Slashdot Mirror

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

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

"By my understanding, treaties don't actually do anything domestically. "

Your understanding is incomplete. According to the U.S. Constitution, Aticle VI, treaties are the supreme law of the land:

"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.

[Emphasis mine]

On the ballot you select you first choice then your second choice on down the ballot.

This is one of several voting systems that are alternatives to the USA's obsolete "first past the post" system that has been enhanced with a "winner takes all" electoral college. Most of the democratic world uses one of these other systems, it is time for US to do likewise. Until then, the two viable parties will continue to compaign on the wrong issues. Every once in awhile, a third party or independent candidate can inject issues into the debate, but currently that is about all they can do, since most voters do not want to waste a vote on them.

The USA used to have a different, better, system than what's there now. Amendment XII - Choosing the President, Vice-President changed the way the president and vice president are elected. Originally all candidates ran for president and after a process where the candidate with the lowest vote count was dropped until only two were left then the candidate with the highest count was president and the next vp. Amendment 12 changed it so pres and vp ran as a team. The reasoning behind having an Electoral College was because the Founding Fathers were afraid that with a straight vote for president then more populous urban states could dictate to mostly rural states who was going to be president. With how the demographics is now I don't know if it still makes sense.

The level of paranoia about terrorism and the general lack of scientific understanding by the public in the U.S. has really got me scared. When you combine all this paranoia and ignorance with the restrictions on stem cell research and the teaching of evolution demanded by some religious conservatives, the U.S. is heading straight back into the dark ages.

I generally agree with you on the above, about research, where I disagree though is the bit about stem cell research. The government doesn't restrict stem cell research, it only pays for research when the stem cells used is from one of the previously approved stem cell lines. If they come from another line then the research isn't financed by government. The only way government should finance any research is if government gets royalties on anything that is commericalized and/or if the is research open sourced. Otherwise government has no business financing it. If all of the agencies, departments, and offices of the federal government that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution of the United States were abolished then the taxes needed to run government could be significantly reduced thus allowing people and privately funded institutes to spend more for research. The last tyme I checked most of these bureacracies aren't authorized.

Article 1, Section 8 places no limits on what Congress might tax or how it might do so, while the 16th Amendment qualifies that Congress may explicitly tax incomes, in addition to whatever else it might tax under its A1S8 powers.

"Income" is more properly defined as "sources of revenue" and not "profits".

This is all beside the point that (in the grandparent post) that if Congress meant for there to only be a 2% income tax, they would have written it explicitly into the 16th Amendment. Or, to address your concern, if they wanted to say "we'll only tax profits, and not revenues", they would have written it that way. The fact remains that they didn't, and that there's nothing in A1S8 or the 16th Amendment that prohibits them from taxing profits, revenues, or both.

Article 1, Section 8 places no limits on what Congress might tax or how it might do so, while the 16th Amendment qualifies that Congress may explicitly tax incomes, in addition to whatever else it might tax under its A1S8 powers.

"Income" is more properly defined as "sources of revenue" and not "profits".

This is all beside the point that (in the grandparent post) that if Congress meant for there to only be a 2% income tax, they would have written it explicitly into the 16th Amendment. Or, to address your concern, if they wanted to say "we'll only tax profits, and not revenues", they would have written it that way. The fact remains that they didn't, and that there's nothing in A1S8 or the 16th Amendment that prohibits them from taxing profits, revenues, or both.

For practical purposes, the term "piracy", as applies to copyright, should be left to its older, but less romantic usage: large scale duplication and sale in lieu of the real article. The reason this is illegal is the original intent of copyright (speaking as an American about our Constitutional notion of copyright): it's a protection of business, sure, but for the more important goal of disseminating information and increasing the collective wealth, both figuratively - as in "mental" wealth - and literally. Protect the business interests of copyright holders, sure, but, along with trade mark law - which, contrary to popular myth, is about protecting the PURCHASER, -not- (especially) the seller - PROTECT THE END PURCHASER, THE CITIZEN.

But file sharing is hardly "piracy". Regardless of how worry-warts of Media Giants would puff up about.

The vast majority of people are "normal"; we have "normal" wealth, which means it's LIMITED. We have limited discretionary funds. We must therefore be selective in how we use it.

Blanket-labeling of file-sharers as "thieves" belies this.

We have only so much money to spend on life's fluff: movies, the theater, dining, gas, rentals, live performances/concerts, museums, books, pre-recorded items, cable TV, software, video games, etc.

It's convenient to believe the world is so simple that "if people have to pay for something, they will." It's a logical fallacy. You moral-superiority types must get along great with the doomsdayers of Big Media. Yes, I said "Big Media" - they're the only ones beating this tired, dead horse.

It's a simple mind-game you can play at home: if you have limited funds to spend, and something drops off the list of priorities for you, would you still buy that thing that you can't afford that's no longer on your priority list?

Honest truth is that many hoard. They'd never buy all they have if they "had" to. They download all the movies/CD's/video games just for bragging rights. MANY of them will OFTEN actually BUY something that they truly value.

Painting all file-sharers as cheapskates also ignores another truth in the argument: people are either "collector" types, or not. Are either "I do it the 'right' way because it's more convenient", or not. I mean this: if you're not prone to buying item X in the first place, you're not stealing it in the second place if you download it. You're decidedly NOT in the "loss" column. Similarly, if you typically purchase movies/CD's/games in stores, even if you -could- download it for free, you're still typically going to purchase what you truly value anyway.

And by value, this means different things to different people. Some of us prefer/like the cover art, liner notes, "extras", and/or the mere convenience of having separate media that's in a convenient package which I may place upon my shelf when not in use. These are all valid reasons why some us PREFER to buy CD's, DVD's, and/or video games.

Media Giants, with regards to music groups specifically, have gone to great lengths over the years to hearken back to the days of yesteryear when bands/singers were a dime a dozen; where it was their one-hit wonder that mattered, not The Group. This is better in their eyes in that it keeps artists at a negotiating disadvantage. Unfortunately, their shortsightedness breeds another outcome that they DON'T like: disposable, generic music/artists have no value. Silly boys...

Sorry, I started to get off target. The point is, no, gentle reader, people don't "always" get for free what they -can-, but what they choose to. And most of us supplant one form of frivolous purchase for another, so that the sum total of our purchases are STILL going to Big Media. They complain we're stealing their movies. Okay, but I'm still buying CD's, and/or more of those. Or vice versa. They can't get blood from a stone, nor money from an empty piggy bank: if I don't have i

With a WARRANT as part of a criminal investigation.

I personnally feel "safe" in my annonimity, but am still concerned that our country is letting our liberty erode so quickly. Our country is already responsible for whisking away a German citizen, beating the crap out of him in some thrid world hole and dropping him off in the middle of nowhere Albania. Is blowing the whistle on this kind of mistake treason? If you think so it will be a shame if your lost cell phone is found by a group of young college students with family in Pakistan, Iraq and Indonesia...The black helicopter boys would have you flown off to "Kaz-beat-you-ek-like-pinata-stan" before their wife has dinner on the table.

Please take a look at the constitution sometime! Particularly Amendments 1,4,5,6 and 8.

If vigorous defense of my freedom is the act of a liberal count me as one! When Bush and Rove talk of a complete victory in the war on terror ask these questions:

• Where is the war? Iraq? Iran? Anywhere with sand? Anywhere with Muslim extremists? Anywhere there has been a politically or ideologically motivated act of violence? Everywhere?
• Who is the enemy? Al Queda? What if we kill all of them and another group pops up? What if they all unite under the Al Queda banner, but stop their violent ways and have a big picnic in Libya?
• Most importantly: when is the war over? Complete victory is a a BIG sounding thing. We beat the Germans to the last bunker, victory was obvious. We have a DMZ in Korea for 50 years...a cold standoff with no violence...is that a victory? If we have the top 95% of the named bad guys in some cell to rot is that complete victory? If we have all the bad guys plus another 10,000 odds and ends that happened to be farming, driving by, next door, went to the same school...is that complete victory?

We need a constitutional ammendment to fix this. The founding fathers forbade the federal government from regulating free speech. But the government found a loophole:

1) Offer federal funding to sources of media (schools, libraries).
2) Get them hooked on it.
3) Threaten to cut it off if they don't comply with a freedom of speech limitation.

Really, they could pass any law at all using this technique. Ex: "The president is now above all laws. Any state that does not agree to enforce this loses all state funding."

The federal legislature would never pass a limitation on their own power, but it is possible for the states to propose and pass an amendment without federal support according to Article V of the US constitution. (Note 2 explains this)

I suppose that is silly though - the states could just start refusing federal funding. But that isn't likely unless all of them do because no state wants to be at a disadvantage.

We need a constitutional ammendment to fix this. The founding fathers forbade the federal government from regulating free speech. But the government found a loophole:

1) Offer federal funding to sources of media (schools, libraries).
2) Get them hooked on it.
3) Threaten to cut it off if they don't comply with a freedom of speech limitation.

Really, they could pass any law at all using this technique. Ex: "The president is now above all laws. Any state that does not agree to enforce this loses all state funding."

The federal legislature would never pass a limitation on their own power, but it is possible for the states to propose and pass an amendment without federal support according to Article V of the US constitution. (Note 2 explains this)

I suppose that is silly though - the states could just start refusing federal funding. But that isn't likely unless all of them do because no state wants to be at a disadvantage.

The one of the purposes of a government is to protect its people, right?

So who protects the people from their government?

That's why there's Amendment II - Right to bear arms. The Founding Fathers of the USA knew what a dictatorial government could do so they made sure the people had more power than government.

On a side note Thomas Jefferson said the USA should have a revolution about every 20 years.

Just to clarify a few points: it takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate alone to ratify a treaty (the House has nothing to say about it), and any treaties so ratified acquire the force of law. I'm not sure what would happen if a ratified treaty directly contradicted a provision in the Bill of Rights. My guess is that the treaty would prevail--effectively repealing the Article in question, but I invite any lawyers out there to contribute opinions more authoritative than mine.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:

...[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

Article VI of the United States Constitution:

...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..."

Consequently, treaties or resolutions passed by the United Nations have no effect on US law unless they are ratified by (some of) our elected representatives. There may be some measure of comfort in this for those who hold the Bill of Rights dear, but the danger is that whoever happens to be President, and those who happen to be present during the Senate hearing on the proposed treaty, effectively have the power to circumvent the procedures required for amending the U.S. Constitution. Considering the quality of those who currently rule in Washington, I am apprehensive whenever I hear of another UN resolution concocted by that strange assortment of Kleptocrats who seem to dominate that body. One of these days, the President may find a UN resolution that he likes.

Just to clarify a few points: it takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate alone to ratify a treaty (the House has nothing to say about it), and any treaties so ratified acquire the force of law. I'm not sure what would happen if a ratified treaty directly contradicted a provision in the Bill of Rights. My guess is that the treaty would prevail--effectively repealing the Article in question, but I invite any lawyers out there to contribute opinions more authoritative than mine.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:

...[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

Article VI of the United States Constitution:

...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..."

Consequently, treaties or resolutions passed by the United Nations have no effect on US law unless they are ratified by (some of) our elected representatives. There may be some measure of comfort in this for those who hold the Bill of Rights dear, but the danger is that whoever happens to be President, and those who happen to be present during the Senate hearing on the proposed treaty, effectively have the power to circumvent the procedures required for amending the U.S. Constitution. Considering the quality of those who currently rule in Washington, I am apprehensive whenever I hear of another UN resolution concocted by that strange assortment of Kleptocrats who seem to dominate that body. One of these days, the President may find a UN resolution that he likes.

Hmm... cat constitution.txt | grep -i "privacy" It would appear that particular aspect of the document is missing.

The US legal system is based on Rule of Law with precedence. That means previous court rulings on laws are considered the correct interpretation of laws, or, in this case, can effectively establish laws. Even constitutional ones.

From http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privac y :

The right to privacy The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

More:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Privacy

The system is screwed up, it was never designed for the kind of abuse the technological revolution has brought forth. We either need dramatic reform of the patent system, or just abolish it entirely. Patents are being used as strategic weapons against competition, hindering progress. The recent case vs RIM concerning their email system is a perfect example of bad patents. Its sole use was to slam a competitor by threatening to cripple the entire customer base including some high officials. The company that owns it doesn't even use it. We have patent holding companies whose only purpose is to sit on a patent portfolio until someone pays for a license, or someone's ripe for a lawsuit. They serve no other purpose. They're IP pimps.

In the USA patents, and copyrights, are there to encourage progress in the arts and sciences. Article I - The Legislative Branch, Section 8 - Powers of Congress is very clear on this, "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;". The problem with the patent system is that companies like RIM is being given a patent but not releasing a product based on it. Instead they just sat on the patent until Blackberry came along. Because RIM didn't release anything and didn't progress science, their patent should of been declared invalid. Fix that by making sure patents do what they are supposed to do then there won't be a problem with patents.

1. Does the system of copyright as it exists today still serve the purpose for which it was initiated -- that is, To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?

2. If not, is it possible promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts without securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries?

Miro died in 1983, after a lifetime spent capitalizing handsomely (and well-deservedly) on his art. Under the original US copyright laws, he and his "estate" would have had until 2000 to benefit exclusively from the right to reproduce his works. That limited time was certainly more than sufficient to to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

Even though artists like Miro would produce their art regardless of protections or capitalization, driven by their "muse" that compels them to communicate in their medium as much as the rest of us are compelled to communicate by talking and handwaving. And like lawyers are compelled to communicate through C&D letters and invoices.

Popular art like Miro's has always quickly become part of the folk vocabulary of its culture. An early effect of that acceptance is usually enough saleability that the artist can make money quickly, supporting more art. In the centuries since the Constitution recognized a limited monopoly compromise with freedom for practical operation of a free society in an scarcity economy, the time required for adequate compensation has shrunk vastly, with reproduction and compensation technology and techniques far beyond most could then imagine. Recognition of the contribution of the people who codify such art into our folk culture has been completely eclipsed by concessions to the experts who codify art from "high" through "pop" through "commercial" and protect all its product franchises in perpetuity.

The intended purpose of copyright (and patents) is to provide incentive to artists and inventors to take risks and create.

Does Congress really have the authority to require DRM? I don't think so. Find me a clause in the Constitution that gives them that right. It does not fall under the right to make copyright. It might fall under the interstate commerce clause, but only if they specifically say DRM is required for any CD going from one state to another. I think this DRM thing would fall under the category of things left up to the States, as outlined in Amendment X.

Does Congress really have the authority to require DRM? I don't think so. Find me a clause in the Constitution that gives them that right. It does not fall under the right to make copyright. It might fall under the interstate commerce clause, but only if they specifically say DRM is required for any CD going from one state to another. I think this DRM thing would fall under the category of things left up to the States, as outlined in Amendment X.

I really am frustrated that we've allowed the Feds this power -- there really is no Constitutional or reasonable allowance for letting them disturb trade.

Section 8 of the Constitution literally says "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." In addition, Congress has the power to "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", which means they can create departments such as the FBI to act on their behalf. While it's arguable that Check Point's bid to acquire Sourcefire is a danger to our common defence, Congress certainly has the right to regulate it through the commerce clause if they see fit.

In addition, Google doesn't provide certain services in China because it would force them to breach privacy. Personally I consider the censorship in a nation with a millenia-long tradition of strong rulers which only had democracy for about 30-40 years a bit less pressingly important than the DMCA censorship that is being performed in a nation founded on the ideals of freedom and democracy.

Look at the Framers hatred of big centralized control of the masses and one would believe they, too, would not want a central army more powerful than the militias that army was supposed to be solely composed of.

I'm sorry, but the central army was not supposed to be comprised solely of the militias. The militias were state-run, and the army was run by Congress. Check out Article I, Section 8, the Powers of Congress, and note how the power to raise an Army and Navy is listed as distinct from the power to call forth the militias. Article 2, Section 2 also distinguishes between the Army and the Militias.

They were not the same thing.

Which is why the National Guard of today is not the same as the militia referred to in the Constitution. The NG is basically a back-up force for the main Army. If it truly was a militia, it would only be the army over in Iraq and the NG would be responsible for defending the country in their absence.

I'm not anti-NASA though the jury is still out on being a freak. Lets compare charges for space exploration vs. defense as found in the constitution that grants powers to the federal government. Funny enough, defense wins by the very scientific number of 500.

Plain Text of US Constitution

For some basics:http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr .html
I just got back out from my first night of spring break, so I doubt I will be much help or be posting much in the next week. Sorry.

Um, so says you.

No, so says this . Even if the gov't is wiping it's butt with it.

The Peoples Republic of China, DOES have a constitution, just not like the U.S. or most westernized countries. As you can see here they do have a constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/china.html

It is just written in a way where there are less guarantees of freedom, and more government controls. But then, this is all a technicality.

China as far as I know has no constitution.

China as far as I know has no constitution.

Please, please don't quote the Constitution.

I highly suggest you go read Article 1, Sections 8 and 10.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html

Section 8 tells us that Congress has the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.

Section 10 tells us that States have almost no rights to engage in anything with a foreign Power and any laws that States are allowed "shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress"

I already wrote another post in response to someone who didn't read Article 1, Section 8 very closely. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but I have some understanding of portions of the Constitution that my studies have touched on.

Please, please don't quote the Constitution.

I highly suggest you go read Article 1, Sections 8 and 10.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html

Section 8 tells us that Congress has the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.

Section 10 tells us that States have almost no rights to engage in anything with a foreign Power and any laws that States are allowed "shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress"

I already wrote another post in response to someone who didn't read Article 1, Section 8 very closely. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but I have some understanding of portions of the Constitution that my studies have touched on.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

First, I'm opposed to anyone doing any business in China until they get their act cleaned up. In fact, I'd be for a such a law that bars American businesses from doing any business there.

Second, I don't see anywhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that allows for Congress to regulate the activities of private business in foreign countries. Therefore, I am opposed to the bill and for an amendment to the Constitution that will provide Congress with the proper authority to do so.

Is it a good idea? Of course. Is it constitutional? Not a chance.

The liberty that is being given up is privacy: our expectation that the government will not send out agents to watch us without oversight. In the Constitution it's worded thusly:
"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."

The temporary security to be obtained is the ability to detect more communications between criminals. The reason it's temporary is that the law-breakers are at least as creative as law enforcement agents, so as they learn how to circumvent wiretaps, the effectiveness of the enforcement will wane. Like how most high-ranking terrorists learned to stop using cell-phones when they realized it gave targeting information to their enemies.

AFAIK, the original purpose of patents, In the US, was To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.

In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

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

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

No, we've completed a transition from a productive, creditor nation to a consumer, debtor nation in about 30 years. Someone produced all those neat toys that make your "information economy" possible. Odds are, it wasn't an American. Ideas and "intellectual property" are not tangible goods being produced by this nation. They take nearly no effort to copy. No amount of DRM or IP laws are going to change that. As an extreme case, India is not going to sit by quietly and watch its population of PEOPLE die from AIDS because they cannot afford our patented AIDS drugs. They will simply break our laws, and infringe on our self declared, concocted monopoly to produce those drugs. "Intellectual property" only exists to provide incentive to people "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." When your family, friends, neighbors and countrymen are being decimated by disease, you need no other incentive. The drugs will continue to be researched and made by people with a personal investment in them. To a lesser extent, the same applies to books, movies, songs, and all other art, culture, and information "protected" by our "intellectual property" laws. We will soon wake up to the fact that it is a total sham, impoverished and struggling to survive. Outsourcing, piracy, draconian IP laws, and our weakening currency are only the symptoms of this eventual outcome. The American behemoth is being outmaneuvered and outsmarted by more nimble nations with real production capacity, real goods to sell, and few if any "intellectual property" laws to stifle the innovation of those goods.

Seems to me that a man who pontificates so on the rule of law would seek to stay as close to the clear intent of the law, as opposed to navigating though legal loop-holes (real or imagined). There are provisions for warrents for wire-taps to be sought for wire-taps after the fact. As far as calls into the United States; at the time of the phone conversation (if in fact, there isn't time for paperwork), the citizenship of the recipient could be.... American.

It's written down some place and signed by a bunch of dead people that: "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%5D

Being prima-facia law, it seems that anything short of an amendment or decision by the Supreme Court, would kinda trump his argument.

As for the topic in general, I think we have already done plenty to outsource R&D and white collar jobs in the US. I'm all for scientists determining what science should persue.

Clone me a kidney,
          Lemur

Sorry for the long quote, but here's Article II (from The U.S. Constitution Online). I don't see this supposed right anywhere in there.

Article II. - The Executive Branch Note

Section 1 - The President

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

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

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by Amendment XII.)

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and 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.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by Amendments XX and XXV.)

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not rece

US Constitution

Article II, Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Are you suggesting that the President is exempt from the laws that he is required to take care be faithfully executed? That interpretation makes no sense.

You're trolling, but this is too funny.

Atheists for Bush 2006

You mean Moron Atheists for Bush 2006. Did you forget this?

Article 35. Freedom of speech, press, assembly

Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Yet, Google censors Chinese search results.

Funny... I didn't see them kicking any chinese mofos in the teeth.

Because they don't believe that citizens should be able to own whatever they want, as they're not interested in abstract black-and-white issues but instead in what would make the USA a better place. If they believe that it's not a better place if civilians were allowed to have nuclear weapons then they're unlikely to expend any effort defending anyone attempting to do so, are they?

More damage has been done to our country by people who were trying to "make the USA a better place" than by any outside group. Everyone has a different opinion of what would accomplish that goal, and most of them conflict with each other. The USA was founded on the principle that individuals should have the right to make their own choices in hopes of improving their own lives, provided, of course, that they don't violate the rights of others in the process. If the ACLU wants to "improve" the USA, they have the right to try. However, that doesn't mean that they have the right to force everyone else to accept their version of what makes a "better" USA. The founders of this nation believed that, which is why they placed such stringent limitation on the power of government, limitations that we have consistently and foolishly ignored, to our own detriment.

Furthermore, the powers granted to Congress do not include the right to prohibit the ownership of any item, including weapons of any kind, unless you can call that "provid[ing] for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"[1], which, like the "elastic clause", is one of the less fortunate phrases in the Constitution, in that it can be used to claim Congressional powers far beyond the founders' obvious intentions. The 2nd Amendment, however, written by those same founders, confirms that fact, explicitly declaring laws prohibiting gun ownership to be outside Congress' domain. It was a guarantee, not a change to the Constitution itself; why would the authors of the Constitution wish to change its terms as soon as it was ratified? None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were intended to change the meaning of the Constitution. They were merely guarantees against misinterpretation, which have themselves been misinterpreted over the years.

Ok, maybe I did sleep through that portion of my government class, because I remember the term Interstate Commerce Clause, but after searching through a plain text version of the US Constitution with admendments, I cannot find the term 'interstate' in there. Where does this power actually come from?

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; ...

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

The US constitution says nothing about what kinds of lawful agreements (called contracts) you can and cannot make with your fellow citizens (or corporations).

Bullshit. I invite your attention to Amendment 13, which quite plainly prohibits people from entering into slavery "contracts". And while other forms of contracts are not specifically prohibited in the Constitution, there's lots of law enacted by Congress and state legislatures that prohibits some of them - usurious loans, substandard housing, etc.

The governments of the US and of the states ought to, and in fact do, protect their citizens from entering into all sorts of contracts. The question is whether our laws surrounding so-called "intellectual property" have become biased too far in favor of companies creating and distributing content, at the expensive of individual citizens.

Sean

The real arguement here is why a business that has made a very deliberate decision to move to a sales-tax free location (or a low tax location) should have to collect sales taxes for OTHER states? The incentive for the business to move and operate to the no-sale tax location will be largely eliminated if it is an ecommerce business as it knows that consumers would much rather purchase items on the internet when they are not taxed. Right or wrong, this is how it works, and ultimately, it should not be the businesses burden to collect taxes for states it's not even associated with! Brick and Morter businesses in sales-tax free locations don't have to collect taxes from out of state consumers, so why the hell should an ecommerce business have to? This is clearly a case of brick and morter businesses trying to protect their monopolies and using politicians to make it happen.

The federal government absolutely has the right to regulate (and tax) interstate business. Arguably you could say that what the Feds should do is impose a "federal sales taxes" on interstate commerce and distribute the proceed to the state in one way or another. I could see that point.

Wrong. I urge you to review the powers and limits of the federal government in The Constitution. You are urged to review Sections 8-10 that outline just how few rights the federal government has over states and state commerce.

The fact is, the federal government has no legal or Constitutional right to impose ANY laws or regulations on state businesses or state taxes, let alone the hundreds and thousands of constitutionally forbidden arenas the feds have laid waste to.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...

Signing orders that violated the US Constitution? How's that?

In the past two days, George W Bush has publically confessed to hundreds of counts of wiretapping.

Wiretapping without a court order is a flagrant violation of state and federal laws. And more importantly, it violates the fourth amendment to the US Constitution, something Bush theoretically swore to uphold.

Bush says this is acceptable, because he did it in support of the "war on terrorism". By that same reasoning, police officers can make warrantless searches during the "war on drugs". This reasoning is a justification for vigilantism: you can freely break the law if you've got a good reason, and are too strong for the police to stop you.

Last I checked they were warranted by the Patriot Act.

They were not, but it doesn't matter: an act of Congress does not have the authority to override the US Constitution.