Slashdot Mirror

Actually, someone should teach you the difference between a dependent clause and an independent clause:

http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/13/greenslade.htm

Why piss off everybody who might help you?

Why not crush everybody who might embarrass you?

Or, as another sharp analyst put it:

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.

In context, that means that if you can make people afraid of trying to hack you, you don't need their respect (or actual competence on your part) to avoid being hacked. Once you've fully domesticated the sheep, you can expect that they won't test their fences any more.

Of course, this strategy is pre-ordained to fail: the psychology of black-hat is full of a kind of irrational sense of invincibility. Like many other sociopaths, they're always the ones most surprised when they're busted. So the lessons of fear are lost on them. But it certainly seems cheaper to the service provider than actually hardening and resolving exploitable holes.

If you can't be liked, be feared.

And you've pretty much summed up why most bullies exist.

On the other hand Machiavelli said it best:

"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with."

Of course, he then said "And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments."

Basically, politicians tend to buy "friends." This tends to end badly for them when they really need help. That's when knowing where the metaphorical bodies are buried comes in handy.

Trust a random post on the internet, yeah ok. It its not weasel words, its an outright lie.

James Madison would ask the question, why on earth is govt having something to do with linux? Call me skeptical, but constitutionally, it is not allowed.

Federal govt is not allowed to do anything not explicitly stated in the constitution (though you legal scholars would be right in saying states are not bound as such). Read the words of the father of the constitution http://constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

What about the "well-regulated militia" clause?

Those words, in the context and parlance of the day the document was signed, mean a consistently armed and supplied citizen. They do not mean "national guard" or other formal government organization. See the definitions from that time.

Understood properly, that phrase means that each citizen should have, and bring to any call-up of citizens by the government, particular arms of a relatively uniform character, so much shot, so much powder, as these things are necessary to the security of a free state.

By term, "well regulated" meant what "consistent" does in modern parlance; and militia meant "ordinary citizen."

Definition: Militia -- A militia is a fighting force composed of ordinary citizens rather than government soldiers.

Definition: Well regulated: Consistent, uniform, regular

Even so, this phrase is explanatory -- it is not an instruction to the government, it is an explanation for the reader. The instruction is that the right to keep and carry shall not be infringed. There's no if, ands, or buts; there's no implication of any kind that only the government should be armed; and if you simply think about it, the presence of the statement in the bill of rights for the people isn't a sane place to put a statement that would mean "and the government shall have guns." No, when they say the right to "keep and carry", they are talking about the rights of you and I. Not Sgt. Doe of the official armed forces.

Please. Do a little research. The facts are right there for anyone who takes a few minutes to look them up.

I'm not saying that the 2nd is appropriate, or even sufficient, for the conditions we face today. I am saying that the legitimate way to change it is with article V, rather than with bullshit laws and deliberate mischaracterization or intentionally promoted naiveté that violate the spirit and the wording of the constitution.

If you want to change the 2nd, you don't do it by revisionist (or naive) misinterpretation of the actual wording: You do it with article V, "amendment." And if you think change is the way to go, by all means, get after that. But don't pretend the intent wasn't to have armed citizens. It was precisely that.

Why not change it arbitrarily, if it is insufficient to our needs today? Because if you can change the 2nd arbitrarily, you can change anything else arbitrarily, and then what is the constitution? Instead of a document that limits the the government in such a way as to not being authorized to infringe on your rights, it would become, as George Bush put it, "just a piece of paper." At that point, we're no better than any 3rd world dictatorship -- the government can do anything it wants, just because it wants to.

The fact is, at this point in time, all legislation about arms that imposes licenses, waiting periods, limits, or forbids ownership to any US citizen is an unauthorized, and therefore illegal and reprehensible imposition of arbitrary will. Why? Because such legislation infringes, that's why. Such bills are in direct violation of the US constitution. Any elected member of the government, or appointed member of the judiciary that is complicit in the production, support, or implementation of such bills is in abject violation of the oath they swore to obey and protect the constitution of the United States. There's nothing liberal or conservative about it. It's just government officials engaging in criminal activity -- no more, no less.

At this time, there is so much government malfeasance of this nature, it is almost certain that we can no longer stop or even slow our slide into arbitrary dictatorship. But it is still worth your while to know how the system was supposed to work, what happened to it, and therefore be able to make a start at thinking about what one might want to do about it.

We are the militia, every one of us, not because we couldn't afford a standing army[1], but because the founders were understandably wary of the power of standing armies. The existence of modern Active, Reserve, and National Guard military forces does not relieve us of our individual obligation to be part of the militia. Also, you should review the meaning of well regulated at the time.

You leave you office building, a thug shoots you, takes your wallet and gun, and you die with the comforting feeling they a murder has your gun.

That's plausible, but I don't see where pla's post claimed that carrying a firearm confers invulnerability. Nevertheless, here are a couple of equally plausible scenarios:

- Thug never practices shooting, nor does he ever clean the firearm, and so on; thug misses or his gun jams; victim escapes or returns fire, avoiding or eliminating the threat

- Slightly smarter thug knows that a significant minority of the population legally carries concealed firearms, and he decides instead to engage in criminal activities having less onerous occupational hazards, such as burglarizing empty homes, selling controlled substances, and so on

- T

[1] We couldn't afford it, but that's orthogonal to the point.

[2] With exceptions for the infirm, religious objectors, etc.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried (and the dissenting opinions in Heller are laughable, or would be if they hadn't come so close to being the majority opinion).

- T

. . . if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

BTW, where do you think law enforcement are getting their weapons? The military sells or donates a significant amount of their surplus to law enforcement - LEOs are permitted automatic weapons, .50 cal BMG rounds, tanks, militarized vehicles, sniper rifles etc. They can also use weapons that the military cannot because of the Geneva conventions (tear gas and other chemical weapons are one item that comes to mind).

Your distinction between the weapons used by the military and law enforcement is a distinction without a difference.

Usually, when someone says that they don't understand the arguments in favor of the 2nd Amendment, they usually mean that they don't agree with them, not that they don't understand them (as the reasons are simple and easy to understand). In similar vein, gun control advocates like to state that they are simply asking for "reasonable and common sense" restrictions, which is just their way of insulting opponents without looking like they're being insulting - after all, if you disagree with their proposed restrictions you must be inference be "unreasonable and stupid."

The reason the framers of the Constitution gave for including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights is two fold - protection of the people against a standing army and protection from invasion by an outside power. Defense of self was deemed a natural right (as one naturally has the right to protect oneself from an aggressor) and, as a natural right, the right to bear arms pre-existed and did not depend on the Bill of Rights. As stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #29:

By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

So, the original intent was that the states would regularly engage all free citizens in military training (which is what "well regulated" means - well trained) so that the citizens would be able to either resist invasion or resist tyranny from the State.

As to the nature of the arms which a person could possess and/or bear, the citizens at the time of the ratification of the Constitution had cannons, rockets, rifles, pistols, bombs and even war ships (the government would issue Letters of Marque for private individuals with warships to attack and capture enemy vessels).

Essentially, citizens were allowed to own and/or bear any kind of arms that the military could bear because they had to have the ability to resist an army should power become consolidated and a tyrannical government arose. The founders wouldn't have blinked twice to see a citizen owning a machine gun, a flame thrower or even owning a tank. The only restriction on ownership would be if the citizen had demonstrated that he was unfit to own such weapons by way of lunacy or extreme immorality (felony convictions back then normally resulted in a death sentence so the offender not only forfeited the right to arms but also all of his property and usually his life). Therefore, anything that the military could own, the citizen could own, subject only to his ability to marshal the resources to make or purchase the arms.

To be honest I didn't watch the videos due to being on dial-up but "The Battle of Athens" comes up every time there is a thread like this so I've researched it in the past. Seems there was a shortage of arms in the county so they broke into the armory using a key which they didn't have a right to have and armed themselves. To quote http://constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm (there's lots of similar on the net)

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard Armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols, and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end.

Besides even in a country like Canada where we have no constitutional right to arms, rural folks would likely have enough arms in the form of long guns to do similar if corruption became so open.

Unfortunately, you are completely correct.

What would Machiavelli do?

Well, I believe Machiavelli wrote a separate book on republics, which I haven't read, but the closest relevant chapter in _the Prince_ is probablyChapter IX, where he says:

Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him than if he had been raised to the principality by their favours; and the prince can win their affections in many ways, but as these vary according to the circumstances one cannot give fixed rules, so I omit them; but, I repeat, it is necessary for a prince to have the people friendly, otherwise he has no security in adversity.

I'm aware that Machiavelli's name is a synonym for ruthlessness, but if you actually read what he wrote, there's a lot more to it than that. He wrote a lot about the importance of gaining and keeping the people's support. So, I do not think Kissinger by and large took the right lessons from Machiavelli. Now, Lyndon Johnson, *there's* a true student of Machiavelli!

Yeah, except that Congress has to approve all interstate compacts:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Clause#Clause_3:_Compact_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact
http://constitution.org/

You are very confused. "Militia" meant every citizen, in every state, of fighting age (18-45.) Not "state organization." See the Militia act(s) of 1792.

Also, while we're talking about the 2nd amendment, "well regulated" meant uniformly supplied and equipped. It didn't mean made orderly by legislation.

The 2nd can only be meaningfully read with these understandings; further, it breaks neatly into two sections, the first being informational: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and the second consisting of a limit on government action: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Consequently, if you run into a law that infringes on your right to keep or carry arms in any way, shape or form, you've found an unconstitutional law. Concealed carry laws, license laws, "can't carry a knife or nunchuk" laws, chemical glassware laws, etc., etc. All thoroughly unconstitutional.

The problem we have is, our government has been ignoring the constitution for decades at its convenience. Executive, legislative, and judiciary have all been complicit in this. The citizens have, for the most part, not reacted. So the reality of our current situation is that we're not operating as a constitutional republic: We're a de facto corporate oligarchy. So the fact that the government ignores and otherwise violates the constitution seems to be in line with the public's... apathy and ignorance, if nothing else. But it may be something more profound than that. It may be that this change in governance is actually where we want to go. In which case, all talk of revolution will be by a tiny majority, and it will never come to pass. Just as an aside, that's how I'm betting. Your average American wants cheeseburgers and episodes of "Lost." And that's about the end of it.

More on the 2nd here.

At that time the phrase "Well-regulated" meant something more akin to "smoothly functioning" than "politically restricted".

The entire basis for the detention was fruitless as he committed no crime. They were not responding to a criminal investigation, nor was he being detained in connection to his wife's death. Recording an officer or anyone for that matter was not interfering with any legal process. If disorderly conduct was the result of the legal recording of officers (as illegal arrest is grounds to defend oneself), there is zero basis that charge can stick. The HIPPA violation claim is nonsense.

People here would know if they are interested and inquiring. These policies are not hidden or secret.

Way to miss the point. We have the information he published, we know he got arrested. He didn't disappear in secret. In any case, if you say it's not important to have guns because information is more important and you concede control of information to the government (as you appear to) then you have in effect accepted dictatorial control. Since you have accepted dictatorial control, your opinion of the role of firearms in maintaining freedom isn't worth listening to. The US still has the death penalty for treason, I'm sure that is more of a deterrent than Manning's treatment bad as it is.

so you don't like me using - cast as a traitor

It's not that I don't like you using that, it is indeed a popular opinion. It is just absurd. It's also irrelevant to the topic of gun control.

Just owning a vehicle that isn't road worthy isn't a crime because it poses no threat. The moment it's driven it is a threat, which is why that is not legal

It was illegal for Susan Falls to obtain and possess the gun she used, but according to the jury, not illegal for her to use it. That is an absurdity in our legal system. No amount of car analogies will change that. She had to break the law to exercise her self defense "rights".

It is not that her ability to defend herself was removed if she didn't have a gun

Don't be an idiot. Look at a picture of her and her husband side by side. She is a little woman and he was huge. Guns are an equalizer, without them violent confrontations will almost always be won by the strongest.

You might be lucky and meet a stupid unsophisticated attacker and win with your gun.

Going by that "logic" then mass murderers with guns will only succeed against stupid unsophisticated victims. Or are you claiming that guns are really effective in the hands of criminals but don't work very well in the hands of the law abiding?

And, by the way, if this is the reasoning - why refer to the second amendment at all

The reference to the militia in the second amendment is not a limitation on the right to bear arms. There is a linguistic analysis here:http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

As I said in my original post - the process of removing guns from the social environment is one that calms the situation over time.

That's not demonstrated. I grew up in rural Australia (just because I defend the second amendment doesn't mean I'm American) and everyone we knew had guns, nobody we knew were "gun nuts" (despite what you may think of me I do not actually own any guns and haven't fired one in over 20 years). Nobody was scared of bikers, we didn't need "anti-association legislation" and things like "glassing" were unheard of in mainstream pubs and clubs.

The murder rate in Australia was declining for a couple of decades before the gun laws were brought in (yes, even including the three mass shootings we had) and kept declining at approximately the same rate. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology - Australian crime : facts and figures 2007 http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2007.html
From 1996 to 2006 murder rate went from 354 to 319, assault went from 114,156 to 170,907, sexual assault from 14,542 to 18,211, robbery from 16,372 to 17,248 and kidnapping from 478 to 725.

Did you watch the video? What I really want to know is if you can watch that video and have the guts to look her in the eye as you take her guns. The link is in my sig now.

The Second Amendment, however, is ... literal except that "militia" really means "individuals."

At the time, the "militia" consisted of practically every able-bodied male of military age, so "individuals" is essentially literal. That aside, however, the right itself has little to do with the militia:

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.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is obviously just an introductory clause, explaining (in part) why the amendment was written. The actual right is in the second half, which clearly refers to "the right of the people", not "the right of the militia". Honestly, sometimes it seems like the pro-gun-control crowd does their reasoning by looking only at key words like "militia" without considering the grammatical context.

The only way any weapons ban could possibly be considered constitutional under a fair reading of the amendment would be if an argument could be made that the weapons being banned are not "Arms" in the original sense.

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons... —Constitution Society

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is against the law but nobody is seriously complaining that it is an unnecessary surrender of freedom.

Right, and the analogous second amendment restriction is the ban on private possession of weapons of mass destruction, fighter aircraft, bombs, artillery, etc. Possession of personal arms is analogous to the right to speak your mind to your elected officials. In fact it's closely related to, and perhaps inextricably tied to, that right.

The notion that the Second Amendment is more sacred than the First would laughable if it wasn't so deadly wrong.

More sacred? No. Equally sacred... I don't think that's wrong or laughable. We can debate about whether or not the world has changed enough to make this untrue now, but James Madison and his contemporaries considered it blindingly obvious that the second amendment freedoms were the basis for all others.

I recommend that you read "The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction", by Akhil Reed Amar (who is one of the most significant legal thinkers of our era, BTW, and has been cited more than 20 times by US Supreme Court opinions, not some gun nut).

If you'd like a shorter article, and one that you won't have to buy, try this one: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/103wha.htm

I suspect you may actually like the conclusions in that article, even though it places more importance on the second amendment that you might prefer.

We should challenge the economics that says we can't create money and give it to people. In fact we created $16 trillion (enough to pay off the entire national debt) in two years to bail out financial unions (source: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3 ).

The best option (that I can think of, at least) is to give everyone a basic income (an idea that goes back to Founding Father Thomas Paine in his 1795 Agrarian Justice), and stimulate innovation and technological progress with challenges from both biz and govt (X Prize, DARPA challenges, Google bug bounties, Netflix prize, etc.). The resulting increase in knowledge advancement will raise our survival fitness fastest because knowledge empowers us to better predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic changes.

We start by challenging the fundamental assumptions of popular economics, one of which is that government can only spend what it takes in. This assumption has been violated by the history of the United States, which has had a national debt since its very founding. Lincoln printed some $480 million greenbacks to raise money without increasing taxes or borrowing it. Japan runs a 230% debt-to-gdp ratio and has a currency they keep trying to devalue. Dick Cheney was right: Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.

So then why exactly haven't we "won" the war in Afghanistan?

Also consider just who would be revolting and why. A good percentage of the revolters could be military, or military trained.

http://constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

- John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government

Hmm. It seems you're correct. E.g., http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

        1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

        1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

        1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

        1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

        1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

        1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

I'm not a world-class constitutional scholar like you apparently are, but I think it's the part where it says the militia should be "well regulated".

Sigh...

Educate yourself: http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

"*re-reads the Second Amendment*

Hmm, don't see the clause where it requires all my firearms to be registered with the government..."

You should start reading it from the beginning rather than the end.

You should try reading historically accurate definitions for terms, instead of assuming that the English language has been in stasis for the past 300 years:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Care to cite that one?

The Militia Act of 1792. It required every able-bodied white male citizen (interesting distinction) above the age of 18 to be registered within the militia. It also specified what equipment they should have.

There are also records from Philadelphia showing how many firearms were owned by private citizens.

You could also reference this article done by Playboy in 2001 which talks to a person who is an avid trapshooter who found, during the research for his book, that the States regularly took a census of who owned a gun, what condition and so forth. Do a search for 'registered' to get to the relevant section.

So yes, guns were registered, in the broadest sense, by the Colonial government for the reasons I stated.

again, wtf does the FCC have to do with the internet?

Is this a joke? They're the Federal Communications Commission. Are you contending that the Internet isn't a form of interstate communication?

Where does the word "Communications" make it's appearance in the Constitution of the USA?

In a letter to Albert Gallatin Thomas Jeffersonwrote “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” James Madison, the father of the Constitution, once wrote “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents” when congress undertook to appropriate $15,000 "for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo (now Haiti) to Baltimore and Philadelphia". In the Marbury v Madison case in 1803 Justice Marshall wrote:

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Falcon

"Don't ever resist an officer with force, because after whatever violence the cops do response you're pretty much guaranteed to lose in court."

WRONG.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

http://www.rayservers.com/blog/your-right-of-defense-against-unlawful-arrest

In fact, you're justified in killing the officer if they're in the commission of a felony or unlawful arrest.

More dead cops = less cops likely to be stupid.

Also, the 2nd amendment doesn't specify GUNS or even FIREarms. The gov't could restrict you to only clubs, crossbows and slingshots - or muskets without "infringing your rights"

By the same (disingenuous) logic, free speech and press only apply to person-to-person verbal speech and the printed word. How does that sit with you?

Beyond that, you're ignoring the plain fact that these rights exist fully independent of the specific guarantees provided in the Constitution, which defines the powers of government, not the rights of the people. You're apparently unawares of the contemporaneous arguments against the Bill of Rights, which were that people like you would misinterpret them as proscriptive of rights, and not restrictive of government.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #84

Maybe cheap broadband helped?

Like most other government boondoggles, there is no metric for success. There is only "I'll bet that helped!". All for emotion, and nothing for measured success. Maybe it did. That's a big ass maybe for so much money spent. And maybe they would do better without it. Computers in a non-computer related class are nothing but a distraction. I can tell you what kids do with computers, I was once a kid with a computer: they goof off. So I'm not at all sold that it was helpful. I think it's just the opposite. A big waste of time and money.

What could they have done with the money? Dunno, grow more potatoes?

So flippant about other people's money. So many individuals who are going broke, out of a job, barely making ends meets. SORRY WE NEED FIBER BITCHEZ!

What will they do with the money: They can pay their mortgage and avoid being kicked out of their house? Avoid closing their business and putting people out of work. Put food on their table. And here's the super just part: it's their money that they earned and should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it without the government coming in and confiscating half or more it.

And I'm not sure why I'm from a tea rally. I've never seen/heard any tea anything. It's called libertarianism and it's been around a lot longer than the tea party. Read this and let me know which part you disagree with: http://www.constitution.org/cmt/bastiat/the_law.html. That's libertarianism in a nutshell. If you're a logical person, I'l bet you cannot bring yourself to honestly disagree with a single thing. Go ahead and read it, it's very short.

Hidden and compulsory EULAs are how The System works to keep us enslaved, man.

Just check out these two documents for all the proof you'll ever need:

George Mercer - Invisible Contracts [lays out (and proves) how stuff like opening a bank account, and/oror getting a drivers license, has you signing interlocking contracts that compels you to pay Federal Income tax]
http://www.constitution.org/mercier/incon.htm

They Own It All, Including You: By Means of Toxic Currency
How just using Federal Reserve Notes (aka USDs) or Euros is akin to agreeing to very intense EULAs on what you can do with anything you purchase (and how everythign really belongs to the state, anyway, via hypothecation).
http://www.wisdomproject.cc/url/H

>>>you're just BS-ing

It's a shame you prefer to remain ignorant and live in the matrix, rather than read news sites and keep up to date. HERE take a Red Pill:

http://publicintelligence.net/fbi-suspicious-activity-reporting-flyers/
http://rt.com/news/fbi-terrorists-guide-security-171/ http://www.constitution.org/abus/terror/constitutional_terrorists.htm
http://welfarestate.com/pamphlet/

Terrorists include those who:
-Defend the constitution
-Attempt to tape the police
-Lone individuals
-Non-lone individuals (members of groups)
-Rightists
-Leftists
-Pay in cash
-Deposting more than $5000 in a bank account ("Know Your Customer" regulation requires banks report it)
-Attempt to hide passwords
-Nervous
-Take pictures
-Stare

You seriously haven't heard of that? Assuming you're not a troll:

http://rt.com/news/fbi-terrorists-guide-security-171/
http://www.constitution.org/abus/terror/constitutional_terrorists.htm
http://welfarestate.com/pamphlet/

Terrorists include those who:
-Defend the constitution
-Attempt to police the police (taping the police?)
-Lone individuals
-Non-lone individuals (members of groups)
-Rightists
-Leftists
-Pay in cash
-Attempt to hide passwords
-Nervous
-Take pictures
-Stare

This basically just confirms what has been the philosophy of the FBI for a long time (since its founding), including harassment of MLK and the civil rights movement.

Ya all the conservative/libertarians are totally for a huge authoritarian state. Give me a break. Read a book.

The Law by Frédéric Bastiat [1850]

From The Law by Fredric Bastiat


The Vicious Circle of Socialism

We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.

Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?

Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection of the law.

And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person has a claim on society for such education as will permit him to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which human activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action can society give to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the state?

Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) By what action is society to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?

Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Apparently from Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition http://constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

Only when your brain has been warped into thinking that this is the ultimate arbiter of price.

Measuring prices in dollars is like measuring length with a ruler that is continuously getting smaller. Here is a good allegory on the subject: http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/schiff/moltz.pdf

If you say "I won't find anyone guilty of that law because I don't like it", then you are not doing your job as a jurur.

No, if you say, "I won't find anyone guilty of that law because in this case it violates a higher law, the constitution." then you are simply doing your duty as a juror.

See STETTINIUS v. UNITED STATES and also pre-U.S. history to jury trials.

John Jay, the 1st Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, stated that jurors possess “a right to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

You don't think that the founders, who had just been criminally prosecuted by the British and protected by juries, expected the right to a jury trial to protect people from unjust laws?

During the American Revolution, juries regularly acquitted colonists convicted under British laws and before the Civil War, juries acquitted abolitionists and slaves accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act.

If you are on a jury, you hold in your hands the responsibility to determine if the person in front of you should be punished by the State. Don't think you can evade that responsibility by saying you will leave it to the government to decide if the law is just or not.

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." constitution.org

Seems like a dead letter these days.

Well, it definitely counts as property if they're not being allowed to use it. (Yeah yeah, IANAL, gotta say it.)

Is it just me, or is it that if someone doesn't like what you're doing, they don't care if the charges stick so long as they get to hurt you financially? In a lot of cases it's legal fees, but sometimes it just seems that they see any form of financial pain as enough. That seems like punishment without a conviction, and that bothers me.

I'd imagine that any legal case being pursued against Megaupload would be preserved by spinning the data off onto a boxload of tape and letting Carpathia get back to business. Am I missing something, or is there someone that thinks that they need to hurt Carpathia regardless of what happens?

yes I know I'm ignoring the pain being caused to Megaupload and its (arguably former) users.

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."
constitution.org

Seems like a dead letter these days. Encryption keys, laptop seizures, cloud seizures, warrantless email searches, GPS tagging, etc.

So if police suddenly started outright lying during criminal proceedings

IF? if???

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/slobogin_testilying.htm

elephant in the room, time, folks.

Aw, hell, that ain't socialist - THIS is socialist!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Please list all the "socialist" parts of the Constitution and explain how they are socialist.

I was looking for stuff that matters. Not this socialist dribble that seems to be dominating the "news for nerds."

Aw, hell, that ain't socialist - THIS is socialist!

There is no form of government more dedicated to socialism that a constitutional republic... Well, I guess a constitutional republic with democratically elected leaders, maybe, but who's crazy enough to do that??

Laws concerning criminal activity such as assault, cannot be trumped by Congress. Therefore, if a state passes a law that classifies what the TSA is doing as assault, it definitely is within their power

False. A Federal employee is immune from arrest by States as long as the noncompliance with State law is essential to carry out his duties.

You're right. The Constitution trumps.

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.

The state law in this case ought to win.

I also like how its a right...when you are in a Militia. I would like to see all gun owners prove that they are in a well regulated Militia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

You should try cracking a dictionary sometime:

militia
[mi-lish-uh]
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

You probably don't even realize that "well regulated" doesn't mean 'covered in red tape.'

Unlike myself or the Founding Fathers, he does not view government as a necessary evil that's only a little better than having no government,

And, of course, unlike that most-definitely-not-a-Founding-Father-no-way Alexander Hamilton, who made that most-definitely-not-Founding-Fatherish statement that

In countries where there is great private wealth, much may be effected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic individuals; but in a community situated like that of the United States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private resource. In what can it be so useful, as in prompting and improving the efforts of industry?

What part of "papers and effects" don't they understand?

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.

Your computer (and phone) is as much your "papers" as the media is a "press".

Moreover, they are "effects" in the most literal sense, with not even that (benign) extrapolation of "papers" required. Where "papers" does become relevant is for documents that are not stored on/in your property, e.g. the data on a rented VPS.

What part of "papers and effects" don't they understand?

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.

Your computer (and phone) is as much your "papers" as the media is a "press".

What right did they get to GPS-track you? Isn't your car an "effect"? Even if not, it still is your property. So where did the government get the right to use your property without due process of law (5th amendment)?

Where'd the government get the right to confiscate servers? Domain names? Where's the due process of law?

The constitutional view is that the government only has such powers as have specifically been given to it. The state's view is that they have plenary (unlimited) power until stopped by a greater power.

A Constitution 3.0 would not be needed if there were a proper perspective on the existing constitution.

Read the link for the Federalist Papers, the Antifederalist Papers, and more.

Your reaction is pretty standard. You're like a kid that has first heard the words "Santa Claus isn't Real."

But, seriously, read what judges and legal scholars are writing about the law. Start with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s The Path of the Law and then go on to Richard Posner's How Judges Think.