Slashdot Mirror

Scarletdown warned:

That may be so; but that still won't stop them from trying. They could even attempt to make it an ex post facto law, like a group of traitors tried to push through here in Oregon recently (fortunately they failed). And nowadays, there are good odds that they could slip such a thing through.

Mmm ... no.

In the USA, Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution expressly denies states the power to adopt ex post facto laws, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 prohibits Congress from doing so at the national level.

So, with Oregon being constitutionally barred from enacting ex post facto legislation, and the national government similarly powerless, the entire premise of your post disappears. No such laws are permitted in the USA.

Regulations, however, are another matter altogether ...

(Although I posted the above rebuttal to your post, the fact that it provoked me to rebut it meant that it was, in fact, interesting. So I gave you a +1 Interesting upmode, because fair is fair, after all.)

(Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)

--

Check out my novel ...

Scarletdown warned:

That may be so; but that still won't stop them from trying. They could even attempt to make it an ex post facto law, like a group of traitors tried to push through here in Oregon recently (fortunately they failed). And nowadays, there are good odds that they could slip such a thing through.

Mmm ... no.

In the USA, Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution expressly denies states the power to adopt ex post facto laws, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 prohibits Congress from doing so at the national level.

So, with Oregon being constitutionally barred from enacting ex post facto legislation, and the national government similarly powerless, the entire premise of your post disappears. No such laws are permitted in the USA.

Regulations, however, are another matter altogether ...

(Although I posted the above rebuttal to your post, the fact that it provoked me to rebut it meant that it was, in fact, interesting. So I gave you a +1 Interesting upmode, because fair is fair, after all.)

(Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)

--

Check out my novel ...

You might actually wish to read the constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Those are the words DIRECTLY out of the constitution. And what I quoted EARLIER was the legal definition of levying war, which the constitution does further define.

> While I appreciate your ability to bend things to fit your ideas

First, I'll respond with a link:
http://constitution.org/cons/w...

Showing uses of "regulated", in natural language, in historical context.

Ok, here's another link. This one is more wordy, on account of it being the Virginia ratification of the constitution.
https://www.usconstitution.net...

One of the biggest pieces of drama was the lack of a bill of rights; drafting one up was of utmost important. George Mason, who is the coauthor of the bill of rights, spoke during this (relevant quotes on topic: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." and "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."). The ratification linked includes the demand:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

So plenty of the founders in Virginia, at least, including the coauthor of the bill of rights, were absolutely clear on what they meant about "the people have a right to keep and bear arms". Remember, the second amendment wasn't just dropped on everyone's heads apropos of nothing: it was well understood that keeping and bearing arms was necessary to resist tyranny, because *they had just done exactly that*. Certainly, no one reading at the time was confused about a fucking comma (that confusion is a 20th century construct manufactured by gun control advocates; one with no historical basis).

> I don't think that they intended everyone to be running around with weapons all the time

They literally fucking did. Not to belabor the point, but that exact thing was how they just won a revolutionary war.

Here's the first ever state of the union:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

So the people should have a "uniform and well-digested plan". They should be "not only armed, but disciplined". And of course they should be "independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies". If his paramount concern- or really, any fucking concern at all- was in controlling or laying laws down upon the "free people", then maybe he would have brought that up, instead of exhorting all Americans to be able to take up arms, ideally without relying on any others for military supplies.

> I think they meant that each city, county, state, etc should be able to defend itself with a recognized designated fighting force that is actually regulated

That's all your revisionism. Read their words.

They just use their "government" face (lobbyist politicians) whenever they do something you livestock might not like, to get you to hate the very and onl concept that could save you from them: An *actual* government. Like an *actually* democratic one. Aka without "representatives" (aka corporate lobbyists), let alone senators (aka "former" nobility old boys club. *literally*.).

Keep in mind that your freedom as a human being is a zero-sum game.

The more power you give to others and/or government, the less freedom everyone has.

A large government is large basically because it has many things to do, and that's because it has many powers.

Because a large government necessarily has many powers by definition, the people it governs have less freedom.

If the federal government was small and didn't have a lot of domestic power, scope, and control, it would not be such a target and opportunity for corruption.

Governments should be designed like a computer network that handles power/force instead of data. A network built of numerous nearly stand-alone computers with a variety of hardware, OS's, security suites, etc is far more secure against being suborned as opposed to a bunch of dumb terminals, all alike, totally dependent on a master mainframe.

Fortunately, there are already plans written for just such a system designed by some of the very first network security design geniuses. We just have to get the current iteration returned to more closely resemble the original design specs.

https://www.usconstitution.net...

Strat

...The office goes to the Vice-president who then appoints a new VP of his/her choice....

The new VP would need a confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress... Election 2018 looking more important all the time, for both parties.
Amendment 25 part 2

Since patents are granted administratively, an administrative finding that the patent was improperly granted seems fine to me.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

That doesn't even mention HOW "Congress shall" do that. "Patents" are therefore a creation of Congress, and they can regulate them as they wish.

Of course, what do I know. The so-called "liberal" Supreme Court justices said the government can take your property and give it to another private person...

Not treason. It's explicitly defined in the Constitution. https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html

As your political class has never historically had their actual constitutional freedoms curtailed by law

Facts say otherwise.
The constitution says I have a right to own a fully automatic weapon. But an law pass and upheld in violation of the constitution illegally bans me from it.

Americans cannot be traitors unless they declare war against America.

The last time this happened was the Civil War.

Americans can be traitors by

... adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

America has no list of enemies.

The last time that happened was WWII.

Traitors are those guilty of treason.

U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The President can pardon whomever he wishes. Most recently, Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before charges were even brought. There's plenty of writing on the subject and it's a rather cut-and-dry issue.

The usual answer to that question is right here:

And that's the problem. Let's consider it. They have a Census department full of employees who send out forms and process the data. So employing people to send out forms to ask questions and handle that paperwork? A bit hard to hang your hat on that one not being covered. And the US government certainly has the ability to put people in jail and also fine them. So requiring answers, truthful answers, also applies.

In the US, any powers that are not explicitly delegated to the government are forbidden by default. The correct question is, "Where is collecting this information allowed?"

The answer to that question is in Article 1, Section 2:

[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

As that section is talking about taking a headcount for the purposes of representation, the intention was probably just to count the population. The exercise of the power is left up to Congress, though, so the current census is most likely constitutional. If nothing else, it would probably be defended using one of the elastic clauses.

Yeah, that pretty much covers the whole ability to ask the questions as they direct, and looks to me that it doesn't specifically limit their actions to counting the population. And yes, they can refer to the elastic clauses, by connecting the questions asked to fulfilling their other duties.

I'm not seeing a statement that convinces me they're forbidden from asking the questions, I'm seeing a tenuous and tortured attempt to make an argument.

It'd be better to go with a legislative remedy if you're upset at them, rather than make this terrible legal argument.

Ok, why not? Why don't they have a right to your name, your age, or even your citizenship? Where is collecting this information forbidden?

The usual answer to that question is right here:

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

In the US, any powers that are not explicitly delegated to the government are forbidden by default. The correct question is, "Where is collecting this information allowed?"

The answer to that question is in Article 1, Section 2:

[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

As that section is talking about taking a headcount for the purposes of representation, the intention was probably just to count the population. The exercise of the power is left up to Congress, though, so the current census is most likely constitutional. If nothing else, it would probably be defended using one of the elastic clauses.

Snowden is no more a traitor than any whistle blower who tries to get the government, their employer, etc. to live up to the law and stop breaking the Constitution. The constitution is pretty clear as to what constitutes treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Snowden has not carried on a war against the US, nor become a citizen of one of their enemies, nor given them aid and comfort. And before you start prattling on about how Russia or China or Germany has been given "aid and comfort", the US is not at war with any of them.

The CIA, on the other hand, has committed treason on numerous occasions.

See also Article I, Section 10:

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.

So Congress can allow such a tax, but right now the States' hands are (or should be) tied.

That's not right. The constitution specifies that all *revenue* bills originate in the House. http://www.usconstitution.net/... However, that doesn't stop the President from proposing a budget including revenue legislation before the House starts working on it. And it also doesn't stop the Senate from amending the house bill, and for a conference committee between the House and Senate from resolving differences between the bills. So if Ted Cruz wanted to introduce an amendment to the appropriations bill for NASA, he could do so, providing that some parliamentary rule/vote didn't stop him.

In the US we have no right to a jury "of our peers" as we generally think of it.

It's one of those things that people think is in the Constitution but in reality is not.

We have the right to a jury trial. The jury has to be impartial.. It has to be in the state that the crime was committed. And that's it.

The only way we get a jury "of our peers" is if you consider that the American ideal says that we are all peers, regardless of gender, race, religion, education, experience, etc.

In the case of this specific trial, given that detailed knowledge of the Internet is rare, I imagine that the attorneys involved were asking questions designed to find out if any potential jurors had a deep understanding of these things, and while I'm not sure which side would be doing it, but one side or the other would decide that deep knowledge of these things was bad for their case, and since such people are rare, they'd use their peremptory challenge to keep such people off the jury.

Without this system, you might have a person or two on the jury who understands such things pretty well. But with the system ... such people would have been excluded by one side or the other.

Because nowhere in the Constitution does the government have the authority to decide who is worthy to live here, and who is not.

Is logic really THAT hard for you?

Read this.

The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.

G-o-o-g-l-e.

I'm getting tired of people using Democracy and Republic interchangeably. And I hope hope you'll believe me davydagger when i say I'm genuinely not trying to troll you so forgive me if I'm inferring more from your post than I should be.

The two terms don't mean the same thing. The US was not created to be a Democracy (and Rome was never a Democracy). Democracies have tendency to degrade into tyrannies is the main reason. As soon as a populace realizes they can vote themselves lots of free money along with that famous "51% can be pee on the cornflakes of 49% of the population" line it's just a slow downward spiral (I believe this is not irreversible though. Nothing is set in stone or inevitable). I don't know who said that originally. Republics are a different thing. They're supposed to have safeguards to prevent or at least slow the slide into tyranny.

I happen to live in California where the flag specifically states Republic in no uncertain terms (by which I mean the flag has the words "CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC in big bold letters). As in elect representatives and they do the government running part full time. In a democracy 100% of population would vote on 100% of the matters affecting the population. How long would that last?

Here's the part of the US constitution, if you're wondering. The entirety of Article 4 is actually really short. The Constitution is an amazingly brilliant document.

Article 4, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

You'll note it doesn't what kind of republic the states must be. Louisanna for instance is based on the "Napoleonic Code" while the rest are based on british common law.

Also, the house was supposed to be "for the people" as in something happens (like a terrorist attack) and your average citizen talks to their representative which causes the house to pass a bill "in the heat of the moment". The Senators on the other hand, not nearly as much worried about an upcoming election, can take a slower approach. The idea being the bill either won't get through the senate or at least a more moderate version will eventually emerge. I don't know if that's really the way it's working for us right now. Would the Patriot Act be more radical if not for that house/senate balance? No idea. Point is, that was the idea.

It may sound like treason to you, but it's not.

Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution.

While it's not treason, it sounds like multiple felonies to me.

Wiki shows both sides of the argument, but Constitutional Law Professor should tell you exactly what I did earlier.

I hate to break it to you, but saying "I'm certain an expert would agree with me" doesn't count as an expert agreeing with you, nor does it qualify as evidence. FWIW, I'd bet dollars to pesos that I, too, could find a "Constitutional Law Professor" who agrees with my side in this debate.

There is no differences in terms used in the Constitution between sections, and the words are intentionally used. A word in one section means exactly the same thing as it does in another. The only way your argument works is to try and change meanings and lose coherence within the document, which is absolutely incorrect (illogical and irrational in my opinion). The documents were not written haphazardly with words meaning one thing in this paragraph and another thing in that paragraph.

I can understand that, but personally would like actual evidence to support this claim, rather than your own confirmation bias. Seems to me more like you've determined that you're right (even for lack of evidence), and therefore any thoughts on the matter that contradict your own beliefs are "absolutely incorrect," with nary a second thought. Poor showing, that.

From Wiki: It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."

Now that I can dig.

Except the concept that, say, illegal immigrants have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Kinda seems like that would just be asking for a foreign body to ship a bunch of troops to Mexico, have them sneak 'cross the border, arm up once they get here, and take over from the inside.

Read the US Constitution and you will find that "Citizen" is explicitly used in Article 1 section 2 and 3, Article 2 section 1, Article 3 section 2, Article 4 section 2, and Article 11. In the amendments we have the word "Citizen used in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.

In other words, if the founders intended to use "Citizen" in any other section of the document they would have done so. The founders were not immune or ignorant to the use of the word. You can read the complete translated work in full in numerous locations, here is a plain text version so you don't have to hunt.

For the record, when the Constitution was written, the only "Citizens" who really had any rights were land-owning white males. So pardon if I do not buy into this concept that the rich old white men who wrote the Constitution for their own benefit were as universally altruistic regarding rights as you want to make them out to be.

If you respond further please refrain from further red herrings and straw men.

Kind of uncalled for, don't you think? I mean, you don't see me calling you out on your numerous logical fallacies, except the one at the top of this post. Argue your point, but don't try to denigrate opinions that don't march in lock-step with your own by making vague and false accusations. Otherwise you've already lost the debate.

The right to vote, while written in a morally incorrect way initially restricting certain people, is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Yes; and per the original intent, the only people with a right to vote were land-owning white males. No surprise, then, that they would limit certain other rights to certain subgroups of the population.

This is a red herring with nothing to do with the use of the term "People" in the Constitution. The overly simplistic reasoning you provided for the existence of the US Constitution was more incorrect than your claim that "People" means "Citizen".

OK, first you say that my reasoning was obtus

Nope, I hate to break it to you but you are wrong. I'm going to extract something from the Wiki here for simplicity. Wiki shows both sides of the argument, but Constitutional Law Professor should tell you exactly what I did earlier. There is no differences in terms used in the Constitution between sections, and the words are intentionally used. A word in one section means exactly the same thing as it does in another. The only way your argument works is to try and change meanings and lose coherence within the document, which is absolutely incorrect (illogical and irrational in my opinion). The documents were not written haphazardly with words meaning one thing in this paragraph and another thing in that paragraph.

From Wiki: It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."

Read the US Constitution and you will find that "Citizen" is explicitly used in Article 1 section 2 and 3, Article 2 section 1, Article 3 section 2, Article 4 section 2, and Article 11. In the amendments we have the word "Citizen used in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.

In other words, if the founders intended to use "Citizen" in any other section of the document they would have done so. The founders were not immune or ignorant to the use of the word. You can read the complete translated work in full in numerous locations, here is a plain text version so you don't have to hunt.

If you respond further please refrain from further red herrings and straw men. The right to vote, while written in a morally incorrect way initially restricting certain people, is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution. This is a red herring with nothing to do with the use of the term "People" in the Constitution. The overly simplistic reasoning you provided for the existence of the US Constitution was more incorrect than your claim that "People" means "Citizen".

I don't disagree with that; what I disagree with is your supposition that the founders intended to give non-American citizens rights such as the right to bear arms, or the right to all powers "not relegated to the State."

Persons living in the US would be considered "people" and anyone can keep and bear arms under that amendment whether citizens or not. I think you need to read some history to see who owned guns and who was in the country fighting during the Revolutionary war and even the war of 1812, wars against Indians, war with Mexico, and helk even the Civil War. Here is a hint, it was not a couple rich white guys fighting themselves in these wars.

Your last statement also contains false information. Read the US Constitution again, because person is not mentioned in limiting the Federal Governments powers. States are given authority that the Federal Government does not have.

Congress authorized military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe you weren't paying attention.

Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Congress did not declare war. They authorized military action, but lacked the balls to declare war. This is a very important distinction per the GP post:

Bush started at least two major wars with no declaration of war.

Obama seemed sympathetic to the idea of allowing more disclosure of government surveillance requests by technology companies, according to a tech industry official who was briefed on the meeting.

The problem is not that the government isn't telling us that they were fucking us in the ass, at least not after Snowden anyway. The problem is that we don't want to be fucked in the ass at all. We wrote you a note letting you know that over 230 years ago and for the first ~200 years you were somewhat good about honoring those wishes, but lately you've been coming home drunk on power and having your way with us without our consent. Letting us know how you're going to violate us isn't enough - it's time for you to stop violating us altogether.

> So Ron Paul is a "wacko" now?

Ron Paul has always been - let's say "popular among the UFO set".
Wacko or at least wacky, depending on personal opinion.

Agreed, he's also been a standard bearer for libertarians. That wacky / wacko segment is one of two issues with the otherwise reasonable libertarian party.

Look, people complain about the two party system in the US.

Yea, because there is no such thing, legally speaking. The "two-party system" is one of the greatest hoodwinks ever pulled on the American people.

Seriously. Look it up. Hell, I'll do it for ya:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html?ModPagespeed=noscript#pparty

Sure, as long as we're going to take one further step of abstraction from the parent post to make ourselves sound more insightful...

The sooner the constitutionally set processes which drive a unidirectional 2-party debate in the United States morph into something better than what it has become, the better for the entire world

There is absolutely no mention of political parties in the U.S. Constitution.

You, along with many, many others, are confusing Article 1, Section 1, which sets forth a requirement for a bicameral (made up of 2 houses) legislature.

Now, stop it.

. . .planted the seeds that have bloomed, revealing what is tantamount to aristocracy.
1. The Big Senate no longer represents the people meaningfully.
2. The Little House no longer represents the 50 States United, or offers any thoughtful feedback to the Big Senate.
3. The federal government has eminent domain over your wallet.
4. DC is printing money at will, demolishing the value of what you think is in your wallet, and obstructing reform.
5. We're all modern monetary theorists now.
So shut up, peasants, and avert your gaze when your Progressive Overlords pass by.

. . .planted the seeds that have bloomed, revealing what is tantamount to aristocracy.
1. The Big Senate no longer represents the people meaningfully.
2. The Little House no longer represents the 50 States United, or offers any thoughtful feedback to the Big Senate.
3. The federal government has eminent domain over your wallet.
4. DC is printing money at will, demolishing the value of what you think is in your wallet, and obstructing reform.
5. We're all modern monetary theorists now.
So shut up, peasants, and avert your gaze when your Progressive Overlords pass by.

Seeing as how my original comment has gone from -2 flamebait to +3 informative in less than an hour, I felt I should better explain this statement. First off, I wasn't fully accurate about the constitution stating the House has the exclusive power of the purse. It seems this is more historical precedence than stated fact. Please refer to the following FAQ that explains this better than I could.

Furthermore, because a program exists does not automatically assume that it will be fully funded. Even the military has to have approval for its funds every year, and it's not just a law but a constitutional requirement. The power to not fund a project is an important check on power that legislature has. It didn't just vanish because proponents of the ACA wanted to make this a talking point.

Not only is it perfectly legitimate to remove funding from a program, it would be dishonest for representatives of people who want to see a program abolished to not try to do this very thing. Representing constituents is what they are all supposed to be doing.

The funny part in all this is that initially the Republican proposal was to fund everything except the ACA. Then they backed down to delaying it for one year. Then they backed down to just forcing federal employees to make use of the exchanges instead of what they have today. Before this is all done, I'll bet there's going to be plenty of Democrats who wish they'd gone with that delay for a year deal.

I'd still love to see Harry Reid and all the folks that voted this on us to have to actually use it themselves. Apparently they're too good for that.

The "Lemon test" relates to the constitutional clause governing the establishment of religion, and has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html

If you had a real point, you didn't make it. Instead, you're throwing around quasi-legal terms that don't fit the situation, and demanding other people figure out what they mean without giving citations, which looks like you don't really understand your point. Then you're claiming a lot of other people, both Aereo and Slashdot readers, don't really understand it - just maybe, the problem is at your end!

Except for the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly prohibits Congress from enacting laws that are not constitutionally within its purview .

The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's religion. I'd be more interested in seeing an openly Atheist president than a black one but I'm not holding my breath on that happening in the USA anytime soon.

Wrong. The major cause of war/unrest is hunger for power and wealth. An openly atheist person is the same thing as an openly racist person. Atheists are against religion. Are you confusing atheist with agnostic? If you look at the average "atheist" on the internet, they are anti-religious bigots who have declare war on the first amendment protection of freedom of religion. If you look at the text of the first amendment: [QUOTE] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [/QUOTE] http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html The first phrase talks about not establishing a state religion like the church of england which is meant to prevent religious discrimination as occurred in England against the catholics because the Anglican church was the state religion there. The second phrase is there to block congress from passing any laws which would prevent the free exercise of religious freedom. The fact that the first two phrases of the first amendment to the Constitution to me means that they held the right to religious freedom in high esteem. They were not secularists but rather understood the dangers of a "state church" and knew the effects of religious discrimination.

It is sad that it is now being used to censure people who are trying to express and exercise their freedom of religion based on some wrong interpretation of that clause into a "separation of church and state" doctrine. The church, even broken up into multiple denominations played a critical role in shaping your country's past. It served as a conscience for your leaders and an advocate for the poor.

I have bad news for you about that "treason" term you throw around so casually. If you read the _whole_ Constitution instead of just the fashionable parts, you'll find that treason has a very specific definition in Article 3, Section 3. While I agree that the NSA programs are illegal, "the people" {{which ones?}} at NSA didn't meet the definition of treason. Not even close.

How is this treason? Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution.

Seeing as the President has sworn to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", it seems to me that the President is in violation of his oath.

Further, any Senator who supports this sort of program, is even more blatantly in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic (emphasis mine).

Posting AC for the obvious reason.

http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

You have the right to remain silent.

Why is this even an issue. He has the right to remain silent.

I'm asking to provide some links showing evidence the acquisition of power is not in the best interests in the American public.

A link? Here ya go..

DOMA was put into place as a way to keep states from recognizing any other states law regarding gay marriage. So Florida wouldnt be forced to recognize a couples gay marriage certificate from California. It doesnt stop California from deciding whether or not it wants gay marriage. I'm not sure why this even came into question.

Which is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause. And therefore a matter for the Supreme Court.

Incorrect. Article 6, clause 2, states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As this is an explicit grant of authority to Congress, it is exclusively a federal power. Unless Congress delegated that power to the states, the states have no authority. It's questionable whether they could even legally delegate it to the states.

Incorrect. Article 6, clause 2, states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As this is an explicit grant of authority to Congress, it is exclusively a federal power. Unless Congress delegated that power to the states, the states have no authority. It's questionable whether they could even legally delegate it to the states.

Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution says: "The Congress shall have Power .... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

So, it should always have been under federal jurisdiction, not state. Indeed, that should make any state laws regarding it null and void due to federal supremacy.

You are right: even traitors have Constitutional rights. I say let's get him convicted as quickly as possible so we can execute him for the Constitutional crime of treason.

He's lucky he is getting a case at all. Traitors should be subject to summary execution during wartime.

"Congress shall have power to ... declare War"
        - http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

I don't recall seeing any Congressional declaration of war.

All three of these responses are spot-on. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right.

Fooking Bullshit! The government doesn't give you any rights or privileges. The simple act of being alive is what "gives" you rights & freedom.

The government devires it power from the consent of the governed. The only powers the government have are the ones the people give it. The government ideally is there to help protect your freedom & rights, not give you privileges.

Wake the fook up!

Citiation -> US Declaration of Independence

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html Wasn't that hard to find.

So who gets to decide the difference between a "racist" comment and a generally insulting comment?

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr's famous "dream" was that [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Many of Obama's critics are doing exactly that.

Disclaimer: I'm a halfhearted Obama supporter in the "lesser of two evils" sense.

Exactly. It occurred to me the other day: Did the Founding Fathers intend for there to be so many exceptions to the plainly written rules in the Constitution?

Well, it's one page long - literally, this is the actual document. The first amendment doesn't say anything about death threats or shouting fire in a crowded theater, but I very much doubt they intended those to be legal. I really doubt they expected that 200+ years later people would try to divine the small implementation details from what is an extremely high level summary, even vital rights are covered by about half a sentence. To take the 4th, I'm pretty sure a 1790s sheriff would search a person that's under arrest and that's as intended but it's not explicit but is considered a "reasonable" search. I think you're forgetting what the alternative here was, which was to have no bill of rights at all. The point was to have something short and sweet that said the government can't search anyone and any place they want, any time.

I know that Iceland has been working on a new constitution using a very open and modern process with public input and their section on human rights covers about 6.5 pages and I'd say even that one could be spelled out in more explicit detail, because most articles end up with stating a right then saying the government can curb it anyway. But it's kind of hard to catch all the "EXCEPT if your religion requires human sacrifice, EXCEPT if you want to print kiddie porn, EXCEPT if your peaceful assembly on public ground is blocking any ambulances from reaching/leaving the hospital" and so on. Almost no rights are total absolutes that under no circumstances can be restricted in any way. Like the ten commandments may say "You shall not kill" but I'm pretty sure most would kill in their own or their family's defense. But there's no exceptions stated.

But of course the USA does not have a "two-party political system". There is nothing in the Constitution about political parties at all. And there is in fact a richness of parties (see the list of so-called minor parties underneath the majors). The only problem is nobody votes for any of them except R and D. I fantasize that it would be far better to have no parties at all, but I recognize that you can't outlaw them without making a mockery of liberty (freedom of association, anyone?).

It would be interesting to hear substantive ideas on why no parties beyond R and D ever gain traction at the national level in the USA. The most obvious possibility is that there is a sinister conspiracy between R and D or at some level of shadow control above the parties. It is difficult to imagine a more evil and treasonous act than subverting the political system itself.

...it should be thrown out and we need to rethink what is and is not private.

Fine, there's a provision for just that. The procedure is in article five. Have at it.

What idiot talk show did you get that from? Have you even read the constitution? I suggest you do so now,

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

I chose a plain text version so you could search for the word "liberty". I think you'll find that nowhere is the word used the way you describe.

Oh I certainly agree with all that. I was criticizing one of his core arguments about income tax, which essentially boils down to the idea that income in currencies that aren't backed by gold doesn't pass constitutional muster as income that can be taxed. The problem with that argument is that, if he were right (which I don't think he is), then modern currency is worthless and therefore not even worth keeping. The fact that he wants to keep his income puts the lie to his theory.

Actually, he has a point. Look down to the 5th clause of that article. Let me quote it for you:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

When you expand the expression 'coin Money' to include printing money, then paper money is covered. The problem with 'Federal Reserve notes' is that they are not issued by the government, they're printed by the Federal Reserve, which, despite its name, is not part of the government, but is a private bank that only serves other banks. Constitutionally, Federal Reserve notes are as legal as Monopoly money as far as being 'true money'. And it gets better. Federal Reserve notes are what is called fiat money. And no, that's not the money you use to buy an Italian subcompact car. It's when somebody gets up in front of you and says, "This is money" and hands you a bunch of paper with fancy printing on it. It's 'money by decree', the very definition of fiat money.

So, if Congress alone has the authority to create money, howcome the government has to borrow money from the Federal Reserve at interest to pay for anything? And what gives the Federal Reserve (or any bank) the right to 'create' money by declaring 'We earned x million dollars in interest and created it out of thin air as our profit', making yet more fiat money? With current banking laws allowing reserves less than loans, every loan creats new fiat money.

The fix is obvious, of course, and left to the student to figure out. Be sure to show your work.