Slashdot Mirror

Article III, Section 3 of the United States 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.

I don't know what you see as "aid and comfort," but I assure you that covert surveillance, kidnapping, indefinite detainment, torture, &c. don't fit under that particular umbrella.

It's also in an inconspicuous place. Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 7.

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Given that privacy is such an explicit right in regards to mail, how come the courts just don't get it when it comes to the modern day equivalent? I guess it's because privacy in America died in 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of search warrants for "mere evidence" overturning the 1886 Boyd decision. (A brief history of the Privacy Protection Act)

Okay, first of all, the US Constitution does nothing of the sort. You might want to check out http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html.

The First Amendment gives you freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. You are free to call your boss an asshole, but he is also free to fire you because of it. The government will not prosecute you for it, but they will also not protect you.

Secondly, the First Amendment applies only to government institutions. If this was a public school, maybe it would apply but a private institution is allowed to kick you out for saying things all they want.

True but those words aren't there

If Congress were to pass a law granting "exclusive rights" to smiling it would be ruled unconstitutional. The powers of Congress are fairly broad in that a lot can fall under the umbrella of promoting general welfare. But ridiculous laws that forbid smiling are overstepping constitutional authority. It's similarly ridiculous to say you cannot put an idea to use that you came up with yourself just because someone else filed a patent on it. However, this is authorized by the constitution in the context of promoting progress. A few bad patents can be expected, but if the system as a whole impedes progress rather than promoting it, then it's unconstitutional.

" One the one hand it's useful, but on the other it contradicts our constitutuion."

No, actually it doesn't. That's something privacy nazis seem to forget. There is NOT a right to privacy in the constitution. The right to privacy is a result of several Supreme Court decisions over the years, but it is not written in the constitution at all.

Of course, I was assuming you were talking about the gathering of the information (which may or may not be a violation of the right to privacy). If you were talking about holding the information well then you really just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

P.S.

Before making any more statements about what is / is not in the constitution please check out http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

Personally, I'd like to see the 16th Amendment repealed.

from the US Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed
I wish that we could have a national referendum on this RFID question. In many states, the acts of the legislatures can be put to a direct vote of the public, and the public, through the initiative process, can make law or amend the state constitution. I think it's time we got those processes into the US Constitution through a constitutional amendment...

I should include the caveat that my parent comment refers to public schools. I believe this was a private school.

Hence, while a public school might have to prove that its violations are for a higher purpose or stem from its in loco parentis responsibilities, a private school may set limits arbitrarily.

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

First, most of this essay applies only to public schools. As private institutions, private schools are not subject to any restrictions in terms of violations of the rights of students. Hence, while a public school might have to prove that its violations are for a higher purpose or stem from its in loco parentis responsibilities, a private school may set limits arbitrarily.

Second, students in public schools are not stripped of their rights completely. In Board v Barnette (319 US 624), for example, the Supreme Court ruled that students could not be forced to salute the flag against their will. In Tinker v. Des Moines (393 US 503), the Supreme Court ruled that students wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War could not be forced to remove the arm bands by school officials. As written in Tinker, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Finally, the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of the free flow of ideas in schools: "The classroom is peculiarly the 'marketplace of ideas.' The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas." (Keyishian v Board of Regents [385 US 589]).

Tinker was all about freedom of expression. The students in Tinker merely wore black arm bands. They did not disrupt school activities in any other way. The actions of the students are often used to distinguish the right of speech and expression for students from the rules that can govern those rights. Again the distinction hinges on the impact of the expression on the educational process.

The role of the patent system, I would argue, is not one which fosters ingenuity.

That is exactly what patents, and copyrights, are for, to promote creativity in science and in the arts. Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress of the USA Constitution specifically states that:
"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 GNU article you link to is talking about software patents. That I agree with, I'm against business method and software patents. Software already enjoys protection, it's called copyrights. "As The Economist says, software patents are simply bad for business." Agreed!!! And the only protection business methods should get is the protection of trade secrets. Patents shouldn't be issued for dna or life either. Physical items like parts in a vehicle, computer, or printer should get patents though. While some things may be invented without patents many things wouldn't be, who wants to spend lots of tyme and money to invent something if they can't enjoy the fruits of their efforts by being granted for a limited tyme the right to patents?

And it seemd you're ready to do whatever the authorities say, er allow them to decide what you can do and how you do it. Fact is this won't stop conterfitting but it will make it easy the the authorities to track political speech. You may not remember J Edgar Hoover and how he collected intel on people he considered a threat like John Lennon. I'm sure he would of loved this, as would the Gestapo and the KGB.

Simply I don't believe government should have more power than absolutely necessary and this isn't necessary. Protecting liberty, regulating interstate and international commerce, conducting foreign affairs, and defending the country, that's the job of the federal government. For a compleat list of the powers of government I refer you to the USA Constitution. And be sure to refer to the X Amendment, and how it says "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."

And it seemd you're ready to do whatever the authorities say, er allow them to decide what you can do and how you do it. Fact is this won't stop conterfitting but it will make it easy the the authorities to track political speech. You may not remember J Edgar Hoover and how he collected intel on people he considered a threat like John Lennon. I'm sure he would of loved this, as would the Gestapo and the KGB.

Simply I don't believe government should have more power than absolutely necessary and this isn't necessary. Protecting liberty, regulating interstate and international commerce, conducting foreign affairs, and defending the country, that's the job of the federal government. For a compleat list of the powers of government I refer you to the USA Constitution. And be sure to refer to the X Amendment, and how it says "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."

Bush doesn't initiate tax changes. They come from Congress and have to start in the House of Reps as set forth in Article I, section 7 of the US Constitution. You might wanna read Article II aswell, the limited powers of the presidency, U.S. Constitution.

The way these values are determined is by equating a function like f(taxation) to total GNP or GDP and graphing the results then finding the highest point on a curve where GNP+f(taxation) is a max. Historically large taxes tend to reduce the GDP and small taxes are insuffient for the government to perform its duties as required by the constitution.

The US currently collects about 3 trillion dollars in taxes every year.

How they do it and what their reasoning is is all freely available online

Maybe you can figure out where they're going wrong and run for office.

of the Constitution, so when you refer to the Constitution you are referring to the amendments as well. Also, the Constitution does not grant rights to people, but guarantees them, or takes them away.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5

I'm not sure when this all started (maybe all the social programs after the great depression?), but the entitlement attitude of todays society is going to be the downfall of this country.

ooh, I missed this. Anyway, though FDR did a lot that has been built on since, the ball was rolling before he inflated it. Some credit the start to the 14th Admendment and others put it elsewhere. When Lincoln started collecting an income tax of 3% or 5% people were upset, and they only went along with it because the Civil War had to be paid somehow, however compliance wasn't high.

Here's what Col. David Crockett when he was a US Representative from Tennessee said one day in the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer, Not Yours To Give. It's a good read, and I thank someone else on /. for posting it previously.

how the hell does research designed to limit the threat of life-changing illness or injury not fall under the umbrella of national security?

Can you show me where in the USA Constitution where it says health is the responsibility of the government?

A) having problems with it in terms of federalist principals

Seeing as how federalist principals stand for small government not large government it seems you're the one with problems of uderstanding federalism.

I'd like to see more of MY tax dollars go into medical research and less into military spending.

I'd prefer to see less of MY tax dollars going to both the military and to medical research.

if we had spent HALF of the money we have over the last century on military, and put it into medical research, we just might have been able to increase the life expectancy of our people by 5 years (aiding the illimination of cancers would do this, without question), increased the general health of the populace considerably, and recieve the added financial benefits of being the world leaders in the medical field

And if taxes weren't high to pay for all this by the feds then the private and commercial sectors would have more money to spend on research. And job creation.

So I seriously don't know how you can get off on a constitutional arguement against scientific research.

And how can you get off on saying the constitution allows tax spending for scientific research? Though I've looked, read, and reread other than where the constitution allows congress to grant copyrights and patents I see nowhere where it deligates this power. Maybe I missed it so can you point out where it says otherwise? Maybe it's in Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress but I don't see it.

Consider that Benjemin Franklin was one of our founding fathers and one of the drafters of the consitution. He strongly supported the idea of government funded research.

And I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, James Jay, and James Madison who all loved small government would say to you? Though a bit later I know what Col. David Crockett would of said, "Not Yours To Give". Heck, I'd like to see NASA privatized as well. What many don't realize is that the USA Constitution is a limit on what government can do, the 10th Admendment even spells it out:

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.

how the hell does research designed to limit the threat of life-changing illness or injury not fall under the umbrella of national security?

Can you show me where in the USA Constitution where it says health is the responsibility of the government?

A) having problems with it in terms of federalist principals

Seeing as how federalist principals stand for small government not large government it seems you're the one with problems of uderstanding federalism.

I'd like to see more of MY tax dollars go into medical research and less into military spending.

I'd prefer to see less of MY tax dollars going to both the military and to medical research.

if we had spent HALF of the money we have over the last century on military, and put it into medical research, we just might have been able to increase the life expectancy of our people by 5 years (aiding the illimination of cancers would do this, without question), increased the general health of the populace considerably, and recieve the added financial benefits of being the world leaders in the medical field

And if taxes weren't high to pay for all this by the feds then the private and commercial sectors would have more money to spend on research. And job creation.

So I seriously don't know how you can get off on a constitutional arguement against scientific research.

And how can you get off on saying the constitution allows tax spending for scientific research? Though I've looked, read, and reread other than where the constitution allows congress to grant copyrights and patents I see nowhere where it deligates this power. Maybe I missed it so can you point out where it says otherwise? Maybe it's in Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress but I don't see it.

Consider that Benjemin Franklin was one of our founding fathers and one of the drafters of the consitution. He strongly supported the idea of government funded research.

And I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, James Jay, and James Madison who all loved small government would say to you? Though a bit later I know what Col. David Crockett would of said, "Not Yours To Give". Heck, I'd like to see NASA privatized as well. What many don't realize is that the USA Constitution is a limit on what government can do, the 10th Admendment even spells it out:

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.

That was the precise point I was thinking of and alluding to by the phrase, yes. As I recall, his will did in fact stipulate freeing his slaves at his death, just like Washington. However, Mount Vernon was situated on excellent farmland. The lands around Montecello were mediocre at best; the nailery (relying on slave labor) was the main thing keeping Jefferson from total bankrupcy... highly ironic considering that it was Hamilton who desired a nation of industry, and Jefferson who envisioned a nation of yeoman farmers. Jeffererson's taste for books and imported French Wine didn't help matters, but probably only exacerbated an unsolvable problem. At his death, his estate's debts exceeded the assets... until one included the slaves. Given the times, the results were inevitable.

Still, he could have done more. Then again, so could we all.

Most of why I call Jefferson a blowhard is not because of his absence from the convention, but because the "wall of separation" quote comes from a much later period when Jefferson was "legacy building."

<BZZZT>. The quote comes from a letter written in 1802. A scarce decade after the 1791 ratification of the Bill of Rights (wherein the foundation of such wall lies) hardly qualifies as "much later". Furthermore, it was still during Jefferson's first term as President — not the point in any career (even one as colossal as Jefferson's!) that one might normally refer to for "legacy building". Furthermore, the position he takes therein is entirely consistent with the language he authored in the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which not co-incidentally is considered inspiration for the relevant portion of the 1st Amendment. I would characterize his time post-presidency, such as spent on the establishing the University of Virgina from 1816 and onward, as his "legacy building" period.

(Lest we forget, the conservatives won Scopes.)

True, to a point. The religious conservatives won before the jury; the case (but not the law) was reversed on technical grounds on appeal, and I have seen it argued that this was in part to prevent the law from being struck down in a higher court. While not a Pyrrhic victory, it was hardly an epic triumph either.

I would also disagree that Scopes was the primary reason for the withdrawal, although contributory. The spectacular failure of the great Prohibition experiment, backed as it was by so many churches, was a greater blow to the politics of the far right, and in my opinion the prime cause of such withdrawal.

However, starting in the 70's, the sleeping giant of conservative Christianity awoke, and didn't like what it saw.

In my more cynical moments, I would attribute it more to the rousing Southern racism in the 60's, and their alliance with the Republicans after the failure of Wallace to swing the 1968 election to the house of Representatives. In my political debates, I have noted far too often the reactionary religious agenda being a warning sign of a reactionary racial and gender agendas. Not universally; but far too common. And far too often, such reactionaries attempt to conceal their more unsavory motivations in the language and company of religion.

Personally, I think that the federal gov't needs to get out of the church state issue, which it has gotten into consequent to Supreme Court rulings on the scope of the 14th ammendment. This is an issue where regional opinions are radically different, and dealing with those sorts of differences is the peculiar genius of federalism.

This of course depends on whether one feels that the 14th extended all, some, or non

"Rights that are not enumerated/defined/interpreted don't exist, pure and simple."

Bullshit.

The Ninth Amendment:

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

All my examples do quite clearly fit the challenge, and now I understand why you can claim you've never heard a decent response. You've plugged your ears and shouted "NA NA NANA NANANANANANANA" to every one presented to you. I will not take the time necessary to respond to every one of your rebuttals. I will simply pinpoint the source of our disagreement with one of them. I do not expect you to agree with me, to change your stance, or to even completely comprehend it. Hopefully though, it will illuminate for you why people like me do not feel the way people like you do.

Allow me to begin by quoting the the foundation of copyright in the United States. US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8:

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;

This declaration in the constitution is the root from which all copyright law in the US springs. For copyright law to be constitutional, it must meet the conditions set forth in these 27 words. The phrase is separated into two parts by a comma. It is "Why, how;"

Example number one, the remixing, occupies a similar IP space as fanfiction. You're not taking a theme you hear elsewhere and creating a unique and original theme inspired by it - you're taking somebody's theme and playing with it directly.

Ok, I didn't draw my own cute little mouse in high-water pants and gloves. I instead took an existing depiction of a cute little mouse and used him as a character in a new story.

You see a ripped off mouse, I see a new story. The new story is progress, the whole point of copyright. The ripped off mouse is defined based on 'limited times'. It is the "how" in the constitutional equation. My argument is that the "how" has become so distorted, it is impeding rather than promoting progress. We cannot encourage Walt to make new Mickey's. Walt is dead. Retroactively extending copyrights for the mouse in question goes against the very principal of copyright. The mouse has already been created, you cannot further promote the creation of something that already exists. It's time the people at Disney stop riding Walt's coattails and start coming up with some innovations of their own.

It's time a lot of people got off their ass and came up with new ideas. In the meantime, those who DO have new ideas are very visibly being prevented from sharing them by a system with the constitutional purpose to promote the sharing of ideas. I see a system that is obviously broken.

You seem to argue that Mickey Mouse would have somehow vanished from existence had the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act not retroactively given Disney 20 more years of monopoly over his depiction. I see Mickey Mouse being stolen from the public domain. You see a system guaranteeing you and your great great great grand children a royalty check. I see a system overpaying you, because you'd still write that book if the royalty checks only lasted 28 years. Even if 28 years was not enough incentive to prod you to share your creation with the world, I see diminishing returns. The loss of your creation will be offset by the numerous other creations that would have otherwise been stifled due to excessive copyright terms. If 28 years is not enough for you, I say with all due respect, keep your damned book. We don't need it that bad. There will be plenty of books available without your contribution. If you don't want to share your idea with the world, you should keep it to yourself.

That is the argument from where I stand.

Sorry, but that doesn't stifle innovation - that forces people to come up with their own music rather than ripping off somebody else's, and therefore enforces innovation.

To put your own argument back to you, you did not write a book. You remixed the Webster's dictionary. If you wanted to write a book full of words, you should have invented your own words.

Truly a rediculous argument, no?

That's simply untrue, and demonstrates a monstrously superficial understanding of civics. Lay off the Libertarian Kool-Aid for a minute and read this:

And this is what the 10th Amendment says:

Amendment X - 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.

Let's see what Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence and signer of the Constitution of the USA says:

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320

"We are a people capable of self-government, and worthy of it." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac Weaver, Jr., 1807. ME 11:220

"[The people] are in truth the only legitimate proprietors of the soil and government." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1813. ME 19:197

In his first Inaugural Address he says:

Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.

Thomas Paine, who worked with Thomas Jefferson on the DOI, even goes further:

"Government even in its best state is a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one..."

How about when James Madison specifically states congressional power is limited:

"[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." - James Madison, Federalist 14

If congressional power isn't limited by the constitution then how is it limited? OR when he says:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Or:

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

Regarding "general welfare" here's a webpage with more quotes from Founding Fathers, Is Welfare Unconstitutional?

Yeap I guess these people were real stupid and imbibed in "Libertarin Kool-Aid.

Wasn't the idea with the original copyright law balance between: having people produce new MMGBAI - and having as many people enjoying MMGBAI? The right to make money (for a while) is only there as a carrot for production of MMGBAI.

The purpose of copyrights and patents is 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;. Money is one way progress is promoted, the possibility of making money encourages people to come up with new things.

Funny, it was Jefferson who coined the term, "wall of separation between church and state." That is the basis of the establishment clause.

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

Care to actually provide evidence of your claim or do you just like parroting what your minister and Fox News tells you to?

San Francisco is doing exactly the right thing. There is a place for free market capitalism, and there is a place for public works. The Highway System, and Communications Infrastructure, are two examples of the latter.

I don't care if a city, municipality, or county offers wifi as long as the people voted to offer it, don't pay for it with taxes, or prevents anyone else from offering service themself. What I do mind is the government using threat of arms to force someone who doesn't want and won't use said service to pay for it. Said service should be pay as you go. As far as the "Highway System" and "Communications Infrastructure", there's a big difference between them. The Constitution of the USA mandates government to establish Post Offices and Post Roads but says nothing of any other communications infractucture.

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

The copyrighters right to copyright is not protected by the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution Online
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1
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;

The copyrighters right to copyright is not protected by the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution Online
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1
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;

The copyrighters right to copyright is not protected by the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution Online
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1
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;

The copyrighters right to copyright is not protected by the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution Online
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1
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;

For anyone who harbors any doubt, read about who wrote the Constitution.

It's the STATE government, dumbass... and that would be amendment #10.

Actually, they already have it, as the Constitution(and U.S. law) clearly states that if you are born in the United States, you are automatically an American citizen.

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

I'm sure we're soooooo tired of making Jack Thompson look and sound like a total retard. Then again, he does that to himself all the time.

== BearDogg-X ==

The whole point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of all US citizens, regardless of which state they live in.

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

Censoring speech is illegal in China. Read the chinese constitution. The 35th amendment guarantees a freedom of speech and assembly.

Interesting. I looked it up and it seems you're correct:

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.

Article 36. Religious freedom

Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.

No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion.

The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state.

Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination

Both of those articles are articles I *know* the Chinese government has violated. Seems they treat their constitution with very little respect. :-(

And if you think that this kind of thing would be okay if it were legal, why? Are laws worth more than basic human rights?

I didn't say it was okay. I said that the Chinese nation has a right to make the laws inside its own borders. i.e. What do you expect everyone else to do about it? The fact that they don't pay attention to their own constitution though? That's sickening. :-/

All I can say to that person, who imo is a very sad individual that hasn't read the constitution, is read the first 10 amendments to the constitution if you want to know what rights you have.

This is something that keeps coming up, and I have to keep emphasizing the wrongness of it because it is the root of all of the problems with our government today.

"You", a citizen, have the right to do anything not expressly prohibited to you. "They", the government, have no rights, only certain powers expressly granted to them.

The Bill of Rights is a list of SPECIALLY PROTECTED rights, which the government expressly may not create laws infringing upon, if they somehow (*cough*Article 8, Section 18*cough*) find a way to go about expanding their own powers at will. But the Bill of Rights is NOT a list of your total rights, and many of the founding fathers were opposed to its inclusion (hence why it was added afterward), because they feared that people would think that, since some rights were enumerated, that was an encompassing list of all rights. The compromise was the 10th Amendment, which is the clearest bit of language in the constitution that hammers home my point:

"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 other words, if the federal constitution doesn't say No, and your state constitution doesn't say No, then you can do it. It's your right unless otherwise stated.

The (Federal) government, on the other hand, is supposed to have a very select set of powers, explicitly enumerated in Article 8 of the Constitution. The catch there is, the last clause of Article 8 grants Congress the power...

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So basically, every law Congress has passed, aside from Constitutional amendments, is supposed to trace back in some way shape or form to the enforcement of one of these powers explicitly granted to Congress, or to help the other branches to exercise their (also explicitly enumerated and limited) powers.

And the lawmakers have really stretched things. The one you see abused most often is the "interstate commerce" clause. Drug control laws, for example, derive entirely from that - nevermind that the same laws are applied if someone produces a drug like pot entirely in their back yard and uses it it all by themselves, never involving other states or even other people in the process. The lawbooks are full of stretches like that - some law links back to the supposed enforcement of an apparently unrelated power of Congress, and then applies equally well in situations unrelated to the exercise of that specific power, effectively growing the powers of the Federal government.

And since such Article 8 abuses supersede the 10th Amendment protections of your universal human rights (because such abuses 'legitimately' grant Congress further powers, as far as the 10th Amendment is concerned), it seems they can get away with it.

The system is broken.

(Not to mention, even if it weren't broken in just this way... the Constitution still allows individual states to wield whatever powers they please except these, and a few others added in later amendments. Even if the feds weren't able to be draconian... chances are the states still would).

All I can say to that person, who imo is a very sad individual that hasn't read the constitution, is read the first 10 amendments to the constitution if you want to know what rights you have.

This is something that keeps coming up, and I have to keep emphasizing the wrongness of it because it is the root of all of the problems with our government today.

"You", a citizen, have the right to do anything not expressly prohibited to you. "They", the government, have no rights, only certain powers expressly granted to them.

The Bill of Rights is a list of SPECIALLY PROTECTED rights, which the government expressly may not create laws infringing upon, if they somehow (*cough*Article 8, Section 18*cough*) find a way to go about expanding their own powers at will. But the Bill of Rights is NOT a list of your total rights, and many of the founding fathers were opposed to its inclusion (hence why it was added afterward), because they feared that people would think that, since some rights were enumerated, that was an encompassing list of all rights. The compromise was the 10th Amendment, which is the clearest bit of language in the constitution that hammers home my point:

"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 other words, if the federal constitution doesn't say No, and your state constitution doesn't say No, then you can do it. It's your right unless otherwise stated.

The (Federal) government, on the other hand, is supposed to have a very select set of powers, explicitly enumerated in Article 8 of the Constitution. The catch there is, the last clause of Article 8 grants Congress the power...

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So basically, every law Congress has passed, aside from Constitutional amendments, is supposed to trace back in some way shape or form to the enforcement of one of these powers explicitly granted to Congress, or to help the other branches to exercise their (also explicitly enumerated and limited) powers.

And the lawmakers have really stretched things. The one you see abused most often is the "interstate commerce" clause. Drug control laws, for example, derive entirely from that - nevermind that the same laws are applied if someone produces a drug like pot entirely in their back yard and uses it it all by themselves, never involving other states or even other people in the process. The lawbooks are full of stretches like that - some law links back to the supposed enforcement of an apparently unrelated power of Congress, and then applies equally well in situations unrelated to the exercise of that specific power, effectively growing the powers of the Federal government.

And since such Article 8 abuses supersede the 10th Amendment protections of your universal human rights (because such abuses 'legitimately' grant Congress further powers, as far as the 10th Amendment is concerned), it seems they can get away with it.

The system is broken.

(Not to mention, even if it weren't broken in just this way... the Constitution still allows individual states to wield whatever powers they please except these, and a few others added in later amendments. Even if the feds weren't able to be draconian... chances are the states still would).

In the mean time I decide which party I like, and then vote for the WORSE candidate in the other one, so my party has a better chance of getting someone in. Then too, it sure felt nice to vote against Welstone twice that one year.

I look at it a bit differently if you're talking about primaries, which I believe shouold be open ie that any registered voter should be able to vote in all primaries whether you're registered with that party or not. Instead generally I'd vote for the candidate I thought was the best for each party and not for the worse candidate from the "other party". Then again I'm not registered with a party affiliation, I'm registered independent. I like to think for myself and not have someone or some party tell me how to vote.

Then again I'd rather see the 12th Amendment, Choosing the President, Vice-President repealed. Instead of having presidential/vp candidates running in pairs, go back to how it orginally was, with everyone running for president:

The Executive Branch

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.)

In the mean time I decide which party I like, and then vote for the WORSE candidate in the other one, so my party has a better chance of getting someone in. Then too, it sure felt nice to vote against Welstone twice that one year.

I look at it a bit differently if you're talking about primaries, which I believe shouold be open ie that any registered voter should be able to vote in all primaries whether you're registered with that party or not. Instead generally I'd vote for the candidate I thought was the best for each party and not for the worse candidate from the "other party". Then again I'm not registered with a party affiliation, I'm registered independent. I like to think for myself and not have someone or some party tell me how to vote.

Then again I'd rather see the 12th Amendment, Choosing the President, Vice-President repealed. Instead of having presidential/vp candidates running in pairs, go back to how it orginally was, with everyone running for president:

The Executive Branch

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.)

Funny, maybe; but what... entity... modded this insightful?

Assuming he doesn't outright completely suspend elections or the constitution (which even a Republican Congress and a packed Supreme Court would go apeshit over), he'd need to have the 22nd Amendment repealed. This would require another amendment, much like the 21st repealed prohibition. This would require ratification of three quarters of the states-- 38, assuming no new states are admitted, and no current states split.

In the2004 presidential election, Bush carried only 32 states. Given that he has not massively increased his popularity since (especially given current sentiments on term limits), I'd consider the 61st Amendment far more likely.

There's also the question of whether such an amendment could realistically happen in time for Bush to run in 2008. A state-called convention seems unlikely. While some amendments have passed really quickly, others took longer. Given that it would be relatively controversial, it seems not unreasonable to believe it would take a year after getting out of congress. Furthermore, given the shennanigans that the Republican Senate lacked the votes to obtain cloture against a filibuster, it seems unlikely they would have be able to pass such an amendment.

Funny, maybe; but what... entity... modded this insightful?

Assuming he doesn't outright completely suspend elections or the constitution (which even a Republican Congress and a packed Supreme Court would go apeshit over), he'd need to have the 22nd Amendment repealed. This would require another amendment, much like the 21st repealed prohibition. This would require ratification of three quarters of the states-- 38, assuming no new states are admitted, and no current states split.

In the2004 presidential election, Bush carried only 32 states. Given that he has not massively increased his popularity since (especially given current sentiments on term limits), I'd consider the 61st Amendment far more likely.

There's also the question of whether such an amendment could realistically happen in time for Bush to run in 2008. A state-called convention seems unlikely. While some amendments have passed really quickly, others took longer. Given that it would be relatively controversial, it seems not unreasonable to believe it would take a year after getting out of congress. Furthermore, given the shennanigans that the Republican Senate lacked the votes to obtain cloture against a filibuster, it seems unlikely they would have be able to pass such an amendment.

It has been decided that laws can not be tried ex post facto,

Yeah, it was decided back in 1787, at least in the US.

It has been decided that laws can not be tried ex post facto,

Yeah, it was decided back in 1787, at least in the US.

It has been decided that laws can not be tried ex post facto,

Yeah, it was decided back in 1787, at least in the US.

While the right to privacy isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Nineth Amendment does say:

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

Further courts including the US Supreme Court has ruled there is a right to privacy:

• Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law
  WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.
• Thurgood Marshall
  President John F. Kennedy appointed Thurgood Marshall to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In this capacity, he wrote over 150 decisions including support for the rights of immigrants, limiting government intrusion in cases involving illegal search and seizure, double jeopardy, and right to privacy issues.
• Privacy
  Early treatises on privacy appeared with the development of privacy protection in American law from the 1890's onward, and privacy protection was justified largely on moral grounds. This literature helps distinguish descriptive accounts of privacy, describing what is in fact protected as private, from normative accounts of privacy defending its value and the extent to which it should be protected. In these discussions some treat privacy as an interest with moral value, while others refer to it as a moral or legal right that ought to be protected by society or the law. Clearly one can be insensitive to another's privacy interests without violating any right to privacy, if there is one.

That was just a quick check but I'd bet I can find more references to the right to privacy. The reference at Stanford University mentions privacy protection from the 1890s.

...in what way was Revenge of the Sith ripping people off?

I actually liked Revenge of the Sith, so I let others argue over whether the ticket price was a ripoff to see that particular movie. :-)

However, I don't need to argue about that. I can think of a few other ways we're being ripped off pretty quickly:

• The studios diligently working to illegally take away my fair use rights of the movie.
• The studios screwing movie theaters by making unreasonable monetary demands of the theaters that show their movies during the opening weeks. (Thus forcing theaters to pass the cost on to us by making us finance popcorn if we actually want a snack.)
• The studios undermining my Constitutional freedom to copy the movie after a limited time.
• Imposing excessive fines and punishment on a minor crime when copyright violators are caught. (I can't dig up the link offhand that I saw comparing the punishment for downloading a movie vs. stealing it from a store. Can anyone else help?)
• The corporate executives at the studios screwing the vast majority of the people who worked on the film to keep most of the profit in the hands of a very small minority of people who did nothing to contribute to the film. (A big problem in big corporations, not limited to the film industry.)
• The studios working together to keep the prices of DVDs artificially high.

That's just off the top of my head. Anyone else care to add to the list?

So no, not all profit-making is a ripoff. But that doesn't change the fact that some of it certainly is. And no, illegally downloading and/or sharing movies isn't legal or ethical. But in the grand scheme of things, I think it's a hell of a lot less serious an offense than what the movie studios and especially the **AA are doing.

What Congress can also do with Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court) is pass legislation removing jurisdiction for the courts over a certain body of law. Yes, it's been done a couple of times before, but thankfully not very often.

Can you show me where the US Constitution grants congress the ability to determine juridiction of the Supreme Court? The only authority I can find of congress' authority over courts is Article I. - The Legislative Branch, Section 8 - Powers of Congress, where it says "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;". Nowhere else in Section 8 are courts mentioned. How about Article III - The Judicial Branch? Nope. Let's see if there's an amendment, ah there's Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits which says "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Any other amendments??? Nope, now I may of missed it so can you tell me where congress is granted the power to determine whether courts have juridiction? Fact is congress doesn't have that responsibility, the constitution created three branchs specifically for stability so each may keep a check on the others, much like a stool with two legs, government having only two legs isn't stable.

What Congress can also do with Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court) is pass legislation removing jurisdiction for the courts over a certain body of law. Yes, it's been done a couple of times before, but thankfully not very often.

Can you show me where the US Constitution grants congress the ability to determine juridiction of the Supreme Court? The only authority I can find of congress' authority over courts is Article I. - The Legislative Branch, Section 8 - Powers of Congress, where it says "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;". Nowhere else in Section 8 are courts mentioned. How about Article III - The Judicial Branch? Nope. Let's see if there's an amendment, ah there's Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits which says "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Any other amendments??? Nope, now I may of missed it so can you tell me where congress is granted the power to determine whether courts have juridiction? Fact is congress doesn't have that responsibility, the constitution created three branchs specifically for stability so each may keep a check on the others, much like a stool with two legs, government having only two legs isn't stable.

What Congress can also do with Federal Courts (including the Supreme Court) is pass legislation removing jurisdiction for the courts over a certain body of law. Yes, it's been done a couple of times before, but thankfully not very often.

Can you show me where the US Constitution grants congress the ability to determine juridiction of the Supreme Court? The only authority I can find of congress' authority over courts is Article I. - The Legislative Branch, Section 8 - Powers of Congress, where it says "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;". Nowhere else in Section 8 are courts mentioned. How about Article III - The Judicial Branch? Nope. Let's see if there's an amendment, ah there's Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits which says "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Any other amendments??? Nope, now I may of missed it so can you tell me where congress is granted the power to determine whether courts have juridiction? Fact is congress doesn't have that responsibility, the constitution created three branchs specifically for stability so each may keep a check on the others, much like a stool with two legs, government having only two legs isn't stable.