Slashdot Mirror

While I do NOT like this decision, it does seem Constitutional.

May I refer you to the Seventh Amendment?

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.

(Emphasis mine).

Article 1 Section 9: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9

The entire *purpose* of copyrights is to get works into the public domain.

No, that is not the purpose of copyright. The purpose of U.S. copyright law is set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America, Article one, 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, are you done proving your ignorance?

That would mean only the established big players can compete/produce.

Not even close. Big established players only can compeat today. It won't take long for a new, smaller, player to be slapped with a lawsuit from those established big players today. Without an army of lawyers it's difficult if not impossible to wade through the patent mine field, and what small business can afford such an army of attorneys?

Because if I invent something with a 10M budget and start producing it, they easily can take my invention and produce it cheaper

Again not quite. As the inventor you have first mover advantage. Big players can take years to turn around and produce something. Big players don't turn on a dime. And if you haven't made improvements in your product by the tyme your competition releases it's own compeating product then you're not progressing.

What would be the point then for me to invent anything?

If the above do not work for you then there's these things called trade secrets. Fabrication businesses already exist that will build or manufacture other businesses products on contract. The Taiwanese business Foxconn builds computers and other electronics for others, Apple contracted with Foxconn to make iPads, iPhones, and iPods. Trade secrets, and contracts, prevent Foxconn from making these and selling them as their own products. I as an inventor could go to Foxconn or another fabricator, have them sign an NDA or Non-disclosure Agreement, and ask them if they can manufacture my product. Then if Foxconn started to sell my invention as their own product I have good grounds to sue and believe I can win.

Now I may not have enough money to file a lawsuit myself but I could find an investor would does have deep pockets. Or better yet again with signed NDAs I can show my invention to angel investors or business incubators. With their assistance I can start manufacturing my product myself.

And all that ignores why patents are granted, yes patents are granted and not a right. According to the Constitution of the USA patents are meant "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;". However economic studies have shown patents impede progress. Yet Another Study Finds Patents Do Not Encourage Innovation. Economists say copyright and patent laws are killing innovation; hurting economy.

Falcon

Interesting.

Wouldn't Article VI, combined with the 14th Amendment make such a provision unconstitutional (under the US constitution)?

US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The fact that this is even being argued shows the level of ignorance many Americans have about their government. Good thing we got rid of Civics class for Social Studies.
There is little doubt the U.S. started as a Republic (See Article 4, Section 4 of the constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble ) to anyone who has read the constitution or studied constitutional history. Wikipedia contains a lot of information on the difference between Democracy and Republic specifically sighting the U.S. as a republic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Basically, the Republic has Law as the foundation of decisions whereas Democracy has popular vote (either direct or representative) the basis for decisions. Laws such as the 17 amendment, gun control, patriot act, presidential executive orders, complete abuse of the "promote the general welfare clause" and the like clearly go above any power given by the Law. IMO, this moves us much more toward Democracy with a good measure of oligarchy thrown in (due to the corruption that has resulted from it). I should also point out this is not limited to Republican or Democrat but a result of joint effort.

You might want to actually READ the one in the U.S. for an answer to that. Specifically Article V, Amendment.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5

The first place to start would be to remove the Federal Government's ability to collect and levy income taxes by abolishing both the IRS and the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

So, if the Federal Government has no ability to collect and levy income taxes, should I assume that. among other things, the Armed Forces would be dissolved?

No. The military predates the income tax by more than a century. It was obviously funded by other means during that time.

The right against unreasonable search. Pinpointing a person's exact location on a whim could be interpreted as unreasonable search.

I don't know about the US jurisdictions as I'm Swedish, but here the Self Defense laws are pretty harsh, you're only allowed to use violence to defend yourself to the extent it's necessary to defend yourself, any more then that and you're on the line for Assault/Manslaughter yourself.

Allow me to educate you (and myself, because I honestly don't know what applies to which US jurisdiction as there are so many) insofar as my knowledge stretches to New Mexico and the neighboring States. First, though, I will freely admit that US law is highly convoluted, because it largely depends on the State you're in. This is by design, and the States are granted a great deal of leeway--certainly enough such that a law that applies in one State doesn't in another. Further, even so much as transporting firearms across State lines may require special permits--or not at all. Of course, there's a much deeper discussion to all of this, and the primary reason I'm using US law as an example is because individual cited in the article resides in Pennsylvania.

That said, I have no idea what Pennsylvania law is with regards to use of lethal force, but in New Mexico at least, self defense is fairly lenient; IANAL, but as I understand it, if there is a clear and present danger to you or to others that a violent crime is to be committed, you may use lethal force. Yes, you will probably go to jail until it's sorted out; yes, you will probably have your firearm confiscated; yes, you may wind up going to court. However, all of these "mays" are circumstantial. In the case of a potential rape victim, I highly doubt the victim would be booked by law enforcement. Questioned, certainly, but the laws here as I understand them (as I'm sure they are in Arizona and Texas) have seen some revision specifically for circumstances of self defense and are undoubtedly much more lenient than they are in Sweden. Of course, there are limitations such as the Castle Doctrine and how it applies to personal property (the NM interpretation of it is generally more strict), but there have been some recent changes.

Notably, some years prior, Governor Richardson signed concealed carry into law. This means that as long as your are licensed and authorized by the State, you may carry a firearm concealed with you wherever you go (I do believe it's limited such that CCW is not allowed if you are or are going to drink alcohol and you can be jailed or fined) for the purposes of self defense. There are also many other places where you cannot carry as outlined here (PDF warning).

In NM, these are the applicable laws (as far as I know):

Excusable homicide
Justifiable homicide by public officer or public employee
Justifiable homicide by citizen
When homicide is excusable of justifiable defendant to be acquitted

In particular, NM Law section 30-2-7 may indicate some leniency compared to Sweden:

30-2-7. Justifiable homicide by citizen.
Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;
B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that th

Separation of church and state was stated to prevent congress from enacting law which would prevent or otherwise curtail the freedom of people practicing religion; it was not a statement which would prevent religion from being practiced in such things as school, or any other government-backed organization

The first amendment has two clauses relating to religion. First is the establishment clause. Its purpose is to keep the government from proselytizing or otherwise pushing a particular religion upon the people.

The second is the exercise clause which, as you have indicated, is to prevent the government from interfering with people's religion.

The phrase "separation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson when he described how these two clauses, taken together, are intended to create a wall of separation between church and state:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Prior to the civil war this was not especially controversial. It wasn't until the 14th amendment was ratified that it became a major concern. The 14th amendment made the first amendment (and all other rights) apply at the state level as well as the federal. Prior to the 14th amendment it was commonplace for schools to intermingle with religion.

Most people think that separation of church and state is a hard piece of legislation, which it is not.

I don't know anyone who thinks that. Most people realize that it is in the constitution which is much more solid than a 'hard' piece of legislation.

To think that decisions made within state are made without religious bias is naive and those who seek firm separation really don't understand the implications of that.

The first amendment has nothing to do with government employees having personal religious beliefs and biases. The rest of your post is based upon this fundamental misunderstanding.

Perhaps that lack of clarity is why the constitution does not succinctly state "separation of church and state", but rather spells it out with two separate clauses.

If you have 250,000 people who believe in your side enough to even show up, you have an army. Imagine those people walking into the US Capitol Building (and other assorted buildings [congressional office buildings]).

Right now I'm imagining it, except they get greeted with riot police telling them to go home because they are demonstrating without a permit.

The United States Constitution, 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.

(Emphasis mine)

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

I searched for "god" and got no results, "lord", got the one, just in the Year of our Lord, "religion" and got three results, two are in the Constitution and one is the outline at the top of the page.

Don't worry, it's not very long :)

In other words, if governments around the world preemptively legislate that under no circumstances may a private inter-connecting network between two people or organizations be established without prior legal authorizations...well, kiss that idea good bye.

Here in the U.S., we have the 9th and 10th amendments. I have yet to hear of anyone using those two for anything other than toilet paper, however.

Does "trying to use the 10th Amendment to keep niggers from getting health insurance" count as toilet paper use? 'Cause the teabaggers have been pushing that one mighty hard.

In other words, if governments around the world preemptively legislate that under no circumstances may a private inter-connecting network between two people or organizations be established without prior legal authorizations...well, kiss that idea good bye.

Here in the U.S., we have the 9th and 10th amendments. I have yet to hear of anyone using those two for anything other than toilet paper, however.

They did, a while back, but it didn't work out so well.

The US prison system makes very little effort to rehabilitate; contrary to popular myth. Its well known for making prisoners more violent and more proficient criminals.

Citation? I personally know multiple people with varying criminal records who spent time in Federal penitentiaries. Their stays ranged from a year or two in a minimum security prison to multiple years in a maximum security prison where all the really bad criminals go. The stories I hear do not corroborate your claim: perhaps you have links to journalistic investigations, government statistics, etc.?

And it gets even worse. The US system is set up to punish criminals for the rest of their life helping to ensure that once you enter the criminal system you have very little chance of ever making it out.

Again, I disagree. We have halfway houses in this country, which encourage convicts to integrate back into society instead of one day being kicked to the curb after their sentence is over. Companies work closely with halfway houses, providing employment knowingly to convicts and helping them to get back on their feet. Do you have anything to back up your claims?

Worse, they illegally strip their Constitutional rights so as to ensure they have no say in changing the system for the better; even after they've paid their price.

Removing rights through due process of law is a defined process in the Constitution. While incarcerated, inmates are indeed prevented from exercising certain rights such as voting or carrying firearms: however, the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness are also removed based on the definition of "prison." The legal system may also remove other rights upon release. For example, someone who uses weapons while committing a crime (armed burglary, murder, whatever) may have their second amendment rights removed temporarily or permanently even after release. I don't see how this is unconstitutional.

As first world industrialized countries go, the US prison system is one of the absolutely worst on the planet.

I agree, but this has more to do with overloading the system due to shitty ideas like the War on Drugs. Seriously, how can you win a war on ideology? Will "Drugs" ever surrender, or be defeated? All it does is create an open-ended conflict with an excuse to through people in jail and spend money on stupid shit that does not help the economy.

The US prison system houses more people than some countries have in total population - and growing.

Once more, citation needed. I have heard this elsewhere, though, and I do know our prison populate is huge compared to most countries both in absolute numbers and as a relative portion of the total population. I think only Russia and China are close.

Notice the steep rise in incarcerations after declaring the war on drugs.

We have a winner! This is one of those universal truths like gravity that you don't need a citation for. I can't stand crap like the wars on drugs and terror. All they do is remove rights and spend money on stupid crap.

Supposing I have copies of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in my lap, which parts should I start reading to find these rights? Maybe you're from a different country than I am, so who grants these rights to whom and why?

No debate needed. According to the Supreme Court, you can start with the 9th Amendment in the Constitution & follow that up with the 3rd, 4th & 5th. None of which affords any inherent right of privacy to the U.S. government.

Supposing I have copies of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in my lap, which parts should I start reading to find these rights? Maybe you're from a different country than I am, so who grants these rights to whom and why?

No debate needed. According to the Supreme Court, you can start with the 9th Amendment in the Constitution & follow that up with the 3rd, 4th & 5th. None of which affords any inherent right of privacy to the U.S. government.

Supposing I have copies of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in my lap, which parts should I start reading to find these rights? Maybe you're from a different country than I am, so who grants these rights to whom and why?

No debate needed. According to the Supreme Court, you can start with the 9th Amendment in the Constitution & follow that up with the 3rd, 4th & 5th. None of which affords any inherent right of privacy to the U.S. government.

Supposing I have copies of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in my lap, which parts should I start reading to find these rights? Maybe you're from a different country than I am, so who grants these rights to whom and why?

No debate needed. According to the Supreme Court, you can start with the 9th Amendment in the Constitution & follow that up with the 3rd, 4th & 5th. None of which affords any inherent right of privacy to the U.S. government.

Supposing I have copies of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in my lap, which parts should I start reading to find these rights? Maybe you're from a different country than I am, so who grants these rights to whom and why?

No debate needed. According to the Supreme Court, you can start with the 9th Amendment in the Constitution & follow that up with the 3rd, 4th & 5th. None of which affords any inherent right of privacy to the U.S. government.

But forget broad statements about rugged individuals, let's be specific:

# Public education - a great solution to the cycle of poverty, reduces crime, creates opportunity

One, public education used to and should be local not federal. Two, I have no problem with public education though parents should decide where they're children go and who gets the funding. I support the freedom to choice where parents send their children. What I do not support is schools that discriminate or that teach and favor one religion getting any tax payer money. I even support cutting the property taxes, which is what should pay for education, of those who home school their children.

# Public infrastructure - roads and high speed trains enable commerce and travel, reduce congestion and pollution

The Constitution of the USA authorizes the federal government to build roads. Section 8 - Powers of Congress says "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads". The interstate commerce justifies the building of interstate highways, there can't be much commerce if the roads don't exist. However I'd prefer local governments paying for most roads. And those roads should be paid for with user fees such as fuel taxes and mileage fees, the more a person drives the more they pay.

Public health care - cheaper (by about a third), better care, and portable, which means you can go start a business with less worry

I call bullshit and dare you to prove public health care is both better and cheaper. When you're researching don't neglect to include rationing, how Canadians have to come to the US to get operations, and how even Middle Eastern sheiks come to the US for the same surgeries.

I'm not saying there isn't problems with health care in the US, there are plenty of problems, almost all created by government. First there is little to no competition in insurance. As I stated upthread, and elsewhere a bunch of tymes, each state says who can offer insurance in that state. Now that would have been an excellent way for the feds to use the interstate commerce clause, require states to allow interstate commerce. If insurance in one state is cheaper than in another anyone should be allowed to buy that insurance, but as it is now people can not cross state-lines to buy insurance. Also the government needs to give those people who buy insurance on their own, like if I were to go to Mutual of Omaha (MoO) to buy it, the same tax breaks businesses get for offering health insurance to employers. That's right, right now employers get tax deductions for offering employees insurance but I do not get the same deductions if I go to MoO on my own. That is government interference and is not a free market. It is government failure and not market failure.

You object to these things? You'd rather have the freedom of rotting infrastructure and poverty than build public works?

What I object to is you mixing different things and twisting things around.

Falcon

Here is where all of these arguments fall through. The evil "single-payer" system we want in health care mirrors another single payer system: your local fire department. I don't remember seeing very much anti-fire department posts on here, or really ever hear too many people complaining about that.

No that is where your argument, and understanding, fails. Single-payer health care insurance is a nationwide proposal. Fire departments are local agencies, and the Constitution of the USA don't not bar them. Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People specifically gives the power for fire departments to the states or the people. Now if each state, county or parish, or city were to come up with single-payer health care insurance I would not call it against the USA Constitution, though it might be against a state's constitution. That I don't know. Of course if a state, county, or city were to try to institute a single-payer system I would fight against it, but I would only argue it was unconstitutional if I found the state constitution said it was.

We all pay taxes to support our local fire department

So you even admit fire departments are local, not national. I have no problem with local taxes paying for local services. In the case of fire and police departments, even libraries, I don't have problem with local taxes paying them. Property taxes though not income tax. Roads can and should be paid for with user fees, perhaps a combination of fuel taxes and mileage taxes, the more you drive the more you pay.

Falcon

I did not make any retraction, though one is owed, by you. The constitutional does not say anything about what a traitor is. Here's a link to the constitution, I dare you point out where the word "traitor" is. Hint, it's not there, you're just trolling.

Falcon

If you can find a defense for NASA in Article 1, Section 8 let me know, I sure can't - http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Oh noes - it took the 10 seconds of a Google search to find documentation. Well, I also had to click the 1st link.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909230024
From: Arguing with Idiots, Chapter 12 "The U.S. Constitution: Lost in translation":

Perhaps no amendment has been twisted and turned as much as this one. The "birthright citizenship clause" was originally meant to ensure that children of freed slaves would be American citizens. Of course, we don't really have that problem anymore, so here's the 21st-century revision:

All persons who successfully sneak into the country will be allowed to stay indefinitely. All crimes committed by those lawbreakers (i.e., identity theft, fraud, and tax evasion) will be ignored. These non-American Americans will be afforded free health care at emergency rooms, free education,, and special in-state tuition deals at colleges, not afforded legal citizens. All children born of these lawbreakers shall immediately become citizens of the United States. Any person attempting to thwart this revision of Section I will be labeled racists, hatemongers, xenophobes, and all-around bad people.

Sorry, converting the plain words "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." to an anti-immigrant polemic while claiming that the simple and obvious reading of the language is 'Twisting' it - He said it, he wrote it, he profited on it, if you can't handle the fact that the man is a racist that hates the simple language of the 14th amendment, quit reading him.

And no, accusing Media Matters of being liberal media in no way changes the fact that Glenn Beck wrote that. Get over yourself.

Pug

In brief terms how laws in the US pass? I thought it started from the senate, and the president has veto rights.

A good answer to that question can be found here.

But now Judges can mess with the laws?

Judges resolve disputes. So in this case, for instance, we have the Obamacare bill, which has passed both houses and been signed by the president and thus "become law" however it clearly conflicts with another, superior law (the US Constitution.) It's the Judges job to sort out the dispute, determine whether or not there is a real conflict, and if so determine what, if anything, in the unconstitutional law can be separated and salvaged and what has to simply be rejected for violation of the higher law.

Historically our judges have been extremely loathe to actually do their job here, and strongly defer to the legislature instead for the most part. This goes back to the 1830s when the Supreme Court made a politically unpopular decision and the decision was simply ignored. The President at the time disregarded his oath entirely and made no attempt to enforce it, joking that the Justices who made the decision should enforce it themselves. That set a pattern that has mostly held ever since with the courts being mostly unwilling to stand up for our laws when it is politically unpopular to do so. So it's refreshing to see a sitting Judge today buck that long and shameful pattern, if that is actually what is happening.

Not sure though, would have to investigate the Judges record, and see if he's consistent. If he is only willing to stand up for the law when it's against the Democrats, then he's just another partisan hack in a long line of them.

There is no right to privacy mentioned in the constitution.

The implication in the Constitution is that you must be physically born in the U.S.

I'm sorry, but that's just not correct.

There's no such stipulation in the US Constitution.

• 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.

It's not a problem for McCain. It's not a problem for Obama. Whether he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or on the moon. The only way to constitutionally disqualify him is to prove that someone else was his mother.

LK

The Constitution reserves all rights not explicitly mentioned to the people or the various states in Amendment 10. In any case, the Supreme Court noted that the right to travel is a virtually unconditional personal right.

People like you, who don't understand how this country was designed to work and who gladly abrogate your own rights, are the biggest problem we face.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There have been many Supreme Court rulings on state sponsorship of religion. The first amendment has been held to apply to states time-and-time again.

Could you perhaps indicate what you're referring to, because I think you're making shit up.

Not the OP, but helping him/her out. This comes from the first match on Googling "us constitution slavery":

Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, be uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.

In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.

The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labour" in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from "on Claim of the Party."

No, they're not drowned out by law.

If a law says how much a person can spend on a campaign their rights are being violated. How difficult is that to understand?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
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.

Abridge: verb
to produce a shorter form of a book, play etc by making cuts in the original

Limiting speech is abridging that speech.

Falcon

Yes, but remember that originally the House was elected by popular vote while the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. The "cooling" effect had a lot to do with being unconcerned with things like winning campaigns, ensuring that campaign contributions keep flowing, popular trends, and knee-jerk emotional issues (like fear-based security theater). Senators had more of a free hand to do what they personally believed should be done, compared to representatives in the House who always had to wet their finger to see which way the wind was blowing.

That purpose is largely defeated by having the senators elected by popular vote. Now they have to represent their campaign donors and supporters more than they represent their states, same as the House.

Ah but states had more right back then, when state legislatures appointed senators. With senators appointed by states it was supposed to guaranty states rights.

I think one fix is to introduce at the federal level what Texas does. By the Texas Constitution the Texas legislature only meets 140 days every other year.

I've also proposed, and will again, amending the USA Constitution in other ways. For instance Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President changed the way the president and vice president were elected. I propose to amend how they are elected again. This tyme though the electoral college is abolished and all candidates run for president. However voting would use a condorcet method wherein the candidates are ranked. Voters would rank their choices, say there are five candidates the voter's first choice would get 5 points, the second choice 4, and so on. The points for each candidate are then added up with the winner, highest score, becoming president and the runner-up the vice president. As an added twist voters might also negatively rank candidates, the voter can give candidate they absolutely oppose a negative score. Say -5 which is subtracted from the candidate's score.

Falcon

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

Your position falls apart pretty fast if you actually try to apply it to the real world instead of as a smartass remark on the internet.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

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

The Right To Travel 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.

See also http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/96-right-to-travel.html

"While there are lots of objection to TSA's tactics, this isn't one. Flying isn't a right. "

While it is not explicitly enumerated in the US Constitution, flying is beyond a shadow of a doubt a right to every US citizen.

it's the danged preamble to the danged consitution

Is it?

Sorry, but where in your constitution does it say that everyone has a right to marriage

Perhaps the Fourteenth Amendment?

Mmm. History shows a different picture. Very convenient when the founders have the power to borrow money and sell those subjects into default debt.

So, basically, the whole copyright issue is pointless (preferably) or a distraction (more likely) since, from the very beginning, the entire purpose of the government was to allow for the already financially wealthy to place an entire nation into indebted perpetual servitude. Is that not just the happiest thought you've ever faced reality with?

You can also add the 10th Amendment to your argument:

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.

Where the hell does it say in the Constitution that the US government can FORCE someone to engage in any specific economic activity?

And let's not forget the right to privacy. If medical privacy can be the foundation of a "right" to abortion, how can the government get even MORE involved in health care? If a woman has a privacy-based right to an abortion, than EVERYONE has a privacy-based right to pay for the health care THEY desire, not that MANDATED by the government.

The Congress shall have Power...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Re: equal representation in the Senate

It's not just that, it's also that the one thing you cannot amend about the Constitution is to deprive it of its representation in the Senate without its consent. So, the largest 75% of the states can't take away the 2 Senate seats of the other 25%.

Granted, they could just do whatever they want to do, but there's a limit to what you can do in any given polity.

OK, I'll bite.

>1 get rid of a lot the states powers,

Article V provides that no amendment to the Consitution may deprive a state of its representation in the Senate (in which each state gets 2 Senators).

The 9th and 10th Amendments reserve all powers not granted to Congress to the States. While these could be overturned, the states have to ratify amendments.

> 2 the parties need to get party discipline and throw out the "nutters".

OK, this could happen without a constitutional change. But throwing a party member out just means he's out of the party, not out of Congress. He can join another party. And with the tight margins these days, parties usually suffer prima donnas.

> 3 have strict uk style election campaign limits

They tried that (McCain-Feingold). But it ran up against the 1st Amendment when the government argued that even publication of a book could be against campaign finance limits. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled against limiting speech even the speakers were organized as a corporation.

> 4 replace the vast expenditure on tv campaigning with uk model of party political broadcasts.

See #3

> 5 have more equal constituency sizes (which will stop small agricultural states leaching of the bigger ones)

See #1

> 6 force all organizations (Unions and Company) to run a political fund for any lobbying and have it confirmed by vote every 7 years with opt out allowed)

I think this is already happening in that they form PACs (political action committees). But, true, they don't get explicit approval from union members or shareholders. Might be a good thing.

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.

What about Croatian constitution?

III.2.22: Man's freedom and personality shall be inviolable.
No one shall be deprived of liberty, nor may his liberty be restricted, except when so specified by law, which shall be decided by a court.

III.2.38: Freedom of thought and expression of thought shall be guaranteed. Freedom of expression shall specifically include freedom of the press and other media of communication, freedom of speech and public expression, and free establishment of all institutions of public communication.
Censorship shall be forbidden. Journalists shall have the right to freedom of reporting and access to information.
The right to correction shall be guaranteed to anyone whose constitutionally determined rights have been violated by public communication.
III.2.40: Freedom of conscience and religion and free public profession of

different parties alternating in power

That's not a principal of democracy. It is up to the people to choose their leadership. And if they are happy with their leadership, they are free to choose it again.

When someone tried that in the US they changed the Constitution to prohibit it.

An incumbent president has too much power and it's too easy for him to hold to the office indefinitely.

for any crime, you can just about always find someone who committed a greater crime and received a lesser sentence. So what?

What do you mean "so what"?

First there's the question of precedent.

Second there's the question of just punishment