Slashdot Mirror

like to now argue that the federal government can't sign treaties because Section 10 says states can't?

No... I'm sorry you didn't read through to Article I Section 9 that also mentions the federal government is bound in the same way as the states against making Ex Post Facto laws, and Art I Section 8 yet and, but my intention was never to give you the exact play by play on every
single phrase in the constitution that put a particular restriction into place --- Technically, the operation of contracts are regulated by state laws, so congress doesn't have dominion of this area in the first place (it is not within their enumerated powers). There's also the 14th amendment that cause required incorporation
of the Bill of Rights onto the states as well.

The constitution has other articles that provide the
federal government access to certain specific powers.

By the way, Congress cannot make treaties, either. Only the president can (with the advise and consent of the senate).

like to now argue that the federal government can't sign treaties because Section 10 says states can't?

No... I'm sorry you didn't read through to Article I Section 9 that also mentions the federal government is bound in the same way as the states against making Ex Post Facto laws, and Art I Section 8 yet and, but my intention was never to give you the exact play by play on every
single phrase in the constitution that put a particular restriction into place --- Technically, the operation of contracts are regulated by state laws, so congress doesn't have dominion of this area in the first place (it is not within their enumerated powers). There's also the 14th amendment that cause required incorporation
of the Bill of Rights onto the states as well.

The constitution has other articles that provide the
federal government access to certain specific powers.

By the way, Congress cannot make treaties, either. Only the president can (with the advise and consent of the senate).

Even if the USPS was in the red, it's still an incredibly valuable and critical piece of public infrastructure and should be well funded. Yes, even at a net loss. If we can light $600+ billion on fire every year to fund the most powerful military in the world, we can throw a few pennies at the postal service.

Here's the thing, and I say this as a libertarian. Well, let me show you something:

http://constitutionus.com/

Scroll down to Article I, Section 8, paragraph 7. It's short, I'll put it here:

(The Congress shall have Power) To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

It's actually in the Constitution! This is a fully legal part of the federal government. This isn't the Department of Education.

The founders recognized that this was a really important function of the government, so important that they put it in a list of only 18 areas over which the federal government has legal authority.

I'm glad the USPS funds itself, but I don't care, actually. It's a very important thing to have around and we need to protect it, even if that means throwing a little money at it now and then.

That said, it also needs to fulfill its pension obligations.

Only a coward hides behind a gun. How the NRA perceives it as a symbol of courage is beyond me.

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Nice to see you want to keep the populace powerless.

There's a fucking reason "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

But that means nothing to you, does it? You'd rather be subject to an all-powerful government? The same one that spies on you?

I doubt this is intended to be a money making project. At most maybe an advertising expense/ tax deduction.

I'd rather see a guy spending his money on something like this, which employs a bunch of people and will be pretty cool when it gets off the ground, than on political manipulation like buying the Washington Post and turning it into a political blog or funding groups like Tea Party, MoveOn, or Occupy Wall Street.

Because heaven forbid a mere citizen dares to make his viewpoint known and tries to, oh, say, perhaps petition the Government for a redress of grievances - also known as "lobbying".

And you got modded up?!?!?!

You should Bing

Well there's your problem, and no thanks.

Apparently it'd help you. See below. Must be your Googling is leading you astray. The Machine has turned on oy. But I'm only being jocular, at the tendency of people to use that word as a verb, as if it were the default.

the literal text of the Constitution.

Yep, and what part of "Congress shall make no law" did you miss?

The part where it's not in Amendments 2-10. Well, actually, I didn't miss it. Not only did I specifically spot the absence, I'm quite glad they're not present. But you missed that that phrase simply isn't there.

Did you miss where I said this:

and so it's only the First that says "Congress shall make no law" which makes your claim applicable.?

I meant it. It's only in the First. Not the others.

Try a look yourself, I'll even include the two orphan Amendments (one since ratified, the other, however impractical, still pending)::

Article the first. .... After the first enumeration required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
-
Article the second. .... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. see Amendment XXVII

Article [I] (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion) 13
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.

Article [II] (Amendment 2 - Bearing Arms)
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.

Article [III] (Amendment 3 - Quartering Soldiers)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article [IV] (Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure)
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.

Article [V] (Amendment 5 - Rights of Persons)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article [VI] (Amendment 6 - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the

The only time the word "securing" appears in the Constitution is "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings". "Threats" and "abroad" don't appear either. Try again. Here, have a link to the United States Constitution.

False. The judicial branch resolves disputes between the states and the federal government. Why do you think that an act of the Legislative branch giving the Executive branch certain powers could override the Constitutional powers granted to the Judicial branch? I think you need to go re-read the Constitution.

Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

http://constitutionus.com/

If you are an American (or even if you are not) I recommend reading this: The Constitution of the United States of America.

Too bad they keep trying to shelve it in the Fiction section these days.

If you are an American (or even if you are not) I recommend reading this: The Constitution of the United States of America.

There have been plenty of posts here in Slashdot saying the exact opposite, so I would be curious about what is the truth.

Why not go and read it?

The Constitution uses two terms: "people" (or "persons"), and "citizen". The word "citizen" is only used in articles dealing with political rights - namely, prerequisites for the offices of President, Senator and Representative, voting rights (per 15A, 19A, 24A and 26A), and the recognition of rights across states; and where it extends federal judicial authority to disputes involving non-citizens.

All other rights are recognized as those of people or persons. In particular, 4A:

"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 exemption that has been claimed for customs inspections (which is, indeed, almost as old as Constitution itself), has been applied uniformly to citizens and non-citizens alike - it is tied to a particular place where tradition dictates a search is always reasonable, and has nothing to do with one's status. Once you're past the border, they don't get to search you without a warrant just because you're a non-citizen. Other rights similarly apply. Heck, people have successfully argued Second Amendment rights for non-citizens...

The executive branch doesn't control statehood. The states, congress, and people do.

Here's a link: http://constitutionus.com/

The relevant parts are Articles 1-6 and Amendments 9 and 10.