Slashdot Mirror

When a significant number of those deaths starts happening due to mental issues... sure.

Until then just suspend and take away driving permissions of people for willfully lowering their own driving abilities through drug use.
Repeated and willful offenders should be jailed.
Hey! Whaddayakno! That's exactly what's being done! And deaths have been going down since the 1940s!
From ~25 per 100k in 1940 - to ~10.25 per 100k in 2014.

But boy did those numbers start falling down as seat belt legislation started coming in.
It's almost as if education, fines and penalties CAN reduce fatalities.
And yes, it IS fatalities - including drivers and passengers, not just people being run over that you are quoting.

Now just imagine the same for guns!
Legislation that would prevent, fine and penalize people using guns irresponsibly. Like, while they are mentally ill.

I thought so too, but it seems, this rule is not a law, but a procedural rule actually set by the State's Supreme Court.

Only because the power to do so has been delegated to them by the legislature, and even then only within the bounds provided by law, as per Indiana Code Title 34, Article 8:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/in...

While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so.

So, either listen to the highest court in the land or some random guy on the internet without a single reference.

What on Earth is the chance of encountering a ship on the high seas that carries scientific papers?
And then you go ahead and brutally rob the owners of said papers?
I'm sorry but this sounds like pure fantasy, at least in the 21st century. Unless the author fell prey to decades of propaganda and actually meant to refer to copyright infringement.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...

US Supreme Court rules that copyright infringement does not easily equate to theft:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...

Stop perpetuating propaganda.

Piracy is an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea.
We should not tolerate marine thuggery.

Copyright infringement, however, can't be easily equated to piracy or theft.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...

I stole this from an Ars post, but this is going to be appealed and the State will loose. It's already been seen by the Supreme Court in 1985, specifically Wallace v. Jaffree : "The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. "

No, the judge in this case is right - the Supreme Court's opinion in Wallace was regarding the Establishment Clause, and the prohibition on the government from elevating one religion over others (or, indeed, over 'no religion'). Pastafarianism as a satire is an argument under the establishment clause: if the state wishes to put up a ten commandments display or a nativity scene, then they must put up religious displays offered by any other religious group, regardless of how "silly" they find them.

However, Wallace had nothing to do with the free exercise clause - and indeed, Pastafarianism doesn't implicate the free exercise clause because, let's be honest, no one actually believes in it. The free exercise clause is intended to protect freedom of conscience, when someone is directed by a law to do one thing and directed by their religion to do another: if your religion says you must not kill or you will face eternal punishment, and the government wants to draft you for war or you will face jail, you are in a moral dilemma where you're forced to choose between physical punishment or spiritual punishment, with no way out. But there is no dilemma for Pastafarians - the prisoner here does not face a moral dilemma and has no fear of spiritual punishment... not that Pastafarianism even has such punishment as part of its dogma. Accordingly, without an attack of conscience, there is freedom of conscience to protect.

I stole this from an Ars post, but this is going to be appealed and the State will loose. It's already been seen by the Supreme Court in 1985, specifically Wallace v. Jaffree : "The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. "

Ahh, the old cherry pick by someone who is not very good at it. I never complained about the legal definition of rape, I provided a fact.

The definition of Rape has changed over time.

The prevailing common law definition being most often sited is defined so that women are the only possible victim. Common law defined rape as unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife by force or threat and against her will.

Are you attempting to prove my point? Your LMGTFY link is to an article where a person alleges that they were raped off of campus, reported it days later to a campus official and were told the campus had no jurisdiction. Days later, they tried to call another campus office, and received no help. Finally the football player was charged with sexual assault and kicked off the team with no evidence or criminal case..

Wow, you just proved my point.

Interesting and twisted way of looking at the Penn State case which I had not considered. Oh, Bill Clinton called and said "position does not matter when allegations are made". Yup, he is scum but the court of public opinion convicted him long before the sweater ever came out.

Making or downloading a copy is generally not a criminal action. Distributing a copy is the criminal action.
However downloading a copy does open you to civil lawsuits.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blott...

Currently, copyright enforcers focus on highly active people but there is always a chance you'll be sued for being unlucky for the one download you made ever in your life.

However, the copyright enforcers have some barriers to overcome.

1) The concept that "an i.p. is the same as a fingerprint" has been killed so they have to prove it was you that did the download.
2) They need to have evidence that the data is in your possession.
3) Which means they are going to engage in an expensive legal process to have a warrant served by sheriffs who enter your house and take your computing equipment.
4) But be aware that even if it wasn't you, the file isn't on your computer, etc. etc., you could still be out thousands of dollars in legal fees.

So they mostly focus on heavy downloaders since suing a single mom for something the teenage neighbor downloaded thru their unsecured wi-fi is bad publicity

"News for nerds" -- if folks here want to talk about "code", look at the United States Code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code ("the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States") . The term "illegal alien" appears in the United States Code in the following places:

"2 U.S.C. 658 : US Code - Section 658: Definitions" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/2/17A/II/B/658):

- (5) Federal intergovernmental mandate (A:ii:II): "he control of borders by the Federal Government; or reimbursement to State, local, or tribal governments for the net cost associated with illegal, deportable, and excludable aliens, including court-mandated expenses related to emergency health care, education or criminal justice; when such a reduction or elimination would result in increased net costs to State, local, or tribal governments in providing education or emergency health care to, or incarceration of, illegal aliens; except that this subclause shall not be in effect with respect to a State, local, or tribal government, to the extent that such government has not fully cooperated in the efforts of the Federal Government to locate, apprehend, and deport illegal aliens;

"8 U.S.C. 1330 : US Code - Section 1330: Collection of penalties and expenses" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1330):

(iii) for the repair, maintenance, or construction on the United States border, in areas experiencing high levels of apprehensions of illegal aliens, of structures to deter illegal entry into the United States.

"8 U.S.C. 1252c : US Code - Section 1252C: Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/V/1252c)

"8 U.S.C. 1356 : US Code - Section 1356: Disposition of moneys collected under the provisions of this subchapter" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/IX/1356):

(ii) for expenses associated with the detention of illegal aliens.

"8 U.S.C. 1365 : US Code - Section 1365: Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals" ( http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/IX/1365):

(a) Reimbursement of States
Subject to the amounts provided in advance in appropriation Acts,
the Attorney General shall reimburse a State for the costs incurred
by the State for the imprisonment of any illegal alien or Cuban
national who is convicted of a felony by such State.
(b) Illegal aliens convicted of a felony
An illegal alien referred to in subsection (a) of this section is
any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the
United States unlawfully and -
(1) whose most recent entry into the United States was without
inspection, or
(2) whose most recent admission to the United States was as a
nonimmigrant and -
(A) whose peri

"News for nerds" -- if folks here want to talk about "code", look at the United States Code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code ("the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States") . The term "illegal alien" appears in the United States Code in the following places:

"2 U.S.C. 658 : US Code - Section 658: Definitions" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/2/17A/II/B/658):

- (5) Federal intergovernmental mandate (A:ii:II): "he control of borders by the Federal Government; or reimbursement to State, local, or tribal governments for the net cost associated with illegal, deportable, and excludable aliens, including court-mandated expenses related to emergency health care, education or criminal justice; when such a reduction or elimination would result in increased net costs to State, local, or tribal governments in providing education or emergency health care to, or incarceration of, illegal aliens; except that this subclause shall not be in effect with respect to a State, local, or tribal government, to the extent that such government has not fully cooperated in the efforts of the Federal Government to locate, apprehend, and deport illegal aliens;

"8 U.S.C. 1330 : US Code - Section 1330: Collection of penalties and expenses" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1330):

(iii) for the repair, maintenance, or construction on the United States border, in areas experiencing high levels of apprehensions of illegal aliens, of structures to deter illegal entry into the United States.

"8 U.S.C. 1252c : US Code - Section 1252C: Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/V/1252c)

"8 U.S.C. 1356 : US Code - Section 1356: Disposition of moneys collected under the provisions of this subchapter" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/IX/1356):

(ii) for expenses associated with the detention of illegal aliens.

"8 U.S.C. 1365 : US Code - Section 1365: Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals" ( http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/IX/1365):

(a) Reimbursement of States
Subject to the amounts provided in advance in appropriation Acts,
the Attorney General shall reimburse a State for the costs incurred
by the State for the imprisonment of any illegal alien or Cuban
national who is convicted of a felony by such State.
(b) Illegal aliens convicted of a felony
An illegal alien referred to in subsection (a) of this section is
any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the
United States unlawfully and -
(1) whose most recent entry into the United States was without
inspection, or
(2) whose most recent admission to the United States was as a
nonimmigrant and -
(A) whose peri

"News for nerds" -- if folks here want to talk about "code", look at the United States Code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code ("the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States") . The term "illegal alien" appears in the United States Code in the following places:

"2 U.S.C. 658 : US Code - Section 658: Definitions" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/2/17A/II/B/658):

- (5) Federal intergovernmental mandate (A:ii:II): "he control of borders by the Federal Government; or reimbursement to State, local, or tribal governments for the net cost associated with illegal, deportable, and excludable aliens, including court-mandated expenses related to emergency health care, education or criminal justice; when such a reduction or elimination would result in increased net costs to State, local, or tribal governments in providing education or emergency health care to, or incarceration of, illegal aliens; except that this subclause shall not be in effect with respect to a State, local, or tribal government, to the extent that such government has not fully cooperated in the efforts of the Federal Government to locate, apprehend, and deport illegal aliens;

"8 U.S.C. 1330 : US Code - Section 1330: Collection of penalties and expenses" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1330):

(iii) for the repair, maintenance, or construction on the United States border, in areas experiencing high levels of apprehensions of illegal aliens, of structures to deter illegal entry into the United States.

"8 U.S.C. 1252c : US Code - Section 1252C: Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/V/1252c)

"8 U.S.C. 1356 : US Code - Section 1356: Disposition of moneys collected under the provisions of this subchapter" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/IX/1356):

(ii) for expenses associated with the detention of illegal aliens.

"8 U.S.C. 1365 : US Code - Section 1365: Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals" ( http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/IX/1365):

(a) Reimbursement of States
Subject to the amounts provided in advance in appropriation Acts,
the Attorney General shall reimburse a State for the costs incurred
by the State for the imprisonment of any illegal alien or Cuban
national who is convicted of a felony by such State.
(b) Illegal aliens convicted of a felony
An illegal alien referred to in subsection (a) of this section is
any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the
United States unlawfully and -
(1) whose most recent entry into the United States was without
inspection, or
(2) whose most recent admission to the United States was as a
nonimmigrant and -
(A) whose peri

"News for nerds" -- if folks here want to talk about "code", look at the United States Code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code ("the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States") . The term "illegal alien" appears in the United States Code in the following places:

"2 U.S.C. 658 : US Code - Section 658: Definitions" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/2/17A/II/B/658):

- (5) Federal intergovernmental mandate (A:ii:II): "he control of borders by the Federal Government; or reimbursement to State, local, or tribal governments for the net cost associated with illegal, deportable, and excludable aliens, including court-mandated expenses related to emergency health care, education or criminal justice; when such a reduction or elimination would result in increased net costs to State, local, or tribal governments in providing education or emergency health care to, or incarceration of, illegal aliens; except that this subclause shall not be in effect with respect to a State, local, or tribal government, to the extent that such government has not fully cooperated in the efforts of the Federal Government to locate, apprehend, and deport illegal aliens;

"8 U.S.C. 1330 : US Code - Section 1330: Collection of penalties and expenses" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1330):

(iii) for the repair, maintenance, or construction on the United States border, in areas experiencing high levels of apprehensions of illegal aliens, of structures to deter illegal entry into the United States.

"8 U.S.C. 1252c : US Code - Section 1252C: Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/V/1252c)

"8 U.S.C. 1356 : US Code - Section 1356: Disposition of moneys collected under the provisions of this subchapter" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/IX/1356):

(ii) for expenses associated with the detention of illegal aliens.

"8 U.S.C. 1365 : US Code - Section 1365: Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals" ( http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/IX/1365):

(a) Reimbursement of States
Subject to the amounts provided in advance in appropriation Acts,
the Attorney General shall reimburse a State for the costs incurred
by the State for the imprisonment of any illegal alien or Cuban
national who is convicted of a felony by such State.
(b) Illegal aliens convicted of a felony
An illegal alien referred to in subsection (a) of this section is
any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the
United States unlawfully and -
(1) whose most recent entry into the United States was without
inspection, or
(2) whose most recent admission to the United States was as a
nonimmigrant and -
(A) whose peri

"News for nerds" -- if folks here want to talk about "code", look at the United States Code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code ("the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes of the United States") . The term "illegal alien" appears in the United States Code in the following places:

"2 U.S.C. 658 : US Code - Section 658: Definitions" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/2/17A/II/B/658):

- (5) Federal intergovernmental mandate (A:ii:II): "he control of borders by the Federal Government; or reimbursement to State, local, or tribal governments for the net cost associated with illegal, deportable, and excludable aliens, including court-mandated expenses related to emergency health care, education or criminal justice; when such a reduction or elimination would result in increased net costs to State, local, or tribal governments in providing education or emergency health care to, or incarceration of, illegal aliens; except that this subclause shall not be in effect with respect to a State, local, or tribal government, to the extent that such government has not fully cooperated in the efforts of the Federal Government to locate, apprehend, and deport illegal aliens;

"8 U.S.C. 1330 : US Code - Section 1330: Collection of penalties and expenses" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1330):

(iii) for the repair, maintenance, or construction on the United States border, in areas experiencing high levels of apprehensions of illegal aliens, of structures to deter illegal entry into the United States.

"8 U.S.C. 1252c : US Code - Section 1252C: Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/V/1252c)

"8 U.S.C. 1356 : US Code - Section 1356: Disposition of moneys collected under the provisions of this subchapter" (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/IX/1356):

(ii) for expenses associated with the detention of illegal aliens.

"8 U.S.C. 1365 : US Code - Section 1365: Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals" ( http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/IX/1365):

(a) Reimbursement of States
Subject to the amounts provided in advance in appropriation Acts,
the Attorney General shall reimburse a State for the costs incurred
by the State for the imprisonment of any illegal alien or Cuban
national who is convicted of a felony by such State.
(b) Illegal aliens convicted of a felony
An illegal alien referred to in subsection (a) of this section is
any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the
United States unlawfully and -
(1) whose most recent entry into the United States was without
inspection, or
(2) whose most recent admission to the United States was as a
nonimmigrant and -
(A) whose peri

...than sex. Or porn. Or to swear.

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/o...

A. Every person who willfully either: ...
3. Writes, composes, stereotypes, prints, photographs, designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints, molds, cuts, or otherwise prepares, publishes, sells, distributes, keeps for sale, or exhibits any obscene or indecent writing, paper, book, picture, photograph, motion picture, figure, form of any description or any type of obscene material; or

4. Makes, prepares, cuts, sells, gives, loans, distributes, keeps for sale, or exhibits any disc record, metal, plastic, or wax, wire or tape recording, or any type of obscene material or any other kind of sound recording of any obscene or indecent language, poetry, or songs, or who speaks any words by means of a telephone to any person which are offensive to decency or are calculated to excite vicious or lewd thoughts or acts, or who speaks any other communicable words which are offensive to decency or are adapted to excite vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,

shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a felony and shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) or by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ten (10) years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Persons convicted under paragraphs 3 and 4 of subsection A of this section shall not be eligible for a deferred sentence.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person knowing that he or she has Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or is a carrier of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and with intent to infect another, to engage in conduct reasonably likely to result in the transfer of the person's own blood, bodily fluids containing visible blood, semen, or vaginal secretions into the bloodstream of another, or through the skin or other membranes of another person, except during in utero transmission of blood or bodily fluids, and:

1. The other person did not consent to the transfer of blood, bodily fluids containing blood, semen, or vaginal secretions; or
2. The other person consented to the transfer but at the time of giving consent had not been informed by the person that the person transferring such blood or fluids had AIDS or was a carrier of HIV.

B. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not more than five (5) years.

So basically, someone could get 10 years for describing a dream in which he/she gives AIDS to someone through sexual intercourse - but only 5 years if it was not a dream.

Well, if the law is from 1789, clearly they should have to unlock the phone using tools available at the time the law was written

By that logic, your speech is only protected if printed or actually spoken — the only means available, when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

And the Second Amendment only applies to muskets (but not to knives and swords for some reason).

DC Comics v. Towle at first appears to add to a slippery slope that would eventually see all car designs as copyrightable the moment they roll off an assembly line or a garage.

But, a closer reading of the decision seem to show that what's at issue isn't the shape of the car so much as the names it is marketed under. The 9th Circuit built their opinion atop Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg. , to wit "an automotive character [Eleanor] may be copyrightable even if it appears as a yellow Fastback Ford Mustang in one film, and a silver 1967 Shelby GT-500 in another."

The Carroll Hall Shelby Trust arranged for a custom car shop to create and market Shelby GT-500 "Eleanor" replicas. If you compare a "stock" GT-500 to the relatively minor mods that make "Eleanor" in the Gone In 60 Seconds 2000 remake, Shelby probably would have been in the clear just selling cars "resembling Eleanor". But, by marketing it as Eleanor, not so fast.

I think this is even more clear with the Towle ruling. Making a Batmobile, probably fine. Marketing it as a Batmobile, with the likely-to-be trademarked Batman logo on the doors, rims, and steering wheel turns out to have been a risky move.

Beating the example to death: if I want to revive a style by assembling and selling Studebaker Avanti lookalikes, and market them as Indietro, I'm probably safe under both the US Copyright Office's definition of "useful articles" and parody case law. But, if I try to slap Avanti on the nose, I'd probably soon end up in hot water with whoever current holds the copyrights and trademarks of the former Avanti Motor Corporation.

Just to play devil's advocate, how is unlocking a phone any different than our existing warrant-based searches? Warrant-based searches are explicitly supported in the fourth amendment you site. We've lived with court-ordered warrants since the country was founded, which strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of law enforcement to obtain evidence against the sanctity and privacy of our homes and personal property. At this moment, if a judge ordered it, law enforcement could come into your home and demand access to absolutely everything you own. What is it, in your opinion, that makes a phone different than anything else that we consider personal or private?

The police (FBI in this case) are not allowed to use the system for fishing expeditions. The 4th explicitly states:

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 FBI has established probable cause but they have not, to my satisfaction, demonstrated particularity. Exactly what do they expect to find on the phone? To put it simply, they are fishing for anything they can get out of it.

It can also be argued there is a 1st Amendment reason to protect the phone data since it is copyrighted material thanks to the Copyright nuts getting copyright the moment a document is created. This would kick in a higher standard for probable cause. See:

http://constitution.findlaw.co...

"Peers" in that context means a person with the same legal rights and status based on caste. Since US law is based on English law, that means that a noble has to be tried by a jury of nobles, a commoner by a jury of commoners. In the US we are all equal under the law, we have no nobles, so it merely means that a person is tried by persons.

Americans are often confused about this, because we don't normally encounter the word "peer" except in the context of "peer pressure" or the "respect of their peers," or some such social, non-caste-based phrasing.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr...

That decision would be appealed by the prosecution as well, but it might start a trend in how higher courts decide.

Under US criminal law, the prohibition on double jeopardy prevents the prosecution from appealing a jury's decision to acquit*. So if, as you suggest, a nullification-inclined jury were the ones deciding, Snowden would walk**.

*IANAML, so I can't speak to what the prosecution can/cannot appeal following the verdict in a court-martial under the UCMJ (if Snowden were to somehow end up before a military tribunal rather than a civilian court, even though he was a civilian contractor and not a member of the military).

**On all counts on which the jury acquitted. There is nothing stopping them from acquitting on the most serious (probably espionage/treason related) charges, but finding him guilty of e.g. unauthorized access or misuse of sensitive information.

So, YES, I answered your question. Duh!

You didn't answer my question about how you'd feel if I let your kids use a drill-press, you answered an imaginary question of if you'd ever let me hang out with them. You're dodging, presumably because you know it's a good point.

Once again, LYING. The student who carried a weapon could get expelled for carrying. This is in their rules.

Nope. They tried it and were sued in 2013... and they lost. They cannot supercede Oregon law, all they can do is politely ask that nobody bring their guns.

Sorry, post offices are officially "gun free" zones. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...

Hey, I'll give you credit, you taught me something. I thought the Post Office became gun-free in 93 when schools did, but as near as i can tell it was back in the 70's. Okie doke, you can have that.

So, you would rather take a CHANCE at getting accidentally hit rather than a CERTAINTY of taking a bullet to the head.

According to you: Guns are safe because they don't actually hurt anybody. Anyway, I'd rather wait for police to arrive than have a numbnut who think he's John McClane adding more bullets to the mix. Your fantasies about how heroism works are based on what Hollywood has shown you, not reality.

You apparently do not know what "logic" means. Please explain that one.

Thank you for confirming that your logic doesn't make sense.

Now, I am still waiting for you to list the mass shootings in the last 20 years that are NOT in gun free zones.

I did.

And, no, just saying that a place is gun free does not make it so when I can produce firm evidence to the contrary.

I don't understand this sentence.

Anyways, this has been fun, but I am getting tired of refuting lies.

Apparently when you're misinformed anybody who disagree with you is 'lying'. I bet I know talk show on the radio you listen to. Mega-dittos, man.

you answered a question I did not ask. And you are continuing to dodge.

Wow. Is lying the only way that you can make your point? Here is your question:

And how would you react if I let your kids play with my drill press unsupervised?

And here is my answer:

I would not let my kids play at your house.

So, YES, I answered your question. Duh!

No, he didn't. The college can frown on it all they like but he did not break any rules.

Once again, LYING. The student who carried a weapon could get expelled for carrying. This is in their rules.

Oregon Community College. Postal shootings.

Here is the PRESIDENT OF THAT COLLEGE SAYING THAT THEY HAVE A NO GUNS ON CAMPUS POLICY. If you can't believe the person who RUNS the college, then who will you believe?

Sorry, post offices are officially "gun free" zones. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...

Not really. It means more shots fired, broader group of potential victims, and confusion about who the police shoot.

So, you would rather take a CHANCE at getting accidentally hit rather than a CERTAINTY of taking a bullet to the head. Well, you choice, but not the one that I would make. However, how dare you force your stupid decisions on me?
And as to police, they warn you before they shoot. If you put your gun down, you will be OK. Let the police arrest EVERYBODY carrying a gun and sort it out later. Better to be arrested than dead.

Going by that logic you can avoid having an unwanted child by not purchasing a mini-van

You apparently do not know what "logic" means. Please explain that one.

Ah, reality. Here's reality: Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the school up in Oregon were shot up by actual students attending there.

And here is MORE reality. The victims were DISARMED, so nobody could stop the bad guy until good guys showed up -- with guns.

Now, I am still waiting for you to list the mass shootings in the last 20 years that are NOT in gun free zones. And, no, just saying that a place is gun free does not make it so when I can produce firm evidence to the contrary.

Anyways, this has been fun, but I am getting tired of refuting lies. It is just too easy and not much fun. Please at least make it challenging for me to prove you to be a liar. Be more clever! It is more fun that way.

since your spouse would have to claim the support as income and pay taxes on it.

http://family.findlaw.com/child-support/child-support-and-taxes-q-a.html/

A: No, child support payments are not considered taxable income, according to the IRS. Child support payments are neither deductible by the payer nor taxable to the payee. So when you calculate your gross income to see if you are required to file a tax return, do not include child support payments received.

Not sure where you get your info from but it looks like it may be out of date.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech.

Mrs. McIntyre was fined $100 dollars for distributing anonymous election materials against a levy tax. In the case the Ohio Election commission vs McIntyre, the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:

  * The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
  * More-over, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.
  * Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure require-ment.
  * Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Doe v. Cahill represented another victory for the protection of free anonymous speech on the internet. The precedent was notably applied in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe in 2007[6] and still serves as the standard for anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2]

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The 1960 case Talley v California , was the first major win for anonymous speech advocates. Mr.Talley was arrested for distributing a handbill that was calling for a boycott of certain businesses in the area because the businesses did not hire minorities.

  Justice Black reason for repealing the Los Angeles Ordinance was:
        "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The final watershed case on this topic is NAACP v Alabama . The issue was whether the NAACP had to give a list of its members to the State of Alabama before it could operate there. In the end, the NAACP was not required to give a list of its members because:

        "We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment." ....

Next!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech.

Mrs. McIntyre was fined $100 dollars for distributing anonymous election materials against a levy tax. In the case the Ohio Election commission vs McIntyre, the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:

  * The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
  * More-over, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.
  * Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure require-ment.
  * Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Doe v. Cahill represented another victory for the protection of free anonymous speech on the internet. The precedent was notably applied in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe in 2007[6] and still serves as the standard for anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2]

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The 1960 case Talley v California , was the first major win for anonymous speech advocates. Mr.Talley was arrested for distributing a handbill that was calling for a boycott of certain businesses in the area because the businesses did not hire minorities.

  Justice Black reason for repealing the Los Angeles Ordinance was:
        "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The final watershed case on this topic is NAACP v Alabama . The issue was whether the NAACP had to give a list of its members to the State of Alabama before it could operate there. In the end, the NAACP was not required to give a list of its members because:

        "We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment." ....

Next!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech.

Mrs. McIntyre was fined $100 dollars for distributing anonymous election materials against a levy tax. In the case the Ohio Election commission vs McIntyre, the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:

  * The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
  * More-over, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.
  * Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure require-ment.
  * Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Doe v. Cahill represented another victory for the protection of free anonymous speech on the internet. The precedent was notably applied in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe in 2007[6] and still serves as the standard for anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2]

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The 1960 case Talley v California , was the first major win for anonymous speech advocates. Mr.Talley was arrested for distributing a handbill that was calling for a boycott of certain businesses in the area because the businesses did not hire minorities.

  Justice Black reason for repealing the Los Angeles Ordinance was:
        "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The final watershed case on this topic is NAACP v Alabama . The issue was whether the NAACP had to give a list of its members to the State of Alabama before it could operate there. In the end, the NAACP was not required to give a list of its members because:

        "We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment." ....

Next!

In case you were wondering, yes Kentucky has no waiting period to buy handguns.

If you want to express your thoughts immediately in KY, they prefer you do it with lead.

It depends. In Colorado, for example, DUI/DWAI are clearly strict liability offenses, which do not require mens rea. A court in New York previously concluded that DWI is a strict liability offense, and does not contain the element of mens rea.

Silly Clinton shill, you think knowingly doing so is required for her to be convicted?

You may want to read up on 18 U.S.C. 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Which says in part:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,

Gross negligence is a far lower charge, one the DoJ will not bring due to their own hyper-partisanship.

and there is no nexus which can be stretched to create one.

If sufficient nexus can be established for Gun-Free School Zones Act the by adding "has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce", then Congress will have no trouble establishing it for the FAA if it has not already done so.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...

Can anyone remember when laws were made by elected officials?

It seems like nowadays some federal agency steps in and declares that they're the governing authority on something, that their decisions are law, and everyone should obey.

That doesn't seem to mesh with what we were taught in school.

Aren't our lawmakers elected?

What you're referring to is known as the Doctrine of Nondelegability.

http://constitution.findlaw.co...

The SCOTUS has gradually all but destroyed any restrictions on the Congressional delegation of it's regulatory/lawmaking powers.

The rationale was that delegability was necessary in order to produce enough Federal laws & regulations quickly enough to be able to control through laws and regulations all the existing and emerging new areas of the economy and society at large that government felt itself entitled to control. A trend which shows no sign of halting or even slowing as there always seems to be more areas of life government feels entitled to control.

The SCOTUS has never to date denied Congress an act of delegation of it's powers.

This has lead to the creation of the Regulatory State, basically rule by unelected bureaucrats in unaccountable, non-transparent agencies, departments, bureaus, commissions, and the like.

The tossing aside of the Doctrine of Nondelegability is one of the biggest methods through which the Federal government has increased in size, scope, power, cost, intrusiveness, corruptness, oppressiveness, and divisiveness.

The Doctrine of Nondelegability was precisely designed and intended to limit the Congress' ability to be able to expand it's ability to create massive amounts of laws and regulations through delegation of Congress' lawmaking and regulatory powers, and prevent unelected bureaucrats from ruling over citizens without accountability directly to the electorate.

Strat

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) makes sure of that. http://litigation.findlaw.com/... [findlaw.com]

The Supremacy clause only grants supreme status as "law of the land" to laws made by the United States "in pursuance" of the Constitution. The Constitution does not enumerate, for the Feds, any kind of authority over airspace.

That is, in fact, why Southwest was able to operate without any kind of interference by the Feds (comically or tragically, I don't know, to dress-up stewardesses as sexily as possible, among other shenanigans)--they not only stayed within Texas to avoid the other botched-up clause that is wrested beyond any and all original (i.e. grammatical) recognition--the so-called "interstate commerce clause" but did the other key thing necessary to avoid that totalist expansion of the clause as a pretext/excuse to regulate anything: ignored them.

A great example of the differences and distinctions in the kinds of "Constitutional" powers: until the civil war ended, the Feds never (in all of US history) even exercised eminent domain: they **always** had to obtain the permission and action of the States because--as the Constitution's actual authors explained--the States are Sovereigns, the Federal government is (was) not. It is not legally so under the Constitution, though it may be under its emperious form now extant. Note that this is also why the Feds must place weapons into States' armories (technically, they're not actually allowed to have a standing army--so current compromise is that the States control the guns, theoretically at least).

Note: this is not a protest, just a description of the ACTUAL written law (and reference to those who actually wrote and explained it--excepting Hamilton, who was ignored by every other delegate as a political, text-warping asshat) and circumstances. I'm also not really an opponent of the kind of regulations the Feds currently promulgate and enforce since having a uniform set of standards and procedures for aerospace = good. :)

The FAA has jurisdiction over all airspace in the US including that below 500 ft above ground level (AGL). https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...
Specifically *ALL* airspace within 12 nautical miles (NM) of the US coastline is subject to FAA jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (you can read the boring primary source if you follow links at http://macklow.com/airspace/)

Federal law comes before and above local and state law, so local and state politicians can growse and complain, but they passed laws about airspace... and they have no jurisdiction over that airspace. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) makes sure of that. http://litigation.findlaw.com/...

Finally, these are not drones, and the FAA has not promulgated regulation about drones. These are unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This is what the FAA registration is for, and it DOES cover model aircraft above a certain weight. https://www.faa.gov/uas/

Ehud
P.S. The following articles all APPEAR to be different... until you read the comments, and realize that every time this topic comes up the same people come out of the woodwork to make up the same stories. Please help spread the facts. (See links above).
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
and even on a California legislature story: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

The supreme court ruled that all authority control immigration resides with the federal government.

The Federal Government, yes; but the President himself, not so much. We are not a Monarchy nor a Dictatorship.

And (thank God!) there are limits to what can be done with an Executive Order.

So, no, despite what Nixon said, just because the President does something, doesn't automatically make it legal. So, your statement "And there's an argument that his Constituitonal Executive Power supercedes any law" is patently and demonstrably bullshit.

In an analogy to the automatic dismissal of cold fusion experimentation that Price notes, for more than a century, the US Patent Office automatically rejected patent applications directed to restoring baldness, because it was "inherently unbelievable" and "involved implausible scientific principles". This was the same rejection applied to applications for perpetual motion machines, teleporters, etc. - they can't possibly work, by definition, so the application is claiming a useless invention and is therefore ineligible for a patent.

Of course, then Rogaine and Propecia were invented and proven to cure baldness, and eventually the courts had to step in and tell the patent office that they were wrong and that hair restoration was at least theoretically possible.

Any citation for this story?

No account I have found about the discovery of the hair-growing properties of minoxidil, and its patenting (like this one) mentions any such rejection, or lawsuit. I find lawsuits about patent priority, profit-sharing, about misleading marketing of the drug, and patent infringement, but absolutely nothing about the USPO rejecting the patent or being forced to grant one by any court.

Indeed when Upjohn filed a patent for hair loss prevention in 1971 it was granted right away.

But, ahem, I do see a striking analogy here though between this account, and the accounts supporting Rossi's cold fusion system...

While I am not surprised that clearly- unbiased source, "reason.com" calls this an example of runaway nanny-state regulation, the fact remains that millions use the sidewalks of NYC every single day, and those people have the right to safety.

Digging a bit deeper into the question of their legality, we find this article from the NY Daile News

It appears that these motorized electric scooters - which I've personally only recently become aware of, and until reading this article had no idea they were becoming so popular, essentially fall under a broad "motorized transport" classification.

I guess that it is easy to paint a picture of "big government wants its pound of flesh" surrounding their registration. However, the interpretation I take is that any tom, dick, or harry can't just go driving a motor-propelled vehicle on the streets and sidewalks of NYC. In fact, the whole topic of this thread is that 15,000 of these things are siezed in the UK for being unsafe. Are the scooters being sold on the streets of NYC coming from a different chinese factory? Is there any less of a problem of bootleg, unsafe goods?

I'm sorry, but I'f I'm walking down the streets of brooklyn or wherever, I don't want someone slamming into me on their unsafe, unregulated, apparently-on-flames motorized fad-scooter.

But you're right, government only exists to regulate, regulate, regulate. It's all just rules and red tape, isn't it?

Actually, he was *NOT* arrested. He was detained.

If you're being booked, you've been arrested.

Of course, the police report also reads "Arrestee being in possession of a hoax bomb at MacArthur High School." Maybe you should call the Irving police and explain to them how you belive that he was not arrested.

No, but he's guilty though. Sure, the NEWS can't say that, but the only way he could be found innocent is jury nullification.

You can be pedantic, and of the HOST of crimes they will charge him with, some will be bullshit, but this one:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...

He is UNAMBIGUOUSLY guilty of.

I'm sure if they could get their hands on him, they would charge him with more, and much of that is debatable, but we are talking about a man who is famous because he disclosed classified information while he had an active clearance, and doing exactly that is against the law. There's no possible way for Snowden to be materially innocent of disclosing classified information, again, barring jury nullification or something really odd.

Put camera's in washroom stalls just in case the terrorists find a way to use them.

So if I pee in public, not only am I a sex offender, now I'm a potential terrorist?

"Constitutional rights? Bah! Who needs 'em!" seems to be the watchword of the new millenium.

Yep, if events in academia is any guide, the First Amendment rights — including the reporters' right to observe and record the newsworthy events — is done for.

The gun nuts get everything they want.

False. Although the Bill of Rights clearly calls weapon-possession a right, it is treated as a mere privilege even in the most Liberal locales: you must have a government's permission to keep and bear. And even where such a permission is reasonably easy to obtain, it can also be withdrawn by the Executive at a drop of a hat — without Judiciary's participation.

And not just guns — various States and cities take an even dimmer view of the Constitutionally-protected arms like knives, swords, and brass-knuckles.

As other posters note, sometimes an employer will give severance but only if they are required by statute law in their state, or if they promised severance as a benefit. Severance is not lotto. Point of severance is to help a terminated employee get back on their feet. http://smallbusiness.findlaw.c... http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency... http://www.gss-law.com/Article... https://www.ohiobar.org/forpub...

> Personally in a situation like that I'd be really tempted to do as other have suggested and take it, but then act like a completely forgetful idiot whenever I'm called in and generally be completely useless. Realistically I'd probably strike the availability cause in the contract and sign it. If they countersigned, great I get money with no strings, if they refuse I'd walk without the extra money because I don't need those conditions over my head.

Smart call. Take the money. And it depends on the terms: an occasional phone chat isn't unreasonable, but in practice when you leave a job your mind turns to mush anyway.

I hope you get caught on camera causing someone financial harm, so that you and your pretentious bullshit can spend some time in jail and learn what real hardship is like.

Do you really want to live in a country where people get jailed for scratching a paint job on a car?

You already do. Graffiti (vandalism) is a felony in many states. I would not be surprised if deliberate vandalism against other types of property (vehicles) was as well if the damage is over a certain value.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr...

Depending on the specific state and value of the property damage, vandalism is either a misdemeanor or felony offense. Penalties typically include fines, imprisonment in county jail, or both. In addition, a person convicted of vandalism is frequently ordered to wash, repair or replace the damaged property (known as "restitution"), and/or participate in programs to clean up graffiti and other forms of vandalism. Moreover, a parent of a minor child may be ordered to pay fines resulting from their child's vandal behavior under a "parental liability" theory.

Let's quote the Amendment here:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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 right to be "secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects" "shall not be violated" by "unreasonable searches and seizures". That right can be over-ridden, allowing the unreasonable search or seizure, by a warrant issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Note that under your interpretation, if a police officer sees someone committing a rape he can't arrest the guy until somebody comes down from the station with a warrant because arrests are "seizures."

The Courts actually have a lengthy list of types of search they consider reasonable. The upshot is that if they see the crime happen, they don't need a warrant to arrest the perp; if they're in a context or place where of course there're searches (like the border) they can search you; if they need to do shit now, without waiting 20 minutes for some guy to show up with paperwork, they can do shit now.

Obviously, if you're too poor to afford a lawyer (as most young black men in the maw of the law are), you're not gonna get an evidentiary hearing so the police can make almost any bullshit interpretation of "reasonable search" blessed by the courts; but it's not unusual for the courts to ban evidence against people who aren't too poor.Also note this is precisely how the Founders intended it to work. They would actually open your mail, and read it, without a warrant.

And if Obama announced he was cutting an anti-terror program Clapper said was useful how long do you think it would be before there was a movement in Congress to thwart him by adding a line item to the budget? A couple of those schmucks would actually switch over from strong pro-Civil liberties to strong-anti Civil Liberties simply to spite Obama. Hell, the NSA's specific budget is classified. For all we know there's already that line item.

And I think you're severely under-estimating all of DC's culpability in this. Bush had pretty much a blank check to do whatever he wanted on September 12th, 2001 (note: this is actually how Checks and Balances are supposed to work. The President gets checked, and can do jack-squat, until there's a crises, then he assumes powers similar to those of an Ancient Roman Dictator). He approved this programs. Any attempt by him to disclaim the damn things is one of those age old "lying or stupid?" things. Obama has a little more deniability, because PRISM was actually passed as legislation by Congress before he became President. But not really, because he voted for it.

People like to delude themselves that some stupid bureaucrat deep in the bowels of some agency that nobody had heard of prior to these programs being enacted is the whole problem, and that One Simple Trick (either a Court Case, or the President's signature) will end it.

But the Courts aren't gonna step on Congress's toes, especially when all Constitutional cases against the programs can be brought into pretty serious question law simply by checking a couple legal dictionaries, both Presidents clearly prefer a world where this shit happens to one where it doesn't, and Congress itself has ay least one statute authorizing the whole shebang.

The least difficult fix is Congress.

On iOS, after 24 hours or less than 10 failed fingerprint attempts, you are required to enter your password to gain access to the phone (fingerprint doesn't work at that point). I would assume that it would take longer than 24 hours for the police to convince a judge to force you to use your fingerprint, and a emergency stays by appeals courts do happen as well. I also believe that the knowledge of which finger unlocks your phone would be protected by the fifth amendment, so that you would not have to inform law enforcement which fingerprint opens the phone and as a result the phone requires a password after many failed attempts.

UNFORTUNATELY, There was an a decision a about a year ago that ruled that you COULD be forced to unlock your phone with your fingerprint, even if you could not be forced to do so with your passcode.

FORTUNATELY, it was only a STATE Court; so, unless you happen to be caught in Virginia, you could still fight it, and with this decision as (non-controlling, but persuasive) precedent, maybe even score a win for all of us!

So, I'll try ten times - once with each finger and let it lock me out. They don't need to know I use the big toe on my left foot to unlock my phone.

Which is why, if you're ever pulled over or believe you're about to be taken into custody, you power off your phone. At least an iPhone requires the pass code be used the first time before it allows your fingerprint to be used.

I have thought the EXACT same thing, especially in light of that Virginia Court Ruling about a year ago.

On iOS, after 24 hours or less than 10 failed fingerprint attempts, you are required to enter your password to gain access to the phone (fingerprint doesn't work at that point). I would assume that it would take longer than 24 hours for the police to convince a judge to force you to use your fingerprint, and a emergency stays by appeals courts do happen as well. I also believe that the knowledge of which finger unlocks your phone would be protected by the fifth amendment, so that you would not have to inform law enforcement which fingerprint opens the phone and as a result the phone requires a password after many failed attempts.

UNFORTUNATELY, There was an a decision a about a year ago that ruled that you COULD be forced to unlock your phone with your fingerprint, even if you could not be forced to do so with your passcode.

FORTUNATELY, it was only a STATE Court; so, unless you happen to be caught in Virginia, you could still fight it, and with this decision as (non-controlling, but persuasive) precedent, maybe even score a win for all of us!

I'm actually happier with no salesmen and no hari krishnas in the waiting room

There are ways to deal with that which not only do not require security theater, but that were well in the works a decade before 9/11 which is why you probably haven't seen many of them at the airport in the 90's outside of movies: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...

Who said jack-squat about war-time? That word does not appear in the Constitution at all.

The constitution does have things to say about war time, or if you prefer times of peace which is kinda the opposite. Certain provisions are relaxed not during times of peace because the authors of the constitution aren't idiots and knew what an existential crisis is.

The only times of peace clause is the one banning states from having a combat Navy. Habeus Corpus can be suspended during times of rebellion, the Quartering Amendment (which has featured in one actual case I know of) is suspended in war-time.

BTW, your problem here is you don't understand the architecture. Under a system of Checks and Balances both policy-making branches are supposed to be nigh-tyrinical, their evil checked only by their stubborn refusal to agree on who should be horribly oppressed. These leaves governmental power gobbled almost all of the time. Except during wartime Congress is likely to roll over to the President's demands. Explicit mention of the concept would be against the design principles, because it would allow a potentially-tyrinical President to increase his own power by imagining a never-ending war.

Thus the PATRIOT Act is the system working as designed. The numerous Americans convinced it's a tyrannical attack on their freedom is also working as designed as the people are supposed to be an invisible, powerful, and wonderfully obstreperous branch of government.

Thus whatever it does in furtherance of those orders is a use of the President's Commander-in-Chief power, and not subject to the Fourth Amendment.

Oh yes. I forgot about the bit where the 4th gives exceptions to members of the government who are under the presidents order.

The Fourth does not apply to valid uses of the President's Commander-in-Chief power. His law enforcement power's are constrained by the Fourth. The way the Courts parse this is, if the Army finds out about something illegal in the course of using it's powers, law enforcement can't use the data until they get a warrant and re-aquire it. They can use Spec. Jackson's testimony that he saw that crack to get the warrant, but they can't say the suspect had crack in Court unless their capital-S-law-enforcement-Search turns up the data after Spec. Jackson snitches.

OTOH, if Spec. Jackson caught the suspect doing something clandestine that the Army has proper Commander-in-Chief authorization to stop (hard to imagine in the Continental US, but let's say that Putin's sending saboteurs in via submarine or something) then he can use the data to call in an air strike and kill everyone.

If you're wondering why our legal system is so much more expensive then yours, you now have an example of the complexities of administering a country with a 226-year-old document that only gets updated once a decade or so. You guys have some much older documents, but with Unity of Powers anything that looks obsolete tends to get refreshed by some maddeningly ambitious Minister every time there's a cabinet shake-up.

Funnily enough I'm having trouble in finding it in the one paragraph of text. The bit about "shall not" seems quite clear to me, but would you care to point me to the bit of the 4th (or later amendment) which makes an exception for the army?

"Shall not" applies to "unreasonable searches and seizures." A quick perusal of US legal dictionaries proves that phrase is a law enforcement term.

I'm not even arguing that counter intelligence is unreasonable. Searching and indexing the entire country's papers is unreasonable.

Ever heard the phrase

The idea of freedom of speech is as, and perhaps is even more controversial today as it was when it was added to the Constitution.

Weird, isn't it? We've seen so many examples since then of why freedom of speech is important, and yet people still think it's a good idea to suppress others who say things they don't like. "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."