Slashdot Mirror

From my reading of the Bill of Rights, equality and many other things are (nowhere is God or a higher power mentioned) the basis for our rights.

The only founding paper that talks of God or a creator is the Declaration of Indipendance. Maybe it's time people (left and right) actually read up on the founding of our country, it's laws, and all that before talking out their ass.

From my reading of the Bill of Rights, equality and many other things are (nowhere is God or a higher power mentioned) the basis for our rights.

The only founding paper that talks of God or a creator is the Declaration of Indipendance. Maybe it's time people (left and right) actually read up on the founding of our country, it's laws, and all that before talking out their ass.

From my reading of the Bill of Rights, equality and many other things are (nowhere is God or a higher power mentioned) the basis for our rights.

The only founding paper that talks of God or a creator is the Declaration of Indipendance. Maybe it's time people (left and right) actually read up on the founding of our country, it's laws, and all that before talking out their ass.

Periodically rolling over data from its existing format/media to the latest new fromat/media before the media or format life expires (whichever comes first) is the only way to perpetually save data. The problem is not in having a reliable method to preserve data. It is an unwillingness on the part of the guardian of the data to spend the resources (operational overhead) necessary to do it. The perceived value of historical data is often viewed by how often it is accessed as opposed to what future insights might be derived from it or what commercial value it might have in markets that do not yet exist. In other words we lose data because operational management doesn't see its contribution to the bottom line on the profit and loss statement. The reality is that these judgements evintually do have to be made because we just don't have enouth bandwidth to store all of the data that ever existed even if we wanted to. Until everyone recognizes that maintaining your data is no different than maintaining any other valuable asset such as highways and city buildings the situation wont change.

So, if you want to have the map to the family fortune readable in 50 to 100 years, store it in the highest linear (uncompressed) resolution available to you and every time there is a paradigm shift in digital media or formats transfer the data again to the new format linearly at the same resolution is the original. If you compress the data and then transcode to a new compression format some data will be lost in each iteration and eventually the data will be unusable.

Check this link regarding the Electronic Records Archive http://www.archives.gov/era/index.html .......Just my 2 cents worth

NARA recently re-organized some of their website. Info on the ERA project should now be available here.

I went browsing through some of your older comments and I came across this one which contains this broken link! Get it? archives.gov -> broken link? Ha ha ... heh.

ERA2.6.3,The system shall check online formsfor correctness,,

ERA2.6.3,The system shall check online formsfor correctness,,

Pocket Constitution? WTF is wrong with you Americans? Stop treating your 1) Constitution 2) Founding Fathers as gods. They are man-made, erodable, and not so superior to everything and everyone else if you just care to take a look. They were Gods...they were the foremost thinkers of their time. For instance... would you be able to sit here and read this if Ben Franklin hadn't been a Founding Father? I don't care where you are in the world... you haven't NOT been touched by the works of the United States Founding Fathers in some way. Our revolution begat the French Revolution - ending the horror that was the National Razor. Or maybe we should bring it back?? *shudder*

And as for treating our Constitution like 'Gods'.... why don't you check out some of the review that John Roberts is going through to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (of the United States)? His entire LIFE is going to hinge on how he interprets, how he applies, and how he believes the Constitution of same said United States. Every person who holds a political office, serves in any branch of our military, including the Reserves, must swear an OATH to uphold, protect and DEFEND same said Constitution.

The United States Constitution IS the rules and laws that govern this land. That is why it must be upheld, defended and protected at all costs, to include the life and limb of America's great citizens, no matter their generation.

Please do take a look over these two documents, and tell me what is manmade and erodable about a person's indellible right to be free?

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/declaration_transcript.html
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l

And then, I want you to tell me who else on this planet guarantees such freedoms in their government. Very very very few. For all you liberal democrat weinies, this is a good refresher to remind you of just WHO AND WHAT was sacrificed to make sure you can speak you mind today. NEVER FORGET THAT!

Jho -- who's ancestors carried the Declaration of Independence from New York to Philadelphia and back and forth for review, signing, and ultimately introduction.

"You are guaranteed the freedom to speak freely, no one ever mentioned that there would not be consequences to what you have to say"

This country is not free of repressive legislation either. The Sedition Act of 1798 made it illegal to write or even utter a word about anything that could be construed as defamitory against the United States Government. Imprisonment and deportation were the favored consequence of violating the law at the time. Thankfully that law was stricken from the books by Thomas Jefferson, when he became president. The fight to keep such laws from our books is never over however. Such laws seem to make their way into our law books with some twisted language from time to time, the latest of which is the Patriot Act.

Here we go again with this old debate....

Yes, the founders of the United States believed in God -- but this makes them Deists, not necessarily Christians. The Declaration of Independence does indeed speak of "Nature's God", and refer to mankind being "endowed by their Creator" -- but makes no mention of Christianity.

Furthermore, NOWHERE in the Constitution do the words "God" or "Christ" appear — a point oft considered conspicuous by omission in favor of "We The People". Rather, specific references are made to separate church and state, requiring within the constituion proper "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", and in the Bill of Rights opening with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Add in the evidence of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli as ratified by Congress and as published with little stir in the Press (albeit not as drafted at the treaty table!) which declared "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." , leads one to believe the Founders were doing their utmost to drag the United States away from the sectarian bloodshed that had divided Europe -- and particularly England -- for centuries.

Jefferson is the source of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" that the religious right so detest; a man who removed all references to the miracles from his personal transcription of the Gospels; and who felt that his authorship of the Stature of Virginia for Religious Freedom one of the accomplishments most worthy for noting in his epitaph. Living in Charlottesville and having recently visited Monticello, I feel obliged to assure you that the persistent ground vibrations you can feel standing in front of his tombstone is not the rumble of a passing truck, but Mister Jefferson spinning in his grave from Bush's Presidency. =)

As for your assertion on abortion, while your position is better founded, I suggest you read the actual Roe v. Wade ruling all the way through; your assertion about the rights of the states in the 10th Amendment falls aside explicitly to the later "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"... although the court might reasonably revisit such a question, given the strained reasoning used. This makes the abortion war yet another twisted legacy of the debate over our former "peculiar institution."

As to your prime assertion on the legal import of the intent of the founding fathers, I suggest you read Lessig's "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace"... plus a good more of the biographies of those colorful, contestous, and amazingly human founders of ours. Leaving aside Lessig's points on unaddressed assumptions, suggesting they ever had a single unified intent is a slander to their memories and to what they achieved in their struggle to unify in common cause.

Here we go again with this old debate....

Yes, the founders of the United States believed in God -- but this makes them Deists, not necessarily Christians. The Declaration of Independence does indeed speak of "Nature's God", and refer to mankind being "endowed by their Creator" -- but makes no mention of Christianity.

Furthermore, NOWHERE in the Constitution do the words "God" or "Christ" appear — a point oft considered conspicuous by omission in favor of "We The People". Rather, specific references are made to separate church and state, requiring within the constituion proper "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", and in the Bill of Rights opening with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Add in the evidence of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli as ratified by Congress and as published with little stir in the Press (albeit not as drafted at the treaty table!) which declared "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." , leads one to believe the Founders were doing their utmost to drag the United States away from the sectarian bloodshed that had divided Europe -- and particularly England -- for centuries.

Jefferson is the source of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" that the religious right so detest; a man who removed all references to the miracles from his personal transcription of the Gospels; and who felt that his authorship of the Stature of Virginia for Religious Freedom one of the accomplishments most worthy for noting in his epitaph. Living in Charlottesville and having recently visited Monticello, I feel obliged to assure you that the persistent ground vibrations you can feel standing in front of his tombstone is not the rumble of a passing truck, but Mister Jefferson spinning in his grave from Bush's Presidency. =)

As for your assertion on abortion, while your position is better founded, I suggest you read the actual Roe v. Wade ruling all the way through; your assertion about the rights of the states in the 10th Amendment falls aside explicitly to the later "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"... although the court might reasonably revisit such a question, given the strained reasoning used. This makes the abortion war yet another twisted legacy of the debate over our former "peculiar institution."

As to your prime assertion on the legal import of the intent of the founding fathers, I suggest you read Lessig's "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace"... plus a good more of the biographies of those colorful, contestous, and amazingly human founders of ours. Leaving aside Lessig's points on unaddressed assumptions, suggesting they ever had a single unified intent is a slander to their memories and to what they achieved in their struggle to unify in common cause.

Here we go again with this old debate....

Yes, the founders of the United States believed in God -- but this makes them Deists, not necessarily Christians. The Declaration of Independence does indeed speak of "Nature's God", and refer to mankind being "endowed by their Creator" -- but makes no mention of Christianity.

Furthermore, NOWHERE in the Constitution do the words "God" or "Christ" appear — a point oft considered conspicuous by omission in favor of "We The People". Rather, specific references are made to separate church and state, requiring within the constituion proper "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", and in the Bill of Rights opening with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Add in the evidence of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli as ratified by Congress and as published with little stir in the Press (albeit not as drafted at the treaty table!) which declared "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." , leads one to believe the Founders were doing their utmost to drag the United States away from the sectarian bloodshed that had divided Europe -- and particularly England -- for centuries.

Jefferson is the source of the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" that the religious right so detest; a man who removed all references to the miracles from his personal transcription of the Gospels; and who felt that his authorship of the Stature of Virginia for Religious Freedom one of the accomplishments most worthy for noting in his epitaph. Living in Charlottesville and having recently visited Monticello, I feel obliged to assure you that the persistent ground vibrations you can feel standing in front of his tombstone is not the rumble of a passing truck, but Mister Jefferson spinning in his grave from Bush's Presidency. =)

As for your assertion on abortion, while your position is better founded, I suggest you read the actual Roe v. Wade ruling all the way through; your assertion about the rights of the states in the 10th Amendment falls aside explicitly to the later "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"... although the court might reasonably revisit such a question, given the strained reasoning used. This makes the abortion war yet another twisted legacy of the debate over our former "peculiar institution."

As to your prime assertion on the legal import of the intent of the founding fathers, I suggest you read Lessig's "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace"... plus a good more of the biographies of those colorful, contestous, and amazingly human founders of ours. Leaving aside Lessig's points on unaddressed assumptions, suggesting they ever had a single unified intent is a slander to their memories and to what they achieved in their struggle to unify in common cause.

First of all, the government is supposed to serve the common good.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Its power is limited by the constitution, but not the exact things it does.

Amendment X

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.

I doubt that the people who wrote the constitution believed they could predict the future to such an extent that they could describe everything the government has to do ever.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Also, the constitution allows congress to grant patents in order to promote usefull [sic] inventions, but does not say that it is the only thing they can do, nor that it has to do it.

Rather, it gives a guideline to how such a promotion of usefull [sic] inventions should work if implemented.

Second, science is about doing discoveries, not inventions. The patent system has nothing to do with science, it has to do with inventing. Science is often needed for inventing, but it is not the same thing.

First of all, the government is supposed to serve the common good.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Its power is limited by the constitution, but not the exact things it does.

Amendment X

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.

I doubt that the people who wrote the constitution believed they could predict the future to such an extent that they could describe everything the government has to do ever.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Also, the constitution allows congress to grant patents in order to promote usefull [sic] inventions, but does not say that it is the only thing they can do, nor that it has to do it.

Rather, it gives a guideline to how such a promotion of usefull [sic] inventions should work if implemented.

Second, science is about doing discoveries, not inventions. The patent system has nothing to do with science, it has to do with inventing. Science is often needed for inventing, but it is not the same thing.

Hooptie

Heck -- They [the USSC] might even be able to finally, officially get rid of [or, at least, severely cripple] those pesky first ten Constitutional 'Amendments' that those whining left-wing Liberals keep bringing up.

-anon_ex_pat

The Second Amendment was put into place to allow a seriously pissed-off populace to seek relief for their government's breach of the social contract. If the government does not respect the rights of the people, the people will in all likelyhood use force of arms to replace them with one that does.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution does indeed guarantee the people's right to free speech. Without the ability to preserve "the security of a free State", all the rights outlined in the Constitution become meaningless, their very existance reliant upon the whims of government.

The first project is the Persistent Digital Archives project [1], which is a joint effort between the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), the University of Maryland (UMD), and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and is supported by the National Science Foundation under the Partnership for Advanced Computing (PACI) Program. The main goal of this project is to develop a technology framework for digital archiving and preservation based on data grid and digital library technologies, and to demonstrate these technologies on a pilot persistent archive. We have already built a significant prototype using commodity platforms with significant disk caches coupled with heterogeneous tape libraries for back-ups.

"correctly" these days tends to mean "in line with the intent of Congress"

Which, unfortunately, is their job

But right now I think it's mostly theoretical

ANY unconstitutional law which is allowed to stand weakens the Constitution and the protections it grants to the People.

If the US had not developed the Atomic bomb, the USSR would not have stopped at Germany.

However, the real reason that these bombs proliferate is not for defense, as misguided as that sounds. No nation that keeps a stock of bombs has ever been directly attacked by an identifable enemy.

Bzzt! You can also suffice with simply 2/3 (=34) of the state legislatures to force a constitutional convention, and 3/4 (=38) of the state legislatures to ratify the amendment(s); pesky congresscritters need not be bothered. But you're right about the lack of direct control of the state legislatures.

And thus I am left with only one obstacle remaining in my plot to be recognized as God-Emperor. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Wait, did I just say that out loud? Oh, good, no, I only posted it Slashdot. Err....

The National Archives is building the "Electronic Record Archives" to solve this exact problem. The ERA is going to be much more sophisticated than this LOC thing mentioned in the article above.

(This is not aimed specifically at you. You just happened to trigger a rant...)

Does anyone else feel that these are OUR RIGHTS to begin with and we should not let them be touched at all?

You have exactly one right: to die. Everything else is a privilege.

Take Amendment 7 of the Bill of Rights, which declares that you have a right to a trial by jury. Jury trials are expensive. That all has to be paid for, and that happens through taxes. Your taxes are paying for Arthur Andersen's trial --- and his are paying, in part, for yours.

Take Amendment 1. The big one. Free speech. If you allow free speech, you allow people to say whatever they like. This means that you have to put up with your neo-Nazi neighbour ranting about stoning the black lesbian Wiccan couple across the road. You don't have to listen... but you can't stop him talking. That's a very real cost, particularly when he can pick up the phone and call a thousand people who think just like him.

All the other privileges are the same. Amendment 4? "To be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"? The amount of infrastructure that has to be put in place to actively hinder law enforcement --- another privilege --- is vast.

None of these 'rights' are automatic. They have to be paid for, every day, by everybody, on an ongoing basis.

Of course, these days, nobody wants to pay for anything any more. Lawyers are on TV advertising free compensation money (but nobody asks where it comes from). Tax avoidance is a national industry. It's easier to silence people than to choose not to listen.

And I think that the biggest reason for this is because people think these privileges are 'rights'. Rights are free. Rights don't have to be worked for. They just happen.

What you said, that they're your rights and you shouldn't let anyone touch them, is very telling. Your fundamental mindset is that these things are automatic, that the universe should somehow conspire to make it all happen; that God owes you Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

This is false.

The article is talking about censorship. When was the last time you worked to support free speech? Have you donated to the ACLU or the EFF? Have you written to your local politicians? Have you participated in any meaningful dialogue on the subject?

Me? I intend to put off exercising my one god-given right for as long as possible. In the mean time, I have work to do.

Dividing government into executive, legislative and judicial is a bureaucracy that helps only the terrorists

The president should have the power to do absolutely anything and anyone who disagrees is a traitor

The only ones helping the terrorists are those who live their lives in fear. Personally, I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Two thirds of the state legislatures can convene a convention for the purpose of amending the constitution, without any input from (or recourse to) the Congress.

This is in addition to, and independent of, the Congress' ability to propose amendments.

In either case the proposed amendment must be ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures to become part of the Constitution.

This process is defined in Article V.

-Peter

Third, the "Security Debriefing Acknowledgement," which appears in the SF 189-A, but not the SF 189,is included in the SF 312. Its use is optional at the discretion of the implementing agency.

That is the part you claimed to have signed.

That's right. The SF312 was approved at least as early as 1998 and the 1-91 includes the security debriefing statement (Pay attention: it says "Standard Form 312 CLASSIFIED INFORMATlON NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (SF 312; Rev. 1-91)"). The 1-91 version is the one I signed, including the security debriefing statement. Bill Clinton made the form mandatory in 1995.

But, nothing short of me driving up to Seattle and showing you the papers myself is going to convince you. Even then, you could simply dismiss the photocopy as a forgery.

Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that you really spent 36 months in the Army and not 34.

More like just short of 42 months. 3 years plus training time. (You might think just under 6 months is a somewhat larger training time, it was. I asked for airborne school on enlistment, but I bowed out of it after I learned I was afraid of heights. It also nullified my unit of choice agreement, too, and thus I did not go to Fort Bragg upon finishing AIT.) I continued on temporary assignment (we called it "temporary party"... there were also the "permanent party" people that couldn't get clearances that were destined to change MOS or be stuck at the AIT unit hoping for their clearance) at Ft. Sill, until I arrived at Ft. Drum.

You want to know why I was stuck at Sill for so long? Fine, I'll come out and say it. I was crossing a crosswalk in the PX parking lot, when someone came flying around the corner in their POV and hit me about 30 miles an hour. I was laid up in physical therapy treating the hyperextension of both knees, which kept me at Sill until I was off profile. Over time, this caused a deterioration of my knees over time, and got me a permanent no-running profile (while I was in the reserves).

You think I like admitting that I got a permanent profile? I don't. I've always suspected it's why they didn't take me to Afghanistan, even though I was still in IRR at the time and got ordered to MEPS, which resulted in a new physical and the same results. I no longer met the physical profile for my MOS because of the knees.

This would have happened on active duty if I stayed in, and would have been a career killer anyway.

That only leaves the TDY to account for, which is none of your business.

Call me a liar if you like. It's inconsequential, and means nothing to me coming from someone who makes the implication that someone's military service is "nothing" unless that person has personally gone out and killed someone.

So, we're still right where we started, with me claiming I signed SF 312, you saying it's not possible. Both of us trying to prove it via a slough of regulations, executive orders, etc. But no

Actually, there was a 1995 executive order that mandated the use of the nondisclosure agreement. This is the executive order was implemented in regulation by AR 380-5. However, the executive order issued by Bill Clinton on April 17, 1995, and went into effect 180 days later.

The executive order requires anyone with access to classified information to sign an approved NDA, That approved NDA was SF 312. More information on this here. See questions 3 and 4, specifically.

Go ahead, claim more service time (with the awards and medals) and show what a loser you are for not being worthy of promotion...
or
Admit that you didn't serve the time you've hinted at and that you didn't sign the forms you claimed.

I entered service in 1995. Promotion points for my MOS were high for E-5 in 1998, but not unachievable. I was studying for the promotion board when I had an abrupt TDY assignment in the latter half of 1998. When I returned, I was assigned to the transition unit and never attended the promotion board.

I signed the SF 312, the copy of which I have in my posession, in Dec, 1998.

I can admit that they now make enlisted sign NDA's. That's because I'm a man and don't have to attempt to bolster my ego by being anonymous on web sites.

Are you sure you've got no ego-boosting going on? You've been pissed off from the start that I might know more about something than you, and you've just *had* to be right this entire time.

And I can show that the NDA's are a very recent change and did not coincide with your previously stated service dates.

Except your date is wrong. The SF 312 has been required since 1995, per the executive order or Bill Clinton, Commander in Chief at the time. The aforementioned AR 380-5 says as much, since the executive order is what caused its creation.

We both know that executive orders go into effect, and the specific regulation follows. Bill Clinton mandated NDAs in 1995.

Thank God we won't have Bush forever

Of course, that just means that instead of King George we'll have his idiot brother occupying the White House in 2008, with the same old crooks pulling the strings behind the scenes.

And if "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" then I should be allowed to carry any weapon I want, wherever I want to within the united states (although private property owners would be allowed to deny my entry based on my carrying a weapon.) If I was to walk down the streets brandishing a shotgun, longsword or nuclear bomb I hope the police would infringe my right to keep and bear arms. All laws have exceptions.

Every silver linings got a touch of grey:
http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2001/0820/news-nix on-08-20-01.asp
http://nixon.archives.gov/index.php

You designate "appealing to authority" as fallacious. This is an alias for "appealing to misleading authority."

Theological arguments aside, the Christian Bible IS a misleading authority when applied legal argments in the US. The law of the land is based on the Constitution of the United States, not the Bible. This country is most emphatically NOT a theocracy.

The issue at hand is whether or not the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection under the law (14th amendment) and free practice of religion (1st amendment), are being violated by refusing to grant legal recognition to the enduring relationships maintained by one segment of the population. All you accomplish by bringing the Bible into the argument is acknowledge that the prohibition of all marriages other than Christian ones is an establishment of religion, and is therefore explicitly unconstitutional. Invoking religion automatically invalidates your argument from a Constitutional perspective.

The legitimate authorities on Constitutional law are the Constitution and it's amendments, the Federalist Papers, and Supreme Court rulings. Other writings of the framers of the Constitution (such as the private papers of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Hamilton; as well as preceding documents (such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Declaration of Independence) are legitimate authorities in the specific instances where they illuminate the mindset and intentions of the Constitution's authors.

The only legitimate place where the Bible can enter a Constitutional law debate at all is in the instances where the Founding Fathers cite it as inspiration; however, all this does is place the Bible on equal footing with other inspriational sources, the most important of these being the writings of Enlightement philosophers such as Hobbes, Voltaire, and Rousseau.

I'd remind you that when the Framers mentioned "God", they were not talking about the God modern fundimentalist Christians worship. The architects of the Constitution were predominantly Deists and Enlightenment scholars, not Christians as a modern Fundimentalist would define it. Their God was "nature's God" (as Jefferson puts it in the Declaration of Independence); this God was viewed a celestial clockmaker who created the Universe and set it in motion, and did not interfere in it's operation thereafter. When they spoke of the "laws of God", they were talking about the laws of Science and Reason as they understood them, not a mass of primitive superstituious gobbledegook.

To dissect your claim that the Christian Bible is a legitimate authority in the Gay Marriage debate:

Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:

Moral issues are not easily decided given the limits of human understanding, so an appeal to authority is useful

Two probems here. First, this is a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW issue, not a MORAL issue. Second, even if it were a moral issue, moral issues ARE easily within the limits of human understanding.

The universal, rational basis of moral behavior is exceedingly simple: do no unnecessary harm to others. Everything else derives from this simple concept. Judeism and Christianity acknowledge this, in a roundabout way (the 10 commandments are mostly just a list of specific ways of harming others, and the Sermon at the Mount Jesus says the s

You designate "appealing to authority" as fallacious. This is an alias for "appealing to misleading authority."

Theological arguments aside, the Christian Bible IS a misleading authority when applied legal argments in the US. The law of the land is based on the Constitution of the United States, not the Bible. This country is most emphatically NOT a theocracy.

The issue at hand is whether or not the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection under the law (14th amendment) and free practice of religion (1st amendment), are being violated by refusing to grant legal recognition to the enduring relationships maintained by one segment of the population. All you accomplish by bringing the Bible into the argument is acknowledge that the prohibition of all marriages other than Christian ones is an establishment of religion, and is therefore explicitly unconstitutional. Invoking religion automatically invalidates your argument from a Constitutional perspective.

The legitimate authorities on Constitutional law are the Constitution and it's amendments, the Federalist Papers, and Supreme Court rulings. Other writings of the framers of the Constitution (such as the private papers of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Hamilton; as well as preceding documents (such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the Declaration of Independence) are legitimate authorities in the specific instances where they illuminate the mindset and intentions of the Constitution's authors.

The only legitimate place where the Bible can enter a Constitutional law debate at all is in the instances where the Founding Fathers cite it as inspiration; however, all this does is place the Bible on equal footing with other inspriational sources, the most important of these being the writings of Enlightement philosophers such as Hobbes, Voltaire, and Rousseau.

I'd remind you that when the Framers mentioned "God", they were not talking about the God modern fundimentalist Christians worship. The architects of the Constitution were predominantly Deists and Enlightenment scholars, not Christians as a modern Fundimentalist would define it. Their God was "nature's God" (as Jefferson puts it in the Declaration of Independence); this God was viewed a celestial clockmaker who created the Universe and set it in motion, and did not interfere in it's operation thereafter. When they spoke of the "laws of God", they were talking about the laws of Science and Reason as they understood them, not a mass of primitive superstituious gobbledegook.

To dissect your claim that the Christian Bible is a legitimate authority in the Gay Marriage debate:

Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:

Moral issues are not easily decided given the limits of human understanding, so an appeal to authority is useful

Two probems here. First, this is a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW issue, not a MORAL issue. Second, even if it were a moral issue, moral issues ARE easily within the limits of human understanding.

The universal, rational basis of moral behavior is exceedingly simple: do no unnecessary harm to others. Everything else derives from this simple concept. Judeism and Christianity acknowledge this, in a roundabout way (the 10 commandments are mostly just a list of specific ways of harming others, and the Sermon at the Mount Jesus says the s

they can levee fines against anyone they deam fit for any reason they see fit and don't even have to tell you why. You can't complain, you can't do anything about it

Of course, it may take five years and a Supreme Court decision, but that's why we have a judicial branch. The executive and legislature are not all-powerful. You have rights. Knowing them is step one.

[ Amendment IV ]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Want to read my stuff? Go ahead and crack it - no warrant necessary.

Get the rabbit installed on a machine behind your firewall
==> http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
Faster than freenet
==> http://www.i2p.net/
Encrypt Jabber
==> http://www.vanemery.com/Linux/Jabber/jabberd.html
Onion Routing
==> http://tor.eff.org/
Emerging Network To Reduce Orwellian Potency Yield
==> http://entropy.stop1984.com/
Free Internet telephony
==> http://skype.com/
GNU-ified P2p
==> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnunet/


DO NOT DENY yourself about 2 hours @ InfoAnarchy.org
OMG! ==> http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Pag e
LearnLearnLearnLearn ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography

=================EMAIL ENCRYPTION===============
GPG (Free PGP)
==> http://gnupg.org/
Integrated with Thunderbird
==> http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Mutt can't be beat as a mailreader and integrates GPG wonderfully.
==> http://mutt.blackfish.org.uk/
==> http://www.mutt.org/links.html
==> http://wiki.mutt.org/index.cgi?UserPages

!!! Please do not immediately send newly created keys to the keyservers (as many HOWTOs instruct new users to). They are already overflowing with "test keys" and other people's experiments from over the years THAT HAVE NO EXPIRATION and will never be deleted. These keys are "orphans" and most will never be used. As keyservers sync together, and most keys are never deleted once submitted - GET YOUR KEY SETUP CORRECTLY AND HAVE PRACTICE WITH IT BEFORE SENDING IT OFF TO THE KEYSERVERS!!! Otherwise storage requirements will continue to grow and using these in the future will become more difficult FOR ALL. Please, if you are just starting out with PGP or GPG or GnuPG or anything similar (the last two are in fact the same thing) use manual key distribution to begin (ascii armor your public key with

$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org

and copy and paste it into an email body or attach it to an email

$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org > myPubKey.txt

to gain practice with GPG before uploading your key. This way if you need to create another you won't have uploaded your mistakes. Many choices need to be made and it's worth getting things right before "going public" with your new digital ID. Experiment with yourself and a few different email accounts or with some friends first.)

SET AN EXPIRATION OF 2-5 YEARS OR SO AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR PREFERENCES THE WAY YOU LIKE THEM BEFORE SENDING TO A KEYSERVER! Better yet is to HOST YOUR KEY ON YOUR WEBSITE (or try using http://biglumber.com/ instead to host your key and help c

... are still a little touchy about such things

Really! Here, for example, is the V amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note "no person". You can go here to read the entire Bill of Rights, or go to Washington and read the original. It does not mention anywhere that it applies to U.S. Citizens only.

Basically, after the bill is signed into law, it becomes a public law and is printed as a "slip law" which can be cited in court. After every 2-year session of Congress, the slip laws are compiled in chronological order in the Statutes at Large. Every three sessions (six years), the at-large statutes are organized topically in the United States Code. The last US Code came out in 2000, so the next one is scheduled for 2006.

We just started the 109th session in January (2005 - 1789 = 216 years = 108 sessions prior to this one). That means that if you want to get print copies of laws passed in the 107th and 108th sessions (since 2000), you have to go to the Statutes at Large in your local law library. If you want laws passed by this Congress, you have to go to the slip laws. So far this session, there's only been one: Pub. L. 109-1, "To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami."

Ok, I'll bite.

The first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Conservatives aren't into "abstinence only", we know that providing abstinence only sex education is not going to stop problems, but it may enhance them. The funny thing is abstinence is the only method to 100% guarantee that you don't get STDs, or get pregnant, etc from sex. The problem is that too many schools have scoffed at abstinence, saying that won't work, all kids are having sex. Funny thing, now that it is being taught in school teen-sex is on the decline, which means less teen pregnancy, which means fewer people who will go onto welfare for that. Studies have shown that a couple who have a child in their teens will generally be poor for all of their lives. Abstinence teaches self control, which those other methods do not.

Darwinism is a theory. Science is meant to be objective is it not? Should we look at all relevant theories on a subject or should we just scoff at those that don't fit our agenda? Intelligent design is another theory. The critics bash it because it takes into account that there might be a God and that things have happened due to design and not just accident.

This gets more at the heart of secularism, which IMO is an extremely repressive religion in and of itself. Secularism teaches that there should be no religion taught anywhere. There should be no reference to God in the public life. Honestly, it takes more faith to believe that there is no God, than to believe that there is a God. You have to believe, when you get down to it, that something comes from nothing - a contradiction to the known laws of physics. So you have the secularists who are trying to instill their religion (Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview.) This gets back to Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

So they are endorsing one religion and repressing another. This is a very serious breach of the first amendment. And all this comes before the "freedom of speech" section. You are right. People don't know the First Amendment.

We conservatives have a very strong love for the constitution and the bill of rights. And we see how you are so hypocritical about defending the first amendment. And we see how you liberals want to take away our freedoms.

note: emphasis mine

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States , all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

here's a link to the text

Where do you get that wacky idea? The first ten amendments make up what is called the Bill of Rights. The preamble is for the original 7 Articles (which you can read, along with the preamble, here); it has nothing to do with the Bill of Rigths. Unless the National Archives and Records Administration also can't be trusted. I mean, even though they actually have the original document, they might be getting their history of it wrong. Maybe. Anything's possible, I guess...

Seriously though, the Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1789. Twelve amendments to the Constitution were proposed on September 25, 1789 -- ten passed. Those first ten amendments are actually genuine, according-to-Hoyle amendments to the Constitution. They were proposed (instead of altering the original document) to ensure that the "vague" wording of the original articles couldn't be abused by a tyrannical federal government to trample on the rights of the citizenry. They are collectively called the "Bill of Rights" because of these guarantees.

The NARA article A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution has a lot of good information in it. You seem like someone who might be interested in reading it. What better way to "Get Learned" than to get information straight from the official source?

-B

Where do you get that wacky idea? The first ten amendments make up what is called the Bill of Rights. The preamble is for the original 7 Articles (which you can read, along with the preamble, here); it has nothing to do with the Bill of Rigths. Unless the National Archives and Records Administration also can't be trusted. I mean, even though they actually have the original document, they might be getting their history of it wrong. Maybe. Anything's possible, I guess...

Seriously though, the Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1789. Twelve amendments to the Constitution were proposed on September 25, 1789 -- ten passed. Those first ten amendments are actually genuine, according-to-Hoyle amendments to the Constitution. They were proposed (instead of altering the original document) to ensure that the "vague" wording of the original articles couldn't be abused by a tyrannical federal government to trample on the rights of the citizenry. They are collectively called the "Bill of Rights" because of these guarantees.

The NARA article A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution has a lot of good information in it. You seem like someone who might be interested in reading it. What better way to "Get Learned" than to get information straight from the official source?

-B

I thought that everyone AGREED that the constitution serves to limit the government. You are the first to say that we are talking out of our butt to say so.

Apparently you didn't read the parent that I was saying to mod up... Seriously, what I'm saying is not a revolutionary idea. Go back and look at the Federalist Papers to see the Founders' discussion of this.

But the constitution doesn't limit the "infiniteness" of the government. That's meaningless.

Precisely my point. It's quite impossible to enumerate every one of the people's rights, or the ways in which government must be constrained. The Founding Fathers were smart guys. They realized this, and built the thing from the other way around. They gave a specific list of the things the government is ALLOWED to do. Don't just take my word for it; read Article I Section 8 in the actual document, and then the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Can you tell me what constitutional right social security tramples?

As I mentioned above, the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

do other government programs like public education and the road system and the ports similarly trample constitutional rights?

You haven't studied this very much, have you? First, let me repeat that everything imaginable is a right of the people, unless it has been explicitly delegated to the government; see the 10th Amendment:

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.

However, the courts have seen fit to allow a degree of wiggle room. Specifically, the Interstate Highway System is squeezed into "To raise and support Armies", because the roads are putatively built to move military materiel around.

The justification for education is even more bizarre, coming from the infamous Interstate Commerce Clause: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". That may be true, but the link is tenuous, considering the types of programs being pushed into education (how does sex education affect the ability of the poeple to read contracts and calculate invoices?).

Do you really think that the founding fathers believed that government should not have the right to tax people and build roads?

Given the way that you phrased this, it's an easy question. Yes, not only do I believe it, but it's an objective fact. The thing is, the government does not have ANY rights. Only people have rights. Government has only the powers that are explicitly delegated to it by the people. For a fuller understanding of this, read Thomas Paine's Common Sense .

If I can rewrite your question properly, then yes, these specific powers are authorized in Article I Section 8 (and the 16th Amendment, in the case of taxation).

Just a few points about the prior posts:

1) To consider that the Seperation of Church and State is a Constitutional fact is a huge mistake. Nowhere in the Constitution or any of it's 27 Ammendments does the proclimation of this Urban Myth hold true.

Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experien ce/charters/constitution.html

Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experien ce/charters/bill_of_rights.html

Ammendments 11-27: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experien ce/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

It turns out the idea of Seperation of Church and State was from a simple corrispondence letter by Thomas Jefferson and the concerns that endorsing a particular sect of the Christian Church could cause problems, as most of the colonies were created for religious reasons and persecution from the then indocrination of the Catholic and Angilican (Church of England) churches.

Learn more here: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.ht ml

2) There's also some things to note about the different opinions of Evolution. Most will argue the micro/macro evolution chain (if a small change can happen in a short time then a large change can happen in a long time) is a logical fallacy. It has been observed that a species can make small genetic changes within the genome, but there is no conclusive evidence to support large inter-species changes (paradoxies like the chicken and the egg) make this quite a chore for even the best of debaters (master debators?!), the geological record shows large jumps between species, but no interum species. Most genetic changes that have been observed are usually fatal to the species in question or have a detrimental impact instead of a positive impact.

3) Any religious ideology requires a faith element to it (takes just as much faith to believe there is no God as to believe that there is a God), and by definition faith cannot be scientifically analyzed, however science can assist in the proof (or disproof) of historical references for that said faith.

http://dict.die.net/faith/

Keeping an open mind can be good, but too often it can be cluttered with inaccuricies and FUD, it's best to be skeptical with what you read/hear until you can cross-reference them with reliable sources.

Just a few points about the prior posts:

1) To consider that the Seperation of Church and State is a Constitutional fact is a huge mistake. Nowhere in the Constitution or any of it's 27 Ammendments does the proclimation of this Urban Myth hold true.

Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experien ce/charters/constitution.html

Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experien ce/charters/bill_of_rights.html

Ammendments 11-27: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experien ce/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

It turns out the idea of Seperation of Church and State was from a simple corrispondence letter by Thomas Jefferson and the concerns that endorsing a particular sect of the Christian Church could cause problems, as most of the colonies were created for religious reasons and persecution from the then indocrination of the Catholic and Angilican (Church of England) churches.

Learn more here: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.ht ml

2) There's also some things to note about the different opinions of Evolution. Most will argue the micro/macro evolution chain (if a small change can happen in a short time then a large change can happen in a long time) is a logical fallacy. It has been observed that a species can make small genetic changes within the genome, but there is no conclusive evidence to support large inter-species changes (paradoxies like the chicken and the egg) make this quite a chore for even the best of debaters (master debators?!), the geological record shows large jumps between species, but no interum species. Most genetic changes that have been observed are usually fatal to the species in question or have a detrimental impact instead of a positive impact.

3) Any religious ideology requires a faith element to it (takes just as much faith to believe there is no God as to believe that there is a God), and by definition faith cannot be scientifically analyzed, however science can assist in the proof (or disproof) of historical references for that said faith.

http://dict.die.net/faith/

Keeping an open mind can be good, but too often it can be cluttered with inaccuricies and FUD, it's best to be skeptical with what you read/hear until you can cross-reference them with reliable sources.

Just a few points about the prior posts:

1) To consider that the Seperation of Church and State is a Constitutional fact is a huge mistake. Nowhere in the Constitution or any of it's 27 Ammendments does the proclimation of this Urban Myth hold true.

Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experien ce/charters/constitution.html

Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experien ce/charters/bill_of_rights.html

Ammendments 11-27: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experien ce/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

It turns out the idea of Seperation of Church and State was from a simple corrispondence letter by Thomas Jefferson and the concerns that endorsing a particular sect of the Christian Church could cause problems, as most of the colonies were created for religious reasons and persecution from the then indocrination of the Catholic and Angilican (Church of England) churches.

Learn more here: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.ht ml

2) There's also some things to note about the different opinions of Evolution. Most will argue the micro/macro evolution chain (if a small change can happen in a short time then a large change can happen in a long time) is a logical fallacy. It has been observed that a species can make small genetic changes within the genome, but there is no conclusive evidence to support large inter-species changes (paradoxies like the chicken and the egg) make this quite a chore for even the best of debaters (master debators?!), the geological record shows large jumps between species, but no interum species. Most genetic changes that have been observed are usually fatal to the species in question or have a detrimental impact instead of a positive impact.

3) Any religious ideology requires a faith element to it (takes just as much faith to believe there is no God as to believe that there is a God), and by definition faith cannot be scientifically analyzed, however science can assist in the proof (or disproof) of historical references for that said faith.

http://dict.die.net/faith/

Keeping an open mind can be good, but too often it can be cluttered with inaccuricies and FUD, it's best to be skeptical with what you read/hear until you can cross-reference them with reliable sources.

Its important to distinguish between "allegations" and "proven". Especially if you're going to title a post "True Lies". Its also important to realize that "facts" culled from the mainstream media may not be "facts" at all.

You, allege that Bush had some connection with the Swift Boat guys, who made their own allegations about Kerry.

None of that is proof of a connection. Said collusion would be illegal under the terms of a 527. While perhaps there was some backroom stuff, there was much more evidence of collusion between say, moveon.org and the Kerry campaign then there was between the Swift Vet guys and the Bush campaign.

Since anyone can allege anything, I'm unimpressed.

Nor can you blame the Swift Vet guys 100% on Bush, Kerry really pissed them off with his testimony. If you read their book, its pretty clear that's what they were most upset about. To them, Kerry was the poster child for the anti-solider faction of the anti-war movement. That's probably not fair, but that's how they felt. over 50% of the swift vet ads were paid for by small individual donations, vs. moveon.org which was 90% funded by George Soros...

As far as the vote count goes here's a link to the final official tally (which isn't available yet). http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral _college/2004/election_results.html

And you wrote 50M, not 60M. If you'd written 60, I wouldn't have bothered to correct you I'm not that much of a quibbler. This site reports it as 62M: http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/. The difference bewteen the 60M and the 62M is because of absentee and provisional ballots being counted since election day.

The armed forces being filled with the disadvantaged is a myth left over from the draft-era days. The armed forces are primarily filled with the middle class, not the disadvantaged or the advantaged. 96% of enlisted soldiers hold high schools diplomas as opposed to 75% of the equivalent civilian population, and they tend to score higher on verbal and math tests then the general populace.

"meatgrinder" doesn't seem particularly appropriate given that the losses in Iraq and Afghanistan are so far much, much smaller then Vietnam, and most soldiers in Iraq are still more in danger from not fastening their seatbelt then they are from an Iraqi insurgent.

As far as "hating me" goes, while I admire your passion for your beliefs, you're not going to convince anyone with hyperbole.

So far you've made:

1. Pointless irrelevant accusations about Bush and the Swift Vets when the topic was CBS...

2. You've basically insulted all of our men and women in uniform, quite baselessly.

3. You've gotten a number wrong.

4. You've called a war where we've lost about 1,200 servicemen and women a "meatgrinder".

5. You've accused me of hating America and the facts because I corrected you on a couple of items.

And I hate America and the facts? Please. I just would just like criticism of the President to be factual, and well-reasoned, not tired, emotion-laden rehashes of untrue allegations culled from the New York Times, the Washington Post, or CBS.

One of the reasons I got interested in politics was I started reading the transcripts of the administration briefings. I was shocked at the difference between what the administration said, and what got reported they said.

Bottom line, CBS, NYT and WP are all capitalist organizations organized for profit. They make that profit by getting you to consume their product, and they get you to do that by making the news more exciting. One need not look for liberal bias, one need only look for "conflict bias".

The news we see or read every day is more and more just "made up" in the newrooms. If Professional Wresting isn't a "Sport" but "Sports Entertainment", our media h

Oh and that freedom of speech law is the first thing in the bill of rights. The US founding fathers are on think secret's side.

If this is the way apple is trying to get extra publicity for it's products then I think it's doublely wrong. Trying to limit someone's rights as a publicity stunt is wrong wrong wrong.

I'm writing this on my ibook but when it's apple versus my rights, I will always side with my rights.

That was changed with an amendment somewhere back in the late 1800's/early 1900's.

The legal concept of a corporation as a "person" which has Constitutional rights came from a Supreme Court decision, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1886.

FYI, It only took me about three seconds to find this with a Google search. There's no excuse to spout uninformed nonsense when finding the facts and documenting them is so trivially easy.

Uh, you are talking out of your ass. 'classified' is not a marking. Look at executive order 13292 .