication of the meaning since the Articles of Confederation were in place at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privileges_and_immunities_clause

It does seem to imply that. I'm sure there are many documents detailing this over the last 231 years.

This is the real problem. It's why the framers built a republic and not a democracy, since in a democracy 50%+1 is enough to terrorize the other 50%-1, but in a republic - with the corresponding checks and balances - it is harder to effect sweeping change. Over time Americans have grown ignorant of the Constitution and ignorant of history and we see all around us the results.

I love the part where she is stabilizing the TARDIS and says "Come to Daddy, I mean Mommy!" That one line, IMO, was perfect since it shows that one cannot live 2000+ years as a male and abandon that self image overnight.

I watched episode 2. I think it was really good. So far I am enjoying the new Doctor.

Article 4, section 4 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section4 In a nutshell the states are free to govern themselves how they see if as long as they have a republican form of government. That's interesting. I did not realize this before. So I guess we won't see an Emperor of California or a King of New Jersey any time soon. Also, you'll see it's literally written into the Constitution that the US government must protect individual states against both foreign and domestic violence, that latter being if the Governor and/or State Legislature ask for help. This is all for the states. I told you this would move along quickly. Tomorrow we'll get into Article 5, the amendment process.

Article 4, section 3 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section3 Article 4, section 3 is interesting. This pertains to the creation of new states. You'll recall back in 1787 there were only thirteen states. The vast majority of the land mass in North America was unclaimed by any country, or was claimed but unprotected. The framers knew that new states would be added so they wrote rules into the Constitution for how to admit them. Notice the following item: Recall a while back when California was flirting with the idea of splitting into three states? Well, that idea was shot down, and it's no wonder why. Even if California decided to split itself it would still require the approval of Congress to do so, and why would 49 other states want California to split apart? Crazy talk!

I submitted no because the premise is invalid. "Enlightenment" must be earned. It cannot be given from one to another. Doesn't work like that. It is only through the process of enlightening that one learns to give up attachments. This process cannot be short circuited, except possibly by death. Perhaps not even then. Being not-dead I have limited knowledge of that domain.

Article 4, section 2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section2 Article 4, section 2 sets up the reciprocal relationship between states. Citizens of one state have all the rights and immunities of citizens of all states. It also establishes that the states will respect the rule of law in other states, and that a fugitive in one state who flees to another state is subject to extradition. Paragraph 3 pertains to the capture and extradition of escaped slaves and was eliminated by the 13th amendment.

Article 4, section 1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section1 Basically states must recognize the judgments of other states. For example, if a couple marry in one state then the other states must recognize the marriage, or if a business incorporates in one state then the corporation must be recognized in the other states.

Hi Wenwu! I think maybe you are being too hard on yourself. You don't need anyone else to validate you. Teachers and students come and go. Right now they have gone but keep working on yourself and that will change. And who cares about the accolades? Unless you compete professionally it's just a bit of painted tin and a fancy card in a frame... Sometimes in life there are stimulants that just feel so good you can lose yourself in them. Perhaps for you that's martial arts and lifting? Don't forget why you do these things. You control them, they don't control you. And watch out for that mystery injury. That's telling you something. Maybe you need to take it slow for a while, give yourself a chance to recover, you know? Lost