Slashdot Mirror

If you want thew ability to distinguish GMO from non-GMO in your grocery store then you better act fast because Obama is about to try to ram through the Trans Pacific Partnership which will permit the WTO to ban GMO labeling the way it bans meat country-of -origin labeling and dolphin-safe labels:

Letter excerpt from

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-3), Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, to United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk,

full letter:

http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=406:-delauro-food-safety-critical-issue-in-upcoming-trade-talks&catid=7:2011-press-releases&Itemid=23

First, past FTAs incorporate the WTO's sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and technical barriers to trade rules, which are deeply problematic. These rules set ceilings on signatory countries' domestic food safety standards. As a result, WTO panels have ruled against the U.S. meat country-of-origin labeling requirements and voluntary dolphin-safe tuna labels in challenges brought by other WTO countries. We must learn from the record of WTO implementation and modify the food safety-related rules of U.S. trade pacts to best protect the public health, starting with a TPP FTA.

Contact your Congressperson right NOW! :

http://www.exposethetpp.org/

Yeah you're wrong. It will ban GMO labeling , country of origin labeling and many other of the same types of consumer information that, people think is important to them (which I actually don't except that other people do want these things and they have the right to know )

Letter form Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-3), Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, to the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk:

from: http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=406:-delauro-food-safety-critical-issue-in-upcoming-trade-talks&catid=7:2011-press-releases&Itemid=23

First, past FTAs incorporate the WTOâ(TM)s sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and technical barriers to trade rules, which are deeply problematic. These rules set ceilings on signatory countriesâ(TM) domestic food safety standards. As a result, WTO panels have ruled against the U.S. meat country-of-origin labeling requirements and voluntary dolphin-safe tuna labels in challenges brought by other WTO countries. We must learn from the record of WTO implementation and modify the food safety-related rules of U.S. trade pacts to best protect the public health, starting with a TPP FTA.

The FDA has also engaged in extensive harmonization of food safety standards, as required by the WTO SPS rules and our past FTAs. If a TPP FTA is to include food safety harmonization, then it must ensure existing U.S. standards are not weakened. I believe this should include requiring that harmonization may only be conducted on the basis of raising standards toward the best standards of any signatory country and that, with respect to the United States, such international-standard setting should provide the public an opportunity to comment while maintaining an open and transparent process.

In addition, the past FTA model includes the establishment of new SPS committees to speed up implementation of mechanisms to facilitate increased trade volumes, including âoeequivalenceâ determinations. The equivalence rule requires the United States to permit imports of meat, poultry and now possibly seafood products that do not necessarily meet U.S. food safety standards. I firmly believe that all food sold to American consumers must be required to meet U.S. safety standards, and that a TPP FTA should not include equivalence rules as the basis for the United States accepting food imports.

Finally, past FTAs allow for private enforcement of extensive foreign investor rights. Under these rules, foreign food corporations operating within the United States are empowered to demand compensation from the U.S. government in foreign tribunals established under the United Nations and World Bank if U.S. regulatory actions undermine their expected future profits. Even when the United States successfully defends against such attacks, such as in the NAFTA investor-state case brought by the Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade over the U.S. ban on imports of live Canadian cattle after the discovery of a case of mad cow disease in Canada, the initial filing of the challenge has a chilling effect on policymaking and the U.S. government must spend millions on a legal defense. Accordingly, I believe a TPP FTA must not include investor-state rules that would allow corporations to weaken U.S. food safety in foreign tribunals thereby unnecessarily placing American consumers at risk.

The food safety issues raised by the TPP FTA negotiations are expansive and in many instances already controversial. Failure to deal with these issues during the negotiations will only create more opposition to a prospective agreement. I therefore urge you to act in the interest of public health and maintain the United Statesâ(TM) strong lea

Depends on where you live and the protections in your state constitution to a large extent. In Maryland for exampel, at least one lower court has ruled that medical records are covered by the third party doctrine (the doctor being the third party), and thus there is no 4th Amendment protection for them. This is a recent case with HIPPA on the books.

PDF page 7 starts the insanity:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mdd-8_10-cr-00600/pdf/USCOURTS-mdd-8_10-cr-00600-0.pdf

Pharmacy records are also not protected in some jurisdictions under the third party doctrine. I'd have to work harder than I want to right now to dig up a citation, but do note that the DEA is busy trying to make sure medical records get third party doctrine exemption from the 4th amendment if the records are shared with a pharmacist -- this is certainly designed to push the envelope on medical records.

http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles/2013/9/27/dea-no-privacy-protections-for-rx-records-given-to-third-parties

Remember, what you think a law like HIPPA does has absolutely nothing to do with the way the Feds will interpret that law. Case in point, Sensenbrenner and the PATRIOT act.

http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=337001

Bullshit. The President doesn't write code.

His staff was saying, in the week before the website went live, that everything would be great. That's on him, for not knowing (or lying?) about the state of the website.

Perhaps that was in part due to CGI Federal SVP in charge of the Healthcare.gov project, Cheryl Campbell, testifying before the House of Representatives September 10, 2013 that the project was still on track [video - Testimony starting around 36m20s.] & [pdf]. While some of the other organizations present during this testimony were flagging issues, the primary contracting organization was communicating that the project was still on track and would be ready for the October 1, 2013 launch.

If the key players in the project are communicating an "all clear" up the chain, it is difficult for anyone outside of these organizations to ascertain possible issues as they are not receiving information about the regular day-to-day. The Government's response (contracting Google/Redhat/Oracle) to the situation once they learned the truth was a management-base response to them finally receiving real information. Had Middle Management (Read: CGI Federal) properly communicated the issues earlier, the Government may have been able to enact a gauged response earlier that could have avoided the debacle.

Bullshit. The President doesn't write code.

His staff was saying, in the week before the website went live, that everything would be great. That's on him, for not knowing (or lying?) about the state of the website.

Perhaps that was in part due to CGI Federal SVP in charge of the Healthcare.gov project, Cheryl Campbell, testifying before the House of Representatives September 10, 2013 that the project was still on track [video - Testimony starting around 36m20s.] & [pdf]. While some of the other organizations present during this testimony were flagging issues, the primary contracting organization was communicating that the project was still on track and would be ready for the October 1, 2013 launch.

If the key players in the project are communicating an "all clear" up the chain, it is difficult for anyone outside of these organizations to ascertain possible issues as they are not receiving information about the regular day-to-day. The Government's response (contracting Google/Redhat/Oracle) to the situation once they learned the truth was a management-base response to them finally receiving real information. Had Middle Management (Read: CGI Federal) properly communicated the issues earlier, the Government may have been able to enact a gauged response earlier that could have avoided the debacle.

Close. It's Suzan DelBene.http://delbene.house.gov/

Damn Democrats always messing with the free market.

Um, this started under GWB

To Tea Party Republicans, GWB was a Democrat.

the major parties are basically the same on all but cosmetic issues

Let's look at the facts:
Democrats: 205 in favor, 20 opposed
Republicans: 32 in favor, 150 opposed

If 91 voted against it, and assuming they're all Democrats (I don't know what the actual breakdown is)..

Ask and ye shall receive: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll629.xml

I still don't get how the website could have failed so incredibly miserably.

The problems the site faces seem to be elementary, the type of mistakes that I made when I was first doing web development.

Then you clearly don't understand the sorts of issues they were having.

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/LMI-Meeting-Notes-October-2013.pdf

Read the war-room notes. It's primarily about interfaces to other systems.

Clearly you have no idea what's involved in the website and what the major challenges were.

Read the "war room" notes. There's way more moving parts that trying to figure out where to put the DIV tags on a "simple friggin website project."

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/LMI-Meeting-Notes-October-2013.pdf

While it should have been completed on time and on budget (shouldn't everything?), their primary challenges were connections with the vendors and providers - getting Experian data in correctly, that sort of thing.

Reading the provider data is trivial -- heck, there's websites that let you browse plans now. It's interfacing everything together that's challenging. [Obviously.]

http://intelligence.house.gov/contact-us

                        Majority Staff Minority Staff
Office: 202 225-4121 202 225-7690
Fax: 202 225-1991 202 226-5068

No, I haven't tried to report any flaws or problems in our nation's spying on friends and allies. Wouldn't be prudent.

So stubborn he's repeatedly signed various bills for spending cuts

What cuts??? Seriously, I quoted you the budget -- no cuts have occurred. Simply reducing one program while increasing another is not a cut. I'm talking about a cut in total spending. I might also add that the "cuts" that have occurred (such as the Sequester) are largely irrelevant, because they're a drop in the bucket of total spending. What Obama has done is largely lip service.

the only "more taxes" that have been passed are (a) allowing the Bush-era tax breaks to expire on some tax brackets, (b) allowing the economic recovery tax cuts (you know, the ones Obama signed) to expire, and (c) the whole ACA-fine as a tax

There are more taxes embedded into ACA than you acknowledge. It's not just the "fine as a tax". That's not even the biggest: http://jeffduncan.house.gov/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes

The investment income surtax is the largest tax hike in that bill.

*I* am the one suggest we cut spending and raise taxes.

And my counter-point is that we already did the latter, but not the former. I've yet to see you prove otherwise.

Would that be with or without the "Emergency" spending on the Afghanistan War?

Without. The supplemental spending has ended, check the budget. All annual war spending currently amounts to somewhere between ~60 billion and ~120 billion:
http://nation.time.com/2013/01/07/the-cost-of-a-post-2014-u-s-force/
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/security-military/us-military-casualty-statistics-costs-war-iraq-afghanistan-post-911

And that number is trending downward.

Actually figuring out *how* to get to those levels is the hard part and getting buy-in is the even harder part.

That's fantastic thinking -- let's start that conversation. Republicans have tried to put entitlement reform on the table many times (since the bulk of our spending is Mandatory spending), but the Dems won't even approach that debate in earnest.

Again, childish response. Democrats act like dicks, so we have to too.

Whoa whoa whoa, huge difference. This isn't just "you guys were mean, so we'll be mean too". It's not "you obstructed our bills, so we'll obstruct your bills". They actually passed an entire program on their watch. "Tit-for-tat" would be repeal of the program. At a minimum, the Democrats should find reasonable middle territory and be the ones to give ground by saying "while we won't repeal, but we're willing to reform" -- they haven't even done that though (remember, the Republicans second and third budget proposals during the standoff weren't even asking for repeal, they were asking for changes or delays in the program -- none of that got traction either). So until the Dems stop continuing to be childish, I'm afraid I don't see a 1-to-1 comparison here. The only thing I agree on is that the demand for straight-up repeal was stupid. But they backed off of that demand relatively quickly.

Really, your argument doesn't explain why not a single "reasonable Democrats" voted against the bill. No, it was lock-step partisanship.

They did. 34 Democrat congressmen voted against it. It barely squeaked through the House.

You do realize, btw, the whole government shut down thing was just an act by Republicans to appease their constituents and keep their jobs and not an attempt that they thought had any

http://www.house.gov/representatives/

Here's your list of Senators to tar-and-feather. And here's your list of Representatives to treat likewise. Not to mention the President who signed it into law. A good portion of Congress opposed the law - but partisanship ruled the day (in fact, the only bipartisan thing about Obamacare was in OPPOSITION to it, not in favor).

Here, knock yourself out. I doubt you'll like it any more.

The question of accuracy in reporting is a separate question your liking their views. There are some hard truths out there, and apparently not all of them will be from sources you will listen to before judging.

We spent $2.9 trillion (out of $2.5 trillion in revenue) on "mandatory" and defense in 2012. In other words, we were already $400 billion in the red before we even spent a penny on national parks or NASA or roads or any of the other stuff people actually want the government to do. In 2012, all that stuff cost only $615 billion, which is small peanuts compared to the "mandatory" junk. Clearly, all this whining about cutting out little chunks of programs, like the Tea Partiers are doing, is pretty much worthless.

More to the point, they're certainly not talking about cutting "mandatory"+defense by 36%, which is what it actually would have taken in order to balance the budget in 2012. Even Paul Ryan's plan would have an ~$850 billion deficit in 2013 and a ~$525 billion deficit in 2014!

(2012 revenue total came from here; the rest came from here)

Not to mention, of course, I could also cite stuff like this and this....

This is the responsibility of Frank Wolf, R-VA, of the Virginia 10th District. If you should live in the 10th District (in N. Virginia), contact him and let him know what you think about this.

I have met him several times, but have no idea what he really thinks he is accomplishing here.

Bullshit. Peoples willful ignorance is what keeps an honest person off the ballot. They follow the bling wherever it goes. Turn off the TV and go to opensecrets, or votesmart, or better yet, congress itself. Yay! They're still up!

There is no excuse...

This vote was incredibly close, with a few defections its successors will be successful. This was a roll-call vote, so we know which way they voted!

Roll call votes for Amash Amendment:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml

Contact your congresscritters! If they voted for the amendment, tell them that you agree with their stand even if you hate them most of the time!

If they voted against it, contact them and tell them clearly and respectfully why this issue is important to you and that it affects your future support. Complain to them, and if their answers are not convincing go out and support a primary challenger!

My message to Pelosi (the second in the last week after writing asking her to vote for this amendment):

I want to express my complete disappointment in Rep. Pelosi's vote against Rep. Justin Amash's amendment to end the NSA's mass-surveillance program which targets all American citizens indiscriminately. Her vote represents a disdain for the civil liberties which ought to be held sacred in our country.

To this end, I am working diligently to inform all of my friends and family in California's 12th district of Rep. Pelosi's decision and why it's wrong. I will ensure that the knowledge of her ongoing campaign against privacy and the protection from unreasonable search and seizure is communicated to as many constituents as possible.

It should go without saying that Rep. Pelosi will receive no support from me for the remainder of her career in office. It is my hope that a challenger will emerge to take her seat in Congress and loudly deliver the message that San Franciscans will not tolerate further encroachment upon our civil liberties in the name of illusory security.

If you're in San Francisco, feel free to copy the message to her here: http://pelosi.house.gov/contact/

now defined as “a closet, room, floor or building for the storage, management, and dissemination of data and information. Such a repository houses computer systems and associated components, such as database, application, and storage systems and data stores. A data center generally includes redundant or backup power supplies, redundant data communications connections, environmental controls (air conditioning, fire suppression) and special security devices housed in leased (including by cloud providers), owned, collocated, or stand-alone facilities.

John Culberson (Republican with TeaParty)- Texas 7th district - had this to say about why he voted against the Amash amendment but instead voted for the Pompeo amendment.

voted for the Pompeo (Nugent) Amendment instead of the Amash Amendment because it protects the privacy of American citizens. The Pompeo (Nugent) Amendment prohibits the NSA from targeting U.S. persons and protects the content of our phone calls from the NSA. Specifically, the Pompeo (Nugent) Amendment prohibits the NSA from listening to phone calls of American citizens without a court ordered search warrant. It protects our privacy and protects our Constitutional rights without destroying the NSA’s ability to track terrorists, as I believe the Amash Amendment would have done. The consequence of the Amash Amendment would be to prevent the collection and analysis of ALL bulk data in America — not just the data of American citizens. This would protect the data of terrorists who are operating sleeper cells in this country and make us vulnerable to future terrorist attacks. The Amash amendment would do nothing to reform the NSA surveillance program and would do nothing to ensure that the privacy of American citizens is protected. The NSA has successfully stopped several domestic terrorist attacks, and we need to continue tracking and stopping terrorists while at the same time protecting the privacy and Constitutional rights of American citizens.

http://culberson.house.gov/protecting-your-right-to-privacy/

Whoops, broken link. Try this instead: Official House vote

Well, it was wrong about the roll-call, anyway. It was posted within an hour or so, which is exactly where that Slashdot comment got the tally.

Here's every roll call vote this Congressional session, from the Library of Congress. And here is the one you're thinking of.

Well, it was wrong about the roll-call, anyway. It was posted within an hour or so, which is exactly where that Slashdot comment got the tally.

Here's every roll call vote this Congressional session, from the Library of Congress. And here is the one you're thinking of.

Here's a list of congressmen to vote out:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml#N

How about Representative Thomas Massie? He has a bachelor's in EE and a Master's in Mechanical Engineering. Both degrees from M.I.T. He was endorsed by Ron Paul during the last election.

Also, how many congressmen can claim they competed on Junkyard Wars?

Suppose we were to organize a riot against the state in protest over violations of privacy. We'd be thwarted. Suppose we try to organize over real issues such as global warming, energy shock, systemic economic collapse? We the soon powerless starving majority at home will be the enemy of state.

"Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances."
-- Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies, Department of Defense, April 2013
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-12/html/2013-07802.htm
January 2013 http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C18.txt

"Environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic mega-disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis. Problems of this scope may overwhelm the capacity of local authorities to respond, and may even overtax national militaries, requiring a larger international response."
-- http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionX.html 2006

"... anti-government and radical ideologies that potentially threaten government stability."
-- Army Modernisation Strategy, Department of Defense, 2008

"DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance."
-- Strategic Studies Institute, 2008

"Climate change would lead to increased risk of ... tsunamis, typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural catastrophes... Furthermore, if such a catastrophe occurs within the United States itself - particularly when the nation's economy is in a fragile state or where US military bases or key civilian infrastructure are broadly affected - the damage to US security could be considerable. ... A severe energy crunch is inevitable [by 2015] without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions."
-- US Joint Forces Command, 2010

"climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked."
-- Quadrennial Defense Review, Department of Defense, 2010

Yep. It really amazes me that Obama set up the law so that he had to fight with states to set up health care exchanges.

Ah, well, simple answer there - he didn't

The 2nd amendment is because we didn't have a standing military at the time,

That is false two respect. First, the US Army as a force in being predates the Constitution, which is where the 2nd Amendment is found.

The U.S. Army as a permanent institution began on 3 June 1784, when the Confederation Congress approved a resolution to establish a regiment of 700 officers and men. Intended as a force to assert federal authority in the Ohio River Valley, the regiment deployed at a string of posts along the Ohio where it functioned as a frontier constabulary during the last years of the Articles of Confederation era.

Congress adopted this tiny force after the reorganization of the government under the Constitution in 1789. Responding to the outbreak of Indian war in the Old Northwest—and especially to St. Clair's defeat in 1791, the worst setback at Indian hands in the army's history—the government expanded the military establishment to over 5,000 in 1792. Organized as the “American Legion” and commanded by Maj. Gen. Anthony Wayne, the army defeated the northwestern tribes at Fallen Timbers in 1794. During the same year, in response to European threats, the government launched a program of seacoast fortifications and added a corps of artillerists and engineers to build and man them. -- more

Second, the 2nd Amendment rights were not intended to be time limited.

II. A Permanent Right

Some people suggest the justification clause provides a built-in expiration date for the right. So long as a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (or so long as the right to keep and bear arms contributes to a well-regulated militia, or so long as the militia is in fact well-regulated), the argument goes, the people have a right to keep and bear arms; but once the circumstances change and the necessity disappears, so does the right. 12

This reading seems at odds with the text: The Amendment doesn't say "so long as a militia is necessary"; it says "being necessary." Such a locution usually means the speaker is giving a justification for his command, not limiting its duration. 13 If anything, it might require the courts to operate on the assumption that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, since that's what the justification clause asserts. 14

--------

Having those firearms at that time served a legitimate need.

They still do. Besides, whether you recognize it or not, if you are an American man you have almost certainly been a part of the militia.

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

--------

Nice to see that you're pretty much completely ignorant of the reasons behind the 2nd amendment.

If I have more to learn I don't think you have anything to teach. What you "know" about the matter seems to be wrong.

...ignoring the fact that the programs where OKed by congress...

...Ignoring the fact that Congress IGNORED the Constitution??? The 4th Amendment flatly prohibits
this kind of activity. Try READING it sometime, its a good read... Here, I'll even help you.. I realize
the schools today don't bother teaching the Constitution, as its sooooo inconvient to their aims, that
being indocrination camps for good little obiedient consumers...

See? you learned something today...

Instead of being a petulant child, perhaps you should actually read the referenced laws.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C36.txt (50 USC Sec. 1881a)

[...]the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to
        1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.

An acquisition authorized under subsection (a) -
                (1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time
            of acquisition to be located in the United States;
[many more provisions to protect domestic communications]
[...]

How is Congress ignoring the constitution here? This is clearly about foreign communications. Any communication inadvertently collected which involves american citizens must be destroyed upon the realization that it is domesetic.

Stop living in the 24h news cycle and go to the source.

Here's the actual Clapper letter. Note that it's been 12 days since it was sent. http://personal.crocodoc.com/2QeTP4O?embedded=true

Then when the lie is outed, you try to soften it some by saying it was a mistake, an erroor, or I misspoke.

Don't overlook the other responses like one of the authors of the Patriot Act, Jim Sensenbrenner's response:

As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the FBI’s interpretation of this legislation. While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses. The Bureau’s broad application for phone records was made under the so-called business records provision of the Act. I do not believe the broadly drafted FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.

Oh, so now instead of taking responsibility as the author of that which has threatened your constituents it's the fault of those who interpreted the law incorrectly. Surely, then, you will go after those who interpreted the law incorrectly for breaking the spirit of the law? No? You don't say ...

Or perhaps you'd like to hear George W. Bush's take on his responsibility for his administration allowing the Patriot Act to be passed:

Asked about an NSA program that tracks people's Internet activity, Bush said, "I put that program in place to protect the country. One of the certainties was that civil liberties were guaranteed."

So, we have another slam dunk certainty that civil liberties were guaranteed and as long as you keep saying that, it's true in your own little reality that no one else shares with you! Thank god those were guaranteed, right? RIGHT?

First of all, you're referring to the prefatory clause of the second amendment. You're not the first person to bring it up, and thankfully this issue was resolved with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson (2001). It turns out that the right is not restricted to the militia. The fact that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state is merely stated as one possible justification for the amendment's existence. If I were to state "the sky is blue, one plus one is two", would you argue that one plus one is only two if the computation is performed under a blue sky?

Second, you're distracting yourself with the issue of militia membership. For the record, if you're asking who constitutes the militia, it's hard to take you seriously. Second, it's not virtually impossible to so fully specify a law that it becomes completely unambiguous in all situations. The second amendment is one such law. It states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no "except" or "unless" or any other corner cases. Shall. Not. In standard English, there is no ambiguity here. Now, you might argue that such an unambiguous law is undesirable, as it would allow private ownership of nukes, et cetera. I, personally, would agree with you. Or you could argue that we should ignore both the letter and the spirit of the law in the interest of expediency, since we all agree that there is in fact a need to infringe on the right to bear arms. I, personally, would rather die in a nuclear holocaust.

All of these ppl are going for pork. Look at this:
Republican Members

Steven Palazzo, MS, Chairman
Ralph M. Hall (R-Texas)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-California)
Frank D. Lucas (R-Oklahoma)
Michael McCaul (R-Texas)
Mo Brooks (R-Alabama)
Larry Bucshon (R-Indiana)
Steve Stockman (R-Texas)
Bill Posey (R-Florida)
David Schweikert (R-Arizona)
Jim Bridenstine (R-Oklahoma)
Chris Stewart (R-Utah)

Democrat Members

Donna F. Edwards, MD, Ranking Member
Suzanne Bonamici (D-Oregon)
Dan Maffei (D-New York)
Joe Kennedy III (D-Massachusetts)
Derek Kilmer (D-Washington)
Ami Bera (D-California)
Marc Veasey (D-Texas)
Julia Brownley (D-California)
Frederica Wilson (D-Florida)

The ONLY one on this group who is NOT trash is Rohrabacher. The rest are seekers of pork.

If a one of them REALLY wanted to go to the mars and/or the moon, they would be allocating money for setting up a base in Antarctica using BA's BA-330 and/or ILC Dover's equipment as well as pushing private space. But, do they? Nope.

In addition, they would kill the SLS and instead push a COTS-SHLV for 2 SHLVs. Do they? Nope.

Not just houston. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, California, Utah, and Florida are all hotbeds for pork money. And look at this:
Republican Members

Steven Palazzo, MS, Chairman
Ralph M. Hall (R-Texas)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-California)
Frank D. Lucas (R-Oklahoma)
Michael McCaul (R-Texas)
Mo Brooks (R-Alabama)
Larry Bucshon (R-Indiana)
Steve Stockman (R-Texas)
Bill Posey (R-Florida)
David Schweikert (R-Arizona)
Jim Bridenstine (R-Oklahoma)
Chris Stewart (R-Utah)

Democrat Members

Donna F. Edwards, MD, Ranking Member
Suzanne Bonamici (D-Oregon)
Dan Maffei (D-New York)
Joe Kennedy III (D-Massachusetts)
Derek Kilmer (D-Washington)
Ami Bera (D-California)
Marc Veasey (D-Texas)
Julia Brownley (D-California)
Frederica Wilson (D-Florida)


The ONLY one on this group who is NOT trash is Rohrabacher. The rest are seekers of pork.
If a one of them REALLY wanted to go to the mars and/or the moon, they would be allocating money for setting up a base in Antarctica using BA's BA-330 and/or ILC Dover's equipment. But, do they? Nope.

http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-hearing-nasa-authorization-act-2013
When Thomas Young was asked when NASA could get to Mars on their current budget, his response was "Never."

Not the OP, but I'll play, although just for part one (evolution), and I'll take "lies from the pit of Hell" instead of "commie plot."

Here's Paul Broun (R-Georgia), of the House Committee on Science, speaking about Evolution and the Big Bang Theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7Im5-M_9po

God's Word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang theory: all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a Savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I have found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth.

The bill is H.R. 2356, introduced by Michael Capuano (D-Mass) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

Find your congressman here. Send them some sort of correspondence that says you wish them to co-sponsor the bill. If you e-mail, make sure you request a response.

I actually made most of this comment in another post about the NSA but it bears repeating.

ACLU Petition to Stop Massive Government Spying Program

Please sign that petition. Or go through the EFF action page. Or Write your Representative or Write your Senators. They are easy enough to find. Seriously. If you aren't telling the people that represent you how wrong, awful, and downright unacceptable the NSA actions are they have no reason to stick their neck out to change it.

Nobody is asking you to fight a war, like previous generations of Americans have. Just sign a petition. Write a letter. It is that easy to improve this country. Whether you think that is true or not, remember that an outcry from a small group of people have altered politics before and it can happen again. The only thing preventing this country from getting better is silence.

ACLU Petition to Stop Massive Government Spying Program

Please sign that petition. Or Write your Representative or Write your Senators. They are easy enough to find. Seriously. If you aren't telling the people that represent you how wrong, awful, and downright unacceptable the NSA actions are they have no reason to stick their neck out to change it.

Nobody is asking you to fight a war, like previous generations of Americans have. Just sign a petition. Write a letter. It is that easy to improve this country. Whether you think that is true or not, remember that an outcry from a small group of people have altered politics before and it can happen again. The only thing preventing this country from getting better is silence.

I hope most US slashdotters are not too rankled by this reality because this is what they voted for. Bush and Nixon, two presidents modern leftists love to vilify, HAVE NOTHING on the monster currently in office...NOTHING.

Before you try to pin this on the left, take a look at who voted for the Patriot Act:

2001:
        Senate: 98 voted for the act, a single democrat voted against
        House: 357 voted for the act, 66 voted against (62 democrats, 3 republicans)
2006: Patriot act renewal
        Senate: 89 voted for the act, 10 against (9 democrats, 0 republicans)
        House: 280 voted for the act, 138 against (124 democrat, 13 republican)
2011: Patriot act renewal
        Senate: 72 Yes, 23 against (18 democrat, 4 republican)
        House: 275 Yes, 144 no (117 democrat, 27 republican)

If the leftist monster in the whitehouse is solely responsible for this, then why didn't our republican saviors in Congress do anything to stop it, not even back before Obama was even in office?

Sources:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/84
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll036.xml

This was from eight members of Congress. Eight. I don't see that Google has much to be worried about from 8 congressmen out of 435.

Its a significant number of members of the Bipartisan Privacy Caucus. This organization aims to be out in front of privacy issues so that Congress is not caught flat footed when something like this crops up.

Google doesn't have to respond, the caucus does not have subpoena powers.
It would be utter stupidity if Google chose to blow these guys off.

Seriously, read it. It starts out by truly fixing some of the most egregious brain damage and expansiveness of DMCA, making it into a legitimate copyright law. The cellphone unlocking technicality is just one a thousand bugs this fixes; the bill would also legalize making/selling/using ink cartridges, legalize the playing the DVDs that you have bought, etc. If DMCA had passed originally in this form, it would be much less destructive and hated.

Hence the reason they didn't do it this way in the first place.

"Hey, WTF man? You're cutting my whole leg off here!"
"Oh, sorry, how about just a foot then? Or, tell you what, let's just take the big toe and we'll call it even, okay?"
"Ahh, that's so much better, thanks!"

By making a big show of generously granting people rights that they already had, they can paper over the rest of the shoddy framework (takedown notice abuses, copyright trolling, etc., etc.) For bonus points, they'll have people feeling downright grateful about not being thrown in jail for treating their own purchased media as if they actually own it.

Seriously, read it. It starts out by truly fixing some of the most egregious brain damage and expansiveness of DMCA, making it into a legitimate copyright law. The cellphone unlocking technicality is just one a thousand bugs this fixes; the bill would also legalize making/selling/using ink cartridges, legalize the playing the DVDs that you have bought, etc. If DMCA had passed originally in this form, it would be much less destructive and hated.

After the first part, then it looks like it does something benevolent related to phones specifically, but to some code I'm unfamiliar with. Then it takes a shot at WIPO.

Overall, this is a no-brainer, and anyone who opposes it, will be outed. That means they'll kill it in some committee, but just in case they don't, remember names and who votes for/against. Reward and punish, based on this one, right here.

Pssst! Jared Polis is already "out". ;-)

Seriously, read it. It starts out by truly fixing some of the most egregious brain damage and expansiveness of DMCA, making it into a legitimate copyright law. The cellphone unlocking technicality is just one a thousand bugs this fixes; the bill would also legalize making/selling/using ink cartridges, legalize the playing the DVDs that you have bought, etc. If DMCA had passed originally in this form, it would be much less destructive and hated.

After the first part, then it looks like it does something benevolent related to phones specifically, but to some code I'm unfamiliar with. Then it takes a shot at WIPO.

Overall, this is a no-brainer, and anyone who opposes it, will be outed. That means they'll kill it in some committee, but just in case they don't, remember names and who votes for/against. Reward and punish, based on this one, right here.

Who the fuck cares about facial recognition, I say arm the citizens and save money and time.

Go to Somalia and find out how good that works out.

Why go to Somalia? You don't have to travel outside of the United States. (And many countries have one or more of these sorts of laws.)

America's Toughest Sheriff, Joe Arpaio

As chief law enforcement officer for the county, Arpaio continues to reduce crime with hard-hitting enforcement methods. . . . The posse, whose ranks have increased to 3000 members under Arpaio, is the nation's largest volunteer posse. Posse men and women help in search and rescue and other traditional police work as well as in special operations like rounding up deadbeat parents, fighting prostitution, patrolling malls during holidays, and investigating animal cruelty complaints. The posse's contributions are invaluable and essentially free to taxpayers.

POSSE

Wait, there's more! (This sort of law is common in the US.)

"901.18 Officer may summon assistance. -- A peace officer making a lawful arrest may command the aid of persons he deems necessary to make the arrest. A person commanded to aid shall render assistance as directed by the officer. A person commanded to aid a peace officer shall have the same authority to arrest as that peace officer and shall not be civilly liable for any reasonable conduct in rendering assistance to that officer." --- Advisory Legal Opinion - AGO 75-200

In most cases, this means you.

That's not all. If you are an American male, you are probably in the militia - US Federal, and state - even if you don't know it.

State militia, members.

41.050. The militia of the state shall include all able-bodied citizens and all other able-bodied residents, who, in the case of the unorganized militia and the Missouri reserve military force, shall be more than seventeen years of age and not more than sixty-four, and such other persons as may upon their own application be enrolled or commissioned therein, and who, in the case of the organized militia, shall be within the age limits and possess the physical and mental qualifications prescribed by law or regulations for the reserve components of the Armed Forces of the United States, except that this section shall not be construed to require militia service of any persons specifically exempted by the laws of the United States or the state of Missouri. The maximum age requirement may be waived by the adjutant general on a case-by-case basis.

Federal: Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members

None of the Massachusetts delegation voted on the bill. Here is the roll call.

Why didn't any of the 9 representatives from the state vote? Because the President was in Massachusetts following a terrorist bombing earlier in the week.

The bill has been in Congress in some form since 2011. If the sponsors and supporters of the bill truly believe that this bill is necessary to enable "integrated operational actions to protect, prevent, mitigate, respond to, and recover from" threats to security, wouldn't it make sense to schedule a vote on passage of the bill for a day when at least some representatives of the state most recently victimized by a terrorist attack could vote? Is there any opportunism at work here, given that the entire Massachusetts delegation voted against the bill the last time it was up for passage?

It's worth reading the full text of the bill. It contains statements such as "The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and utilities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence."

None of the Massachusetts delegation voted on the bill. Here is the roll call.

Why didn't any of the 9 representatives from the state vote? Because the President was in Massachusetts following a terrorist bombing earlier in the week.

The bill has been in Congress in some form since 2011. If the sponsors and supporters of the bill truly believe that this bill is necessary to enable "integrated operational actions to protect, prevent, mitigate, respond to, and recover from" threats to security, wouldn't it make sense to schedule a vote on passage of the bill for a day when at least some representatives of the state most recently victimized by a terrorist attack could vote? Is there any opportunism at work here, given that the entire Massachusetts delegation voted against the bill the last time it was up for passage?

It's worth reading the full text of the bill. It contains statements such as "The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and utilities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence."

It also got more than a 2/3 majority, so it's not clear a veto would even matter. Though it's possible that some of the "yes" Dem votes here would change to "no" if Obama vetoed it, to avoid overriding a president from their party.

In his two terms as president, Obama has vetoed bills presented to him exactly twice. Assuming he actually vetoes the thing, the requirement fter it being returned to the originating house of Congress requires a re-vote with a 2/3 majority of both houses. This rarely happens, and typically only has happened for 4% of vetoes. Note that he hasn't use a pocket veto for either instance in the past. I'm pretty positive that he hasn't had opportunity to pocket veto for bills he wants to make "go away", since they'd have to be presented less than 10 days prior to a congressional adjournment in order to effectively kill the bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#Barack_Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto#United_States

Republicans voted 196-29 in favor, while Democrats voted 98-92 opposed. But just remember, kids, There's No Difference Between The Parties(tm).