Slashdot Mirror

Okay, got it -- some citizens are full citizens and some aren't. How do we decide which is which again? And then how do we square that decision with this thing they added later?

I'm sorry to be snarky, but I've always had trouble getting past the "some people are more equal than others" logic with these thinkofthechildren issues...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I could probably make an argument baed on the Fifth Amendment that turning peoples TVs into very expensive paperweights by administrative fiat, so as to auction off the analog spectrum constitutes "private property taken for public use".

Hence, the us.gov is constitutionally required to do something like this as "just compensation".

"Until the US creates a Constituional Amendment which defines a citizen's right to privacy"

Already taken care of in Amendment 4 in pretty plain language, ie: "secure in" = inviolable or private. Even IF this could be argued, Amendments 9 & 10 cover the rights to privacy via explicit reservation of all unenumerated rights. Our "public servants" just need to be taught to respect the constitution as it exists. I'm sorry but we can have endless writ specifying and confirming our rights, unless or until we hold those who would ignore and/or abuse these writs and the rights they define to serious consequence such writ is just "a goddamn piece of paper".

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Wabi-Sabi

Matthew

Ex post facto ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase: 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

Really? I was under the impression that patent law was intended to protect intellectual property. In the same way that real estate law is intended to protect greographical property.

Patent law may be this way or it may not be, however patents themself are meant to encourage progress:

USA Constitution:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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;

Thomas Jefferson was originally against patents but then his friend James Madison convinced him patents could encourage progress. Once convinced Jefferson sat down with an actuary table and calculated a patent term of 14 year with one 14 year extension possible was the optimum length they should last.

Nowhere in there does it say anything about the constitution being intended to secure the rights of foreigners.

And nowhere in there does it say anything about those rights not being secured for foreigners.

For starters, that's because most of the Constitution is about what the government can do. While obviously our government doesn't have jurisdiction over some foreigner in another country, nevertheless our government is prohibited from abrogating that foreigner's rights to free speech by act of law, according to the First Ammendment. It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". No qualifier for non-citizens. Neither does the Fourth Ammendment make any exceptions for foreigners. When the Constitution means "citizen", it says citizen -- and it does so primarily with regard to the right to vote, something only citizens can do, and also for eligibility for running for office.

Here's a key example from the 14th Ammendment showing the difference: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." You see that? There are privileges that only citizens have, but Equal Protection is for everyone.

The idea that Constitutional rights are in general only protected for citizens is pure 100% made up fantasy.

Handy link so you can check for yourself: http://usconstitution.net/const.html

If you keep making shit up, most people will believe you.

Pot, meet kettle. You should get along famously.

I don't particularly want to see what kind of a constitution would be written if we started over today.

If a new Constitution was written today for the USA I'm affraid it would end up like the failed EU Constitution, and be several hundred pages. That's not exactly a limited government. Anything over one or two pages is too much. Actually I'd like to see some amendments repealed. Starting with the Amendment XII - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804.

Am I the only one that finds the irony in states that issue ID's are resisting Federal ID's because they say ID's are an invasion of privacy?

I don't recall any state fighting this because it's an invasion of privacy, what I see as a reason to fight it is because nowhere in the USA Constitution does it give the federal government to power to require, or create, a national ID and this specifically violates the 10th Amendment, Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. "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."

Also some states, like Maine, oppose it because it's another federal government mandate the states, not the feds, have to pay for. If the feds are going to require something them the feds are the ones that should pay for it! However because it DOES NOT have the power it should not have anything to do with a national ID.

My question for the people that dont like this idea is, WHAT are you downloading or looking up that is so bad that the FBI will look at your case and not the person they are mainly looking for?

The 16th and 17th were passed because this very deliberate limitation was seen as a problem.

I'd add the 12th Amendment, Choosing the President, Vice-President, was added for this purpose as well. It gives political parties greater power and should be repealed. Let's go back to voting for the president and NOT the president and vice president. The winner becomes the president and the runnerup the vice president.

I'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

The USA Constitution does not say the feds can do many of these and they should be gotten rid of. That or amend the Constitution to allow them And as the Costitution is a limit on the feds it does prohibit them from requiring a national id. The Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791 even states this clearly:
"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."

For quite a while, the federal government charged each state a per capita tax. Now it's a direct income tax, due to the sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

On the other hand, if Maine determines it's cheaper to maintain its own roads than to go with RealID, there's a few thousand other regulations it can ignore.

Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

Actually, with regards to the Federal Government, it is forbidden. See The 10th Amendment.

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

The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

I'd also like to toss in this little quote I just ran across:

It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.
source: http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#HABCOR

There's also the part about it being for an organized militia. You left that out.

The second admendment does not say firearms are limited to a militia, it specifically states the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. People have the right. It make perfect sense when you consider the Founding Fathers were concerned about a tyrannical government, when only the government has firearms and not the people, it invites the government to become tyrannical. that's what happened in 1930's NAZI Germany, in the 1980s Iran after the overthrow of the Shah, and I heard the same thing happened in Rwanda in the early 1990s. Now you have the paramilitary groups in Sudan terrorizing civilians in Darfour, along with other areas, when if these people were armed they could defend themselves.

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

This is an age-old question, and one that will never be answered, I'm afraid. Is it better to give up privacy rights for the sake of better communication and collaboration between law enforcement agencies? How is this different than local police creating their own database of case files? What does it mean to have the right to privacy? These are questions that have never fully been answered, I'm afraid. The first problem is that the US Constitution currently does not , and yet it's the one right that we constantly want protected.

The other problem is that, even if the Constitution guaranteed the right to privacy, it would only guarantee that right to it's citizens. If someone chooses to break the laws governing the citizenry, they are then rejecting the citizenry. Does that mean that they are no longer citizens? Socrates felt so, as outlined in Plato's The Apology of Socrates. But is that so? Has that been determined? I am unaware of any court case or legislation that guarantees the citizenship of convicted criminals, nor of any that revokes their citizenship.

I think the first thing that needs to be done with regards to privacy concerns is to amend the constitution to allow for the right to privacy. Once this is complete, then the privacy advocates will have a platform on which to base their objections that is rooted within the Constitution. From there, other concerns can be addressed, such as the citizenship status of convicted criminals.

That being said, I support any collaboration between law enforcement agencies in protecting the citizenry, and do not see any abuses that have not already been in place since Government has been in place. The question is, are there any statistical evidence to support the collaboration in the apprehension and conviction of law breakers vs. the eventual mistakes and abuses that are feared?

Mandatory governmental ratings = chilling effect = violation of First amendment
Mandatory third party ratings = violation of due process = violation of Fourth amendment

isn't necessarily illegal even though it is unconstitutional.

This Constitution ... 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.

Now - please show me in the Constitution itself (the supreme law of the US) where exactly it says the Supreme court has sole authority to interpret the Constitution?

The only problem with that is that it will never happen for the same reasons that this bill was killed: it requires politicians to do what is in the best interests of the citizens, instead of what is in the best interests of their reelection campaign (read getting money).

This is bullshit. The reason we have copyright laws in the first place is because it has been judged impossible for content producers to out-compete pirates, because the pirates do not have to pay for the production of the content in the first place.

Wrong, the US has copyrights and patents to encourage progress in the arts and science. Section 8 - Powers of Congress of the USA Constitution specifically states "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;". Congress may give for a limited period of tyme a copyright or patent monopoly to thus encourage progress.

Of course you may be talking about how things are elsewhere but in the USA government is supposed to be limited to what's specifically enumberated in the USA Constitution. Admittedly government as gone way passed that point.

This is bullshit. The reason we have copyright laws in the first place is because it has been judged impossible for content producers to out-compete pirates, because the pirates do not have to pay for the production of the content in the first place.

Wrong, the US has copyrights and patents to encourage progress in the arts and science. Section 8 - Powers of Congress of the USA Constitution specifically states "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;". Congress may give for a limited period of tyme a copyright or patent monopoly to thus encourage progress.

Of course you may be talking about how things are elsewhere but in the USA government is supposed to be limited to what's specifically enumberated in the USA Constitution. Admittedly government as gone way passed that point.

That's great that you abuse the copyright system like that, but allowing you to censor who can and can not use your works is not the goal of copyright. It's not why we spend millions of taxpayer's dollars to keep this broken system alive. The sole, and only, reason why copyright exists is to give the creators of artistic works the financial motivation to create their works.

Again you appear to be talking out of your ass. Would you care to provide a reference that supports this claim?

The United States Constitution grants Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It makes no reference to financial gain whatsoever.

Prior to this statement, copyright law in the West largely derives from the Statue of Anne of 1710. The text of that act begins: "Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing, Reprinting, and Publishing, or causing to be Printed, Reprinted, and Published Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and Writings, to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families..." You can intuit a financial meaning into that statement, but there is none explicit. It merely says that authors may be granted the exclusive right of control over their own works. It is very explicit in its intent that third parties should be prevented from reprinting works without the permission of their authors, however.

Your own more fiscally-oriented leanings may be very modern and libertarian, but they do not in fact reflect the full purpose of copyright law as it has been drafted over the last several centuries.

Not in the US, at least in the case of a criminal trial. There's a Constitutional guarantee of protection from double jeopardy.

the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Apologies to rinkworks.com.

http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/dialectp.cgi?dial ect=hckr&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usconstitution.net%2 Fconst.txt

Or get your very own translator program and slashdot http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt (apologies to them too). Yay!
Or do like I did and search Google for the text of the constitution!

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Except that Abe Lincoln declared martial law and suspended habeas corpus. Really, the elder generation just knows more history than you.

"It is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government."

It's not the government's job to decide our rights. We have rights, they are inalienable. It's the government's job to protect our rights. Protect our rights from corporations which would ignore or destroy them for a buck, or the power to make a buck. And we create our government to protect our rights. Our job is creating and perpetuating that government.

When the founders of the US specified the rights we have that the government would protect, they also made a compromise with the existing economy. The government would promote "the progress of science and useful arts" by granting temporary monopolies - exclusive rights - to authors and inventors of their writings and discoveries. This limitation on freedom of others to copy and use writings and inventions was necessary in the late 1700s, and for many years after. But as the centuries have progressed, those writings and inventions have changed the economy so that "the progress of science and useful arts" is better promoted by more copying, not less. Even if temporary monopolies like copyrights and patents are still necessary, they are necessary for much less time than before. Instead, those monopolies are now extended for much more time, totally unjustified by any necessity to "promote progress".

The original time set in the 1790s was 17 years, a human generation. The next generation that grew up with the writings and inventions could, by the time they became adults and likely started having their own children, use those writings and inventions freely. Writings and inventions passed into the folk art, the folk consciousness, the folk wisdom, the folk heritage, for everyone to use. By which time, most of the value, especially of the writings, was delivered not by the author, but by the audience, the consumers, the people using it and perpetuating it. And any honest author will tell you that the process of adoption of their writings by their people is the most powerful promotion of their useful art.

Maybe the Internet has changed things, along with the rest of communications, manufacturing and distribution tech over the past 200 years. If anything, the lifecycle of content is much shorter before it's "old", either folklore or just obsolete. Likewise with most inventions. The length of copyright and patent exclusion should be, if anything, shorter - maybe 8-10 years, maybe 2-5. Maybe different for different kinds of "writing", whether a news article or an opera. But certainly promotion of progress is much more hurt now by these monopolies.

We still have control over our governments. Except when we ignore that control, and corporations and other greedy monopolists move into the power vacuum. If we don't create governments to protect our rights, we're creating ones to destroy them.

the state can ignore the 2nd amendment all it wants.

that amendment only applies to the feds.

now the first, that's different.

The 2nd doesn't apply to the states yet.

You want it to apply?

Go to court, get a case up to the Supreme Court.

The 2nd doesn't apply to the states yet.

You want it to apply?

Go to court, get a case up to the Supreme Court.

Bush has raised NASA's budget (although not as much as I would prefer). Clinton is the only recent president who CUT NASA's budget both in real dollars but in constant 1996 dollars as well.

Own Criminal Acts.

Hamdi v Rumsfeld calls for a need for 'Military Tribunals' so as to ensure that when they 'goof' it's under strictest cover, and no-one will ever know what happened.

Is it any accident the CIA is CIA (Covering Its Ass)?

Gonzales is looking to legitimize the fact that the .gov has already been caught with it's hands in the til...

The abuses of The Constitution are being watched by everyone, everywhere. What was once the beacon of hope and bastion of freedom for the whole world is being trashed by criminals and oligarchs who seek to douse its light once and for all. The abuses against the American public must be arrested at the earliest possible juncture.

The truly frightening thing is that you can't even trust your democratic process anymore. So who's the terrorist? Where does he live?

Even Republicans can't deny the fact that it's getting out of hand.

Just today: On Tuesday, President Bush said, "Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed -- it must be chosen. From Beirut to Baghdad , people are making the choice for freedom.

Some choice.

I always wonder when one of Bush's apologists trots out this arguement, just how far are you willing to take it?

Your statement, "The President is tasked in times of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit," is a tremendously broad interpretation of the actual wording of the Constitution. Before we get into those facts however, taking you at your word, since obviously to Mr. Bush he is the only person with the ability and vision to press this "war" to a conclusion, would you support his suspending free elections until the conflict is over? After all, one of those cowardly, treasonous Democrats might win a popular election, and obviously that would bad for the country. Why letting that happen, when Bush could stop it, might even be treasonous in itself by your, and his, arguement. Are you willing to take it that far?

Now to burst your tiny little neocon bubble (inflated with the blustering breath of Limbaugh and Hannity), the Constitution, Article II only grants and requires the Exective to perform the following actions related to this discussion. Section 1 - "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'" Also, Section 2 - "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" Now, where in those words do you see the authorization for the President to "do as he/she sees fit"? BTW, since you are obviously so sincere in your respect for the Constitution, Article II - Section 8 makes it very clear that only Congress can declare war, to enable the Executive to exercise any extraordinary powers possibly granted in any other portion of the laws of this country. Congress has not done so, despite the rhetoric of the far right, and therefor your entire arguement about this being legal for the President is absurd.

It's called checks and balances. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

For approximately the last 15 years, the United States has been engaged in the largest imprisonment program ever attempted by a democratic society.

That was back in the early 90's when the US prison population was around 900,000. In the time since then, the prison population has more than doubled again to nearly 2.2 Million prisoners. To put that into perspective, there is currently only about 1.4 million people on active duty in the US military.

We condemn China for their practices involving prison slave labor, yet we conduct those same practices ourselves... Slavery is back in America, and it's mostly for the poor black people again. Meanwhile, every time we have an article discussing incarceration on Slashdot, we get a bazillion prison bitch jokes that fly in the face of the 8th amendment of the US Constitution. You people KNOW their rights are being violated and you don't care.

"Oh dear they're annoying me with spam. Fuck the 1st Amendment, send them to the salt mines!!" Land of the Free indeed...

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemoller

Right, so let's put this in context. Here we're talking about whether or not Brazil's law allowing it to grab Google's logs is or is not consistent with freedom.

If you're going to say it's not because it violates an inalienable or natural right, I'd like to know how you arrive at that conclusion. Remember, in 1789 the "inalienable" right to liberty didn't apply to you if you happened to be a slave, and it kept not applying until 1865 or so, at which time we amended the Constitution (i.e. applied a democratic process) to make it explicit. The same situation happened with sufferage (see Amendments XV and XIX ). That suggests to me that whether or not a right is alienable or natural is up to the society that acts to enforce, or not enforce, the right. Maybe inalienable and natural rights exist somewhere as a Platonic ideal, but on the ground it's not going to do you a lot of good when the plantation master says "get to work."

Another problem with hanging your hat on inalienable or natural rights in this case is you may wind up having to justify an inalienable right to privacy. While one might exist, it doesn't seem to be in the list that, for instance, the founders of the American Republic used when they wrote the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Yes, it is possible for a democracy to terminate itself by voting in an autocracy. Democracy isn't perfect. It's just hard to come up with good alternatives because the alternative systems tend to drift out of touch with the people over time, and then you start getting tea dumped in Boston Harbor because the people don't feel like they have a voice--remember "no taxation without representation"?

In this particular case, we have what, as far as I know, is a functioning representative democracy that has made a policy choice for itself. I tend to give that policy choice a lot of weight, at least to the extent they really are a functioning democracy. I might have chosen differently, but I don't live there and I don't know the other tradeoffs they've made.

Right, so let's put this in context. Here we're talking about whether or not Brazil's law allowing it to grab Google's logs is or is not consistent with freedom.

If you're going to say it's not because it violates an inalienable or natural right, I'd like to know how you arrive at that conclusion. Remember, in 1789 the "inalienable" right to liberty didn't apply to you if you happened to be a slave, and it kept not applying until 1865 or so, at which time we amended the Constitution (i.e. applied a democratic process) to make it explicit. The same situation happened with sufferage (see Amendments XV and XIX ). That suggests to me that whether or not a right is alienable or natural is up to the society that acts to enforce, or not enforce, the right. Maybe inalienable and natural rights exist somewhere as a Platonic ideal, but on the ground it's not going to do you a lot of good when the plantation master says "get to work."

Another problem with hanging your hat on inalienable or natural rights in this case is you may wind up having to justify an inalienable right to privacy. While one might exist, it doesn't seem to be in the list that, for instance, the founders of the American Republic used when they wrote the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Yes, it is possible for a democracy to terminate itself by voting in an autocracy. Democracy isn't perfect. It's just hard to come up with good alternatives because the alternative systems tend to drift out of touch with the people over time, and then you start getting tea dumped in Boston Harbor because the people don't feel like they have a voice--remember "no taxation without representation"?

In this particular case, we have what, as far as I know, is a functioning representative democracy that has made a policy choice for itself. I tend to give that policy choice a lot of weight, at least to the extent they really are a functioning democracy. I might have chosen differently, but I don't live there and I don't know the other tradeoffs they've made.

Right, so let's put this in context. Here we're talking about whether or not Brazil's law allowing it to grab Google's logs is or is not consistent with freedom.

If you're going to say it's not because it violates an inalienable or natural right, I'd like to know how you arrive at that conclusion. Remember, in 1789 the "inalienable" right to liberty didn't apply to you if you happened to be a slave, and it kept not applying until 1865 or so, at which time we amended the Constitution (i.e. applied a democratic process) to make it explicit. The same situation happened with sufferage (see Amendments XV and XIX ). That suggests to me that whether or not a right is alienable or natural is up to the society that acts to enforce, or not enforce, the right. Maybe inalienable and natural rights exist somewhere as a Platonic ideal, but on the ground it's not going to do you a lot of good when the plantation master says "get to work."

Another problem with hanging your hat on inalienable or natural rights in this case is you may wind up having to justify an inalienable right to privacy. While one might exist, it doesn't seem to be in the list that, for instance, the founders of the American Republic used when they wrote the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Yes, it is possible for a democracy to terminate itself by voting in an autocracy. Democracy isn't perfect. It's just hard to come up with good alternatives because the alternative systems tend to drift out of touch with the people over time, and then you start getting tea dumped in Boston Harbor because the people don't feel like they have a voice--remember "no taxation without representation"?

In this particular case, we have what, as far as I know, is a functioning representative democracy that has made a policy choice for itself. I tend to give that policy choice a lot of weight, at least to the extent they really are a functioning democracy. I might have chosen differently, but I don't live there and I don't know the other tradeoffs they've made.

"The primary argument for patents is that innovation should be rewarded . . ."

There are some subtle points that need to be considered. Just because someone gets to call President Bush to task, does not mean it is anyone who walks in the door of a Court. So, just walking in the front door, and saying "I don't trust the president, let me run through any and all files of the entire government without limitation" should not result in immediate access to the country's greatest secrets. Like him or not, President Bush was the person elected to protect them, not the man off the street. The rest of the world did not elect President Bush, and in fact, he was elected to promote the interests of the United States against their interests. Al Qaeda does not like President Bush not telling them where all his spies are. They are represenative of lots of people who do not trust President Bush precisely because he is on America's side. So, let's discard the rest of the world, or the minority of Americans argument for America unilaterally disarming in a world where intelligence operations are important.

So, you are in this country, and think you have been particularly harmed, and that the things that you need to show you have been harmed are government secrets. After all, if you think it isn't a secret, then you would not need to go into that stuff. Take for example espionage cases. There are very few attorneys who have the type of high security clearance needed to represent accused spies. People like Plato Cacheris. They do not get to see everything the government has. Why the lawyer off the street? He does not have any clearance. You cannot represent an accused spy effectively unless you are cleared at least to the level he was.

Now, a whole different hill of beans is the judge. It is true that the judge is an official of the government, but not all executive government officials have access to all secrets. That is part of how they stay secret. But the judge has to be able to determine what kinds of secrets might be at stake. This is often handled by the government bringing the secrets over for the judge to see, and then removing them when he is done. This is because courthouses are not designed to keep national security secrets. Their employees are not screened to that level. A judge may exercise some independence in checking on the nature of the secrets, but would have separation of powers issues with going through too much.

Alas, warrants are not a solution if you think the problem is a Constitutional one. Why? Well, the Constitution outlines what kinds of warrants solve constitutional fourth amendment problems:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4

Now, what does a Warrant require? 1) probable cause, 2) an oath or affirmation by the agent specifying what he knows about what is to be searched or seized, and 3) particular description. That means that "program warrants" (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/06/08/AR2006060801992.html) where NSA would have an entire program warranted at once might be a control by the legislature on the president, perhaps grounded in its power to fund programs, but not in a Constitutional meaning of Warrant. Therefore, if you buy the constitutional argument of rights without any balancing test, require a warrant, that warrant must be particular, and NSA has to stop listening to any communication involving America, an American, etc., and therefore is constituionally forbidden from searching for terrorism where any of those are involved.

Please put that position in your political party's platform

Searching the consitution...

Free Speech - Check.
Privacy... searching... hmmm.

<tinfoil_hat> Just wait - when a supreme court rules you don't have privacy, what other famous cases based on privacy will fall? </tinfoil_hat>

BTW - here is a reasoned argument on why there is such a right.

The electoral college. I can vote if I want, but my vote doesn't count. The votes from the Electoral College do count. And you know what? They're under zero obligation to vote the way I voted, or the way I want them to vote -- even if my vote is in the majority. They can vote however they want. The entire electoral college was created specifically because the founders of this country assumed (rightly, in my opinion) that the average American is too stupid to have a say in politics.

The Electoral College is only for President/VP not any other office. Your vote for the senate and rep along with all the other offices do count. As regards the EC I agree with you about having it but for a different reason. With the electoral college smaller states population wise don't have as much of a vote in the president without the EC so with it they wouldn't as likely to be told who would be pres if rural and urban states voted differently. What I'd change is I'd repeal Amendment XII - Choosing the President, Vice-President. I'd go back to how it is in the Constitution, all candidates run for president. Then the House holds a vote and after each vote the candidate with the lowest vote count is dropped whereupon more votes are taken until only two are left, The candidate with the hisghest vote count is President and second candidate is vp.

That or allow people to vote the order in which they'd prefer who's pres and vp. Say there are five candidates, you give your first choice a 1, second 2, so on. Then after voting each candidate is awarded 5 points for each "1" they get, 4 for each "2", so on then all the scores are added with the highest score winning and second highest being vp. If you only want to vote for one person that's all you have to vote for.

If you look at the Constitution/Bill of Rights, right to privacy is never explicitly stated. (Though I wish it was; just saying). The Supreme Court has said priacy is included in "basic human rights", which is mentioned http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privac y - but again, I guess that could be easily reversed since privacy is not explicit.

Koza's scheme calls for an interstate compact that would require states to throw all of their electoral votes behind the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate wins in each state.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress [...] enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State [...]

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.

Uh, I have a reasonable expectation that my internet communications are mostly private.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, basically, I'm good with this being allowed, provided there is probable cause and a search warrant for a specific user and purpose is signed by an authorized judge. Simple.