Slashdot Mirror

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

quote from here These are James Madison's words.

I'm not a lawyer so can someone tell me what it takes to become a traitor to the United States of America?

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

even the Bill of Rights doesn't directly apply to the states; only through later court rulings did some of the ammendments affect the states

That would be due to the 14th Amendment, and the principle of Incorporation. Brief review here

I doubt it.

Many companies produce mission statements which are meant to help to direct the companies actions towards a given goal. If a plan is suggested, it can be evaluated in terms of how well it helps the company to achieve its stated goals.

One would hope that the U.S. government's mission statement were truly the motivation to affect change which drives public officers. However, politicians are generally working towards their own best interests. Talking about how copyright is overextended is a sure-fire way to be ignored (or ridiculed) by popular media, which is decidedly against the goals of most politicians.

The government won't "come to its senses", because officials need the media to get elected.

While I agree that the poster was quite ignorant of British law, you do not seem to know the U.S. Constitution very well, either. I am not American, but I have read the document and taken civics class, so here's my quick explanation of the constitution of the U.S. to non-Americans.

The constitution lays out what the federal government can and cannot do. The parts which you believe 'lay down what the rights of US citizens are' do not, in fact, do so. They merely prohibit the federal government from passing laws limiting those rights. They should not be taken to mean that those are the only rights that the people have, or that the constitution is "providing" rights to the people. The basic idea is that even if you're in Communist China or Nazi Germany, you have the right to free speech, fair trials, etc. - it's just that the government there does not recognize those rights. In the constitution, the founders decided to specifically cite certain rights the the federal government would have to respect. In fact, some of the founders did not want rights to be mentioned in the constitution at all, because they felt that would lead to people thinking as you do, that rights are created by the constitution and that rights not listed do not exist.

Let's look at the actual wording of those amendments that mention rights: (from here

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... or the right of the people ...

Amendment 2: the right of the people ... shall not be infringed.

Amendment 4: The right of the people ... shall not be violated

Amendment 6: ... the accused shall enjoy the right ...

Amendment 7: ... the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, ...

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Nowhere in the constitution does it just say "The people have a right to..." a particular right. They all take the form of telling the government not to infringe on them. It is taken as a given that rights exist outside of the ones listed in the constitution, as amendment 9 specifically says. When new amendments are added that "give" new rights, such as women's sufferage, they do not mean that the right suddenly came into existence when the amendment was passed, but that the government was infringing on that right up to that time.

btw, You say that Britain doesn't need a constitution, but how does it know what powers the government has, and what procedures it must take to change the system? I'm thinking in particular about Tony Blair removing the House of Lords by himself. Where does it say he had the power to do so? If he can do that, can he remove the House of Commons? Throw the Royals out? The equivalent in America would require a constitutional convention and ratification by the states, so having a prime minister make arbritary changes like that seems frightening. Not that the House of Lords seemed like a good idea to begin with, but still...

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

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

You missed off my point where I mention Bush's danger comes from the fact that he's armed to the teeth and chomping at the bit to ride roughshod over the middle east. He's already shown he doesn't mind trampling into places he's not wanted.

Saddam didn't use human shields this time round. Everyone knows that. Saying that shows how much you really know about the war. And it would have been pretty hard for Saddam to kill "most of those" as I don't think he had the attack helicopters and bombers used to kill them. I'm pretty sure they were American.

As for saying ANSWER is "hardline stalinist" just demonstrates, even further, how little you know about the real world. ANSWER is a group dedicated to stopping war. Was Stalin opposed to war? no. How can it be "hardline stalinist" then? Your logic makes no sense.

They were "siding with evil"? That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Americans saying that because they didn't side with the US. That's the sort of threat the US plied on the smaller nations in the coalition. Can't you see? They were either with the US, or against it. It's not a tough call to make.

Bush is President of the US, not just President of the US Christians. By stating, publicly, his belief in a god, he ceases to represent those of different faiths. Imagine how you'd feel if you were a Christian, and Bush stood up there and prayed to Allah to save your soul. He shouldn't do it, full stop. His first responsibility is to EVERY US citizen - regardless of faith. His spouting his mouth off about god every five minutes undermines not only his leadership, but his impartiality. Bearing in mind most of his perceived problems are with the Muslim world, Rev'd bush is hardly doing a good job letting people know he's impartial. It doesn't take a genius to realise a leader has to lead all his people, not just those the same as him. Calling people bigots who are offended when their purported leader defers *his* leadership to that of a God they don't believe in, shows great lack of understanding on your part. I imagine you'd be screaming your head off if the shoe was on the other foot. Oh, and FYI, please read this:

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

If those terrorists were "caught fighting red handed in terrorist armies", why aren't they tried? Surely if you're a bastion of freedom and democracy, you'd show the world how true you are to that cause by employing it on your enemies. But no, the US imprisons innocent people (remember - innocent until proven guilty), without trial or representation or ANYTHING. That's hardly "land of the free and the home of the brave", is it?

I was actually pandering to the US preconception that people in turbans are muslims. My housemate is sikh, so I'm well aware of the sikh religion. I studied it at school. Even so, in your unfounded torrent of abuse, you managed to sideline the question. A true republican.

Again, the US imposes more sanctions of any kind on any other country in the world - how can you defend it?

Did you sleep through civics? The President can't grant pardons to companies (they aren't people) or to people who haven't been convicted of crimes, like Ken Lay. Article 2, Section 2 of the Consitiution says:

...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

----->The Income Tax ammendment was never properly ratified by 2/3 of the states, and is not valid because of that. It's still enforced, but it's not valid.

One link for ratification times is found here.

Why do people keep saying the ammendment was never ratified?

Sorry my post is days old, but I only saw your comment via the Metamoderation page. If there is a valid argument regarding this ratification issue, please reply as I have been curious for some time as to why the non-ratification statement keeps coming up.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

It's been proposed a few times over the years, but hasn't been implemented as English is de facto if not de jure the language of the US, and as it would require a constitutional amendment.

You mean 'the constitutional right to privacy is not enumerated.

The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution:

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

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

It's your choice to willingly give your information but it's my right to keep my information private.

Read the Constitution.

DC certainly gets a vote for president. Check out the 23rd amendment:

Some notes and
the text of the amendment.

OK, so only since about 1961.
Puerto Rico doesn't, but that's another thing..

DC certainly gets a vote for president. Check out the 23rd amendment:

Some notes and
the text of the amendment.

OK, so only since about 1961.
Puerto Rico doesn't, but that's another thing..

I agree completely. The amendments they added later really are crap. Honestly, do we really need those pesky 13th (ratified 1865), 15th (ratified 1870) and 19th (ratified 1920) ammendments?

Really, though, I do think the 18th (ratified 1919, repealed 1933) should stay dead.

I agree completely. The amendments they added later really are crap. Honestly, do we really need those pesky 13th (ratified 1865), 15th (ratified 1870) and 19th (ratified 1920) ammendments?

Really, though, I do think the 18th (ratified 1919, repealed 1933) should stay dead.

I agree completely. The amendments they added later really are crap. Honestly, do we really need those pesky 13th (ratified 1865), 15th (ratified 1870) and 19th (ratified 1920) ammendments?

Really, though, I do think the 18th (ratified 1919, repealed 1933) should stay dead.

I agree completely. The amendments they added later really are crap. Honestly, do we really need those pesky 13th (ratified 1865), 15th (ratified 1870) and 19th (ratified 1920) ammendments?

Really, though, I do think the 18th (ratified 1919, repealed 1933) should stay dead.

Gee, thanks for such an insightful and pertinent link. You pointed me directly to were this information would be located. I mean, otherwise I would have had puruse the entire Microsoft documentation.

FYI: forking is allow. Read carefully.

Or maybe it isn't.... can you get back with me on that one?

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;

Actually, according to the Seventh Amendment, if the disputed amount is more than 20 dollars, you are entitled to a jury trial in a civil case.

Noob. Fear my elite reasoning skills.

No you don't have a moral justification either, if you're doing it against the copyright owner's wishes.

Well, Section 1, Article 8 of the US Constitution makes me think otherwise:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

So what do you do when Copyright Law, an implementation of this design, fails to promote the the progress of science and the useful arts? Why, you change the law, you silly noob. And if the law doesn't wanna change, you pretend like you have a pair and disobey.

I've also been focusing on the first half of the Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I believe that only the most literal interpretation, combined with a wilful ignorance of the rules of syntax that make the second clause subordinate to the first, would read this amendment as meaning that we have an inalienable right to bear arms to no purpose.

In fact, the authors of the amendment make the intended purpose clear: arms are necessary to the militia, and the militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

I tend towards an interpretation that reads an implied right: the right of the citizenry to secure their freedom (from tyranny) through force of arms. This right is derived from the inalienable right to liberty, and from this right we derive the subordinate right to bear arms. The implication is that the right to bear arms serves the rights it is derived from. Thus, unless owning and operating a weapon serves this right to a milita, it is not protected under this amendment (though it may still be protected under the right to liberty). So it seems to me that any argument from the amendment as a whole is the argument of a revolutionary or pseudo-revolutionary. By the same token, any argument from the second clause only seems ingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

This is, of course, merely one citizen's interpretation, in the midst of a decades-long debate about whether or not citizens are even qualified to interpret the document at all. You obviously have a different interpretation, and in the end we'll probably have to resolve our differences in the polls.

IP is created insofar as it "promotes progress in science and the useful arts" (apologies for the misquote, but I don't have the US Constitution in front of me).

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 (Article I, Section 8).

Please, show me where in the Consitution or any amendments where we have the "right" you are talking about.

How about the Ninth Amendment or the Tenth Amendment?

The Ninth says "Just because we didn't explicitly mention it here, doesn't mean you have it."

The Tenth says, "If it's not listed here, the Feds don't control it, and it's your right."

Please, show me where in the Consitution or any amendments where we have the "right" you are talking about.

How about the Ninth Amendment or the Tenth Amendment?

The Ninth says "Just because we didn't explicitly mention it here, doesn't mean you have it."

The Tenth says, "If it's not listed here, the Feds don't control it, and it's your right."

Not quite. Despite the clear intent of the 14th Amendment (check out the Congressional Record for details), the Supreme Court has refused to apply all of the Bill of Rights to the states.

A constitutional law professor or attorney can explain it better, but under the "Privileges and Immunities" clause, the Court must actually consider the provision of the Bill of Rights and decide whether to apply it to the states (known as "incorporation"). They have only done so for selected parts.

Among the ones not incorporated are the 2nd, 3rd, and 7th Amendments.

More info here .

In order to see this from my point of view, you're going to have to let go of your assumption that the act of theft requires an act of deprivation. That's not necessarily true.

We're talking about right versus wrong, so the broad definition of stealing applies.

Here's why I think stealing should require deprivation. Society exists because humans have an ingrained sense of self-preservation. Long ago, we recognized that banding together was to our mutual benefit. Societies, as a result, give themselves rules to keep individuals from disrupting the cohesion of the society. Rules that do not have any effect on the cohesion of society are irrelevant. Making a copy of something for personal use does not, in general, affect the cohesion of society. As a result, it should not be illegal.

As I've explained at length elsewhere, I think the idea that stealing is wrong is so fundamental to every culture that your belief on that matter shouldn't be different from mine. It's a normative value judgment on my part, and I stand by it. It's nothing personal, though.

And, for the record, economics is not a zero-sum game. Just ask your lawyer if he's ever billed two clients simultaneously while doing research on a matter of law to see what I mean.

But copyright isn't about money. It's about control.

My right to control this comment lasts until I die, or until I transfer it to somebody else.

So it's about control of the use and distribution of one's work or ideas. When you put it in those terms, suddenly it makes complete sense that copyright should work exactly the way it does now: you retain your copyright for as long as you live, plus a little more, unless you voluntarily give it up. This is only appropriate. It's your work or ideas, so you have the right to say who can use it and how.

But it seems reasonable to me that a corporation-- say, Disney-- should have the right to control its creations-- say, Mickey Mouse-- for a reasonable amount of time-- say, the lifetime of the corporation.

Copyrights cannot be assigned to another entity
-->Currently this can be done (and patents as well) under liscencing. Otherwise - you wouldn't see all the cool Star Wars toys made by Mattel, not-so-cool Episode II Crunch by General Mills, etc. Eliminate liscencing and you're limited to whoever owns the copyright having to promote and pay for all of their own stuff.

Note that I had no objection to a copyright holder licensing use. I objected to a holder giving his copyright away to someone else. Since the purpose of copyright is enumerated in the Constitution in the copyright clause ("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;"), transfer of copyright does not promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.

Actually, the Constitution is written fairly clearly, and can pretty much be understood by anyone fluent in English (with the possible exception of some of the later Amendments, which were written in legalese).

The problem is that Congress (and some Judges) are so fluent in legalese, that they have trouble understanding English.

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." do they have a problem understanding?

One percent of America's population holds 40% of the wealth.

I hope you are not suggesting that it is unfair to have that one percent of the population pay 40% of the taxes.

Yup. It's completely "unfair" because the taxes in question are levied on income not wealth. Two completely different (and often unrelated) things.

FWIW, I'm definitely not wealthy (yet) or in a high tax bracket.

Of course, IMneverHO, the real solution is for America to start obeying the freaking law again which would mean abolishing most of the fedgov. Then income taxes would be unnecessary. Hell, we might even be free again!

This concludes this edition of the off-topic rant.

Thank you. Whenever I try to make that point, nobody ever listens!

The Ninth Amendment has to be the most underrated and most ignored by Congress (though the 10th comes close) Amendment that there is.

Laymans Terms:

Ninth Amendment: "We listed some rights explicitly. Even if we forgot to talk about the others, you've still got them."

Tenth Amendment: "If we didn't say the Feds could do something, then they can't. The States and the People can."

You forgot the Ninth Amendment, which I think is more relevant. The Tenth is State's Rights. The Ninth is the "Construction" amendment, which essentially says, "Just because we didn't list a right, that doesn't mean you don't have it."

Umm, do we really *have* a right to privacy? I don't believe it's in the Bill of Rights; it's just one of those things we all expect should be there.

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

In layman's terms: "Even though we didn't mention them, you still have them."

Ever hear of due process? Not all of their development efforts constituted anti-trust violations.

What the hell is wrong with you people? If you have a problem with receiving spam, fucking deal with it yourself. It's YOUR responsibility to read the mail you want and discard the mail you don't, not some ISP or government agency's. Do any of you even realize that all you are doing is contributing to the limitation of your own freedom, ability to use the internet the way you want, and privacy when using it?

Government regulation is certainly not the answer, nor is it legal (for the US government at least, read the Constitution)

Neither is ISP blacklisting or filtering a suitable solution. It denies the user (ie. the person who has the receiving email account) the ability to decide for himself what he wants to receive on the internet. An ISP should provide access to the internet - nothing more, nothing less. It's the user's responsibility to pay attention to what he wants and ignore or filter what he doesn't.

-

Also read http://www.toad.com/grokmail/antispam.html

We should all be supporting Gilmore for his firm commitment to a free internet, not denouncing him.

If you could search for the appropriate texts for me, I would appreciate it.

Well, I did find the letter I was refering to: here

To do this, school funds would have to be collected in another way, but let's say that each community managed to have their own school taxes directed to their own school.

Well, for one, at least in NY communities do provide the taxes for thier own schools. There are school lunch programs, etc from state/federal governments, but the majority of the funds are local.

The problem with have each community set its own standard is that the constitution is still the law of the land. This would be akin to a community deciding that it was legal to stop women from voting. The Constitution has the last word, so every government body at any level in the US has to abide by the minimum freedoms and laws set forth by the Constitution. From an ethical point of view, you have the problem that if a community did vote to have a government funded parochial school, even if 95% of that community was X religion, you are still violating the rights of 5% that are Y or Z religion. Not to mention the number of that 95% that feel that the schools should not be teaching thier children religion, but the parents should. Or the guy from another community who happens to move there and doesn't buy into what's being done (see the movie Footloose for what I mean).

OK, those are the facts. Now I am going to throw in some opinionated stuff. First, the Separation of Church and State is a good thing to just about anyone who isn't look to force thier religion on other people. It garuntees that everyone will have complete freedom to practice thier religion however they want, and that no one will have to worry about having to support someone else's religion, or face descrimination by the government for their religious choices. This is a very important thing. Second, if you look at religion as a private and community entity, the majority of times it is a worthwhile force. But when you look at religion mixed with government (or sudo-government) entities, you get things like the Crusades, nations that don't respect women, pilgrims crossing huge oceans just to practice thier religion, etc. Europeans first came to what is now the US becuase of the problems caused by State-sponsered religion. People seem to forget this.

I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you are Christian, and therefore you are conveniently in the majority in the US. Imagine for a moment if the push for religion in schools/government was coming from the Jews, or the Hindus, or the Pagans, or the practitioners of Voodoo - and you were in the minority. I hope that it will help put things in perspective, and personalize the things at stake. And keep in mind the Danbury Baptists, and the Pilgrims - who relied on the Freedom of Religion to be able to practice thiers.

In your opinion, did they (MS) get any exclusive rights from the government or are they the exception of a company which managed to get to this position all by itself?

"Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8)

I don't think Microsoft would be in a monopoly position without these grants of exclusive rights in the forms of copyright and patent protection.

Actually in the US the point of 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" At least thats what the constitution says. I guess you might b able to argue common law, but I think the constitution just might trump that.

Of course I use this to argue for a completely new patent/copyright system, but that is neither here nor there...

If it is true that the treaty forces countries to create legislation that makes it illegal to not provide keys on demand, how could the U.S. possibly sign this since the treaty? The 5th amendment prevents the gov't from forcing a person to testify against themselves. I believe that Mitnick used the 5th amend. to keep his encryption keys secret. I think that it was even discussed on slashdot a while back too.

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

James

P.S. Does the search feature for stories even work anymore?

Anyhow, I'd hate to see the Postal Service disbanded by any act of this or a future congress by Constitutional amendment. I'm not sure it could happen anyway. How in the world would the IRS get my tax payments? Keep in mind, amendments are intended to be additions to the Constitution. However, when ignorant or illegal changes are made, only by subsequent amendment may they be removed. I don't trust most of our congressmen to have the scruples to properly change the Constitution and that is the only way the USPS could be disbanded. I hope that congress sticks to US Code where they are intellectually capable of making changes. To be honest though folks, we shouldn't even be thinking this way. Everyone is having reactionary feelings and concerns about the attacks. It really is to be expected, however our representatives in Washington have a responsibility to us (civilians, citizens) and to the future of these Great United States. Devaluing the power of the _Constitution_ with ridiculous changes will only do harm to our freedoms. Changing the Constitution during this time of great distress would be a crime against all Americans, past, present and future.

No changes to the Constitution will change the fact that Al-Qaida and Bin Laden want to kill every American, and more correctly, every non-Muslim. This war _he_ has started against us is because we are the most free peoples on the planet. He has called for Jihad and yet we are called the Crusaders... I have great difficulty dealing with this kind of logic. He is unhappy that Muslims, Christians, Jews and atheists can and do live relatively peacefully in this country. In no other country in the world can this be claimed; certainly not in the Middle East. It is because of this that we must respect and uphold our freedoms, even in this time of terror as proof to the world that we can remain free. -Bob

Keep in mind folks, the USPS is chartered in the United State Constitution. See Article 1, section 8, "The Congress shall have the power to: ... establish post offices and post roads." Check out usconstituion.net. Now I wouldn't be surprised if the USPS ends up having to purchase fancy devices to look for questionable substances being shipped in letters and packages. Of course any changes made to their business will impact our service. Most obvious being an increase in the price of stamps ;-) I don't think the Supreme Court would find an amendment putting the USPS to sleep being Constitutional. That would be like Congress passing an Amendment that the office of the President of the United States be removed... Just look on the bright side; the USPS is going to _HAVE_ to do _SOMETHING_ to deal with this threat. Hopefully in the near future you won't have to be concerned about being infected with Anthrax through the Postal service. Now ensuring your drinking water is safe is another story ;-) -Bob

It's already protected under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, and possibly the Third as well.

See here for the amendments.

I doubt they would miss the connection between quartering soldiers and/or quartering escrowed keys

Congress will just claim the "time of war" excpetion in the Third Amendment.

--
"If justice is only meted out when it is 'easy' or 'convenient' to do so, then the [constitution] isn't worth the parchment it's printed on..."

- Justin Foote in Robert A. Heinlein's Metheuselah's Children

We do have the right to travel. See this Web page and this USENET post.

I doubt they would miss the connection between quartering soldiers and/or quartering escrowed keys

Congress will just claim the "time of war" excpetion in the Third Amendment.

wouldn't it make more sense if we just applied current laws and required that, upon presentation of an appropriate warrent, you had to decrypt documents and files that the authorities tell you to decrypt rather than having some third parties do it for you and them?

That would be nice, except for a little item called The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

"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,"

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.