Slashdot Mirror

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors...

Personal info is not covered by copyright, just as a phone book is not covered (ie an ordered list of information without any "arts" to it).

The DMCA added some protections for information stored in databases, so in this case, the credit agencies could claim copyright for the data.

That is such captilistic bullshit. What you are saying is that it really costs these companies which is simply not true. These companies make a killing. http://bernie.house.gov/prescriptions/profits.asp Research is done in many countries without money driven motivation through government grants or even companies that are willing to work with modest profits. Any profit is enough to make a company work if they are not too greedy. I am so fed up with capitilists spouting their crap about how well the system works for the good of the consumer. bleh.

Last time I checked, there is already a college student tracking system in place, run by the federal government, and one that you voluntary subscribed to... I'm talking about FAFSA, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, not to mention FSA, the Federal Student Aid repayment portal. Because to get a loan and repay it, you give your name, your SSN, your address, etc...

From congress's documents on the web, in 2004 there are an estimated 15.9 million students in the US, of which 6.6 million students receive some sort of federal aid, at roughly $52 billion. I wouldn't be surprised if they had many millions more names on file, for those that applied but were denied funding....

I imagine someone in government now wants to tie individual student performance back to monies received -- you could then mine the data for attempts to defraud the government, or those that are doing their students a disservice by routinely pushing out lower quality education. The first step is to get a handle on just how bad the problem is.

Your rhetoric might be all fine and dandy in a "communist country" (what the hell are you talking about?), but the court system does in fact exist to give "the people" (that's you and me, if you've forgotten) that "Rule of Law" you're throwing around like it's just another buzzword. The system doesn't just "exist"; we - the people - *pay* for it. Not just so corporations don't have to pay the full cost of their negotiations and conflicts, but to keep our society working under that Rule of Law.

If you have a dispute with another individual, that's as far as it goes. Until you get the government involved - then you've asked me, and everyone else in America, by proxy, to get to the bottom of the problem, and remedy the damages. It's completely right to expect that the people's investment in justice bear a return.

BTW, how is it that "the people" triggers some Cold-War propaganda response about "communists"? Which part of "We, the People of the United States" don't you understand?

Here...

Your Constitution
Section 8 Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And this amendment:
Article XVI.:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

If your neighbour is ill, but too poor to afford the hospital bill, would you let your taxes foot his bill or leave him to die?

The extreme right is as looney (and cruel) as the extreme left - repeating it's philosophy doesn't make it right .. or even true!

Here...

Your Constitution
Section 8 Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

And this amendment:
Article XVI.:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

If your neighbour is ill, but too poor to afford the hospital bill, would you let your taxes foot his bill or leave him to die?

The extreme right is as looney (and cruel) as the extreme left - repeating it's philosophy doesn't make it right .. or even true!

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/nj06_pallone/ pr_oct4_turkish_punishment.html

I said:
> The constitutions binds you to laws passed by Congress,
> and those laws impose taxes on you, and part of proceeds
> go to help those poorer than you, as per these laws,
> which the constitution binds you to.

He said:
> 1. Is regulation of communications necessary and desirable?
> 2. If so, does the desired regulation have a constituional standing (Federal, State, local, etc.)?
> 3. If so, what would be the extent of such regulation?

You said:
> constitution denies Congress the right to pass laws
> that don't meet those three criteria he posted.

The US constitution said:

"Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. "

"Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The US constitution lets the Congress impose taxes on _anything_ it deems necessary for the general welfare of US citizens -- this validates my point you had responded to.

The three criteria the other poster mentioned was about whether the FCC could regulate communication. The US constitution prohibits laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" (1st Amendment). However, Congress can tax anything - so it can tax utilization of radio bands. And taxing implies measurement at the very least -- you cannot tax what you do not measure

Now regarding _regulation_ of the radio spectrum - that gets more interesting.
Now the radio spectrum is not anyone's private property. i.e. Joe randomguy broadcasting over 10000 sq. km.s on FM band 98.1 has no squatter rights to that utilization. On top of that, the 5th amendment make it clear that so called "eminent domain" can be used to confiscate private property for _public_ use after fair compensation.

Space is a pre-existing resource like land and water. If the government has the power to regulate other resources like land, water, it has the power to regulate the passage of radio waves through space as well (just like it regulates airspace). The specifics of whose laws - state or federal - boil down to whether the US constitution prohibits congress from passing laws outside of the powers explcitly granted it in Sec. 8, but which don't contradict it in any way. (I'm no expert, so real experts could help answer that). It also boils down to whether states assign these powers over to federal control. See:...

"Section. 3.
Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. "

Well, be sure to call him up and tell him so!

Also, while skimming through his web site I was quite intrigued by the following:

Congressman Rohrabacher Introduces Legislation Creating National Endowment for Space and Aeronautics

Washington, Aug 27 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 202-225-2415
27 August 2004

(Washington, D.C.) Rep. Rohrabacher introduced legislation that will establish a National Endowment for Space and Aeronautics, in order to boost the private development of suborbital space flight.

With a cash reserve generated from both governmental and private sources, the Endowment will encourage individual initiative to push the boundaries of suborbital space flight and space exploration. The Endowment will be chiefly directed to award a prize for the demonstration of a reusable space flight vehicle to carry at least one person to a minimum altitude of 400 kilometers from the United States, or its territories. The spacecraft would also have to complete at least three full orbits of the Earth and return safely to the Earth. The total amount of the cash prize for this demonstration would not exceed $100,000,000.

"I'm encouraged that individuals like Burt Rutan, Mike Melvill and Brian Binnie, like the pioneers before them, will open new frontiers that will continue to benefit American's leadership role in space. The Endowment legislation is a small step in the right direction," Rohrabacher said.

Well, be sure to call him up and tell him so!

Also, while skimming through his web site I was quite intrigued by the following:

Congressman Rohrabacher Introduces Legislation Creating National Endowment for Space and Aeronautics

Washington, Aug 27 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 202-225-2415
27 August 2004

(Washington, D.C.) Rep. Rohrabacher introduced legislation that will establish a National Endowment for Space and Aeronautics, in order to boost the private development of suborbital space flight.

With a cash reserve generated from both governmental and private sources, the Endowment will encourage individual initiative to push the boundaries of suborbital space flight and space exploration. The Endowment will be chiefly directed to award a prize for the demonstration of a reusable space flight vehicle to carry at least one person to a minimum altitude of 400 kilometers from the United States, or its territories. The spacecraft would also have to complete at least three full orbits of the Earth and return safely to the Earth. The total amount of the cash prize for this demonstration would not exceed $100,000,000.

"I'm encouraged that individuals like Burt Rutan, Mike Melvill and Brian Binnie, like the pioneers before them, will open new frontiers that will continue to benefit American's leadership role in space. The Endowment legislation is a small step in the right direction," Rohrabacher said.

Here's a tally of the House votes. If you're a US citizen, be sure to check how your congressman voted and give them a happy or angry phone call on Monday. I'm certainly planning on doing so.

Even though the legislation was bipartisan (and the earlier version passed the house with only one vote against), this voted ended up being mostly along party lines. Overall, 206 Republicans voted for it and 2 against. 63 Democrats voted for it, with 117 against.

"If you're gonna shoot out numbers at least endeaver to make them remotely accurate. The visa caps varied over the last six years:"

Here are some corrections about the H-1B numbers.
One must remember there are many categories of H-1B's which do not count against the cap.
On Wednesday (S. 2302) congress added another exemption from the H-1B cap.

Here are some of the ugly details about the H-1B and L-1 visa programs.

The following list is for Newly issued H-1B employment visas broken down per federal fiscal year, initial term 3 years. Renewals(3 more years), Application extensions(add another year), and transfers NOT COUNTED.

Fed Fy
1999.... 138,385 (from KMPG audit)
2000.... 136,787
2001.... 201,079
2002.... 103,584
2003.... 105,314
2004.... Final numbers not in yet.
............ (~65K+at least 30K in exempt from cap categories and growing in number each year).
2005..... Blew threw 58.1K of the quota in one day (Oct 1).

P.S. I'm not even counting all the foreign workers being imported on L-1's visas,
(5 year term, currently somewhere around 100K per year).

Net result: The globalists have imported in excess of 1/2 Mil+ foreign tech workers into a shrinking (Sept 00) US tech job market.

Then tack on a the insult of offshoring.

Care to guess who is getting the short end of the stick?

This might be a good place to bring up the old suggestion that anything out of print for a year become public domain. A newspaper publisher could then maintain their copyright by setting up a method of reprinting old issues. But most of them wouldn't find this lucrative enough, and would just let the copyright expire. Then the LoC could include most newspapers after a year.

While I approve the impulse, I think this would be a nightmare to maintain, particularly if the "expire after a year" idea was applied to all copyrighted material. If applied to books, that means that anything that is not successful enough to need reprinting every year would soon go out of copyright, thereby making it much more difficult for anyone to even make a pretense at supporting themselves through writing. Our very first copyright legislation, the Copyright Act of 1790 provided a term of 14 years, extensible to 26 on application; that's how long the founding fathers (many of whom were in Congress at that point) felt was necessary to adequately fulfill the Constitution's requirement to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in Section 8 Clause 8. You could argue that they were just copying the Statute of Anne (1710) which set forth the same period of protection for copyrighted works; but I would argue that if they had felt that a longer or shorter period of coverage was required, they'd have changed it. Anyway, having the copyright expire after one year out of print would drastically reduce the coverage period of any work that failed to stimulate instant and ongoing demand.

Furthermore, how would we apply "out of print" to works that are copyrighted but never printed? Take software. You can download programs that are years old -- shareware, old open source stuff, etc -- long after the original copyright holder has lost all interest in the program. Is that "in print" or not?

All that said, I can see you reason for wanting to apply such a rule specifically to newspapers, and perhaps to other current-events publications whose value declines rapidly with age (news magazines, etc). If the rule was limited to those sorts of publications, I guess I'd support it. Though I should point out that leaving those sorts of things under copyright for a somewhat longer period of time has two benefits: recycling material from an old article that is copyrighted is plagiarism; but doing so from a public domain article is perfectly kosher. Letting the news into the wild too soon might serve to decrease the originality of the news, particularly in opinion pieces. Second, some article writers sell their articles to multiple publications over time. It is sometimes easier to re-sell an article once it's been out of the public view for a while. Therefore, in order to protect the livelihoods of struggling writers, it would be better to give them a longer grace period before the work goes public domain.

One of the very real problems with copyright law is that it allows publishers to "capture" our history and prevent access to some of the most important primary documents.

I agree. I just think that your solution has a lot of side-effects that would need to be carefully weighed and balanced before it was put into effect.

The Senate last night passed, and sent to the President, a Science Committee bill (H.R. 5245) to extend the law under which the U.S. government insures companies that launch satellites for damages or deaths sustained by individuals who were not involved in the launch. The House had passed the bill in October by unanimous consent, and Senate approval was also by unanimous consent; the President is expected to sign it.

The bill will extend the insurance, known as indemnification, for five years, until Dec. 31, 2009. The bill, introduced by Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), would also require a study by a non-governmental entity of whether indemnification could be ended without unduly harming U.S. companies, and, if so, how that should be done.

The indemnification provisions in H.R. 5245 were originally part of a larger bill, H.R. 3752, to make additional changes to the Commercial Space Launch Act.

Under current law, which H.R. 5245 would extend, satellite launchers must buy private insurance to cover injuries to third parties. The insurance must cover losses up to the "maximum probable loss" level determined by the government. The government then indemnifies the launcher for any additional losses up to about $1.5 billion per launch, meaning the government pledges to pay any claims for the private company that exceed the amount covered by private insurance.

While it must be agreed that democracy and freedom are noble goals, it is unclear whether the unlawful invasion and occupation of Iraq had anything to do with spreading democracy and freedom.

I have to disagree with your assertion that this was an unlawful invasion. In 1991, Iraq signed a document with the USA ending a war. Saddam then thumbed his nose at said document. How many times does the UN need to tell Saddam to behave before there are consequences? Well, the USA decided Saddam had been told enough, so the USA, the initiator of the document (The United Nations is not a signatory to said document) decided since Saddam didn't want to play by the document, they wouldn't either and they resumed hostilities. What law was broken? I would like to say that I feel W completely messed up the political end of the resumption of hostilities, but legally, I don't believe there is an issue.

because of the deliberate lies we were fed by Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice and their lapdog Blair.

Don't forget Clinton, Berger, Pelosi, Gore, the other Clinton,and Kerry as well. Prior to the invasion, the list of people thinking Iraq didn't have WMDs was pretty darn short, please show me someone who knew at the time....no one was lying, they were merely fooled by Saddam Hussein (who was in turn fooled by his weapons experts telling him he did have such weapons...in my opinion).

Section. 8. Clause 3 The Congress shall have Power To...regulate Commerce ... among the several States, and it has chosen to have the FCC handle the regulation.

According to an article on Wired, the Senate may soon pass a bill labelled HR2391, a bill which lumps many other compyright bills.

Here's the letter I wrote my rep:

Dear Representative Waxman,

Congratulations on your recent re-election, and thank you for your diligence regarding the disturbing trends coming out of Iraq contracts and their recipients. I wonder if you could turn your attention to another abuse of governmental power: the FCC. In response to a recent lawsuit questioning whether the FCC could regulate HDTV transmissions after their reception in a household, the agency responded with the letter linked here http://scrawford.net/courses/04-1037%20(Amer.Lib.) %20FCC%20Brief.pdf You could probably find it another way, but that's how I saw it. To be frank, it is appalling. The FCC has decided they have the power to regulate: my television, my computer, my iPod, my cellphone, my telephone, and anything else that falls under this language: "'associated with the overall circuit of messages sent and received' via all interstate radio and wire communication."

With the recent election, it looks like we're going to head in a direction that says the government controls our bodies, can we do anything to keep them from controlling all of our stuff too?

From the constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Nothing about disclosure. Regardless of the purpose in the rest of the world, in the US, patents are to promote innovation.

Parent post would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Balanced budgets have been a core value of fiscal conservatives, mostly Republican, for decades. But then we had the Clinton surplus followed by the Bush deficit, and now the right-wingers insist that ... wait for it ... balanced budgets are a bad thing.

Here, let me refresh your memory. Notice the very first item.

There are, BTW, economists who claim that budget deficits are good for the economy. History has proven them wrong, time and again.

Clause 3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Clause 3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

About a politically indepedent federal electoral authority ... Yes, WTF? is right! Yes, the situation is that bad! :) Basically (the situation may vary from place to place, as control of voting is devolved to the states), state legislatures draw up the electoral boundaries, which means that whichever party is in power in each state gets to do that however they like. I think the most controversy has been in Texas, eg the 25th District. Similarly, the job of electoral comissioner (or whatever they call it) is either a political appointee or an elected official - either way, it has the potential to be a politicised position. Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State during the 2000 elections, is the best known example of this, but it goes right down to the county level - the government of each county appoints its own election officials. Now, I'm sure the vast majority of such officials are conscientious and carry out their jobs without bias. But when you couple the possibility of bias with the gerrymandered districts and the dodgy voting systems (again, the choice of each state or even county), well, it boggles the mind why Americans put up with this. But you guys are welcome to explain why you do, or alternatively, point out where I'm wrong!

PS. There is something called the Federal Election Commission, but all it seems to do is monitor and enforce election campaign finance laws.

The existence of independent states promotes decentralization of power. This allows for greater liberty and customization of government for subcultures that have differing values and traditions within the union. One size does not fit all.

Strong, centralized power is a facilitator of authoritarianism and fascism. It is a hallmark of Communist governments. States need to maintain their autonomous rights of self-determination and to secede for a worst case scenario.

Look at a world map and notice that our states are closer to the typical size of a country than the USA is. We were founded more as a union of thirteen countries than one country divided into arbitrary provinces.

Our federation of democratic republics is a brilliant and logical system which has served us well for over 230 years. I don't want anybody mucking up this grand system out of reckless ignorance or for perceived partisan political advantages.

Ummm... He let AIDS explode by not talking to the public about it and not even acknowledging it until many cases were reported in most major cities. Does anyone remember the phrase "Gay Cancer"? That is exactly why people refused to move. It wasn't until several high profile heterosexual people contracted it through blood transfusions, health care services, andother non gay/drug related causes that he actually took a stance.Yes he eventually spent money and made a public address, but the damage had been done.

Please check your facts before you elevate a human to the level of a god.

After almost six years of silence on the epidemic,'' said Rep. Henry Waxman D.-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, ''the president has finally said that he will fight the disease. Source

A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men." Source

When AIDS was first reported in 1981, Reagan had recently assumed office and had begun to address the conservative agenda by slashing social programs and cutting taxes and by embracing conservative moral principles. As a result, Reagan never mentioned AIDS publicly until 1987. Source

Just as a person can lie by omission, someone can be guilty by inaction. Six years is a long time to remain silent about a disease that can infect anyone and kill slowly and painfully, especially when that person is the most powerful one in the world.

Yesterday was how un-American it would be to vote for Bush and how he divides the country and now with Bush winning, it's "America is going to HELL" and "I'm moving to Canada." Who is really dividing America?

Clearly, it's Bush. I don't see how these two views (yesterday and today) contradict each other. No flip-flopping there.

Bush divides the country by making campaign issues out of things that scare a lot of people but that he really has no control over and no intention of really doing enything about. For example, the gay marriage thing- a)The President plays no part in the process of constitutional amendments (see Article V), b)it has no chance of ever getting ratified by 3/4 of the States. He's merely using it to make political hay.

Likewise, he appeals to the fool's sense of greed by making a big to-do of his tax cuts- throwing a measly few hundred to the poor while giving shitloads to the rich and running the government bankrupt with a costly war and corporate givaways. Little does the fool know that those few hundred he's getting (and the millions the rich are getting with it) are going to cost him the social programs that benefitted him and his fellow Americans and made this a great place to live. He has sold his birthright for a bowl of beans.

Clearly America IS going to hell, because either the majority of its citizens are too stupid to see through this kind of crap and realize that he's playing the fiddle while Rome burns or else they've got the system so well rigged that we can hardly prove it.

That is a question of Ohio state law. Fraud in Ohio does not invalidate the results in New Jersey or Alaska. Presumably Ohio has state laws for what to do if an election is found to be fraudulent, and those are the laws that must be followed.

Take a look at Article II of the United States Constitution. I think it is pretty clear that:

1. The process by which the states choose their electors is supposed to be the states' business, Supreme Court intervention in the 2000 election notwithstanding
2. Throwing out Ohio's results definitely does not invalidate the whole national election because Ohio does not even have to show up at the Electoral College in order for the College to choose a President (Article II, Section 1, Clause 3)

[Presidential] Voting is in fact not a right of citizens of the US.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
[Article II Section 1 Clause 2, US Constitution]

So, as I read it, if the legislature of my state decided to do so, I could be promptly disenfranchised[from presidental elections].
Is this true?

If youre refering to this article in the NYY post, then FYI.

That Yigal Carmon whos quoted in the article is kinda mossad guy and a known advocat of torture and the occupation of palestine. Maybe one of the most rightwing ones you can find. Notorious is his analysis of the madrid bombing (heres an interview on the topic hosted on the site of his MEMRI institute) in an attempt to side Aznar`s lies. Why the House chose him to report on arab media is up to your own guesses. German researcher Henner Kirchner hosts an article on his background, sorry its german.

Note: if a headline calls a human (whomever) a monster make sure to check the background of 'experts' quoted.

• Kerry refuses to unseal his military records. Bush has fully released his even though they raise questions about the tenacity of his service.
• Kerry is running for CIC (just to be clear)
• Kerry's service was over in 1972
• Kerry didn't receive an honorable discharge until 1978. Regulations require him to be discharged within 3 years. Not getting a discharge by 1975 is against regs. We haven't seen a pre-1978 discharge of any kind
• Kerry's honorable discharge as provided by his campaign.
• The discharge cites two US Code sections, both Title 10, sections 1162 and 1163.
• Section 1162 refers to the power of the President to discharge an officer. So this section tells us where the discharge originated. We have reason to believe Carter was ammenable to doing favors for Kerry - remember Carter pardoned Peter Yarrow (of Peter Paul and Mary fame), Godfather to John Kerry's daughter, for his statuatory rape of a 14 year-old girl.
• Section 1163 is more interesting. Section 1163 allows for discharge in one of the following scenarios:
  • Court Martial or a Board of Officers review
  • AWOL or Criminally Imprisoned officers
  • an Officer who is separated from the services "for cause"
• One of these scenarios has to be true.
• When Kerry was elected to the Senate in 1985 he had the Navy reissue him certificates for his metals.
• This is highly unusual as what's typically done is to just pull the existing records from the personnel file and reissue the metals
• Said metal records would be rescinded from the personnel file upon a dishonorable or undesirable discharge

• Kerry refuses to unseal his military records. Bush has fully released his even though they raise questions about the tenacity of his service.
• Kerry is running for CIC (just to be clear)
• Kerry's service was over in 1972
• Kerry didn't receive an honorable discharge until 1978. Regulations require him to be discharged within 3 years. Not getting a discharge by 1975 is against regs. We haven't seen a pre-1978 discharge of any kind
• Kerry's honorable discharge as provided by his campaign.
• The discharge cites two US Code sections, both Title 10, sections 1162 and 1163.
• Section 1162 refers to the power of the President to discharge an officer. So this section tells us where the discharge originated. We have reason to believe Carter was ammenable to doing favors for Kerry - remember Carter pardoned Peter Yarrow (of Peter Paul and Mary fame), Godfather to John Kerry's daughter, for his statuatory rape of a 14 year-old girl.
• Section 1163 is more interesting. Section 1163 allows for discharge in one of the following scenarios:
  • Court Martial or a Board of Officers review
  • AWOL or Criminally Imprisoned officers
  • an Officer who is separated from the services "for cause"
• One of these scenarios has to be true.
• When Kerry was elected to the Senate in 1985 he had the Navy reissue him certificates for his metals.
• This is highly unusual as what's typically done is to just pull the existing records from the personnel file and reissue the metals
• Said metal records would be rescinded from the personnel file upon a dishonorable or undesirable discharge

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

It's the economy

I completely agree that Bush spending is out of control. I think the defense spending is mostly necessary and anything spent on homeland security. But faith based initiatives are stupid. Church groups should easily be able to get funding from their membership as mine does.

That being said, where would the economy be if there were no tax cuts?

Increases in non-defense discretionary spending over the past six administrations:

Nixon/Ford: 6.8% per year

Carter: 2.0% per year

Reagan: -1.3% per year

Bush 1: 4.0% per year

Clinton: 2.5% per year

Bush Jr: 8.2% per year

Source
And here is a nice graph.

The Constitutional freedoms are granted to citizens of the United States. Here's a link to our constitution http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l. Hmmm...doesn't appear to mention anything about foreign entitities. Yes, we are keen on free speech, but when a foreign country interferes with our electoral process, that is not free speech; that's sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. If Americans started writing letters to Afghanis telling them to vote for one candidate or another, the entire world would cry foul and claim that we were "promoting our agenda" in the middle east.

It has nothing to do with protecting anybody, but only encouraging progress. See Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the US constitution:

Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Yes, let's review:

1. Enron http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst012802.ht m and http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst121701.ht m and http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/23 /133051.shtml,
2. Global Crossing http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/15 /154416.shtml,
3. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART ICLE_ID=33024,
4. Tyco (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_5 1/b3813001.htm,
5. WorldCom (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2311-20 02Jun29,
6. Adelphia Communications (http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-07-09-ri gas-timeline_x.htm),
7. the list goes on and on.

As you say, it was a historic economic impact. We're still feeling the consequences of it today.

The United States isn't a huge social welfare program. President's don't create jobs. If you'd quit swallowing that Leftist Damnocratic Propoganda long enough to take a look at what's really going on, you might not be so ignorant of the facts.

Fact is we're coming out of a recession which was brought about by bad Clinton Economic Policies, and then exacerbated by the attack of 9/11/01, which flushed upwards of 500 billion dollars out of our Economy.

This post is especially ignorant ...

Yes, your post is especially ignorant. Take the time to read the links and do some discovery for yourself, and quit swallowing propaganda, and even you too can learn the truth about our current Clinton Inspired economic woes.

Yes, let's review:

1. Enron http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst012802.ht m and http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst121701.ht m and http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/23 /133051.shtml,
2. Global Crossing http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/15 /154416.shtml,
3. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART ICLE_ID=33024,
4. Tyco (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_5 1/b3813001.htm,
5. WorldCom (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2311-20 02Jun29,
6. Adelphia Communications (http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-07-09-ri gas-timeline_x.htm),
7. the list goes on and on.

As you say, it was a historic economic impact. We're still feeling the consequences of it today.

The United States isn't a huge social welfare program. President's don't create jobs. If you'd quit swallowing that Leftist Damnocratic Propoganda long enough to take a look at what's really going on, you might not be so ignorant of the facts.

Fact is we're coming out of a recession which was brought about by bad Clinton Economic Policies, and then exacerbated by the attack of 9/11/01, which flushed upwards of 500 billion dollars out of our Economy.

This post is especially ignorant ...

Yes, your post is especially ignorant. Take the time to read the links and do some discovery for yourself, and quit swallowing propaganda, and even you too can learn the truth about our current Clinton Inspired economic woes.

Look, he acted on what information he had at the time.

According to a report (pdf), he and his advisers lied on more than 200 occasions about what that information contained. That doesn't even count bad intelligence - it's cases when they asserted that the intelligence said something which it did not.

Who knows, maybe they moved whatever it was to Jordan or somewhere.

Wasn't it going to be Syria? They did look like a promising target. Iran is too hard to link in directly but they'll find another excuse before long...

In the rest of the States of in the Republic we have such things (called representatives and senators) to handle these issues.

The United States of America is a Repubic!

Are you not aware, for example, that Bush completely blew Clinton's surplus and his balanced budget, the first time the budget was balanced for thirty years, and your supposedly conservative president just threw it away for a cheap political stunt, that tax cut you're so enamored of?

Or that No Child Left Behind is mind-boggingly underfunded and ineffective?

Or that Bush lies? Like, never tells the truth? Ever? Like, not once?

Do you choose not to believe this information, or have you just not heard about it?

And I'm just touching on a few of the more minor issues with Bush and his administration. Let's not even mention the total fuckup in Iraq, which surely you can't be as ignorant about as you claim. You'll excuse me if I don't believe you when you say you're not voting for Bush. You have no idea why you shouldn't vote for Bush. You're either not interested enough to educate yourself properly on the issues, or you're a dyed-in-the-wool Republican pretending to be independent to convince others that Dubya is truly god, as he himself believes. If you're the former, get a clue and turn off CNN (the Convservative News Network) and Faux News. If you're the latter, then just fuck off.

A President doesn't really have authority to do anything about a law that congress has already passed.

Article 2, Section 2 of the USC provides pretty limited power for a President.

The best he can do is to influence congress to pass another bill ammending the DMCA.

And given all his other priorities, the war, social security, health care, etc., he's not likely to pick a fight over this.

Every war since WWII has been undeclared.

Section 8, Clause 11 of the US constitution reads: Congress shall have the power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Can you name me one armed conflict that the Congress did not give authority for the President to use force? What kind of declaration of war were you expecting?

[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; [source]

Well, I'm certainly not smoking the crackpipe that got you to hit the "Reply" button before finishing that sentence, which read "though lately the application has often reversed". You might not realize that the US Constitution is the oldest existing form of government on Earth, and the first to apply liberty to everyone, though people had to stand up for their rights under it, and fight tyranny with clarifications like the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, especially XIII, XIV, XV, XIX and XXVI. American liberty was a revolutionary invention that spread back to the countries from which the liberators came, enough that you now take that liberty, invented here, for granted elsewhere.

Liberty is a process of human interaction, not a stable state at the end of history. Propaganda is the alternative to physical coercion that free peoples have substituted. And wage slavery forges chains of your own consumer "needs". The country is free, but you apparently have to free your own mind, too, to notice.

Hi. I was one of a handful of people that voted for Howard Phillips in 2000. Up until the debates I was planning to vote for Michael Peroutka, although I am to this days registered as a Republican.

In a great many respects, I feel about the Republicans the way Ronald Reagan felt about the Democrats-- I didn't leave them, they left me! Although I was thrilled with the reforms that were made under the Contract With America, the past few years have been disappointing from a domestic agenda viewpoint. When I discovered the Constitution Party in 2000, I found its back-to-basics view of Federal government to be refreshing and exciting.

Anyway, here come the Democrats, 2004. They say Bush "lied" about Iraq, ignoring coroborating evidence from the United Kingdom, Russia and Israel. They say Bush is planning a "January Surprise" draft, which is utter nonsense. They clamor that more people will die because the ill-concieved "assualt weapons ban" expired. They have such venom for Bush personally that I am shocked.

I just do not undersand the bile and vented spleen at this man. Do I think all his policies are great? No. I'm not a fan of the PATRIOT Act. I'm not a big fan of the Department of Homeland Security (isn't that the job of the DoD?). I'm not a big fan of extra layers of govenment in general. But-- and here's the difference-- I do not think that Bush is the Devil himself [although, these Democrats might actually want an authentic Hellspawn for Commander In Chief]. I think Bush is a man of conviction and moral courage, upright, and respectable qualities. He does not sway back and forth with the whim of public opinion. He's overcome personal weakness and adversity to rise to Governor and then President.

Mike-- I hope you understand that although I am a fan of the Constitution Party and agree with most of the goals it strives for, I cannot stand idly by and let a man like George Bush be unjustly villified. I must, for conscious' sake, cast my ballot in favor of George Bush. I may not agree with all of his policies, but I must stand with the honest and upright.

I thought a lot of 'rights' in the US where infered from the constitutaional articles.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Like the right to privacy being not a direct right granted in the constitution, but something following from the wording of an article, an interpretation of the 'will' (if you will :)) of the founding fathers.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I thought a lot of 'rights' in the US where infered from the constitutaional articles.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Like the right to privacy being not a direct right granted in the constitution, but something following from the wording of an article, an interpretation of the 'will' (if you will :)) of the founding fathers.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"We did run some number stats and the number of blacks [on the list] was higher than expected for our population," says Chuck Smith, a statistician for the county. Iorio acknowledged that African-Americans made up 54 percent of the people on the original felons list, though they constitute only 11.6 percent of Hillsborough's voting population.

Smith added that the DBT computer program automatically transformed various forms of a single name. In one case, a voter named "Christine" was identified as a felon based on the conviction of a "Christopher" with the same last name. Smith says ChoicePoint would not respond to queries about its proprietary methods.

Nor would the company provide additional verification data to back its fingering certain individuals in the registry purge. One supposed felon on the ChoicePoint list is a local judge.

The biggest wholesale theft occurred inside the voting booths in black rural counties. In Gadsden County, one of the blackest in the state, thousands of votes were simply thrown away. Gadsden used paper ballots which are read by an optical reader. Ballots with a single extra mark were considered "spoiled" and not counted. The buttons used to fill out the ballots were set up - with approval from Bush and Harris - to make votes appear unclear to the machine. One in eight ballots in Gadsden was voided by the state.

The same ballots were used in Tallahassee County, which is mostly white. There only one in 100 votes was "spoiled." What made the difference? In Tallahassee, ballots were read on the premises, and if they were marked incorrectly, voters were sent to revote until they got it right. In the black counties, the votes were trucked off immediately. There were no machines on site. Voters weren't told that their votes were spoiled, and they certainly weren't permitted to re-vote.

I personally prefer both IRV and Condorcet to the current system. Between the two, condorcet is better, but until the debate enters the mainstream, my favorite term is simply the more generic Proportional Representation.