The Bill of Rights makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens in its text. It says that rights belong to people, not exclusively to citizens of the several States.
The Equal Protection clause protects citizens and non-citizens alike, e.g. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)
The first amendment protects aliens once they are admitted to the US, Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945)
There is a right to travel that is an extension of the first amendment rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression.
Are you sure of that? Rights attributed generally to "the people" in the constitution can be limited from being enjoyed based on immigration.
For instance, "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms but god help you if you're here irregularly or on a tourist visa and do not meet one of the exemptions. Sure non-immigrants are persons but federal law doesn't give a fuck.
Granted, this is a Washington State court ruling on the basis of the WA state constitution (which has a stronger RKBA provision than the federal one). But there were similar rulings in other states, and if I remember correctly, at least one of them cited the federal constitution.
As far as the "exemptions" go, it might simply be that nobody ever challenged them before - I mean, as a non-immigrant alien who can get kicked out quite easily in any case, why would you go and antagonize the feds if you can just buy an Alaska hunting license online for $60 and make them happy that the requisite checkbox has a mark in it? But also, until Bruen, the courts tended to defer to various onerous licensing restrictions and requirements even for citizens.
The second amendment is one of the few exceptions rather than the rule. It is difficult to argue for inclusion in "the people" who have the right to bear arms when excluded from selective service and from the definition of the unorganized militia.
By your logic women unaffiliated with service are excluded then. The unorganized militia, by US code, is (you can look up the code but this is pretty close) basically able bodied military age male citizens.
Throwing in all these constraint when the constitution clearly say "the people" without qualification which magically means basically everyone one place but not most everyone somewhere else seems kind of arbitrary to me, but then again the courts seem to have held up visitors aren't people so hey. This is why I'm not a lawyer because really such fuckery makes my brain melt. If I were the sole sitting justice of the supreme court I'd say the qualification is a person is one unit of people and thus they have the rights of the people. IMO if you're one of "the people" then when the constitution uses "the people" unqualified elsewhere that's you -- which by symmetry means if you can't own a gun you're not a person and have none of the other rights of the people.
State law in the state where I live defines the unorganized militia without regard to sex.
At least the 7th circuit agrees with you, (United States v. Meza-Rodriguez) even if there are other federal appeals circuits that don't. So this is something that will likely go to the Supreme Court eventually.
The singular only version of "they" is "they", just like the singular only version of "you" is "you". "You" was formerly plural, with "thou" as singular, but "thou" has since fallen into disuse.
> "You" was formerly plural, with "thou" as singular, but "thou" has since fallen into disuse.
Sadly. Overloading "you" and "they" feels rather clunky. I wish it got rid of "he" and "she" instead - gendering pronouns is completely useless, and that's coming from someone whose native tongue genders much more than just pronouns...
You was always both singular and plural, but in the singular form it was the formal second person pronoun, whereas thou was the second person singular informal pronoun; it's the same as the difference between du/Sie in German, tu/vous in French, or je/u in Dutch. This is why the King James bible uses thou: it's intended to feel more accessible to its readers with a friendly tone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You says the singular "you" didn't occur until Modern English, and the singular form 'ye' died out in the 1600s with early Modern English.
The King James Bible, published 1611, uses "ye" as the singular form of the formal "you", as in "Ye shall know them by their fruits."
] In a period of rapid linguistic change the translators avoided contemporary idioms, tending instead towards forms that were already slightly archaic, like verily and it came to pass.[87] The pronouns thou/thee and ye/you are consistently used as singular and plural respectively, even though by this time you was often found as the singular in general English usage, especially when addressing a social superior (as is evidenced, for example, in Shakespeare). ...
] Another sign of linguistic conservatism is the invariable use of -eth for the third person singular present form of the verb, as at Matthew 2:13: "the Angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dreame".
I've been trying to figure this out and just end up being more confused.
One issue is that song's use of "ye" seems to be from the 1750s, so about 150 years after the KJV usage, which in turn was somewhat archaic. English changes.
> In Early Modern English, ye functioned as both an informal plural and formal singular second-person nominative pronoun. "Ye" is still commonly used as an informal plural in Hiberno‐English and Newfoundland English
So it's possible that the KJV uses "ye" only for formal singular second-person, even if was also used more widely used for informal plural, and as that informal plural became more widely used, it became the go-to way to translate the Latin, which is in plural.
Have you considered that someone who chooses "it/its" as its pronouns is intentionally trying to break the English language with said choice? In this case, it is Swiss, and therefore it is likely not a native English speaker which could be a factor as well.
SMTP is to Postfix as ActivityPub is to Mastodon. If you're not technical enough to care about the distinction between protocol and implementation (as most users are not), then the distinction is largely academic. You can register on a server running Mastodon and communicate with anyone on any other server running Mastodon or with anyone on any server running any of the other ActivityPub implementations (Pleroma, Misskey, etc).
I grew up in Toronto and relied primarily on public transit growing up. As a kid, I would have a good mental model of the area around a subway station but as soon as we went underground it was like a wormhole to another part of the city. It wasn't until I was a teenager that I had a good model of how the areas around the different subway stations connected with each other.
Did you rely primarily on the subway system before you ditched transit?
My daughter was mainly a bus rider, as the places she usually goes aren’t served by the subway. I used to ride the subway to work, but I haven’t in years since I’ve turned to working from home.
My theory is that traveling in a vehicle that is “on rails” (train or tram or bus - they’re all alike in that their routes are predetermined) removes every bit of agency from the passenger, and leaves them completely disconnected from details of the route. Passengers engage in conversation or bring entertainment with them that further weakens the spatial link.
Those traveling in private cars have at least some opportunity left to influence their trajectory or destination. “Perhaps you should make a right turn here” or “let’s stop for ice cream at that place we like” are both things that get said along the way. There’s also the constant stream of teachable moments supplied by other drivers in the form of poor vehicle control.
It's better to give some rebate. Say the poverty line for an individual is $12,000 and sales tax is 10%. If you want to exempt 1.5x poverty spending from the tax, it is better to give everyone an $1800 sales tax rebate than trying to write exemptions.
EMC, then already a public company, acquired VMware in 2004.
EMC took VMware public in 2007 when it sold 15% of its stake in an IPO.
EMC acquired Pivotal Labs in 2012. Months later, VMware and EMC each spin out a division, which included Pivotal Labs from EMC, as a new private company called Pivotal Software.
Dell announced its acquisition of EMC in 2015 which completed about 11 months later, in 2016. EMC shareholders each receive fractional shares of a publicly trading tracking stock representing Dell-EMC's interest in VMware in addition to cash for the non-VMware parts of EMC.
In December 2018, Dell went public by buying back its interest in VMware from the shareholders of the tracking stock.
So what you said about VMware being the only public part of Dell computers was true, up until the end of last year. Dell as a whole has been a publicly traded company for nearly 8 months now.
Any US legal entity (corporation, LLC, etc.) formed in one of the 50 states is required to have a registered agent in its state of formation. The primary purpose of said registered agent is to receive legal process on behalf of the US legal entity.
So any US corporation or LLC should meet the "US legal and financial presence" requirement that you describe.
If so much mail is sent between the sponsoring organisations that the aggregate hit rate will be approximately 100%, then wouldn't approximately 100% of mail be sent over the TLS only port were the sponsoring organisations to decide to only use TLS among themselves (e.g. a hardcoded SMTPS everywhere list) ?
The point of an open standard is so that the vanishingly small fraction of people running their own mail servers can easily implement it too.
Yes, this is an instance where the giant email providers could simply have agreed among themselves not to allow SMTP TLS MITM attackers, and then left everyone to fend for themselves.
Maybe it is just me, but I get mail from lots of small organisations. Maybe the bulk volume of mail is handled by a few parties, but if I look at all mail I care about, there are lots of parties.
