Amentep

I bet that's a Paine to read. ... I'll get me coat.

Ah, I kind of misread what you were saying. That said, typically a literature course isn't so much about the literature (even though it paradoxically also is for specific majors) but about being able to critically read text, to do research and to begin to form that research into a cognizant form. That's usually why schools have tonnes of literature courses so that students can choose the literature that they're most likely to read so that the faculty can then work with the student in building the skills they want them to leave the course with. There are a lot of moves to revise or re-frame the liberal arts program and to find alternative ways to progress students through the learning outcomes (basically courses or course areas are expected to teach students broad skills beyond the course content that would be transferable to other courses or to their out-of-school life) with either less classes before getting to classes oriented to the major, or with more flexibility for the student through the same rough credit hours required for a degree (most accrediting bodies put it around 120 for ba/bs) to tailor classes to their interests. How to maintain the concept and integrety of a liberal arts education while also assisting students with degree progression, completion and job matching is a big issue in Higher Ed at the moment.

So...state universities should stop doing the thing they do well to do a thing they're not equipped to do and which there are already state schools in most states doing?

I can't tell you the number of times I've asked people to read what I was handing them before they signed it and they ignored my pleas and started to sign it right after I handed it to them.

RIP

There are usury laws that define the legal amount of interest that can be charged on a loan. In the US this has typically been the jurisdiction of state law, not federal law.

We ask that the users of this board treat one another with respect, even when opinions differ. Personal attacks that are intended to cause unwanted attention, embarrassment, or harm will not be tolerated

Doubt it supposed to represent anything other than animal characteristics - the "panther" has at least 6 limbs from the picture (4 legs and 2 arms)

Does anyone have a link to the full text of what Schumer said? I've seen the pull quotes, would be curious to see the full context.

The Tennessee Valley Authority went somewhere?

I think Miller was the one that led - to my understanding - the thinking the guns had to tie into a theorized militia use, and thus the first part of the amendment was primary over the second. But I'm not an expert. The 'guns everywhere' laws I know of aren't concealed carry, but open carry.

You seem to have made the mistake of spelling "Planescape" as "Starjammer, or Darksun". Seriously, only masochists play Dark Sun.

I think its The Dwarves https://store.steampowered.com/app/403970/The_Dwarves/

I agree that there's no interpretation that would limit all ownership so DC's law was invalid. I was trying to describe my understanding of the argument pre-Heller, that the interpretation that put extra weight to the first part was an argument that the intent of the amendment was for a state's right to have a militia, which then made the second part subsidiary to the first part. Heller obviously established the second part as the primary piece, which has then led to interpretations that individual right to own for self protection means individual right to carry anywhere for protection (excluding, you know, government offices).

See, this is the crux of the argument, as I understand it. People who believe the law was intended to protect the state's rights to have a militia put the weight on the first part, those who believe its for individual rights put it on the second. Heller, as I understand it, sided with the second part, but that decision isn't without controversy. Personally I am not a fan of Heller as it has bolstered the "guns everywhere" movement which I am not a fan of.

Isn't the literal interpretation of the right to bear arms, as defined in the US Constitution, literally tied to militia membership though? Wasn't this the interpretation that allowed the clean-up of the west (in that sheriff's were able to legally tell cowboys they couldn't enter town with their guns on as they weren't part of a militia) as opposed to the interpretation in District of Columbia vs Heller that expanded rights to the individual unconnected with militia membership? (I'm neutral on removing gun ownership as the Constitution is supposed to be a living document, but removal of gun ownership needs a Constitutional amendment to happen, anything else would be...well...unconstitutional).

New thread:

Old thread: Last few posts:

If it helps, last few posts from the old thread:

We ask that the users of this board treat one another with respect, even when opinions differ. Personal attacks that are intended to cause unwanted attention, embarrassment, or harm will not be tolerated.

If you take away the 4 years you were wrong with him and add them to her, you'd be spot on.

Post limit reached - please see new discussion here:

New thread: