Slashdot Mirror

Do the maths, Broken Ladder, and you'll find that your own belief (that there is no supernatural) is irrational -- so far beyond impossible that even Hubble couldn't pick it out.

You believe crap like Inherit the Wind without checking the background facts, which at every scale from general to detail say the exact opposite to the movie. Your belief is not rational. Read the transcript, so-called skeptic.

You believe the postulates of the High Priest of so-called "science", Richard Dawkins, without troubling to investigate his claims. Every major claim he makes is wrong, and every one has been pounded to death with inconvenient observations time and time again. Your belief is irrational.

You cling blindly to the scale conventionally assigned to the geologic column, blipping over the steadily expanding, overlapping and reversing ranges of the index fossils as "problems which will one day be solved". How do you know? Haven't you just made a statement based on pure faith? Isn't that irrational?

The amount of false information people are posting on this article is both dizzying and distressful, since it shows how little Americans know about their own Constitution and how it has been interpreted for all this time. I can't say that I knew any more about this stuff before I went to law school.

The Constitution is mainly a blueprint for relations between the Federal government and the States, between the Federal government and the People, and ever since the Fourteenth Amendment, between the States and the People. Before the 14th was passed, the Federal Constitution's Bill of Rights did not protect anyone from regulation by state actors, only federal actors. Notice that every state has a Bill of Rights of its own which its courts may interpret more broadly than the Federal Bill of Rights.

Except for the 13th Amendment's ban on slavery, nothing in the Federal Constitution governs relations between the People and non-government actors (other people or corporations). So in general, a private school can regulate its students speech as much as it wants, because it is not a government actor.

The First Amendment does apply in public schools, because those schools are government actors. Of course, the schools get more leeway than a police officer on the street would get. See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District for more information on Free Speech in public schools.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Here are two court cases that illustrate the issues that electronic-noses will bring up.

Searching in public place (dog first, then real search):

http://www.napwda.com/tips/index.phtml?id=29 [napwda.com]

"The Man" sniffing around outside your house (this one has a cool FLIR photo of a house lit up from growing plants inside):

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c onlaw/kyllo.htm

Here are two court cases that illustrate the issues that electronic-noses will bring up. Civil libertarians will freak out.

Searching in public place:

http://www.napwda.com/tips/index.phtml?id=29

"The Man" sniffing around outside your house (this one has a cool FLIR photo of a house lit up from growing plants inside):

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c onlaw/kyllo.htm

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/n uremberg/nuremberg.htm

Case I: You buy a movie theater ticket. You have purchased the avility to view the movie. But because you can't make it to the theater that night, you instead set up a video camera on your seat, so you can time shift your viewing of the movie.

Somewhat of an apples and oranges comparison. I believe the ticket you purchased allows you to view the movie at the cinema at the time specified. There is no implied right of being able to view it at another time or place.

Case II: You buy some ephedrine, some lithuim batteries, some drano and some Acetone. They are your property to use as you wish. You decide to whip up a batch of Crack. Are you allowed to do this? NO.

The restriction is on the manufacturing of a controlled substance. It is illegal to produce crack. Whether you do it Drano, or the active ingredients found in Drano is irrelevant. On the other hand, I could easily take these same ingredients and mix them in different proportions to obtain something unrestricted.

Case III: You own your car. You decide it would be cool to remove the windshield wipers and seatbelts. Can you do that? only if you don't put it on the road or try to sell it for such a use.

Not sure about your jurisdiction, but here, vehicles that are to be driven on public roads must meet minimal safety standards. I can in fact sell the car or any other vehicle in any condition. The vehicle could be a complete death trap. Prior to the car being driven on public roads, the car must meet minimal standards. Much like I can purchase a race car that is no where near street legal. I can race the vehicle. I can drive the vehicle anywhere I want as long as I am not trespassing or driving it on a public road.

case IV: you own some swapland. You want to drain it. can you do that? Not if it's considered a protected wetland.

There are many instances where the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. Similar arguements can be made about historical buildings and the type of renovations that are allowed.

case V: you own a CD. You trade it to someone else for another CD. Can you do that. Yes. You own a peice of DRM'd music for which you contracted to play on a single computer. Can you sell that to someone else. NO. you contracted for that.

Correct. You agreed to the limitations so I fail to see what your problem is. Unless of course the limitations were hidden and beyond the ability of "reasonable" person to determine.

Case VI: Your a farmer and the govenement tells you you can grow so many bushells on your land. You grow more but you plan to use them only for internal consumption on the property. Can you do that? seems like you could but infact you can't (read the case of Wicard Wheat).

This is a rather simplistic view of a complex matter. I would suggest reading http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c onlaw/wickard.html for a rather insightful analysis of the case. As I understand the American government, the job of the Supreme Court is to "interpret" existing laws, not to make or reppeal laws. Rather it is the function of the legaslative branch to enact or reppeal laws. This case could be very easily seen as an example of poorly thought out legislation, specifically the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

Face it, we live in a society that is bounded by certain limits. That there are limits is not in question, question should be what are the limits and what is the impact of changes in these limits.

interestate commerce

read case here

other aspects

Unfortunately not as far fetched as a mentally stable person would like to believe.

Poor excuse, not acceptable in war crimes trials. Read some of the quotes here.

The current administration and Pentagon brass should read Charter of the International Military Tribunal

ARTICLE 6

The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution
of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

But hey, US has bullied most states/allies into agreements not extradite US citizens to the International Criminal Court. Of course, only low ranking service men/women are prosecuted in US for torture and other war crimes.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c onlaw/southdak.html

Your reply looked like it had a bit of research behind it, so I looked around a bit, not exhaustively of course.

Here's 2 references that seem to dispute your statements:
The first is an account by scopes, quite interesting in that it gives a hint of his character:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/s copes/scopesreflections.html
Of the many references, (in a hurry, only looked at the first few) I found things that seems to confirm what I'd seen in the past, e.g.(From a review of Summer of the Gods at http://www.facingthechallenge.org/scopes1.htm
When the Tennessee law was enacted, the ACLU saw it as a chance for a legal victory for freedom of speech. The leaders sent out a press release offering to challenge the law, and calling for any Tennessee teacher to volunteer as a test case. They would provide the legal defence and cover all costs, and were sure that the teacher concerned need not lose his or her job...

In a small town in East Tennessee, a few young professionals gathered at the local drug store to discuss the offer from the ACLU. It seems they were struck with the possibilities of free publicity for their town. One of the group invited a close friend of his, 24-year-old John T. Scopes, to join them in one of their drug store get-togethers. He was asked if he would be willing to let his name be used for a test case. Although he was not actually a biology teacher, he had filled in for the regular teacher during an illness using the state-approved biology text, which had a section on human evolution. It was enough for the trial.

Of course, this is not "real" historical research, I'm going by google and I don't really know the authenticity of what I'm reading, yadda yadda...
But Mostly I'm troubled by the references to propaganda, and the idea that this conflict was somehow perpetuated by people with a sinister agenda of some sort. Exactly what is it that is being propagated through propaganda? Evolution?

I agree with the direction of your post; I don't like the PATRIOT act any more than you do.

But I think you should leave the Puritans out of this.

For one thing, they were 17th century, not 15th ... which meant that they were removed from a lot of the judicial excesses of the Middle Ages. You want to talk about disproportionate punishments? Try trial by combat. That was mainstream justice in the Middle Ages

For another thing, the Puritans had nothing on the Anglicans for harsh penalties. How about the death penalty for theft? It was common practice in Elizabethan England.

For another, the Witch Trials in Salem were chump change compared to the witch craze in Europe. The Salem Puritans hanged 17 for witchcraft, from Feb. 1692 till Jan. 1693, until the governor with the support of a prominent pastor (Increase Mather) put a stop to it. In Europe, between 15,000 and 60,000 women were BURNED AT THE STAKE for witchcraft. The Puritans were creatures of their times, but certainly no worse and probably a lot better.

Nothing would make many libertarians and "small government" Conservatives happier than the Supreme Court reversing WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111. - that was the core of this highly charged issue. If wasn't about just about pot smoking.

Had the liberals on the court joined with the most conservative (to allow states to overrule Federal laws where there is no interstate commerce), everything the government has done since the New Deal would be "in play" as having no Federal Jurisdiction... the 9th and 10th Amendments might even be looked at again as being relevant.

The background on WICKARD v. FILBURN was that in order to stabilize farm production, FDR set up agencies that can regulate food production, characteristics, assess 'fees' on people growing the product - with the force of law behind them. Many of these exist to this day - [blue diamond] almonds, [sunkist] fruits, [Ocean Spray] Cranberries, [Sun Maid] raisins. If you have land in California and plant almond trees, and then sell those almonds, you are breaking the law (unless you belong to the blue almond cooperative, agree to their rules and pay them a fee that is used to fund marketing of the product).

In the 1942 case[1], a farmer was growing wheat on his farm in excess of what the Federal marketing program permitted. He did not sell any of the excess wheat. He fed the wheat to his cattle, used it for "personal consumption" (important for the current case), and kept some as seed for the following year. The Court in 1942 decided they had to protect the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938[2], even though on an individual basis there was no actual interstate commerce... (the needs of the many...)

IANAL

[1]http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri al s/conlaw/wickard.html
[2]http://www.webref.org/agriculture/a/agricultu ra l_adjustment_act_of_2.htm

One thing that would help a lot would be for more people to be aware of Jury Nullification. While the laws would still exist, unjust laws would be ignored.

There are some good links on this subject at:

• http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/z enger/nullification.html
• http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jph13/Jury Nullification.html
• http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07J uryNullification.html
• http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm
• http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/04/0412.ht ml

As the saying goes There are four boxes to be used in defending our freedom: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Use them in that order.

Nice straw man. I'm not asserting anything about good/bad, and it so happens I'm not arguing my personal values either. I'm making a claim about what I think is the objective reality of the opinion people (Americans) have of the LDS church; that a lot of people find (or found) those current and former practices of the LDS church extreme or offensive, in contradiction to the post to which I responded. Because it's a claim about objective reality, it's subject to verification (if someone wants to do the work). I've backed my assertion with external references to some evidence that supports my claim. If you've got evidence that polygamy is "acceptable" in the U.S., let's see it. ("acceptable" means "tolerated by at least a big plurality of the Americans.) Evidence might persuade me that I'm wrong about what I think a lot of Americans think about polygamy.

...just because Frist is pandering...

That's exactly my point! Senator Frist is trying to link gay marriage to polygamy (and other things with high negatives in U.S. culture) because polygamy has much higher negatives among the general populace than does gay marriage.
QED.
The observation of Senator Frist's action is not based on what you or I think about either polygamy or gay marriage or their relationship or lack thereof, it's an observation of what a leading politician thinks will work to sway opinion to his side on the issue.

It seems that what I'm trying to communicate just isn't "coming in". I'm *not* trying to change anyone's personal opinion of any LDS doctrine or former doctrine, pro or con, nor am I trying to characterize those practices. I'm trying to express my sense of what the general sentiment of my fellow Americans is towards certain practices or former practices that Americans generally found to be extreme or offensive.

To give you some practice, here are some other similarly structured statements that I think are also true.

• In 1860, a great many Southerners supported slavery, or politicians who did so.
• Now, most people in the U.S. thinks slavery is reprehensible
• People were hanged in the American colonies for preaching a different variety of Christianity than was approved by the local government.
• Until the attack on Pearl Harbor, many Americans favored isolationism and opposed U.S. involvment in World War II.
• Most voters preferred Al Gore for president in the 2000 presidential election.
• Some Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons, even when it may save a life.
• There seems to be a correlation between fear of death and unwillingness to be an organ donor.
• Most Americans don't consider horses to be food animals.
• During the American Revolution, some colonial leaders thought that the British were using germ warefare against them.

I can't help it if the Supreme Court has its own agenda and the people of this country are too ignorant of their Constitutional rights to stand up for themselves. None of that makes the 10th Amendment, which like the rest of the Constitution is very clear in its language, any less valid.

Speaking of the courts, people should also know that, as jury members, they have the right and duty to complete ignore the law if returning a guilty verdict would result in a miscarriage of justice. This is called Jury Nullification and it is the third box in the saying "Four boxes are to be used in the defense of freedom: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo - use them in that order".

A good introduction to Jury Nullification is here.

Wasn't the same argument used at Nuremburg half a century ago?

Seriously though, there's a huge difference. Do you really think that working in a concentration camp is remotely close to slaving away in a cubical trying to find out why Microsoft Excel crashes when somebody clicks on a specific cell, but only on SMP P4 boxes?

I certainly do believe that most of the German soldiers in WWI and WWII were just average guys, trying to make it through the war in one piece. But war is a bit different than computer programming -- soldiers generally do things like point guns at people and kill them, which is generally considered to be `evil' unless there's a very good reason for it. I suspect that many (most?) Microsoft employees, on the other hand, are developers and support personel and such, and so their job is to actually make their products better (fewer bugs, more features, etc.), which would generally be considered `good'.

(Though I guess that one could consider improving software to be `bad' if the software was bad. Malware or spamware might be considered bad, as might software used to keep track of prisoners in your concentration camp.)

To be fair, take a good look at Europe. The Vatican has actually condoned evolution, and ascribe the domain of the soul to God. The whole "trying to debunk evolution" thing only happens here in the US. You'd think that Catholicism, one of the oldest, most entrenched and relatively pious sects of Christianity, would have more issues with evolution...

I'm almost waiting for the day when we declare the world flat, and the Sun revolves around the Earth; finally cementing our regression into a backwards society that accepts the Bible as Literal Truth.

I feel kind of bad writing a comment here, seeing as how the story was only posted to incite riot. I mean, that definition doesn't even have anything to do with religion, but that doesn't stop people from pretending it does!

Anyway, this is a nice example of why you should pay attention to the real people and not those that go off and make up stuff that they try to pass off as real. The Church has no problem with evolution, as it does a good job of explaining how everything works. Take a look here for a relatively unbiased writeup on what the Church _actually_ has to say, as opposed to the people who just make stuff up.

Judges can throw out an unconstitutional law, and jury nullification allows a jury to refuse to convict a defendant if the jury strongly disagrees with the law.

However, the post I was responding to said think about it, dude as a plea to use common sense. Unfortunately, common sense and US law don't always have that much in common, and a judge and jury don't usually get too many opportunities to use their common sense.

As for a judge declaring a law unconstitutional, he's still bound by what the law says, it's just that the Constitution is a higher law.

As for jury nullification, well, that would be an opportunity to use common sense, but the powers that be in the US seem to be very busy making sure that it almost never happens.

Do yourself a favor, take a break from slashdot, and google "supreme court content neutral ruling"

Ok I will, lets see...

Google result #1 - CITY OF LADUE v. MARGARET P. GILLEO a case involving a city ordinance that prohibits homeowners from displaying certian signs on their property. So a citizen wants to use thier own personal property to promote a political cause. Hmm, ok that's not revelant, since the WiFi access is supplied and funded by the State of Texas. Lets try...

Google result #2 - Zelman v. Simmons-Harris Ok, so this is regarding a school voucher program challenged on First Amendment grounds but upheld by the court. From the ruling: "We would be loath to adopt a rule grounding the constitutionality of a facially neutral law..." - Rehnquist, citing an earlier case. Hmm, it seems the supreme court ruled agreed with a previous ruling by saying that legal neutrality is not protected by the Constitution. Ok, lets try...

Google result #3 - Smith v. City of Jackson. Hmm, that's about an age discrimination suit...not really relevant here. What about...

Google result #4 - Alameda Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles et al. Ok so this is a position paper on the secondary effects doctrine, which argues that it "allows seemingly content-based laws that single out adult businesses to be analyzed as content-neutral". The paper then goes on to list a number of cour cases in which city governments used zoning laws to try to shut down adult bookstores and movie theatres. If the adult bookstores and theatres were being run by the State of Texas with taxpayer dollars, then that might be relevant to the law at hand...in fact, these cases just support my argument that the First Amendment protects an individual's right to free speech, and does not the require that the state provide a free (as in beer) platform for anyone to express themselves.

Ok, so how much reading do I have to do here before I find something that supports your argument? It seems to me that you've misunderstood the meaning of content-neutrality as it pertains to free speech protections. Tell you what...I've done my google searches...Why don't you find the specific court ruling or State/Federal law that says (in your words) "the state is required to do is provide whatever access it DOES provide (to adults) in a content-neutral manner."

Well, honestly, I wasn't trying to get a rise, per se. Nor do I like being modded as a Troll or Flamebait. But it does get conversation started. :) (If you look at my profile it is almost all positive -- until today =) .)

The point in my original post, though obscured through a silly analogy, was that the universe is far too balanced and detailed to have been a random occurrence. Whether-or-not anyone here believes in God with a capital "G" isn't necessarily the issue. But there had to have been the involvement of a higher being in the making of everything that is. I have a hard time believing that the macro-detail of galaxies, stars, and other universal phenomena are random. Likewise, the smaller our technology allows us to observe the micro-universes -- atoms, particles, quarks, and whatever-the-next-thing-is-called -- are too intricate and unique to be random as well. That was my point.

But, this has all been hashed out before (The famous "Monkey Trial").

I completely respect the opinion of all true /.'ers and always do my best to think beyond myself. This is one of the best places to do that.

You're talking about contemperaneous writings. Marbury vs. Madison is one you really, really need to pick up and look over. (And ponder: if the Supremes had the power to interpet the Constitution, why did they grant that power to themselves in Marbury? Try not to think about the logical problems inherent in a branch of governemnt deciding what powers it has. It gave Kurt Goedel headaches.)

The initial view of how things would work is that determining what was and wasn't Constitutional woudl rest in all three branches of government (this was why Presidents before Andrew Jackson only vetoed bills they thought were unConstitutional: the original use of the veto power was for that purpose, and Jackson just decided he could veto bills he didn't like, and the language of the Constitution did not forbid it), and if they failed, in the people, who would use jury nullification as a last defense against unConstitutional laws.

The reason why campaign finance laws are unConstitutional is because it is impossible to enforce them without getting into the business of vetting all publciations and mass media. George Bush recognized this when he was running for office (he said so in an interview with George Will) but, once he was in office, he was too cowardly to veto McCain-Feingold when it came in front of him: knowing Bush, he probably figured that the Supremes would shoot it down and give him poltiical cover.

The Supremes showed their usual sagacity, as previously displayed in cases like Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson, and said McCain-Feingold was fine, by a 5-4 vote.

And now we're in a world where the FEC is going to limit spending on "political" blogs (guess what? You make a post in your livejorunal about how much you hate Bush (or Kerry, or Clinton) and your blog just became political) and where the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is going to try to shut down the speech of politicans they don't like by proposing blanket rules for blogs.

Don't worry. They're destroying the Constitution to save it!

He's never heard of Marbury vs. Madison, for instance.

The crap being peddled here is almost enough to make me actually register on Slashdot.

Yes, interpetign the Constitution has always been a power of the Supreme Court, if by always you mean "since 1803."

Does anyone learn about Marbury vs. Madison in schools nowadays?

For all the talk of how the PATRIOT Act is somehow systematically unraveling our freedoms, it's not the only time this sort of thing has been done during a time of war.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus entirely, essentially ignoring the right of jury trials and the Bill of Rights. Clearly American democracy did not perish afterwards, and the right was later reinstated at the end of the war. No matter how odious the PATRIOT Act really is, it barely compares to Lincoln's actions.

During the Second World War, President Roosevelt was granted the power to try American citizens as enemy combatants as well. In the landmark case Ex parte Quirin Chief Justice Stone wrote:

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.

It is quite clear that members of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda are enemy belligerents in every sense of the word. They deliberate target the civilian population, do not follow the rules of warfare as laid out in the Geneva Conventions, and are willing to use the most deadly weapons in existence in order to kill as many people as possible without regard for their status as non-combatants.

More recently, library records were instrumental in locating Andrew Cunanan, the man responsible for the murder of Gianni Versace. Yet very few civil libertarians seemed to have an issue with this. If it is acceptable to search library records to find a serial murderer, why not a terrorist. And why a library records so sacrosanct when other private records such as phone conversations and financial records could already be examined by the government under RICO and other laws?

There is something about the furor over the PATRIOT Act that suggests its motivated more by political opinions than an honest belief in civil rights. Certainly those who protest the PATRIOT Act now must recognize the horrendous erosions of civil liberties that occurred in the previous Administration under the guise of the "war on drugs" including no-knock warrants and other practices.

I can find some agreement with those who say that the PATRIOT Act goes to far, and there is nothing wrong or unpatriotic about holding the law to a high standard. However, I would lend far more credence to those who make their arguments in full understanding of the nature and intent of groups like al-Qaeda. We cannot afford to give more civil protections to Tony Soprano than we do to Osama bin Laden, which was the state of US law before September 11. If the PATRIOT Act is too onerous, the critics have the obligation of suggesting how we might better balance the needs to protect the safety of our nation while maintaining civil rights.

Besides, taxing interstate transactions is illegal under the "Commerce Clause" of the US Constitution (3) so it'll most likely be placed in within the State "use tax" category which has been very difficult in the past to enforce.

Putting aside the fairness issue taxing ultra low dollar electronic purchases IMO just isn't worth it.

(While many states currently do require a State issued drug tax stamp, because of marijuana's current status as illegal under prohibition few people actually purchase them. The "drug tax stamp" law is most commonly used to add the extra charge of tax evasion to a drug dealer and squeeze him for a little extra money and jail time.)

1. Marijuana prohibition facts
2. Thinking about Drug Legalization
3. Interstate Taxation and the Commerce Clause

Hate to be a bit redundant since I posted this above, but the child's clothing did turn up, three years later, near a dingo's den. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c hamberlain/chamberlainaccount.html

It ought to be pointed out that it was later revealed that the woman's baby WAS in fact eaten by a dingo, and she had been wrongfully convicted. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c hamberlain/chamberlainaccount.html/

Fucking Jesus, aren't there truly significant free speech issues that deserve the attention wasted on this BS? I can't play Don Imus as Rev. Billy Sol Hargis and one sacred chicken to go on the radio without fear of fines for broadcasting 'offensive' material. National Geographic is allowed to air naked aboriginal breasts yet Janet Jacksons teat is forbidden. Pigz eating banannas are censured because some fat ape is 'offended'.

Fucking MORONZ

A "use tax" is nothing more than a euphemism importation duty. I don't know of any law that has ever gone through the U.S. Congress that allows duties of one state to another, thereby making "use taxes" in violation of the above clause at the current time. Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but this is one of those things that I've done a lot of research on.

In short: as of 1992, the Commerce Clause does not prevent states from imposing a use-tax on interstate commerce when the customer is in the state even if the vendor is not.

Otherwise, a lawyer should just fabricate evidence for each of their clients.

Don't they?

Ok, so you are saying it actually is illegal to burn the flag? I guess that makes you one of the uninformed kids. Check out the results of Texas vs. Johnson. or just look here

Law.umkc.edu Reading that seems show the it's only legal/illegal depending on the mood that the Supreme Court is in that day.

Just because you can't discern a rational thought doesn't necessarily mean there is none.

I said

Every soldier on duty in Guantanamo Bay on this very day is betraying his oaths and a disgrace for his uniform. They don't even remotely live up to Army or Marine Corps Values they have sworn to defend with their lives.

To freshen your memories on what these honorable men and women have sworn, an excerpt of the linked "Soldier code" pages:
Army Values:

Loyalty: Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other soldiers.
Duty: Fulfill your obligations.
Respect: Treat people as they should be treated.
Selfless-Service: Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.
Honor: Live up to all the Army values.
Integrity: Do what's right, legally and morally.
Personal Courage: Face fear, danger, or adversity (Physical or Moral).

Corps Values:

Honor: Honor requires each Marine to exemplify the ultimate standard in ethical and moral conduct. Honor is many things; honor requires many things. A U.S. Marine must never lie, never cheat, never steal, but that is not enough. Much more is required. Each Marine must cling to an uncompromising code of personal integrity, accountable for his actions and holding others accountable for theirs. And, above all, honor mandates that a Marine never sully the reputation of his Corps.

Courage: Simply stated, courage is honor in action -- and more. Courage is moral strength, the will to heed the inner voice of conscience, the will to do what is right regardless of the conduct of others. It is mental discipline, an adherence to a higher standard. Courage means willingness to take a stand for what is right in spite of adverse consequences. This courage, throughout the history of the Corps, has sustained Marines during the chaos, perils, and hardships of combat. And each day, it enables each Marine to look in the mirror -- and smile.

Commitment: Total dedication to Corps and Country. Gung-ho Marine teamwork. All for one, one for all. By whatever name or cliche, commitment is a combination of (1) selfless determination and (2) a relentless dedication to excellence. Marines never give up, never give in, never willingly accept second best. Excellence is always the goal. And, when their active duty days are over, Marines remain reserve Marines, retired Marines, or Marine veterans. There is no such thing as an ex-Marine or former-Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine. Commitment never dies.

Tell me: How can a soldier sworn in on these values still service in a camp at Guantanamo Bay and not speak out?

They will keep saying to themselves they're only following orders, but following orders doesn't count in the end.

Just because you can't discern a rational thought doesn't necessarily mean there is none.

I said

Every soldier on duty in Guantanamo Bay on this very day is betraying his oaths and a disgrace for his uniform. They don't even remotely live up to Army or Marine Corps Values they have sworn to defend with their lives.

To freshen your memories on what these honorable men and women have sworn, an excerpt of the linked "Soldier code" pages:
Army Values:

Loyalty: Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other soldiers.
Duty: Fulfill your obligations.
Respect: Treat people as they should be treated.
Selfless-Service: Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.
Honor: Live up to all the Army values.
Integrity: Do what's right, legally and morally.
Personal Courage: Face fear, danger, or adversity (Physical or Moral).

Corps Values:

Honor: Honor requires each Marine to exemplify the ultimate standard in ethical and moral conduct. Honor is many things; honor requires many things. A U.S. Marine must never lie, never cheat, never steal, but that is not enough. Much more is required. Each Marine must cling to an uncompromising code of personal integrity, accountable for his actions and holding others accountable for theirs. And, above all, honor mandates that a Marine never sully the reputation of his Corps.

Courage: Simply stated, courage is honor in action -- and more. Courage is moral strength, the will to heed the inner voice of conscience, the will to do what is right regardless of the conduct of others. It is mental discipline, an adherence to a higher standard. Courage means willingness to take a stand for what is right in spite of adverse consequences. This courage, throughout the history of the Corps, has sustained Marines during the chaos, perils, and hardships of combat. And each day, it enables each Marine to look in the mirror -- and smile.

Commitment: Total dedication to Corps and Country. Gung-ho Marine teamwork. All for one, one for all. By whatever name or cliche, commitment is a combination of (1) selfless determination and (2) a relentless dedication to excellence. Marines never give up, never give in, never willingly accept second best. Excellence is always the goal. And, when their active duty days are over, Marines remain reserve Marines, retired Marines, or Marine veterans. There is no such thing as an ex-Marine or former-Marine. Once a Marine, always a Marine. Commitment never dies.

Tell me: How can a soldier sworn in on these values still service in a camp at Guantanamo Bay and not speak out?

They will keep saying to themselves they're only following orders, but following orders doesn't count in the end.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/f trials.htm

You already need to pay a levy to sing a song under copyright in public. Famously, ASCAP threatened to sue the Girl Scouts of America over singing songs like "God Bless America" or even "Happy Birthday".

Another reference on this.

"JFK, RFK, and MLK were killed by nuts"

You have no more of a clue who really killed them than I do. The fact you think its an open an shut case is more than a little naive. If they were conspiracies you are just proof that they were good ones and they worked.

Step one in the assassination handbook is to setup a "nut" as a patsy to take the fall because people stop asking questions once the patsy takes the fall, or in the JFK assassination when the patsy is in turn assassinated.

MLK in particular was under a massive assault from J. Edgar Hoover when he was alive, there is no conspiracy theory needed, its a known fact. He massively chapped the establishment's ass because he was against the war in Vietnam(especially because it was disproportionately drafting and killing blacks) and was upsetting the social order which was keeping blacks oppressed and suppressed.

General Motors attempted a ruthless private investigation and smear campaign against Ralph Nader, trying to brand him as a homosexual in particular, which is what I was refering to. All because he had the nerve to point out their cars were death traps and could be made less so by something called seat belts. Unfortunately they tried it against a guy who was squeaky clean and had no skeletons in his closet, if he had they would have destroyed him and he would be a nobody today. Instead they had to apologize for trying to smear him and give him a nice settlement. He triumped but most people would have been destroyed. At this point he is completely marginalized and his campaigns are just stunts mostly used for entertainment value by the media.

Maybe you should learn. They went to Chicago in 1968 to protest the Vietnam War at the Democratic convention. They were tried for conspiracy to incite a riot when most unbiased accounts suggest that the Chicago police and Mayor Daily were the ones that incited the riot, it is called a "police riot". The late sixties and the early seventies were the last time the American people challenged a government that was in the wrong successfully. If you were to young to remember it you should study it, the Pentagon papers, Watergate, the Chicago Seven, etc. It was a time when America's government turned decidely evil, and it looks a lot like the one we have today, only there is no Chicago Seven today.

"I ask you to find one study that shows"

Dont need to. All I need to do is point out Bush is still in office. If the message Moore had tried to convey had worked he wouldn't be, because he painted a distinctly distubring portrait of the Bush family. Some of it was a stretch but at heart he nailed what the Bush clan is all about, money, power and contempt for Democracy and the little people, eagerness to send other people to die in an insane war the politicians and their children all duck.

In 1946, the Court considered the issue of the First Amendment's applicability in Chickasaw, Alabama--a company town owned lock, stock, and barrel by Gulf Shipbuilding. A Jehovah's Witness came to Chicasaw and began distributing religious literature on a street corner. She was told to stop her activity. She refused, and was tried and convicted of trespass. The Court reversed her conviction, concluding that Chicasaw was the functional equivalent of a municipality, the residents of Chicasaw citizens of Alabama, and that the First Amendment fully applied to expressive activities on the company-owned sidewalks and streets of the town.

...

Several state supreme courts have concluded that the free speech protections of their own state constitutions protect the right of citizens to engage in expressive activities in the public areas of shopping centers.

Historical reference: An Account of the Boston Massacre

I suspect like most American children, I learned early on in grade school that one of the pivotal moments leading up to the Revolution was the Boston Massacre - the firing upon and murder of the innocent civilian by the evil redcoats. I even remember the illustration of soldiers firing into a crowd from a distance.

It's sad but not surprising how those text books never mention that most of the officers were acquitted of all charges by an American court; only two were found guilty of actually firing. Furthermore, they were defended by John Adams (George Washington's vice president, and the second President) who summarized his case thusly:

I will enlarge no more on the evidence, but submit it to you.-Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact; if an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear, they had a right to kill in their own defence; if it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort, by snow-balls, oyster-shells, cinders, clubs, or sticks of any kind; this was a provocation, for which the law reduces the offence of killing, down to manslaughter, in consideration of those passions in our nature, which cannot be eradicated. To your candour and justice I submit the prisoners and their cause.

Bizarre tangent: the two officers found guilty of manslaughter were spared their lives by invoking "the benefit of clergy," a plea that shifted their punishment from imprisonment to the branding of their thumbs.

In 1800, Jefferson's opponent was the morally challenged Aaron Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, and later still was tried for "high crimes" when his plot was uncovered to take New Orleans by force and make it the capitol of his new western empire http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/b urr/burraccount.html Burr was tried but acquitted (although its likely he was guilty). Jefferson was a fine President and stateman.

In 1824, there was no 'popular vote' in the United States (nor was there in 1800). See http://www.avagara.com/politics/ec_zine/1824/ for details -- no candidate appeared on the ballot in all states, and not all states allowed the people to vote for the President. Regardless of that, the rules set out in the constitution yielded a good President. Adams subsequently became President in 1828.

In 1876, you neglect to mention that massive fraud instigated by both political parties marred the election process over much of the country (Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon) http://www.rbhayes.org/dispute.htm and http://www.rbhayes.org/disputeFAQ.htm. Still, the process resulted in the selection of a President who proved worthy of praise. He was a forward thinker concerned with the rights of minorities and the poor long before that became popular. While we don't know what kind of president Tilden would've benn, he was (later) opposed to the Civil War ... a huge error in judgement in my opinion.

The election of 1888 went exactly as it should have. There's no provision in our Presential Election process for the popular vote to select the president. Other than that, Harrison was a much better President than Grover Cleveland, having the vision and fortitude to accomplish great things during his term. http://www.americanpresident.org/history/benjaminh arrison/

Do we even need to discuss the 2000 Election? Gore absolutely fell apart after the defeat -- he would not have been able to stand up to the pressure of the worst terrorist attack in history. On the other hand, President Bush is a doer that has a long list of accomplishments during his first term.

the system as it stands now has serious deficiencies.

It may have some discussion points, but it certainly does not have 'serious deficiencies.' All the examples you presented are examples of our election process *WORKING*, not examples of it not working.

Part of the animosity in politics today can be partly attributed, at least in my opinion, to the fact that Bush was constitutionally, but not popularily, elected.

I don't accept that for a minute, but that's fodder for another time.

To suggest we change the Constitution because part of a part of the animosity might be reduced is kinda ridiculous. Throughout history there have been losers not happy with the outcome, and will continue to be. Some will hold a grudge. That's how some people work.

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they devised the Electoral College and our system of selecting a President. We just need to tweak the voting registration requirements a little.

This is like the "Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state." The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. What you will find in the establishment clause is that the state should not establish religion. It is actually the "Supreme Court mandated separation of church and state" based on its interpretation of the Constitution.

Abortion is the same. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow or forbid it so legislation must settle the issue. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, but that still doesn't put any words about abortion in the Constitution.

Please note that I am not saying anything about my views either way. I am merely pointing out what the Constitution does and does not say. My views on what legislation should or should not be passed are a different matter.

> that doesn't treat the Bill of Rights like a joke, and I'll think about it.

The ICC is a court, hence most aspects of the Bill of Rights don't even apply to the ICC. Otherwise, the court follows the international accepted rules of conduct, most of which are written of the Bill of Rights. Here the complete statute

Concerning the aspect of undue punishment, the ICC is judging over war-crimes and genocide. What kind of punishment would the US impose on those crimes?

So, it seems to me, that your personal distrust for foreign and/or supranational entities is more the basis for your reaction than its legal framework.

Well, looks like the best way to commit crimes these days is to start a company, float it somehow and set yourself up as the CEO. Rip some people off, and then procede to cash out and disapear.

Perhaps something like the Nuremburg Trials for corperate types. Even though these people don't commit the crimes directly, the still ordered them.

. . . .check this out. Nice to know our guardians of learning read 1984.

"jury nullification" which means a jury can find in opposition to the facts of a case

As for the rest, I look forward to the day ASCAP/BMI etc. goes after a Girl Scout troop in the state park.

Have you been puffing the magic dragon and ignoring this pair of newspaper articles claiming that ASCAP attacked the Girl Scouts in 1996 and later backed off after negative press? Most other organizations wouldn't have near as much clout as the Scouts in negotiating such a no-cost performance license.