Slashdot Mirror

People cleared sign the SF-312 non-disclosure agreement:
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf

The FAQ provided has a relevant Q and A:

Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?

Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html

People cleared sign the SF-312 non-disclosure agreement:
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf

The FAQ provided has a relevant Q and A:

Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?

Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html

Bills can originate in either the House or the Senate except bills for raising revenue must orginate in the House. Americans: read your Constitution. It's only seven articles.

You can also get the audio version (search bittorrent).

Then hop over to oyezwhere you can listen to real recordings of Supreme Court cases to get a feel for how it all works.

As a non American I think you guys have the finest legal system in the world in the sense that it's open and it's not too difficult to understand.

The problem in the US is not the communists or socialists.

It's the Communists, the Socialists, the Progressives who are a bit of both, and every other radical revolutionary group all moving to take advantage of a perceived opportunity to crash the current system. They are not necessarily all plotting together with any sort of overt coordination, although some are forming loose alliances.

They simply see the coming economic collapse as their chance to pile-on to destabilize the society sufficiently that people will cry out for anyone to save them from the chaos and thus provide the chance to assume power.

The "reset" that needs to happen is in the direction of a government that acts in the best interest of the people, and I'm not sure that's possible at this point.

Historically, it has been only relatively small and limited central governments that have done passable jobs at acting in the best interests and according to the will of the common citizens. The larger and more powerful a government becomes, the less it is concerned with the welfare and freedoms of the populace and the more it is concerned solely with its' own growth in wealth and power.

The US Declaration of Independence provides within it's second paragraph the remedy for government that refuses to heed the wishes of the citizens.

"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."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Hello kwerle --

In your previous post here, you quote more:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(For those of you following along, this is the first clause in Article I Section 8.)

I think you might have a parsing error here. This clause states that Congress has the right to gather money that it can then spend on defense and welfare. This is about taxation, and spending, and has nothing to do with any right of travel.

The keys to parsing this clause are capitalization, and punctuation:

• The Congress shall have Power To
  -- Tells us we're describing a congressional power.
• lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
  -- Tells us what the power is.
• to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
  -- Tells us what the purpose of this power is, what the justification is for granting Congress this power. We know this is *not* a congressional power itself because the "to" is lower case.
  Note too the ending semicolon -- this tells us that we are at the end of the initial description.
• but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  -- This modifies the initial description, and tells us that any such taxes, etc. levied by the Congress (i.e. any federal tax, duty, etc.) must be the same for all states. This was probably more of an issue around the time of Constitutional ratification, due to each state considering itself to be much more independent, and wanting no favoritism from the federal government towards any other state.

Hope this helps. If there is some other clause in the Constitution that I've missed that more clearly covers travel, please post it. Article I Section 8 however does not fit the bill.

Cheers,

Kwerle mentions:

The constitution certainly doesn't guarantee your right to fly. Or even drive.

The Constitution doesn't state that the federal US government has any authority to arbitrarily (i.e. without proper due process, warrants, etc.) prevent the populace from traveling by any mode they so desire. Moreover, case law backs this up (Shapiro vs. Thompson, United States v. Guest , likely numerous others as well). Ergo, the TSA is a gross violation of foundational US law, never mind any ethical or moral arguments.

QED.

It's poignantly sad to me quite how many people in the US labor under the dangerous misapprehension that the Constitution lists the rights the people have, when in point of fact the Constitution lists the rights the government has, leaving everything else not explicitly mentioned up to the people and the states. You'd think such folks had never actually read the foundational document of US law. It's not even that long. To quote:

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.

Cheers,

How about the Classified Information Non-Disclosure agreement which you have to sign to get a clearance?
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf All of the laws referenced in the agreement, apply regardless of whether you have a clearance or if you even sign the agreement.

How can it apply to you if you haven't signed or even heard about the agreement?

Seems like a secret law.

You missed the point. Did you even bother to look at it? This agreement highlights the laws that you are subject to. Most of which are US Code that apply to everyone in the US..

How about the Classified Information Non-Disclosure agreement which you have to sign to get a clearance?
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf All of the laws referenced in the agreement, apply regardless of whether you have a clearance or if you even sign the agreement.

How can it apply to you if you haven't signed or even heard about the agreement?

Seems like a secret law.

NOT LEGAL. Its in the printed newspaper = automatic clearance. Any more crap directives like this and watch all those new ROTC's in the last decade be shut down. A new academic expulsion on DOD will be initiated.

Yes it is legal. If you want a list of laws, they are all referenced in http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf.

How about the Classified Information Non-Disclosure agreement which you have to sign to get a clearance?
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf All of the laws referenced in the agreement, apply regardless of whether you have a clearance or if you even sign the agreement.

BINGO! (except the "world government police" part)

Does anybody remember the "Pentagon Papers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

The problem *is* government mishandling. There's been a LOT of talk about Assange, a little talk about Private Bradley Manning.

There has been NO talk about the adjunct to US classified information "Need To Know". No talk about Manning's chain of command that apparently put him in line to have access to such content. Not even a hint that the Department of State bureaucracy might have found proper handling procedures "inconvenient", and relaxed them -- or just plain ignored them -- probably in violation of US Federal Law.

Asst Secretary of State said Tuesday (the 30th) that the documents were in one database. Was the database set up so inexpertly that it was an all-or-none for access to the content? If so, what are the chances that a private had "need to know" the content of all of those documents? And if not, why did he have access? That part shows through the cracks. Ineffective COTS or setups or improper actions by beurocrats is only supposition.

So far, the whole event (at least as the talking heads portray) has been a bunch of CYA and finger pointing, by and on behalf of people who SHOULD be held responsible for the leak to wikileaks.

Individuals, businesses and other governments take note. It doesn't matter how good policies and procedures are when they are ignored! Is "Executive Order 12958, as amended" sufficient? Are NIST developed standards sufficient? Neither, if they are ignored!

Ref: http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/eo-12958-amendment.html
or if you prefer, perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12958

Oh, wait! Both Executive Order 12958 and Executive Order 13292 were revoked and replaced in full by President Barack Obama in the issuance of Executive Order 13526. I guess we need, instead, to look at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

"PART 4 -- SAFEGUARDING" assigns the responsibility for the leaks, as I read it. E.g. "an agency head or senior agency official .. shall establish uniform procedures to ensure that automated information systems, including networks and telecommunications systems, that collect, create, communicate, compute, disseminate, process, or store classified information: (1) prevent access by unauthorized persons;" and "the Department of Defense shall be considered one agency". "Unless otherwise authorized by the President, only the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each, may create a special access program."

Perhaps there are some specified individuals who need to answer how and why, the documents got to wikileaks.

Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech...

As far as I can see, the Bill of Rights adds no qualifiers to speech. Am I missing something?

The question comes down to whether this is a Treaty, which would require the advice and consent of 2/3rds of the Senate, or whether it's an Executive Agreement, which ultimately comes down to just an agreement between the executive branches of other agreeing nations and signed by the Executive. Nowadays, Executive Agreements are the norm in foreign policy and not Treaties.

er... yeah:

The Congress shall have 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

-- US Constitution, Article I Section 8.

That would prevent an executive order from changing Copyright or Patent laws.

This entire argument is already rendered moot by virtue of a few executive orders.

Executive Order #10995: ASSIGNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
(Seizure of all communications media in the United States.)

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1962.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-10995.htm

I am certain a "cyber attack" would constitute a State of Emergency.

Bill Clinton reaffirmed this Executive Order and a few others with Executive Order #12919: (Signed June 3, 1994,)
It encompasses the above Executive Order and more.

Executive Order #12919: NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1994.html
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo12919.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12919.htm

This entire argument is already rendered moot by virtue of a few executive orders.

Executive Order #10995: ASSIGNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
(Seizure of all communications media in the United States.)

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1962.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-10995.htm

I am certain a "cyber attack" would constitute a State of Emergency.

Bill Clinton reaffirmed this Executive Order and a few others with Executive Order #12919: (Signed June 3, 1994,)
It encompasses the above Executive Order and more.

Executive Order #12919: NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1994.html
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/eo/eo12919.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12919.htm

Affirmative action is nothing more than basic racism, choosing someone because of their race or gender in order to fulfill a bullshit dream of "increasing diversity".

Typical misrepresentation of affirmative action by an actual bigot.
Take a look at what affirmative action in the USA actually means:

"take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin"
Executive Order 10925 - Establishing The President's Committee On Equal Employment Opportunity
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html

"to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency"
Executive Order 11246--Equal employment opportunity
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html

Posted AC because I don't feel like taking the karma hit for speaking truth to off-topic stupidity.

American revolution, was a rebellion against a distant Big Government limiting people's freedom (in particular, freedom to do spend their money as they wish, without being subject to unjust taxation).

BZZZT, Wrong, thank you for playing, please exit the country in an orderly manner.

The American revolution was over the English people living in America being denied the civil rights they were granted under various English laws and traditions.

It wasn't 'No taxation without representation.', it was 'No taxation without representation'.

I don't know why idiots try to make it about taxes (Oh, right, they're idiots. I mean libertarians.). The damn Declaration of Independence explains why the US revolted. There's a damn list of reasons, right there, literally the third thing in the first official document ever of this country.(1) Getting it wrong should make you automatically discounted from being listened to in a political argument.

I will, as I am nice, count and summarize the reasons given. Feel free to go read it.

Lack of representation, 7
Lack for following laws, 8
Refusing to pass needed laws, 2
Stupid laws, 1
His military and waging war against us, 8
Cutting off trade, 1
Taxes, 1

Yeah, boy, that war sure was about taxes, wasn't it. There are twice as many complaints not passing laws as there are about taxes. That's right, the Declaration of Independence has as the second and third grievances, 'Hey, we need some sort of functioning system of laws over here, and neither you nor your governors seem to actually want to set them up. You aren't restricting us enough, we're breaking free to restrict ourselves more, because laws are needed things.'!

Put that in your damn stupid 'taxes are anti-freedom, the war was about taxes' pipe and smoke it. The revolutionary war was not only not about taxes, it wasn't about 'freedom' either. It was about rights.

The vast majority of the complaints are about a) the king not following the law WRT to representation in parliament of English citizens(8), b) the king not following other laws that apply to English citizens, like trial by jury and whatnot(7), or c) the fact England already appeared to be operating in a state of war towards the American colonies anyway(9).

Incidentally, as the Wikipedia article hilariously points out, the settlements in the US actually predates the 'Glorious Revolution', which is where it was established once and for all that the English monarchy must defer to parliament and do not have absolute power, so it's possibly that Americans were technically wrong about supposing to have 'the Rights of Englishmen'. The English kings had, by the American revolution, agreed at swordpoint at least twice that they didn't have absolute power, and signed documents to that end, but that happened after the colonies were founded, and no one actually ever stated if the colonies were included or if they got their own parliament or what. But the revolution was indisputably about those rights, regardless if the rights were 'supposed' to exist for 'Englishmen' living in America.

1) First person to argue that the Declaration isn't part of 'this country' get punched in the head twice, once for missing the point and again for being wrong.

Have you actually read the constitution?

Amendment I
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.

The US Constitution, which itself is based upon the British Constitution of 1689, stipulates the right to engage in commerce without interference.

No, it isn't, and no, it doesn't.

There is no "British Constitution of 1689". The "British Constitution" is not a written document but a set of traditions. You may be thinking of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which certainly did inspire similar enumerations by states and eventually by the federal government, but it's a far stretch to say that our Bill of Rights is based on that document.

And the U.S. Constitution does not have any passage about a "right to engage in commerce without interference". (Nor, from my admitted quick scan, does the 1689 Bill of Rights) The Constitution does, though, explicitly stipulate the power of the federal government to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" (Article I, Section 8). As AOL is an American company, and the buyer is Russian, the feds have legitimate Constitutional authority to regulate the transaction as they wish.

May I suggest you read the document in question before you make statements about what it stipulates?

I tell ya, conservatives and propertarians remind me more and more often of that old Star Trek (TOS) episode where there's a barbarian tribe that worships the Constitution but has no idea what it actually says. ("E pleb neesta...")

Plus people are pretty damn ignorant about it. Fluoridate your water already.

If you don't want to make your own choice fine with me but don't force to to follow your lead. If you want to jump of the Empire State building go ahead, but I won't. Nor do I want fluoride in my water or food. I buy purified because I don't want chemicals in my water. Here I have to pay to have chemical added then I have to pay to remove them.

Not have a country wide education programs mean poor states and counties have an efen worse time educating people.

The most importants document in the US are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA neither one says anything about any federal government education department, The fact it doesn't but you want it to doesn't mean it does. If you want, it provides a method to change it, by amending it.

Don't just treat either documents as toilet paper.

"What's crazy for scaling back the US Government to its constitutional limits "
it is within in constitutional limits. The problem is you have no clue about the constitution.

No, you are the one that is wrong. Currently the US federal government is out of it's constitutional limits. The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do, if it does not say the government can do something it can not do it. Paper after paper says so. The principle writer of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote "The powers of the central government are few and explicitly defined, while those of the state governments are several." If the Constitution gave the federal government unlimited powers then states would not have ratified it. To think anything else is delusional. And to try to convince others otherwise is corrupt.

Falcon

The Emancipation Proclamation was one of Lincoln's Executive Orders. Has it expired?

Since it only applied to "any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States", yes, regardless of any question of date. Slavery did not become illegal in the entire U.S. until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Yea, if you took the time to google you'd find that you are wrong. So obviously you don't.

"In this election, the enormously popular Washington essentially ran unopposed." The only real issue to be decided was who would be chosen as vice president. Under the system then in place, each elector cast two votes; if a person received a vote from a majority of the electors, that person became president, and the runner-up became vice president. All 69 electors cast one vote each for Washington. Their other votes were divided among eleven other candidates; John Adams received the most, becoming vice president. The Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, would change this procedure, requiring each elector to cast distinct votes for president and vice president.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html#1789

You stated that there was no electoral college for the first elections and "the States pick the president of the Union." That is incorrect, there was an electoral college, and while the states elected the electors, that didn't mean the state legislatures voted on the candidate, so no the states never picked the President of the United States.

"Speeding cameras are against the constitution"

Says who?

Where I live (in Michigan), public roads are owned and operated by the city, county, or state. The federal government funds part of the Interstate system, but the actual Interstates are owned and operated at the state level. This is why the Michigan Department of Transportation (and not a federal agency) is the one doing repairs on I-96 east of where I live right now.

Why is this important? The 10th amendment. The states each have their own laws, and can prohibit or allow speeding cameras as they see fit.

"No one blamed bush for Hurricane Katrina. Just for sitting on his ass when it hit ..."

Oh, come on. That's not really a fair assessment of what he did beforehand. He didn't sit on his ass. He flew to scheduled political events in Arizona (including Senator McCain's birthday) and in Rancho Cucamonga, California on the day that the hurricane hit Louisiana (August 29th).

"Sit on his ass", he did not. He was busy shaking hands, cutting cakes, and talking about Medicare. :-)

Gee if only we had a government body charged with the preservation of important historical documents. Oh wait! We do! I don't understand why these items aren't going to the National Archives. Its not like they are gonna raise enough money for a rocket or anything. The Smithsonian Institution would be a better home than some private collection.

I have read that before the Civil war, even Lincoln expressed the opinion that states had the right to secede. He just believed that it would destroy the Union, and so could not allow it. (There is a long history of Presidents doing things they believed were not constitutional, including Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase.)

There are those who believe that this and other Lincoln policies really began the inexorable slurping of power from the states to the federal government. Prior to the Civil War the government was so small that it was supported largely by revenues from the Post Office (mail was a lot more expensive then than now). The first individual income tax was passed in 1862 to fund the costs of the Civil War. It was later ruled unconstitutional, and in 1913 a constitutional amendment was passed specifically for this purpose.

OTOH, it is not at all obvious that secession is a right:

If one grants that the states had a Constitutional "right" to secede, then after secession the seceded states quickly become hostile belligerents, and those who seceded after the attack on Fort Sumter became traitors. If you have the right, we have the right to come kick your ass. (Mighty generous of us to restore the rebel states to full status and let them resume self-governance!) If one does not grant such a right exists in the Constitution, then it was indeed a "civil war," and falls under the insurrection clause. Which clause itself seems to argue against secession as a right.

Secession and the Constitution

I recall from my childhood that Oregon, which became a state in 1859, had a clause in its1857 constitution, approved by Congress at statehood, specifically giving it the right to secede. (I could not find a reference in my quick online search.) Much to my dismay, in the 1970s or 1980s when Oregonians approved a new constitution that clause was dropped. That leaves open the question of whether in so doing they gave up that right.

If you'd said this originally:

Once a classified document is leaked, measures are taken to ensure that the leak does not spread. While secufrity clearances are still enforced, the document itself is treated as being in danger of becomming public knowledge. Measures are then taken to ensure the document isnt leaked.

Until the security of the document can be ensured, it is considered to be classified but insecure. If the document is widle leaked then for all intents and purpolses, it is no longer classified, despite the official classification

rather than what you originally wrote:

Once a document has been seen by someone without the proper clearance that document is no longer considered to have its classification level.

I would have agreed with you 100%. The document is still considered classified (contrary to what you originally wrote). I'm sorry to hear that you are so upset by my lack of provided information, and that my reply was curt enough to get you to flame me. I was merely saying that a document's official classification is unaffected by wikileaks, disclosures to the washington post, or announcements at a press banquet. The only thing that affects a document's official classification is (according to Executive Order 13526) either a classification process started by a classifying authority or its mandated expiration date.

Executive Order 13526 states that (and I paraphrase):
- nothing stays classified forever
- documents must have an expiration date for their classification.
- it can be extended up to 25 years from document origin
- classification may not be used to conceal violations of law, administrative error, inefficiency, or to prevent embarassment.
- classification status can be challenged by people who believe that it's improperly classified.
- classification can be changed after an FIOA request (subject to a review, of course)

Declassification is covered in part 3 of that executive order. The only automatic declassification that happens is calendar-based; other times it only follows a review prompted by things like FOIA requests.

You are entirely correct that publishing something at Wikileaks (or a similar wide dissemination of classified material) makes the effective classification of a document somewhat moot, but I was talking about the official classification.

Is it? Are you a constitutional expert? Is it unconstitutional to collect income taxes? (I see this as the same thing)

Well, it was unconstitutional until they passed the 16th amendment. Unless, of course, one believes that they decided to pass that amendment "for the lulz".

There is a reason that we have an amendment procedure in the Constitution. If we really feel that it should be legal to have the Federal government force people to obtain health insurance, then an amendment is required. I know the 10th amendment isn't popular anymore, but that doesn't mean it is void.

Of course, the Feds could always use coercion (that is popular) to force the states to fall in line. This is what they have done with RealID (threaten states who don't comply with denial of their citizens access to domestic air travel without a passport), or forcing states to increase the minimum drinking age to 21 by threatening to cut off their highway funds:

Less than a week after [the Louisiana Supreme Court] decision, the Clinton Administration warned Louisiana to find a way to reverse the ruling. The state will lose $17 million in Federal highway money if it does not comply with the 1986 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which requires states to set their legal drinking age at 21.

The Constitution doesn't illegalize coercion. Threatening highway funding is very popular. It's dirty to sidestep the Constitution with coercion, but that's life in the post-Progressive era--government money always comes with coercion. The best way to avoid being coerced is to never accept the money in the first place.

Is it? Are you a constitutional expert? Is it unconstitutional to collect income taxes? (I see this as the same thing)

Well, it was unconstitutional until they passed the 16th amendment. Unless, of course, one believes that they decided to pass that amendment "for the lulz".

There is a reason that we have an amendment procedure in the Constitution. If we really feel that it should be legal to have the Federal government force people to obtain health insurance, then an amendment is required. I know the 10th amendment isn't popular anymore, but that doesn't mean it is void.

Of course, the Feds could always use coercion (that is popular) to force the states to fall in line. This is what they have done with RealID (threaten states who don't comply with denial of their citizens access to domestic air travel without a passport), or forcing states to increase the minimum drinking age to 21 by threatening to cut off their highway funds:

Less than a week after [the Louisiana Supreme Court] decision, the Clinton Administration warned Louisiana to find a way to reverse the ruling. The state will lose $17 million in Federal highway money if it does not comply with the 1986 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which requires states to set their legal drinking age at 21.

The Constitution doesn't illegalize coercion. Threatening highway funding is very popular. It's dirty to sidestep the Constitution with coercion, but that's life in the post-Progressive era--government money always comes with coercion. The best way to avoid being coerced is to never accept the money in the first place.

Take for instance this exchange (available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ask/20031126.html):

Colby, from Centralia MO writes:
Do you feel that Pagan faith based groups should be given the same considerations as any other group that seeks aid?

Jim Towey (Director, White House Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives, 2002-2006):
I haven't run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear to any applicant that public money must go to public purposes and can't be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it.

Want to put a new party into power and replace the old Washington regime? That sounds like overthrowing to me.

Only if you skip the constitutional requirements for putting a new party into power. If you do so with arms rather than votes, then yes. Changes in government following lawful elections very clearly do not amount to an overthrow of the state.

I just can't help quoting the US Declaration of Independence:

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

Actually, the way it was originally set up, is that the people voted for state congress and your state's congress appointed your US Congress critter, this was changed with the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment gave you and I the right to elect our US congressional representatives by popular vote. It was shortly after this amendment that things like "you're highway speed limit will 55mph or you will get no funding" started happening. Don't believe me ? Read it yourself

So the trick is, get the 17th amendment repealed and you don't need to pass another law to get shit back under control :)

Definitely a move in the right direction to address the now prophetic "untold consequences" foreseen by Judge Archer and Judge Nies in their dissenting opinion in In Re Alappat, No. 92-1381 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 1994).

Unfortunately, as with the majority decision in the 1994 Tektronix appeals case, the tests provided to determine patent-ability of software algorithms continues to leave the door wide open to incessant lawyering not for the purpose of upholding the constitution and promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

No, instead we will continue to waste investment resources to stifle competition in the name of profit margins and monopolies.

Most people likely will not read the dissenting opinion so I'll quote the conclusion from the dissenting opinion here with emphasis added so others can see the prophecy for themselves:

The majority's holding is dangerous in the following way. First, it reasons that one can obtain a patent for a discovery in mathematics as long as some structure is formally recited on the face of the claim. Under this aspect of the holding, many of the requirements for patentability other than "newness," such as nonobviousness, make no sense and cannot be meaningfully applied. Thus, mathematical patents will be easier to obtain than other patents. Moreover, the patent law will now engage in the charade wherein claims directed to a particular method of calculating numbers (for use in a computer) are unpatentable, but claims directed to a computer (performing a particular method of calculating numbers) are patentable. (Mercifully, the majority leaves open the possibility that a claim reciting structure on its face can still be rejected under 101. The majority says that this will happen where the claim reciting structure on its face is merely a "guise" for a claim to a mathematical process. Although the majority finds that Alappat's claim to a rasterizer is clearly not a "guise" for a discovery of a mathematical process, the majority does not describe in detail how one distinguishes in general a "true" apparatus claim from an apparatus claim in "guise." Presumably, the way this is done is to determine what is the invention or discovery for which the patent applicant seeks an award of patent, and then to determine whether that discovery is the kind the statute was enacted to protect, as this dissenting opinion does.)

Second, the majority accepts the argument that all digital electronic circuitry is statutory subject matter when it performs a mathematical operation, and it is all equivalent when the particular mathematical operation is the same. Under this aspect, the mathematical patents will create an enormous scope of technological exclusivity. The lack of meaningful examination and the breadth of exclusive rights conferred by patents for discoveries of bare mathematical operations are repugnant to Congress's careful statutory scheme for the promotion of the useful arts.

As the player piano playing new music is not the stuff of patent law, neither is the mathematics that is Alappat's "rasterizer." And the Supreme Court has in its decisions required it so. Alappat's claimed discovery is outside 35 U.S.C. 101, and for this reason I would affirm the board's rejection. I dissent from the majority's decision on the merits to the contrary.

Intellectual property is a bankrupt and indefensible notion.

In the US, it's unconstitutional. IP is property, all right, but constitutionally this "property" belongs to the people. The copyright holder merely has a "limited" time monopoly on its publication and distribution. Unfortunately, Professor Lessig lost his Eldred case, and the SCOTUS ruled that "limited" means whatever Congress says it means.

But Steamboat Willie, Star Trek, and all the other intellectual properties, all belong to us. It says so right in the Constitution.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

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;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

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.

That is one interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and since it supports the (corrupt) politicians' agenda (pacify the masses while hoarding as much wealth and power as possible), it is the currently supported interpretation. Needless to say, it is not the interpretation I believe the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Allow me to explain.

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.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment does, in fact, state that a "well regulated militia" is the justification for this Amendment, but keep in mind that this was a radical concept when it was written. As well as stating the right they wanted to grant, they also included their justification for granting this right to the people. They then state that this militia is "necessary to the security of a free State." Consider for a moment what environment this amendment was written in: the framers of the Constitution were essentially planning treason against the Crown. Without the right to own firearms, there would have been no Revolutionary War because the only people that could possibly have fought would have been the British Army....makes for a very short Revolution, don't you think? To them, it was essential that free men have the right to keep and own weapons so that the people could replace the government when/if it became corrupt or oppressive, just like they did. Unfortunately, after 200 years, we have decided this only means that it is necessary to have a military force to protect the nation from foreign invaders, which is, of course, exactly what our politicians want.

The text of the 2nd Amendment continues, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." Not "the Army" nor even "the Militia", but the people. This is about as clear as it can get: this right is explicitly granted to the people of the United States of America. Seems to me if Washington and Jefferson and Franklin, etc., had intended this only to apply to militia members, they would have said, "...the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people to understand?!?!?!

...um ratified treaties are laws. See http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html, Artivle VI, paragraph 2, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

How about this:

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. (emphasis mine)

No court order was given to search the communications of God and NSA only know how many people, nor was there any description of what/whose communications were to be intercepted. Therefore, Congress had no authority to decriminalize the telcos' actions in cooperating with an illegal request. The wiretapping was illegal when it was done. Congress LATER enacted a bill to provide immunity from what the telcos had already done. Rescinding that bill is not enacting an Ex Post Facto law.

The purpose of patents (and copyright) is to promote innovation. They are not natural rights like life, liberty, etc. If they do not promote innovation, they should not exist.

Outstanding!!!

Lawyers have managed through case law to twist the purpose of patents so far beyond their original intent that, as you can see here in this thread, people believe today that they have a right to monopoly control over ever piddly assed idea they can come up with and somebody should pay them continuously for being such an ass.

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have 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;

The author of the original article is therefore correct in his assessment that software patents should be ruled out by the Supreme Court. The market in and of itself is promoting the progress in computer software science as is noted multiple times in the article. Software patents on the other hand are impeding progress by presenting legal barriers to progress.

It is plain to see with the current legal mire involving software companies that software patent law most definitely does not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in the realm of software and is therefore unconstitutional.

Yeah, and it's amazing how many US people keep waving their Constitution about but don't actually read it.

It's like lot of people spouting just a few verses from the their favourite religious text but not reading the rest of it (or realizing it's not as simple as that - understanding the spirit of the document and it's implications today, takes a fair bit of effort and time).

The US constitution isn't just the amendments. Yes the amendments are pretty important, but the fact that there are a fair number of amendments should tell you the Founders didn't come up with such a well written document as so many appear to think.

See:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

And compare with the annotated version (with cases etc)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/

You'll find there's so much interpretation required. So the Judges are extremely important since they interpret the Constitution and Laws. If you have crappy courts and judges you can get very bad interpretations.

There's plenty of room for interpretation see:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

So what is "consent of the Congress", "Office of Profit/Trust" or present? Do they have to vote on it whenever a foreign King or Queen wants to give a US Senator/President a signed picture frame? Or can Congress put "anything less than $$$/month is automatically OK" in some law and be done with it?

Bush made public statements to the contrary. Go to the following page and search on "We represent three":

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070821-3.html

Just above Bush's statements, Harper and Calderon also mock the very concept.

Forgive me for linking to government records of public statements, rather than Lou Dobbs.

But there is more:

(3) "Secure and reliable forms of identification" for purposes of this directive means identification that (a) is issued based on sound criteria for verifying an individual employee's identity; (b) is strongly resistant to identity fraud, tampering, counterfeiting, and terrorist exploitation; (c) can be rapidly authenticated electronically; and (d) is issued only by providers whose reliability has been established by an official accreditation process."

OPM had little to do with the requirement. Simply walk the logic tree of the directive. In order to both verify the applicant's identity and resist fraud and exploitation, a background investigation is a virtual necessity. And since contractors would be given effectively the same access as federal employees, it follows that contractors will need to undergo the same background checks as applicants for federal employment have had to undergo since 1953:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10450.html

And nothing was done by "Stealth" There was a long and painful review and public comment period during NIST's development of the implementation standard:

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/piv/comments.htm

I have an old paperback book I bought, which was 21 years old when I bought it in '92, Dharma Bums by Jack Kerouac, published in 1971 by Penguin, and it's still readable. I just loaned it to my girlfriend last week.

It's now 37 years old and still kicking but the binding is definitely going. I think paperbacks start deteriorating even sooner than hardbound. Magnetic tape would definitely last longer, though the binding will deteriorate and the magnetic oxide would separate from the tape during a read and likely flake off the first time you read it if it's been sitting around for a really long time.

That is a common problem for people digitizing old multitrack tape for re-release. They often only get one shot at it. http://www.dpts.com/datarec03.htm I'm not sure if something similar happens with disk drives though.

Optical media, counter-intuitively, typically deteriorates much faster than tape because the media flakes off of the base. Mfgrs claim they last up to 200 years, but you are lucky if they last 15. I've had cd's with media flaking off of them and pitting as soon as 7 years. http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/faqs/optical.html#issues

It's not uncommon for a 50 year old tape to be readable, even if it's only readable once. The most stable medium is probably acid free parchment. Even if the ink fades you could still get the information off of it.

-Viz

Not so. The original letter of the law came into being circa 1970 with the full 70's environmental movement that created the EPA and such. Once Reagan got into power, he pursued, and eventually codified, some more business-friendly directives, specifically, enshrining cost-benefit analysis. Clinton modified it, and Obama is looking to overhaul [pdf] or even rewrite it.

The problem is that we have two laws in conflict: the original laws forming the EPA (among others) from the late 60's to early 70's, and then executive orders which seek to mitigate them. Now, I'm not really a big fan of executive orders, but it does seem to me that taking into account the full costs and benefits of regulations would be a more prudent method of achieving environmental change than a system that took as much money from employers as possible, and received little to no further health or environmental benefit. Requiring a business to overspend for negligible amounts of further benefit to society seems unreasonable to me.

Anyway, since it seems that she is supporting the original (Democrat, I think) version of the law, and ignoring the (Republican) executive order that applies, I'm not sure that "conservative" is the right moniker.

Declaration of Independence from the American colonies
{Anonymous Coward}If you don't like the tyranny of a monarchy then try to get the king to change, otherwise shut the #@$# up. Until then keep paying taxes to the king.{/Anonymous Coward}

Civil rights movement takes on the Jim Crow laws.
{Anonymous Coward}If you don't like segregation and individual rights based on the color of your skin then change the color of your skin, otherwise shut the #@$# up. Until then continue to sit in the back of the bus.{/Anonymous Coward}

Salt Satyagraha campaign against British Salt Laws.
{Anonymous Coward}If you don't like paying monopoly prices for salt due to laws that make it illegal to produce your own salt then change your diet to a no-salt diet, otherwise shut the #@$# up. Until then continue to pay exorbitant prices and taxes to the British Empire.{/Anonymous Coward}

ad infinitum...

How is someone supposed to pay a high property tax (think 5% of the asset value) if they temporarily don't have income?

High taxes? Why should taxes be high? In the US the first income tax was to fund the Civil War. For those making more than $10,000 the tax was 5%. From $600 to just below $10,000 it was 3%. People were upset but accepted it when the tax was raised to 5% for income between $600 and $5,000, and 5% "on the excess" over $5,000.

Simply by reducing the size of the federal government, so it's within the limits put on it by the Constitution of the USA, and having a sales or consumption tax the federal income tax can be eliminated. Then states could raise their own taxes. Let each state experiment to find what works for them.

High property taxes will make people want to spend all their income as soon as possible since saving it for later will cost more than the interest, or they will simply keep it as cash.

How in the fucking world do you come up with that?

Falcon

From http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/ask/20070508.html regarding the queen's visit to the White House in 2007:

President and Mrs. Bush gave Her Majesty a bronze statuette âoeHigh Desert Princessâ with a personal inscription on the bottom of the base. It is a replica of the original life size statue that is located in front of the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame in Ft. Worth, Texas.

President and Mrs. Bush gave The Prince Philip an exclusive sterling silver eagle box by Tiffany & Co. with personal inscription on the inside lid.

President and Mrs. Bush gave Their Majesties a leather presentation box filled with a collection of documents from the National Archives. One of the items was a copy of an original letter from President Roosevelt to her father, King George, written in 1938. There were also photos from previous royal visits and a DVD of the footage from the Queenâ(TM)s visit to the United States when she was Princess Elizabeth in 1951.

Their Majesties gave President Bush a sterling silver oversized plate by William & Son with gold seals including: the Presidential seal, the Royal seal and a center seal with the star of Texas surrounded by roses. There was a personal inscription on the back of the plate. They gave Mrs. Bush a gold and crystal clock with the Royal seal by William & Son.

The Office of the Chief of Protocol assists the President and First Lady in the selection and presentation of gifts to foreign leaders.

I can hardly say that gift is any more elegant.

Read up on the American school of economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

Ah, Hamilton. Well, Hamilton was a Nationalist and felt that the central government should be very strong, with the states and the people subordinate, quite in contrast to Jefferson and most of the other founding fathers. Note that his idea of a "central bank" meant that the federal government would control it, not some conglomerate of private banks like exists now in the Federal Reserve.

Frankly, I simply feel that it's the wrong philosophy, because of the danger of a tyrannical leadership taking over.

Your idea of what "progressive" is seems to be fear based,

No. It's based on policies I see advocated by self-proclaimed "progressives".

and is largely incorrect. The idea of community property is not a new one, and does not belong solely to the communist ideal (in their ideal - everything - is community property, no one in the United States suggests going that way).

As far as I can tell, progressive is another word for use the best system for the case that comes up. In healthcare, some kind of baseline publicly funded system is the only one that makes sense. We currently pay the most per capita for healthcare out of every nation, and we rank 38th in terms of quality of care. There is no way to defend that.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. The US rank 38th in overall "health", based on factors like infant mortality and life expectancy. That's different than "health care". In the US you can obtain the best health care that money can buy (well, yea). The per capita costs for health care is because of the regulations in place which discourage people for shopping health care based on price. Some might shop health insurance by price, but pretty much no one in the US shops health care by price, because of the crappy system. It doesn't need to be socialized to fix that.

For a reasoned report on spending and health care comparisons to other countries, here is a pretty unbiased view of the issues.

On the internet, I see very little that needs to be regulated - of those things that do need it, they tend to be related to the infrastructure, and those old media companies that run that infrastructure - regulation of the highways, not what you drive on them. Real highways have more regulation than that, and I think that's fine - the net doesn't (yet) need very much government intervention. There's nothing even vaguely communist about that.

Agreed.

BTW, you may also be interested in the US Constitution - so few actually read that marvelous document (it's an easy, short read).

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

I'm quite familiar with that - in fact I keep a copy in my pocket, just for reference. Unfortunately, it's stunning all the unconstitutional acts that the Federal government gets away with these days. I thought Obama would reverse course on that in at least some areas, but he seems to be more of a puppet that's intent on shredding the Constitution even more than it has been in the last 8 years.

Read up on the American school of economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

Ah, Hamilton. Well, Hamilton was a Nationalist and felt that the central government should be very strong, with the states and the people subordinate, quite in contrast to Jefferson and most of the other founding fathers. Note that his idea of a "central bank" meant that the federal government would control it, not some conglomerate of private banks like exists now in the Federal Reserve.

Frankly, I simply feel that it's the wrong philosophy, because of the danger of a tyrannical leadership taking over.

Your idea of what "progressive" is seems to be fear based,

No. It's based on policies I see advocated by self-proclaimed "progressives".

and is largely incorrect. The idea of community property is not a new one, and does not belong solely to the communist ideal (in their ideal - everything - is community property, no one in the United States suggests going that way).

As far as I can tell, progressive is another word for use the best system for the case that comes up. In healthcare, some kind of baseline publicly funded system is the only one that makes sense. We currently pay the most per capita for healthcare out of every nation, and we rank 38th in terms of quality of care. There is no way to defend that.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. The US rank 38th in overall "health", based on factors like infant mortality and life expectancy. That's different than "health care". In the US you can obtain the best health care that money can buy (well, yea). The per capita costs for health care is because of the regulations in place which discourage people for shopping health care based on price. Some might shop health insurance by price, but pretty much no one in the US shops health care by price, because of the crappy system. It doesn't need to be socialized to fix that.

For a reasoned report on spending and health care comparisons to other countries, here is a pretty unbiased view of the issues.

On the internet, I see very little that needs to be regulated - of those things that do need it, they tend to be related to the infrastructure, and those old media companies that run that infrastructure - regulation of the highways, not what you drive on them. Real highways have more regulation than that, and I think that's fine - the net doesn't (yet) need very much government intervention. There's nothing even vaguely communist about that.

Agreed.

BTW, you may also be interested in the US Constitution - so few actually read that marvelous document (it's an easy, short read).

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

I'm quite familiar with that - in fact I keep a copy in my pocket, just for reference. Unfortunately, it's stunning all the unconstitutional acts that the Federal government gets away with these days. I thought Obama would reverse course on that in at least some areas, but he seems to be more of a puppet that's intent on shredding the Constitution even more than it has been in the last 8 years.

Read up on the American school of economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

Your idea of what "progressive" is seems to be fear based, and is largely incorrect. The idea of community property is not a new one, and does not belong solely to the communist ideal (in their ideal - everything - is community property, no one in the United States suggests going that way).

As far as I can tell, progressive is another word for use the best system for the case that comes up. In healthcare, some kind of baseline publicly funded system is the only one that makes sense. We currently pay the most per capita for healthcare out of every nation, and we rank 38th in terms of quality of care. There is no way to defend that.

On the internet, I see very little that needs to be regulated - of those things that do need it, they tend to be related to the infrastructure, and those old media companies that run that infrastructure - regulation of the highways, not what you drive on them. Real highways have more regulation than that, and I think that's fine - the net doesn't (yet) need very much government intervention. There's nothing even vaguely communist about that.

BTW, you may also be interested in the US Constitution - so few actually read that marvelous document (it's an easy, short read).

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Read up on the American school of economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

Your idea of what "progressive" is seems to be fear based, and is largely incorrect. The idea of community property is not a new one, and does not belong solely to the communist ideal (in their ideal - everything - is community property, no one in the United States suggests going that way).

As far as I can tell, progressive is another word for use the best system for the case that comes up. In healthcare, some kind of baseline publicly funded system is the only one that makes sense. We currently pay the most per capita for healthcare out of every nation, and we rank 38th in terms of quality of care. There is no way to defend that.

On the internet, I see very little that needs to be regulated - of those things that do need it, they tend to be related to the infrastructure, and those old media companies that run that infrastructure - regulation of the highways, not what you drive on them. Real highways have more regulation than that, and I think that's fine - the net doesn't (yet) need very much government intervention. There's nothing even vaguely communist about that.

BTW, you may also be interested in the US Constitution - so few actually read that marvelous document (it's an easy, short read).

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html