Slashdot Mirror

Are you saying that roads were, historically, only built for the military?

Well, yes and no, but I wasn't referring to roads in general. I was referring specifically to the Interstate System. You know, I-70, I-80, I-35. The original name was the "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways."

http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/highway.htm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.ht ml
http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/dl/InterstateHi ghways/InterstateHighwaysdocuments.html

Referring to roads in general, the Romans built the best and longest lasting roadway system. Roman roads were originally built wide enough for a garrison to march down them. Sounds like military use to me. http://www.teachingideas.co.uk/history/romanrd.htm .

Well, considering "We The People" is in the preamble to the Constitution, I imagine the OCR would have trouble finding it in the Declaration of Independence.

Free speech? You're almost correct in your statement, but the people in China have the right to free speech just like every human being. The problem is that the People's Republic of China being an unconcionable totalitarian state tramples on their basic human rights. Rights are not bestowed by the government, we're endowed with them by our Creator, sound familiar?. To correct your statement, I'm proud that I live in a country where my rights are trampled on less than most.

We our really polite at times before killing people.

Your woeful mangling of our language notwithstanding, this is a uniquely American tradition that goes back a few years.

And just because something was written into the founding documents doesn't make it right, or appicable to todays world. After all, the Constitution had provisions for slavery in it. See Article 1, Section 2, third paragraph.

See, I can look up historical documents, too!

but his advisor(s) (Name forgotten, but there was a key one, here.) told him that it would never work.

From the summary: All levels of government in Canada must ensure that their laws are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that their policies and actions do not off end Charter protections. Several submissions suggested that putting British Columbians' personal information at risk of seizure under the USA Patriot Act might confl ict with privacy protection under the Charter. While we do not analyze this question, we acknowledge that Canadian courts require Charter values and rights to be considered in interpreting legislation such as BC's FOIPPA.

So I decided to look up this charter, and I found it. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which goes to unusual lengths to tell the world that French and English are it's official languages.

Then I decided to look for the US Bill of Rights, which is located not on a website with the words "law" and "justice" in the URL, but rather on "archives.gov" and what I'm reading is a Transcript of the Bill of Rights, as if it's chronicling an event and not informing me of my rights.

And I noticed the transcript of the Fifth 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 , and I contrasted it with Canada's charter: 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. Period, end of sentance, no "except."

Is America more interested in the history of it's laws than in the current reality? Are we, under the Patriot Act, in a constant state of "public danger" and therefore subject to being held, as I've heard people have been, without being told the crime they're being held for, with no court date, and no trial. What a strange, and convoluted time we live in that we are in a constant state of being the exception and not the rule.

"Natural Rights" in the sense that Americans understand them were discussed at length by John Locke back in the late 1600's.

If you get a chance to check out his Second Treatise , you will see these writings that heavily influenced America's founding fathers. In fact, if you read the Declaration of Independence closely, you will find that some of it was cribbed word for word from Locke!

What are you saying? Bottled wine is too heavy to fall under governmental prohibition?

-Peter

1. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2. 
   
   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Constitution

1. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. 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.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

1. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire,
2. 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.

Bill of Rights

1. Amendment I
2. 
   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.
   
   Amendment II
   A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
   
   Amendment III

1. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2. 
   
   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Constitution

1. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. 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.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

1. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire,
2. 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.

Bill of Rights

1. Amendment I
2. 
   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.
   
   Amendment II
   A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
   
   Amendment III

1. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2. 
   
   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Constitution

1. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. 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.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

1. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire,
2. 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.

Bill of Rights

1. Amendment I
2. 
   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.
   
   Amendment II
   A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
   
   Amendment III

1. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2. 
   
   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Constitution

1. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. 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.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

1. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire,
2. 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.

Bill of Rights

1. Amendment I
2. 
   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.
   
   Amendment II
   A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
   
   Amendment III

the original intent of copyright protection as spelled out in the Constitution was to benefit the public not imprison it and it was never intended to cover mere use of a work, only distribution.

Try reading the Constitution some time.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
Congress shall have the power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Copyright protection was to benefit the author and/or inventor, not the public. And what part of exclusive rights don't you get? It covers more than distribution, but also the mere use of a work.

This is one of the best questions in this forum.

To find out who your electors are, you need to ask the Secretary of State (it's probabably on their webpage).

Each state handles the Electoral College differently. Some states do list the names of the Electors on your ballot.

I believe this is the information you are looking for:

The U. S. Electoral College.

I've read many posts arguing that this is an awful proposal in so far as it will negate the influence of Colorado on the national scene.

I would argue that instead it would make it exactly the opposite. Colorado would always be a battle ground state, where even getting an extra 10% of the vote is useful, even if the candidate is significantly behind in the polls. Any candidate who would ignore Colorado after this ammendment were passed would be buried in Colorado.

Where this really helps is with 3rd party candidates, as has been remarked about earlier. Going off of the 2000 popular vote totals, I put them into a spreadsheet and calculated what the electorial vote totals should have been in Bush vs. Gore had all of the states used such a proportial voting system. Here are the final results:

Bush 263 electorial votes
Gore 262 electorial votes
Nader 13 electorial votes
Buchanan 0 electorial votes

This would have put Ralph Nader into a really interesting position politically that the USA normally has never had to deal with in the past. That is a 3rd party that is able to significantly modify elections. It would also be interesting to see what the constitutionality would be if in the time between November and January when the electorial votes were cast if Nader could throw his support to Gore (hypothetically in this case) to keep this from going to the U.S. House of Representatives. Certainly Democrats would have been "forced" to deal with the Green Party and perhaps have to adopt some of its platforms. I wish I had the popular vote totals for 1992, as H. Ross Perot was an even larger influence on the popular vote than even Nader was in 2000.

These vote totals also show that yes, small states have a big influence (dispite the more total votes to Gore) even under such a system, but not quite as much as it would seem from the rural oligarchy opponents would have you believe.

One very interesting state was Alaska, where the votes for Bush would have only guarenteed a single electorial vote, and tie-breaking procedures would have been required for the other two votes, in part due to votes for Nader. Nader would have still needed more votes than Gore to get one of those electorial votes, but that is interesting in itself, where a major party is directly challenged by a 3rd Party.

This is a clear-cut case of where such a proportional system would have huge implications on the national scene. BTW, Nader would have recieved one electorial vote from Colorado if this proportional system were in place during the 2000 election. Far from a thrown away vote, it would have been a deciding factor for determing who would be President of the USA. It would have been Bush 4, Gore 3, and Nader 1 (Colorado had 8 electorial votes in 2000). Nader would have had 2 electorial votes from California.

Such a system like this, which can be implemented independently by the various state legislatures, really would have a profound impact on the American republic politically. The substantial increase in power by 3rd parties through such a system is perhaps the #1 reason why a system like this would not get widespread adoption, although individual states doing something like this certainly would see a huge increase in 3rd party campaigning. With that perhaps a real debate regarding policies and ideas for our country as well, and that by itself could also be a huge political draw as well for at least the first states that would adopt such a system.

Since I can find these stats, Utah in 1992 is even more interesting for the presidential election and five electorial votes. Electorial votes would have been devided like this:

Bush (Sr.): 2 electorial votes
Clinton: 1 electorial vote
Perot: 2 electorial votes

Perot would have been a major political force in 1992. Another example of how this election would have a huge impact ad such a situation occured.

I guess it comes down to this: people have the right to express themselves, but do they have the right to shove it in my face ?

Yes.

And I hope we always have this right.

You claim that the govt. deserves to have control over the public airwaves. Well, the govt. owns the public libraries operated in every city in this country.

I assume that you're in the United States. Local governments operate the public libraries, not the federal government. However, the fed. gov't influences the policies of local libraries by providing funds to libraries that meet certain qualifications (read: establish certain policies). Of course, any local library is free to reject the federal provisions (and the funds that go with them).

For some reason, though, the government does not apply FCC restrictions to the content of the books it buys to fill these libraries.

The way federal law is written, the FCC isn't part of the library-funding structure, so their rules don't apply.

At some point, our society decided that books=art and regulating the content of the printed page is censorship. Dreyfuss is pushing for his medium (public television) to also qualify as art.

There is a general principle used by the courts that covers this. Books, paintings, statues, etc. existed at the time the Constitution was adopted, and are considered to be covered by the first amendment as an existing form of expression that was intended to be covered. Newer technologies are looked upon more skeptically by the courts and are not automatically covered by Constitutional protections--they have to be argued into being protected by really good lawyers. (One day I'll try to find some example court cases, but don't have the energy to do it now.)

You claim that the govt. deserves to have control over the public airwaves. Well, the govt. owns the public libraries operated in every city in this country.

I assume that you're in the United States. Local governments operate the public libraries, not the federal government. However, the fed. gov't influences the policies of local libraries by providing funds to libraries that meet certain qualifications (read: establish certain policies). Of course, any local library is free to reject the federal provisions (and the funds that go with them).

For some reason, though, the government does not apply FCC restrictions to the content of the books it buys to fill these libraries.

The way federal law is written, the FCC isn't part of the library-funding structure, so their rules don't apply.

At some point, our society decided that books=art and regulating the content of the printed page is censorship. Dreyfuss is pushing for his medium (public television) to also qualify as art.

There is a general principle used by the courts that covers this. Books, paintings, statues, etc. existed at the time the Constitution was adopted, and are considered to be covered by the first amendment as an existing form of expression that was intended to be covered. Newer technologies are looked upon more skeptically by the courts and are not automatically covered by Constitutional protections--they have to be argued into being protected by really good lawyers. (One day I'll try to find some example court cases, but don't have the energy to do it now.)

Also, what is this BS of people breaking house rules just because they want their law passed?

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Botched the URL for the records of interest.
Tryhere

341 248
All of the capital stock of the Union Banking Corporation and all rights of the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart and the August Thyssen Bank in the debts of said corporation.

Its not proof of a major Nazi conspiracy just that Prescott Bush was a principal in Union Banking and Union Banking was banking for people in Nazi Germany, the wealthy Thyssen family, and Fritz Thyssen funded Hitler, and encouraged many wealthy industrialists to back him a ta pivotal point in his rise, before they realized what a mistake it was, but at that point it was to late.

"The "boys" have worked long and hard to erase all that stuff from public and government records.

If you repeat it you are Un-American! Heil."

Well actually in one case their is a record. The records for all of the property seized under the trading with the enemy act, and there was a lot of it, because its was trendy in the 20's and 30's for America's moneyed class to invest in Germany and then Nazi Germany, was recently declassified. You can view them at the national archives or order copies. The main one is the one above. The archives in general are at:

http://www.archives.gov/index.html

The doc is not especially interesting though it does list Prescott Bush as a share holder in Union Banking which was seized by the Roosevelt administration. I wonder if that fueled the family hatred of the democrats.

The Harrriman family owned the lion's share of the stock but apparently the Harriman's gave the relatively poor Bush family buckets of money and they did the leg work. One of the Harriman's and Prescott were fellow Skull and Bones men at Yale.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In the Declaration it does not say property. It states there are others, unmentioned. If property is among them, and property is passed though wills to others upon death, do you therefore think ownership of inventions should be passed on indefinitely if willed by its owner? Once the block and tackle, gears, and hydraulics are invented, is it fair to expect all future inventors to pay for using those in their designs? Using leverage appears so simple it obvious. Should all inventors who don't want to pay have to use levers, such as the inventor of the crane?

If property is not among them, and government exists to serve the people, I say the people are better served by the accumulation of knowledge, invention, and art for all to enjoy. You keep saying a life cannot be lived without a way to pay for it, and I agree. Creators should get compensation if others desire their work.

You keep talking about the State granting and revoking rights. The people created the State, run it, and shape it. So the people had the State grant rights and remove others. Why should property be inalienable? It may help pay for the cost of living. Couldn't society decide we all work on kibbutzim growing and machining things to pay for living, but all invention and art are free for all?

If you remember an applicable Journal(s), I'd read that.

Oh yeah, the continued shredding of the Bill of Rights. How long will it be before the DOJ censors this site too. Its clearly a threat to national security.

OTOH, perhaps we could start a pool to guess when it is finally completely gone.

The Congress shall have Power To [. . .] regulate Commerce [. . .] among the several States

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[long list of grievances; see linked document]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

While it's true no American president was ever elected with a minority of the electoral vote,

[BZZT!]
"I'm sorry, thank you for playing, next contestant please..."

John Quincy Adams, 1824. Andrew Jackson had both a higher popular vote and electoral college vote, but neither had a majority. Under constitutional provisions, the top three candidates were voted on by the house; the fourth threw his support behind Adams, giving him enough for a victory. (Additional reference source)

The 1876 Hayes/Tilden election also might qualify, as an electoral commission of dubious provenance decided the fates of votes from 4 disputed states, with Hayes finally winning by a single electoral vote.

And, of course, the Florida electoral votes would have been enough to swing the 2000 election, if you want to bring those shenanigans back up....

"Oh, and gay marriage should not be illegal. Wanna talk about unconstitutional...?" where in the constition does it say that two people of the same sex can get married. ianal but....i remember nothing that say's anything about marriage in the constition. actually... read it your self btw this treaty stinks.

The U2 wasn't around for 50 years when it was discovered. YOu may be thinking of the SR-71, which was around for maybe 25 years before they started talking about it in public.

The box may be purely evidence, though I am unconvinced.

In any case, search warrants overcome 4th amendment protections. There is no warrant that can compel a person to testify against himself.

You might take a look at The Bill of Rights.

-Peter

Hey.. what a great idea.. too bad somebody didn't think of this before..

Oh wait.. they did

1. You assume that it is US moderators that mod you down because they don't like your criticism of the US. Possible, but not proven. I believe that some of my pro-Right to Keep and Bear Arms comments get modded down because of moderator prejudice. Oh, well; it happens. That's what meta-moderation is supposed to work against. I hope you moderate and meta-moderate, both often and fairly. We ALL should (Yes, it just kills me to mod-up stuff I disagree with, but I do it because if it's a truly informative or insightful comment that move the discussion, then I should.)

2. Like Slashdot, the US isn't perfect. I think even the most ardent supporters of the US Constitution (my hand raises & waves frantically) do noot seriously make such a claim. I've certainly not seen it made.

Now, the claim that the US is *better* than other countries, yeah, that we'll fess up to proposing that!

3. Yes, America if full of racism & injustice. As a Christian, I believe that is because of the sinful nature of man. You may believe in other reasons. But -- what country isn't?! All are guilty of it!

I believe the US Constitution gives free people the "best in the world" shot at legal equality and real justice. Of course, we will never achieve perfect justice and equality, but for each of us in the US, the protections afforded us in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments make justice and equality a possibility. In far too many parts of the world there is NO chance for justice or equality--the poor and weak are the prey of the rich and powerful. Sure, it doesn't always work here, either, but there is a chance. Sometimes, the weak overcome the powerful in the courts or in the market.

1. You assume that it is US moderators that mod you down because they don't like your criticism of the US. Possible, but not proven. I believe that some of my pro-Right to Keep and Bear Arms comments get modded down because of moderator prejudice. Oh, well; it happens. That's what meta-moderation is supposed to work against. I hope you moderate and meta-moderate, both often and fairly. We ALL should (Yes, it just kills me to mod-up stuff I disagree with, but I do it because if it's a truly informative or insightful comment that move the discussion, then I should.)

2. Like Slashdot, the US isn't perfect. I think even the most ardent supporters of the US Constitution (my hand raises & waves frantically) do noot seriously make such a claim. I've certainly not seen it made.

Now, the claim that the US is *better* than other countries, yeah, that we'll fess up to proposing that!

3. Yes, America if full of racism & injustice. As a Christian, I believe that is because of the sinful nature of man. You may believe in other reasons. But -- what country isn't?! All are guilty of it!

I believe the US Constitution gives free people the "best in the world" shot at legal equality and real justice. Of course, we will never achieve perfect justice and equality, but for each of us in the US, the protections afforded us in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments make justice and equality a possibility. In far too many parts of the world there is NO chance for justice or equality--the poor and weak are the prey of the rich and powerful. Sure, it doesn't always work here, either, but there is a chance. Sometimes, the weak overcome the powerful in the courts or in the market.

Is it ethical to break the law?

Some would argue that it can be. She might. They might. He might. Heck, some people might argue that treason against one's country could sometimes be ethical.

Mind you, I'm not defending counterfeiting currency, just answering your question. Your question implies that you would say that breaking the law is unethical. I'm always surprised to hear Americans declare that the law is a measure of morality or ethics given that many of the best parts of our country came from civil disobediance. (I realize you might not be American, if so, my apologies. Still, the statement stands.)

So you and aralin would dispute The Declaration of Independence in stating that it is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal? That in fact you believe that the very cornerstone of the US's entire existence as a nation is actually wrong? How weirdly unamerican. I would encourage you to follow through on moving in with the Free Staters, except they don't really want to actually leave the comfort of the US, just move to New Hampshire, where they can whine about taxes and operate their vehicles without helmets or seatbelts. Very radical and principled. Not.

People who endorse and encourage illegal activities normally aren't very reputable.

Sorry, I just don't believe criminals.

Then you've probably been really upset about these criminal manifestos.

People who endorse and encourage illegal activities normally aren't very reputable.

Sorry, I just don't believe criminals.

Then you've probably been really upset about these criminal manifestos.

People who endorse and encourage illegal activities normally aren't very reputable.

Sorry, I just don't believe criminals.

Then you've probably been really upset about these criminal manifestos.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You say "The purpose of the Consitution, undeniably, is to protect the American people". I say, you still don't get it. The purpose of the Constitution is to define what the people have said the various branches of the US Government are allowed to do, what they are required to do, and what they are forbidden to do. The Bill of Rights does not GRANT PROTECTION to the people so much as it DENIES POWER to the government. You, like many other people, are confusing cause and effect. Power flows from the people to the government, not the other way around. Read the Virginia Declaration of Rights if you are still confused as to the concepts on which the US Constitution is based.

The stated purpose of the Constitution is 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". Madison, Mason, and company rightfully felt that the biggest threat to Liberty was an out-of-control government, and that the best way to be secured against the danger of maladministration was by STRICTLY LIMITING WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO DO.

The Fifth Amendment says "No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" It dosen't say "except if they're just visiting". The Sixth Amendment says "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial". It doesn't say, "unless they're accused of being an 'unlawful combatant' or a 'terrorist'". Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say "the Citizens", or "the Taxpayers", or even "the Residents". It says "the People". As in each and every man, woman, and child, period, end of freaking story. You know, the same people who were all "created equal, [...] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

The Constitution does not grant the President or Congress the power to pick and chose whose rights are protected and whose are not, nor does it give Congress the authority to pass legislation granting itself or the President any additional powers beyond those enumerated within the Constitution. Additional powers may only be granted via a duly ratified Constitutional amendment. The fact that we the people have allowed Congress and the President to usurp power they are not entitled to just shows how ignorant and apathetic most Americans have become. We need to wake up and put our government back into it's rightful place.

Is there a new section of the Constitution that I don't know about that declares that "the right of non-citizens to be photographed and fingerprinted shall not be infringed"?

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.

The fact that Congress and the President continue to usurp authority not granted them is criminal. The fact that we do not call them to account is pathetic.

If I remember correctly, presidents in the U.S. are elected by the people.

Interesting theory. I guess that depends on your definition of "people."

Personally, I feel that the state of the economy is due to the combination of the policies of the sitting president and the president that came before them. For example, Clinton fed the bubble despite a long cautionary history about preventing an economy from expanding too quickly. However, a sitting president is most definitely responsible for the federal deficit that is racked up during their administration, as they have direct control over such policies.

First off, the second amendment (source):

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

(my emphasis added)

Where in the text of the second amendment does it say "conventional firearms"? The truth is, it doesn't. The truth is, at the time the Bill of Rights was written up, people could and did own weapons as powerful as their own government's weapons, whether that was flintlock rifles, or cannons drawn behind horses or mounted to private ships. Why? Because often, these same people were the "well regulated militia"!

You may say "well, that is the role of the Army/Navy/Air Force today" - and you would be wrong again. At the time, it was seen that a government with a standing army was a dangerous government (to the people it governs). It was argued (I believe in the various Federalist Papers and elsewhere) that such a system should not be put into place. Alas, it was never codified in the Constitution that such a standing army not be erected.

You may tell yourself that the citizens of this country have no need for weapons that equal the government's, that the government would never turn its weapons and soldiers on its own people, that the soldiers would never fire upon their own countrymen - and you would be WRONG.

I am sure there are more recent examples, but Kent State is one U.S. example - and to invoke Godwin's Law, have we forgotten Nazi Germany?

What the hell is it going to take to open your eyes and see what our government has already done to our rights? Need I list them?

War on (some) Drugs (aka, Prohibition Redux)

DMCA

UCITA

Gun control laws

PATRIOT Act

Echelon

Carnivore

Driving Laws removing the Right to Travel

and on and on...

WAKE UP, PEOPLE (if it isn't already too late)!!!

"The authorities here finally decided to bankrupt me over a tax debt and I have now had to give the missile to a friend for safe keeping."

You would think that people would learn. If you're going to skirt the edge of the legal system, always pay your taxes!

Remember, Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion, not organized criminal activity. His claim that "The government can't collect legal taxes from illegal money." (1) held no more water than Simpson's claim that the government is trying to "bankrupt" him.

And speaking of Simpsons...

Lisa: Bart. Bart! What are you doing? We've got to get out of here.
Bart: Target sighted. Launching air-to-nerd missile!
[launches a missile model, hitting Lisa]
Lisa: Owww!
- Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming

" ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble ... "

I'm not sure about anti-American, but Knoppix is not hard to find in the US, yet. You don't need to break any laws to download and run it either, yet.

Oh yeah, "Digital Rights Management" is un-American. It gimps my press and that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, "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." When someone else has control of what files can and can't be coppied or created on my primary writng instrument, I have no free press, speech or ability to petition my government. If I'm unable to share files from my primary writing instrument, I'm effectively forbiden to publish. Nothing short of universal censorship will make DRM work and nothing could be less American than that.

Microsoft is not just an embarasement to the technical community, they are an embarasement to all of us.

It's more of a bill on which several rights are illustrated than an illustrated Bill of Rights.

Interesting. It is the ACLU, not me, that is calling that poster the "Illustrated Bill of Rights" (on the web page; the poster itself appears to say "The American Civil Liberties Union Bill of Rights" in all capital letters). My understanding is that the first ten Amendments are collectively called the "Bill of Rights". It's interesting that the ACLU would use that name while using a different assortment of Amendments.

if you have an explicit anti-2nd Ammendment blocking category

They don't. They have a "weapons" category, and NRA's political arm is filed there too. And the blocking is enabled by default, while anti-gun organizations are not blocked. That ain't right.

steveha

One would hope that google cache and/or the wayback machine would not be responsible for archiving government websites/propoganda anyway.

The US National Archives *should* be keeping backups of the predidential web sites. I poked around for a bit, and couldn't find any archives of the clinton administration's web site, so maybe they don't.

If they do not, it would be very irresponsible...

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

And do you have any friends? .... I don't see how being a corporate-whore "I won't even burn a CD for close friends, or rip their CDs -- despite the 32 GB of free space on my portable" deserves "Insightful

Fewer and fewer friends everyday. I prefer to think I'm distilling my friendships to the pure essence, but it's more likely I'm just obnoxious and disliked.

But it's not a matter of being a "corporate whore", it's a matter of self-respect: I entered into an agreement (explicitly so, with emusic.com, implicitly with US copyright law if you buy into a Social Contract theory) not to redistribute the musical works I've bought.

And I haven't yet reached the point that I feel the "train of abuses and usurpations" has continued long enough to impel me to "alter... former Systems" and unilaterally adopt new Systems (of course, I'm liberally paraphrasing another product of of Social Contract theorists).

At some point (soon) I may come to agree with you, and start "fighting the Man", but I think it's still necessary to make the point that I don't expect my music for free, but I do expect to be resected as a consumer, and I do expect the freedom to listen to what I purchase.

I will agree to storm the barricades with you if and when Digital Restriction Management is made mandatory. But so far, these rights have not been trodden on, so I can't agree with you.

Bush received 50,456,169 popular votes.
Gore received 50,996,116 popular votes.

According to yesterday's article in the Washing ton Post (reprinted by Yahoo):

About 57 million Americans use file-sharing services...

I think the winner is pretty clear.

While some people here think this is a dig at President Bush, it does not change the fact that the post is correct. I can't find a presidential election where the winner had more than 57 million votes. The closest is Reagan in 1984 with 54,455,000. You can see all the numbers here.

Now imagine the power of being able to capture the votes of P2P users. Think anyone out there is looking at buying some advertising banners on a P2P product?