Slashdot Mirror

A. Urban legend is that the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights were written on hemp paper, hemp being the industrial name for the fiber of the marijuana plant. For some reason, this "fact" is touted by those who seek to legalize marijuana for recreational use. First, it is not clear why the use of hemp as a fiber should mean it should be legalized for recreational use. Second, the "fact" is not a fact.

The Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are currently housed in the National Archives. All three are written on parchment, not hemp paper. Parchment is treated animal skin, typically sheepskin. The Declaration was inked with iron gall ink. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory was commissioned to create a system to monitor the physical status of all three. The Charters of Freedom Monitoring System took digital photos of each sheet of parchment in 1987, each document divided into one-inch squares. Over time, the photos are retaken and compared to the original to look for signs of deterioration. Before the charters were recently reencased for display, a small tear in the Declaration was repaired by adding Japanese paper to the gap. This is the only paper in any of the documents. It is, then, inaccurate to say that any of these documents was written on hemp.

It is likely, however, that drafts of the documents were written on paper made from hemp. In that period, most paper was made from hemp or flax and a mixture of recycled rags and cloth.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a8.html

Neither the US Constitution nor the Bill of Rights protect you from anything at all, since they are merely historical pieces of hemp paper that our federal government has been completely ignoring for a long, long time. The Constitution was written in plain simple language so that everyone could read and understand it. They expected the people to read it and understand their unalienable rights and the restrictions placed on the federal government by the Constitution -- but most importantly they expected the people to enforce the Constitution, which is one of the reasons they were vehemently opposed to a large standing government army and preferred a militia composed of the people.

The law says that people that are arrested can/may/should (I don't recall the exact words) have their immigration status checked. The important part is that the person must be arrested for some other crime FIRST before their "papers" are requested.

The law also specifically states that an officer cannot use this law as a primary offense for the arrest and cannot use race as the basis for checking immigration status. I realize that this does not really prevent officers from abusing the law but around here we generally look down on police officers breaking the law.

Driving while Hispanic is not against the law. Driving with a broken headlamp is against the law. If the person stopped for the broken headlamp speaks broken English, has no license to drive or other papers, then I would hope the officer not only arrests that person but also during the process attempts to verify the person is in the country legally.

If you were stopped with a broken headlamp in Arizona and you presented your Virginia license the officer would be required to make a best effort to see if you were in the country legally. I am not aware of any state that will issue licenses to people in the country illegally. Some might produce false papers to get a license from another state but having a license to drive from any state generally shows you are in the country legally.

This is not a blank check to stop anyone. As someone that lives in a state that licenses the carry of weapons I have to carry ID on me all the time. In Arizona there is no requirement to have a license to be armed so they cannot even stop people for ID just because they are armed. If there is something to get upset about for being stopped and requiring papers I'd think exercising one's right of self defense would be one of them. Thankfully Arizona has enacted a good law on that a couple years ago.

If you want to continue to claim that this is a blank check to stop people to ask them for immigration papers then please cite the section of the law. Here's my citation that they cannot:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

A judge who dismisses a case on grounds of 'public interest' and not rule of law is overstepping his authority.

No, he's following the intent of the patent and copyright clause of the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 states:

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

Promote the progress of science and the arts for whom and for what benefit? The public. This judge is one of the few who actually seems to understand that the primary purpose of patent and copyright is to bring the knowledge into the public domain by giving exclusive rights "for limited times" to the inventor, discoverer, or author. So, while the exclusive right is granted to a private person(s) or corporation, it is granted in exchange for contributing it to the public interest. If the rights holder is not fulfilling their public interest side of the bargain, it it within the rights of the courts to force them to do so, or revoke their exclusive rights.

It's not about the radiation. It's about unnecessary radiation. The TSA x-ray scanners are completely ineffective. They're trivially easy to defeat, and that's if the operator is actually paying attention. If the operator isn't paying attention, then they're simply dangerous. They're operated by people who aren't trained in radiation safety, are prohibited from wearing a dosimeter, and they're tested and calibrated by TSA, who has been found to have miscalibrated a number of machines. And, your 60x/360x figures are way off, by about a factor of 10, try 2x-5x for a 2-3 hr flight IF the machines are properly calibrated.

TSA and GAO estimates 3-10 additional cancer deaths per year in the US due to the use of the scanners.

And fewer people flying will not reduce your airfare, planes are not at capacity, so it will increase fares and/or decrease frequency of service.

Also, "DON'T FLY" is a cop opt. 49 USC 40103(a)(2) states:

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

So, people have a right to travel by air, and they have the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution states:

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.

In the US, we have rights, and some of use demand that those rights not be infringed. You're welcome to give up your rights, but you can not give away mine. So, you can take you attitude to another country and be groped all you want.

As for Ron Paul, he claims he's pro-constitution, but stated he would have voted for a law that repealed Full Faith and Credit as defined in the Constitution

I believe you are incorrectly referring to Ron Paul's position on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional . (Before the House of Representatives, July 22, 2004)

Here's the text of Article IV, Section 1:

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof .

Feel free to elaborate your position if you think I misread what you were saying.

Ironically, such an action by the RIAA/MPAA in international waters would technically be an act of piracy.

The US Congress could allow them to do it, by granting a Letter of Marque and Reprisal

I thought Intellectual Property laws protected creators from other creators

Funny, I thought they were To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.

The ideal would be a constitutional amendment. We'd have to word it very carefully and smartly and then make it good enough so that a whole bunch of people can rally around it.

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

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

We'd need to ball up all of the major issues in how we've been screwed over into one megaamendment and get it ratified so as not to give politicians the opportunity to tear it apart.

Do note that the above process - the one that has never been used - can completely bypass the federal government in its entirety.

I'd also throw in something about how interstate commerce shouldn't let the Fed reach over state lines like they've been doing, and how about some laws repealing the whole "drugs r bad mmkay" thing we got going here?

We have a democracy. We have voting and majority rule.

We have a republic. We have voting for representatives and representative, judicial and executive rule. We have a constitution that specifies these things, and instructs the government that each state government must also conform to this structure.

...unless you live somewhere other than the US, of course, where you may indeed have a democracy.

Also you left out the first paragraph of Aricle 8,
The Congress shall have Power To
IE it is part of the powers granted to the Congress, it was not a requirement of congress to do anything. hence the term given is the "Enumerated_powers"
Similar is true of the 1st amendment, it tells us that the US government, and by the 10th amendment the states, are not allowed to infringe on the right of speech, or pass laws that do. They are not required to protect the free speech of citizens, except from that of government bodies. IE, if I don't care for what you have to say, I can walk away, or kick you off my personal property, the government is not required to protect your free speech on private property from private citizens.

It really makes me wonder. New laws are being proposed in rapid succession to give organizations more and more power over individuals. What laws are being proposed to save us all from this?

Already have 'em.

We just have to stop allowing government agents from pretending they don't exist or aren't relevant.

Are you also happy with them dumping millions into programs and then cancelling them mid-stream? I'm sorry but if the budgeting that tenuous you might want to have less major programs and more compartentalized research that can be stopped and started easier without impacting major programs (more base fundamental research in very specific areas). These could then be placed on hold for funding shortfalls while keeping the major programs working.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Rendezvous_Asteroid_Flyby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Orbiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Telecommunications_Orbiter

As for rewriting the constitution to let NASA determine it's own level of funding, you just might want to read the constitution. None of NASA's funding is authorised by the constitution. You can go here and read it for yourself: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

No one disputes that they stopped him from going to his plane and turned him over to local police to escort him out of the screening area. He was not permitted to leave the screening area until the police arrived. How does that not constitute being detained?

The fact is, the TSA did detain a US Senator on his way to DC for official business (the Senate is in session at 4:30 this afternoon). That is in direct violation of Article 1, Section 6 of the US Constitution which states in part:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

He was not guilty of Treason, he was not committing a felony, was not breaching the peace, and there were no warrants for any of those, yet they did detain him on his way to attend a session of the Senate. The TSA violated the US Constitution.

The same bill has to pass through both house and senate. So even if the senate passes the bill (PIPA), the house would have to vote on the same version. If they can't agree, then they can either make a session together to vote on a version (not sure what the requirement is for a bill to pass in a conference session) or the bill dies. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html Check conference section.

However, no attempt was made to capture al-Awlaki. Instead a concerted (successful) attempt was made to assassinate him, and in fact in such a way that capture was not ever possible. The act was against both U.S. and international law.

No, it is NOT "black and white". It's just plain black. It wasn't war, it was murder. According to the law.

And how is it against the law? The strike was done in Yemen, with Yemen's permission and approval. So no sovereignty was violated, no treaties broken. So what law(s) were broken? You'd have to come up with that before it can be called murder. And it is a black and white case. The US killed him under a war proclamation. You may disagree with that, but that's also black and white.

You attempt to justify this by stating that Yemen's sovereignty was not violated, but this is wholly irrelevant. The issue is not whether Yemen as a state was aggrieved -- the issue is that the US government is openly assassinating people without any recourse to due process protections guaranteed under the Constitution. And please read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- they actually aren't that long, and you'll find that they distinguish between citizens and people or persons, with most of the rights and protections applying broadly to this latter category (i.e., to everybody, regardless of citizenship).

Assuming that US law still counts for something, then how is it possibly anything other than murder to kill al-Awlaki (and two weeks later his 16-year-old son) without any attempt at applying due process? For example, what was he charged with? Who issued his arrest warrant? How was arrest attempted? Who was put in immediate danger of bodily harm, and how, to justify the application of deadly force during the attempted arrest?

But there were no charges, not proper formal legal charges. There was no arrest warrant issued. There was no arrest attempted. No one was in immediate danger of harm.

You also attempt to make the case that there was some sort of "war proclamation" that justifies this, which suggests that you're a bit confused about war legalities. War in any legal sense is declared by the US Congress, not "proclaimed". And, for that matter, there have only ever been five declared wars that the US has participated in throughout the whole course of US history. More here. The only two in the 20th century were WWI and WWII; none have yet been declared in the 21st century. (Think about that for a moment. For all the war the US wages, most of it isn't even legal by the US's own standards.)

Your argument fails, due to misinformation. Please, read the foundational documents of US law. You will learn much. Notably, you will find that the underlying legal framework of the US is designed to be as fair and impartial as possible, precisely in order to protect against the "we don't like you so we're going to kill you" kind of indiscriminate state behavior that the US government is increasingly fond of.

Um, no. Congress has to declare war. Article 1, section 8 of the constitution, listing the powers of congress. "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;" Source

Public parks are public - they're "owned" by the people. If people choose to camp out on them as a means of protesting against the governments' policies wrt the bail-outs and Wall Street greed and influence on the political process, it's a legitimate free-speech issue.

So, what would you say if they rotated out - each protester left the site for 1 hour a day, so that they were not "living there" - would that be okay? How about if they made it 12 hours a day - and half took the day shift, and the other half the night shift? Would that be okay?

Or is it just that it's only okay to protest during office hours? In which case, you're denying the first amendment rights of people who work during that period ... as well as it being an arbitrary and unjustifiable restraint on free speech.

Now, let's look at it from the other side. If the OWS protesters WERE to be considered as living there, as you claim, then they have a 4th Amendment right to be free of search and seizure except with a warrant, duly issued. And that warrant has to clearly identify them, not just as Jane Doe # 27, as per the 4th Amendment.

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.

You spend a lot of time on Jefferson and Madison; the quote from Franklin really is inappropriate in its entirety given that it was written long before the Constitution, as part of a letter to delegates advocating secession, and tarring British loyalists as "giving up liberty" for the "security" of the British empire. Jefferson was off in France and had absolutely shit-all to do with the writing of the Constitution. Madison, meanwhile, is MUCH more in favor of centralized government than you give him credit for; the bulk of his writings (which come from the Federalist, not the ANTI-Federalist) are a defense of vesting power in a centralized, federal government and not a call to strip the federal government of power and simply re-create the old Articles of Confederacy.

But, since you've proven only an ability to pull quotations out of context and absolutely zero understanding of the process in which the Constitution let me clue you in: the basics of it, including the separation of powers, were the production of the Virginia delegation led by Edmund Randolph. The bicameral legislature was pulled from British tradition, while the idea of power-against-power as checks and balances came heavily from the philosophical writings of John Locke. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were heavy proponents of "proportional only" representation in both houses, and were ruled down by the smaller states before the compromise of the Senate/House division. William Paterson, a STRONG federalist, proposed the competing unicameral "two representatives per state" option that eventually became the Senate. Gouverneur Morris, who wrote the preamble, was also a strong federalist who had roundly decried the antisocial behavior of the states towards each other under the Articles - he had previously been a congressional representative during the Articles, but was defeated for reelection when anti-federalism became popular in New York.

When you want to look over the creation of the Constitution, you need to look at the writings of those who were actually there. You've misquoted James Madison, you've barely done justice to Ben Franklin (who was almost a freaking anarchist, as evidenced by his speech from the final day of the convention), and your other "founding fathers" weren't even participants in its creation.

In short: it is you, sir, who is uneducated, ill-informed, and completely wrong about the Constitution.

By making it an inalienable right, a right which can not be denied, it becomes a requirement of the government to provided to all residents. If one has an inalienable right, then whether one can buy it or not is irrelevant because it becomes the burden of the government to provide it.
 
Life is not an inalienable right. The fact that one can through due process of law have one's life ended is proof of that. An inalienable right, by definition, can not be denied or removed.
 
I have never had a problem opening a bank account or getting a job without an email address. Neither are necessary unless the job itself requires an email address.
 
If you read the Bill of Rights, you will see that it is actually a list of things Americans have rights to be free of, not a list of things they to which the have a right. It is one of the biggest mistakes people make about the Bill of Rights. It assumes a right of free speech, peaceful assembly, even a right to bear arms, and prohibits the federal government from taking those rights away. This is a very big difference from a right, let alone an inalienable right, to some specific thing.

First Amendment

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

The right to assemble applies to cyberspace, not just meatspace. Furthermore, the right to freedom of press is meaningless without the right to assemble to give the person your leaflet. Even though the document is over 200 years old, already it made first-class acknowledgement of technology: the printing press, a major technological leap from the fifteenth century. The Constitution is technology-aware. The Internet is the new press, and to prevent publication on it or to prevent receiving publications from it is unconsitutional.

Of course, this is meaningless with a Constitution that is not just routinely ignored, but at this point completely dead. Although the Constitution has been dying for the past century, the watershed moment for me came last month when a U.S. judge nullified the War Powers Act and put the capacity for declaration of war completely in the Executive Branch. Worse than the actual court decision, is that no one noticed or cared.

You thought your government represented you?

Think again.

The current distraction is the Tea Partiers, being fed a steady bullshit diet of "OMG GAYS ARE GOING TO FORCE YOUR KID TO GET GAY MARRIED" and "OMG THE GUVMINT IS GONNA TAKE YOUR GUNZ AND YOUR MUNNY IF OBAMA IS ELECTED AGAIN" through the Beck/Rush/Fox noise machine.

You think that the standard idiots even NOTICE that a congressional hearing is stacked one way or another? These are the cud-chewing moron crowd who think that watching C-Span is "boring" and to be avoided at all costs. These are the ones who think they know what the constitution says despite never having read it or done even the most rudimentary study on it - they think "god" is in there somewhere, they think a bunch of other things are in it that aren't, and let's face it, it's scary when all the Onion has to do is profile one of these boobs and you'd totally think that was a news story if you didn't see the word "Onion" up top.

But don't worry. They're happy to take their daily brainwashing from Rush and the local hate-radio purveyors and "vote" accordingly. It's like we're living in oceania - they've even come up with their own version of Newspeak to handle their hate. The Affordable Health Care Act, passed with bipartisan support? Oh yes - "Obamacare Health Control." Pissed off that Obama is black? Don't mention race, just quietly insinuate he's "Kenyan." Oh and for good measure, mention that he "might be a Muslim."

Of course, when they're trying to keep their lies straight, the veil tends to slip. Rush The Druggie regularly refers to the President of the United States as "uppity." In defending Herman "Pervy old man" Cain from the allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior, the right wing noise machine went on some of the worst misogynist screeds we've seen in the past 3 decades - surpassing even their amazing hatred for Hilary Clinton, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor.

Because most Americans are actually pretty OK with everything he did and don't actually consider it as wrong.

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

50.1% of Americans voted against him coming back for a second term (and a first one, for that matter.)

You got that backwards. Bush Jr *received* 50.7% of the vote. Perhaps you were thinking of Bill Clinton who did not receive 50% in either election.

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

I think you misread me - I don't like anybody who has been in the President's office in my lifetime. I dislike some more than others...

Who said you liked anyone? All that was said was that you misquoted a statistic, or got the subject of a statistical pattern mixed up.

Because most Americans are actually pretty OK with everything he did and don't actually consider it as wrong.

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

50.1% of Americans voted against him coming back for a second term (and a first one, for that matter.)

You got that backwards. Bush Jr *received* 50.7% of the vote. Perhaps you were thinking of Bill Clinton who did not receive 50% in either election.

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

I think you misread me - I don't like anybody who has been in the President's office in my lifetime. I dislike some more than others...

Because most Americans are actually pretty OK with everything he did and don't actually consider it as wrong.

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

50.1% of Americans voted against him coming back for a second term (and a first one, for that matter.)

You got that backwards. Bush Jr *received* 50.7% of the vote. Perhaps you were thinking of Bill Clinton who did not receive 50% in either election.
http://www.usconstitution.net/elections.html

The Constitution of the United States of America had a nod to a limited copyright, with the idea that it would promote the arts and sciences for there to be a period of time in which the original creator of an idea would be able to profit from it. (Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, wherein it states as a goal "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;")

Here's an article entitled The Founding Fathers Had Copyright Right, explaining how and why copyright was first introduced (back when the U.S.A. was just a twinkle in the founding fathers' eyes). It bears little resemblance to the convoluted and draconian system we now have in place.

As of 1790, that "limited time" was a period of 14 years, with a possible 14 year extension (assuming the author was still alive), for a possible maximum of 28 years from date of creation. Those periods were more than double those originally specified in earlier documents, which ranged from 5 to 7 years.

More recently, the Copyright Term Extension Act has shoved everything in quite the wrong direction for anything to ever reach the public domain.

For example:

Mickey Mouse was created in 1928. Mickey Mouse's likeness will not be legal to reproduce without a license until 2036, or maybe even 2047 (there is some legalistic ambiguity). And that's assuming that the copyright laws are not changed yet again to suit corporate greed... Because, you know, Disney hasn't had enough time to properly profit from Mickey Mouse yet, since he's only 83 years old!

If that example isn't broken enough for you, have a look at this list of when things enter the public domain, and note that the current copyright law ensures that a book published on 15 March 1923 will enter the public domain on 1 January 2019, despite nearly everyone who was alive when it was published being dead now - nevermind 7 more years. It also shows that a sound recording published in 1978 will enter the public domain no earlier than 2049. If it was recorded prior to 1972, then it won't become public domain until at least 2067. This literally means that music recorded before I was born will not be in the public domain before I die. I expect this holds true for most of us, actually, and not just me. As an aside, this is also why restaurants do not sing "Happy Birthday" with the lyrics and melody you learned growing up.

"If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it" http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

So no, leaving it on his desk would have just given it an automatic pass.

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Shamelessly stolen from http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel

Wouldn't a punishment that's applied only to one form of crime fall under the Eight Amendment?

The federal government, in the case of America, cannot print money.

Oh really? Let's take a look at the good ole Constitution.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Sure looks like they can print money to me...

How many children were killed by US bombs yesterday? And these guys have the temerity to express outrage over a web browser while that is going on?

Congressmen: do your fucking job. It's described in the instruction manual.

Actually, Constitutionally, not guilty == innocent. Watching someone forever for the slightest slip-up defies that Constitutional mandate.

You are wrong, in both the constitutional and legal sense.

"Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution
Innocent Until Proven Guilty
First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.
The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury."
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#innocent

I'm still trying to figure out how a contract of adhesion can waive the Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution.

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.

United States Constitution, Article I, 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;

Now the actual law derived from this allowance can be found here, and it is not so fluffy. That said, nothing short of a constitutional amendment can override the Constitution, meaning that the above sentence is the entire foundation for Title 17.

The Ninth Amendment.

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

Translation: "Even though we didn't explicitly mention Right 'X', you've still got it."

Also the Tenth:

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.

Translation: "If it ain't in here, the Feds can't do it."

I'd say Reaganite morons have done a lot to actively sabotage our postal service, because despite the fact that its existence is enumerated right the fuck there in the Constitution

Whoa, take it easy there, killer... "Congress has the power to establish post offices" is not the same as "Congress is required to have a post office government agency running a huge deficit that can't be questioned".

Has the US government done anything to actively sabotage the USPS?

I'd say Reaganite morons have done a lot to actively sabotage our postal service, because despite the fact that its existence is enumerated right the fuck there in the Constitution, it represents a huge item that they can sell off to their campaign contributors. And most of the 'troubles' with the postal service did start to erupt in the 1980's, when Reganism and the "privatize everything" mentality were running wild in our government -- which hasn't abated a bit since then.

So yes, sabotage is ongoing and constant. The idea that we are guaranteed a method of communicating and moving goods throughout the nation is simply too crazy for them to tolerate -- they'd rather leave that important function up to "private industries" who just as often will lose your package, decide to drop service to your market for no reason in particular, and in all other ways take a valuable public service and fuck it up so they can make as much money as possible.

No, no. Read the 13th amendment. Slavery is perfectly ok -- as long as the government does it as punishment for a crime. And as we all know, all corporations are criminals, and furthermore the legal system is so overweight and complex no one can really be sure they're acting completely in accordance with the law at any point, so...

Unreasonable is a pretty slippery word

Exactly wrong. Unreasonable isn't slippery at all, at least, not in the case of search. It's defined right in the 4th amendment, quite specifically. Go read it.

Also, the courts have no authority to abrogate the meaning of the 4th amendment. Article three awards the power to judge guilty or not; it does not award the power to alter. That is limited to article five. This is simply the government acting out of the bounds of its authorization, exerting, in this case, power that was explicitly forbidden to it.

The 6th Amendment to the US Constitution states [emphasis added]:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Just how do you confront a video recorder? How do you prove it hasn't been altered? How to you prove the date/time is accurate? How do you prove who was driving?

Can they go back and issue citations for expired registrations based upon these recordings? For how long? What about parking citations?

Will the videos be available via FOIA requests? If so, what's to stop a stalker, spouse, or other individual from using these in civil cases, or even for extortion? What happens when the preacher's/politician's car is spotted parked near an "adult video store", strip club, etc.? Even if they're "not available" via FOIA requests, people are corruptible and someone will get their hands on videos that they can use for criminal purposes.

There are just too many unanswered questions. While they might be able to make a case for keeping the recordings for 3-6 months, anything longer just presents too much potential for misuse/abuse, and even those short periods will allow the unscrupulous the opportunity to steal videos that they can use to blackmail others.

Note to Massachusetts' politicians: Such videos will be used against you at some point. Count on it. If you don't care about the privacy of the citizens, at least think of your self interest before voting for this.

Even if you can get the "evidence" thrown out, the pressure they can exert by this knowledge is too much. A lot of fruit will be picked from the poisoned tree.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Just how do you confront a video recorder? How do you prove it hasn't been altered? How to you prove the date/time is accurate? How do you prove who was driving?

Can they go back and issue citations for expired registrations based upon these recordings? For how long? What about parking citations?

Will the videos be available via FOIA requests? If so, what's to stop a stalker, spouse, or other individual from using these in civil cases, or even for extortion? What happens when the preacher's/politician's car is spotted parked near an "adult video store", strip club, etc.? Even if they're "not available" via FOIA requests, people are corruptible and someone will get their hands on videos that they can use for criminal purposes.

There are just too many unanswered questions. While they might be able to make a case for keeping the recordings for 3-6 months, anything longer just presents too much potential for misuse/abuse, and even those short periods will allow the unscrupulous the opportunity to steal videos that they can use to blackmail others.

Note to Massachusetts' politicians: Such videos will be used against you at some point. Count on it. If you don't care about the privacy of the citizens, at least think of your self interest before voting for this.

The constitution limits what the government can do, not what you can't do. However, the US Supreme Court has declared that the "Right to Privacy" is inherent from the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th & 14th Amendments.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

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

The one thing I've learned is, people who argue our Founding Fathers didn't understand or completely missed something when they created the US Constitution, are either completely ignorant of the subject at hand or have an agenda which is contrary to the best interest of the American people.

How do you explain the amendments then?
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends

They came AFTER the constitution was created. So the Founding Fathers sure missed those.

And the amendments are often the bits that the US citizens hold dearest.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Bob the Angry Constitutional Scholar sez: "The Constitution was written in 1787 in the manner of the day — in other words, it was written by hand. According to the National Archives, the version we are most familiar with today was penned by Jacob Shallus, a clerk for the Pennsylvania State Assembly. In the document itself are several words which are misspelled. Far from the days of spell checkers and easy edits, these misspellings survive in the document today.... Another mistake, though less obvious, is a common one even today: the word "it's" is used in Article 1, Section 10, but the word "its" should have been used." from http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html

"You need a license to drive on public roads." Since when did you become a Constitutional attorney? In the USA, only commercial drivers and those who have been tricked into agreeing they are commercial drivers need a license to drive on public roads. The rest of us exercise our right to travel in personal automobiles. The right has been upheld by the federal Supreme Court. You may want to listen to Rule Of Law Radio during their Monday "traffic night" call-in show. The hosts understand how to travel without a license. http://ruleoflawradio.com/index.html Right To Travel reading: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topics/tog_right_to_travel.html

...and there's no way [Congress] can delegate the declaration of war, particularly if they do so ambiguously.

Technically, that's not quite true. It's not easy, but it can be done.

Actually, the Bill of Rights is all redundant when considering the entire argument against the Bill of rights in the first place was that the federal government had no rights to impose on the liberties the 12 amendments were to protect.

Oh, that's right, I said 12 and not 10. That is because the original bill of rights contained 12 amendments, 10 of which were passed and ratified by enough states to make the constitution acceptable and binding. The other two which was the first and second amendment of the original bill of rights saw the second passed finally as the 27th amendment to the constitution regarding compensation of elected officials, while the first amendment limiting the power of congress to change the number of representatives has still not been passed.

Here is some more about it.
http://www.usconstitution.net/first12.html

I'm sure the president has the ability to veto this though. Surely he will?

Sure he could, but since it was passed on 72 to 23 it would be overridden in a heart beat (unlikely that 7 yeas will turn to nays). The only real option open to the president if he is unhappy with the bill is to let it sit on his desk and become law unsigned.

Congress isn't going out of town anytime soon so a pocket veto won't happen.

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

In other words, if the Constitution doesn't SPECIFICALLY allow it, the Federal government can't do it. (At least that's the theory.)

And that, specifically, IS in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says EXACTLY that.

(and, hey America, what happened to all men created equal when it comes to who can be president? Or does that "rule" only apply if you're American, born in America, never set foot outside the borders?)

Erm, actually, yes, for the first two. It's in the Constitution. You can presumably visit other countries, but you do have to be a natural-born citizen:

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.