Slashdot Mirror

The first issue is that the Sullivan Act isn't a ban on handguns. It requires a license to carry them.

Which directly infringes on your right to carry, which the 2nd amendment explicitly denies the federal government the ability to do. And then there's incorporation to consider. There's no way around it: if I don't have a license, and the feds say I can't carry, there's the infringement, plain as day. This isn't a power that has ever been granted the feds. It is a power they have taken in an unauthorized and tyrannical mode, and which they enforce by coercion and/or violence.

the question isn't whether the constitution supersedes local regulation, but rather what exactly the constitution means.

In the case of the second amendment, there are two clauses. The first is prefatory, and contains no instructions to the government. This phrase is of historical interest, but it does not enable, or disable, any power or right.

The second is explicit: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The meaning of the words here have not changed in any significant way since the amendment was penned. To "infringe" means to affect in any way, even at the meanest boundaries; "shall not" still means "no"; "keep" and "carry" still mean exactly the same things; "Arms", while somewhat broader today, certainly included an extremely wide range of weapons and weapons platforms, and by standing alone, obviously allows for invention, as invention and improvement was the perfectly normal order of business at the time; and the phrase itself can be parsed by anyone who knows what those words mean, or can look them up and successfully take in a dictionary definition.

Even a moderately intelligent reader will realize that the meaning of the second phrase does not change one whit when one fiddles with the objects in the prefatory phrase; in other words, even if the prefatory phrase stated "in order that teddy bears may not be abducted by native Americans", the second phrase would still constrain the government from infringing in any way upon the keeping and carrying of arms - swords, caltrops, firearms, cannon, brass knuckles, etc. So the prefatory phrase is entirely irrelevant as to the powers of the federal government. In this way, it resembles the preamble to the constitution itself, which is also prefatory / explicatory, but embodies no allocation or restriction of powers.

Things only began to get foggy when legislators decided they wanted to do things the constitution forbids, but were too lazy and/or cowardly to attempt the appropriate procedure, which is defined in article five: amendment. Then we began to see idiot arguments like the shotgun argument in Miller; the attempt to incorporate the explicatory or prefatory phrase as if it was a filter (not to mention the complete misinterpretation of what "militia" means in this context); and then of course there is the painfully naive "living document" mental meltdown.

The question is truly "What rights does the constitution grant, and where do the lines of those rights get drawn?"

That's not how it works in the case of the 2nd. The second amendment consists of two explicit restrictions on the government from infringing upon keeping and carrying arms (not just guns, mind you, which are a single category of arms, but arms in general.) These rights are not granted - they are defined as pre-existing and entirely insulated from any interference from the government.

There is only one way that the government can legitimately create any infringing law (including licenses, etc.), and that is to instantiate the amendment process, and further, to succeed at it. Since they hav

People have thrown the keys in the toilet and flushed after being fired.

No one ever got four years in prison for doing it.

What the hell does the Constitution have to do with this discussion?

Sigh...

"The Congress shall have 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;"

It does not cover bankruptcy at all, even indirectly.

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 4. Which doesn't specify that all bankruptcies are to be in Federal court, just that the Congress may specify uniform treatment.

ob Onion

Since you brought it up, here is a link: Common Sense.

Indeed, and don't even get me started on those countries - like some in North America - that don't even require 51% of people's vote to amend their constitution, effectively allowing the minority to oppress the majority!

At least it's not the US because it needs at least 66% of both houses to even PROPOSE an admendment.

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

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

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.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798])

The clawback of culture that we in common own in the public domain into private monopoly without compensation for our loss is theft.

I agree.

It is a theft from each of us.

Indeed.

It is a theft from all of us.

Woo yeah!

It is theft on a grand scale.

Preach it!

It's unconstitutional.

Alas, that doesn't follow. The Constitution explicitly provides for the establishment of Copyright law, and while we can profitably argue about the meaning of the term "limited" (and I agree with the Slashthink that that shouldn't be 95 years), it doesn't mean that any of what you described is "unconstitutional".

Unconstitutional, contrary to popular belief, is not a synonym for "I don't like it". It means that it actually violates the text of the Constitution, optionally "as interpreted by the Supreme Court" though I am open to people reading the document and disagree with the Supremes, as long as you understand that you are in disagreement. Constitutionally-mandated "theft" is still Constitutional. Some people see the income tax as "theft", with some arguments I at least sympathize with, but you really can't call it unconstitutional, even if you don't like it. Constitutionally-mandated violations of logic or physics, as applicable, are also still Constitutional.

No, you are the confused one. Verify it yourself, read the Constitution of the USA. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch lists the House and Senate as part of the legislature. The second part is The Executive Branch, and the last part of the federal government is The Judicial Branch.

Falcon

No, you are the confused one. Verify it yourself, read the Constitution of the USA. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch lists the House and Senate as part of the legislature. The second part is The Executive Branch, and the last part of the federal government is The Judicial Branch.

Falcon

No, you are the confused one. Verify it yourself, read the Constitution of the USA. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch lists the House and Senate as part of the legislature. The second part is The Executive Branch, and the last part of the federal government is The Judicial Branch.

Falcon

No, you are the confused one. Verify it yourself, read the Constitution of the USA. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch lists the House and Senate as part of the legislature. The second part is The Executive Branch, and the last part of the federal government is The Judicial Branch.

Falcon

No, you are the confused one. Verify it yourself, read the Constitution of the USA. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch lists the House and Senate as part of the legislature. The second part is The Executive Branch, and the last part of the federal government is The Judicial Branch.

Falcon

No, you are the confused one. Verify it yourself, read the Constitution of the USA. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch lists the House and Senate as part of the legislature. The second part is The Executive Branch, and the last part of the federal government is The Judicial Branch.

Falcon

No, you are the confused one. Verify it yourself, read the Constitution of the USA. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch lists the House and Senate as part of the legislature. The second part is The Executive Branch, and the last part of the federal government is The Judicial Branch.

Falcon

Plus people are pretty damn ignorant about it. Fluoridate your water already.

If you don't want to make your own choice fine with me but don't force to to follow your lead. If you want to jump of the Empire State building go ahead, but I won't. Nor do I want fluoride in my water or food. I buy purified because I don't want chemicals in my water. Here I have to pay to have chemical added then I have to pay to remove them.

Not have a country wide education programs mean poor states and counties have an efen worse time educating people.

The most importants document in the US are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA neither one says anything about any federal government education department, The fact it doesn't but you want it to doesn't mean it does. If you want, it provides a method to change it, by amending it.

Don't just treat either documents as toilet paper.

"What's crazy for scaling back the US Government to its constitutional limits "
it is within in constitutional limits. The problem is you have no clue about the constitution.

No, you are the one that is wrong. Currently the US federal government is out of it's constitutional limits. The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do, if it does not say the government can do something it can not do it. Paper after paper says so. The principle writer of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote "The powers of the central government are few and explicitly defined, while those of the state governments are several." If the Constitution gave the federal government unlimited powers then states would not have ratified it. To think anything else is delusional. And to try to convince others otherwise is corrupt.

Falcon

Plus people are pretty damn ignorant about it. Fluoridate your water already.

If you don't want to make your own choice fine with me but don't force to to follow your lead. If you want to jump of the Empire State building go ahead, but I won't. Nor do I want fluoride in my water or food. I buy purified because I don't want chemicals in my water. Here I have to pay to have chemical added then I have to pay to remove them.

Not have a country wide education programs mean poor states and counties have an efen worse time educating people.

The most importants document in the US are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA neither one says anything about any federal government education department, The fact it doesn't but you want it to doesn't mean it does. If you want, it provides a method to change it, by amending it.

Don't just treat either documents as toilet paper.

"What's crazy for scaling back the US Government to its constitutional limits "
it is within in constitutional limits. The problem is you have no clue about the constitution.

No, you are the one that is wrong. Currently the US federal government is out of it's constitutional limits. The Constitution puts limits on what the government can do, if it does not say the government can do something it can not do it. Paper after paper says so. The principle writer of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote "The powers of the central government are few and explicitly defined, while those of the state governments are several." If the Constitution gave the federal government unlimited powers then states would not have ratified it. To think anything else is delusional. And to try to convince others otherwise is corrupt.

Falcon

It's not enough, after all, to show that the Dept. of Education exists, and that poor schools exist. You have to show how the first causes the last.

No you don't, what you have to do to justify a federal department of education is show the US Constitution authorizes it. And no matter how many tymes I search it I do not find "education" anywhere in the Constitution. And yes, the Constitution does grant limited powers not limitless powers to the federal government.

Falcon

Personally, I think we should have term limits, but that will never fly as Congress itself would have to approve it.

Congress does not have to approve an amendment to the constitution. Two thirds, 34, states can call for a convention. No congressional approval needed. Then three quarters of the states, 38, can approve the amendment.

Falcon

About $124 billion of that savings stems from provisions dealing with health care and federal revenues; the other $19 billion results from the education provisions.

As the link you provide says, the bill depends on shifting education provisions from education to health. Now did the CBO also consider what effect giving every person the same tax deductions as employers get for offering health insurance as well as it the federal government allowed interstate commerce, the Interstate commerce clause of Section 8 - Powers of Congress? Did it also find where the Constitution of the USA gives the federal government the power to regulate health and medical care?

Those figures do not include potential costs that would be funded through future appropriations (those are discussed on pages 10-11 of the cost estimate).

Ha, so they had to leave out some costs. Is that because their figures are a snow job? Is it because it's political after all?

Oh let's not forget this:

They had a year to read it, and many of them bet their jobs on it. They read it. If I gave you a 1 page book, which you read, and then added a page a day, would you be able to keep up? Of course.

Congress had no where near a month, never mind a year, to read all of both bills. And together they weren't 365 pages, they were more than 1800 pages. A quick calculation says that if congress had a full year, almost 5 pages would need to be read to read all of the pages. Ah, however wanting to know precisely how many pages health care reform took, a Bloomberg article says it's more than 2400 pages. And the Huffington Post has Republicans asking how anybody could digest 2700 pages. What was VP Biden's response? "A big fucking deal." How ignoramus can you get? He obvious does not care what people think, or what the USA Constitution says. But anyway, using 2700 pages, more than 7 pages would have to be read a day for a year to read all of the bills.

Falcon

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State - this means that in order for a country to exist it needs an army to defend itself, yes?

Except there is (or at least can be) a very significant difference between a militia and an army. A militia is of the people. An army is of the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

A militia is very unlikely to invade and occupy countries on the other side of the world, for example.

Also, read Article I, Section 8 to see that the Constitution talks about armies and militias as separate entities.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Banning? nice leap, dickhead.

The constitution isn't some document whose writting may appear to change meaing do to social schanges.
It is a well written doument, and it's not too vague. But it isn't perfect.

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

Maybe it's time to go back to how it was done in 1792, 1796, 1800, et cetera - let the States pick the president of the Union.

Then just as it is now the president is chosen by the electoral college not Voters or States. However Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President, ratified in 1804, did change how the president and VP were chosen. Prior to then every candidate ran for president.

I'd not only repeal the 12th amendment but would include ranked voting and the electoral college. For the first tyme, last year we had ranked voting in Minnesota for some offices.

Falcon

you'll see that the word "People" is capitalized, which in regard to the Constitution means it refers to the government

I disagree, and so does this Source. Look at the Constitution prior to Amendments, and see how much was capitalized. Also look at some Printings of Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World by Jonathan Swift and find the Nouns that are not capitalized. It was the Fashion at the Time to capitalize English much like modern German, starting Nouns with capital Letters. Otherwise, what was so special about, for Example, the "limited Times" referred to in the eighth Section of the first Article? And does this "Republican Form of Government" refer to anything like the GOP?

you'll see that the word "People" is capitalized, which in regard to the Constitution means it refers to the government

I disagree, and so does this Source. Look at the Constitution prior to Amendments, and see how much was capitalized. Also look at some Printings of Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World by Jonathan Swift and find the Nouns that are not capitalized. It was the Fashion at the Time to capitalize English much like modern German, starting Nouns with capital Letters. Otherwise, what was so special about, for Example, the "limited Times" referred to in the eighth Section of the first Article? And does this "Republican Form of Government" refer to anything like the GOP?

you'll see that the word "People" is capitalized, which in regard to the Constitution means it refers to the government

I disagree, and so does this Source. Look at the Constitution prior to Amendments, and see how much was capitalized. Also look at some Printings of Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World by Jonathan Swift and find the Nouns that are not capitalized. It was the Fashion at the Time to capitalize English much like modern German, starting Nouns with capital Letters. Otherwise, what was so special about, for Example, the "limited Times" referred to in the eighth Section of the first Article? And does this "Republican Form of Government" refer to anything like the GOP?

I suppose it's a good thing you don't have a law degree, as you'd be an awful attorney. Minors do not universally enjoy the same expression of constitutional rights as adults (as an example, the principle of in loco parentis regarding school environments). The Supreme Court has held that certain minor rights may be abridged under certain circumstances, as explained in references like this one, along with countless others.

You are advised to educate yourself before continuing to post on this topic.

I know he claimed to be a Deist, but remember, he was also a politician.

He got into trouble with other Christians because he was Deist. As I said in my previous post some Christians campaigned against him because he was not their kind of Christian, he didn't believe Jesus was the "Son of God". That's not something a politician would claim without good reason.

The Deists claimed to be Christian, which was good PR

I don't know if Thomas Jefferson or any other Founding Father claimed to be Christian, at least in public. They did make sure the Constitution did say "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Jefferson even said in a letter to his son that religion was a private matter and that's where is should stay. A number of religious people say the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights says nothing about the separation of church and state, however Jefferson did say it about the First Amendment.

Yes, the word itself just means "without knowledge", but I've never encountered it used in reference to any knowledge other than religious knowledge...at least without qualifying phrases as in "I'm a UFO agnostic.". (I don't *think* that's a religious usage.)

Well I shortened the definition from it's full meaning, the AskOxford.com definition of agnostic is "noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God."

Oh, and some for some people UFOs are religious, some believe life or at least humans were seeded on earth by aliens.

Falcon

Now, please post the article and section of the Constitution of the United States where it says that you have an absolute right to privacy and anonymity.

It's because of people like you that many writers of the Constitution did not want to include the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution is not an exhaustive or complete list of your rights.
It is only a list of rights the government has.

As a concession to those who did not want the Bill of Rights,
the 9th and 10th Amendments were tacked on to the end.
You should really go back and read them.

A more appropriate challenge would be:
"please post the article and section of the Constitution of the United States where it says that you do not have an absolute right to privacy and anonymity"

Hmm, yes I'm SURE AZ has the authority to make federal election laws

There are no 'federal' elections. All elections for federal offices are state elections, run by the states.

The U.S. Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen. The state is within its rights to require a candidate for President to provide proof of 'natural born citizen' status before placing that candidate on the ballot.

You're just pretending to be stupid, right?

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.

obviously doesn't apply because it is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. To be explicit:

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

Sure it sucks for Joe In NY that Bob in NJ doesn't have to charge his NY customers NY's sales tax. And hence Bob allows those customers to cheat on their taxes. But Joe's State isn't allowed to do anything about it since that would be regulating commerce amongst the States, which is a power explicitly given to the Federal Government.

Joe and his State are free to try and amend the Constitution.

I am unaware of any clause in the Constitution that says you are allowed to evade state taxes due to bookkeeping errors. In fact, I can think of at least one section that says the opposite.

You can't read the Constitution without reading the 10th Amendment, which states that any powers that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution to be federal powers are reserved for the states.

You like many others miss a vary important clause in the 10th Amendment, "or to the people".
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

most Libertarians and Conservatives are not anti-government, they are pro-Constitution.

Libertarians yes. But not conservatives. Many are fiscally conservatives who will make laws restricting civil rights. The big things different about them and so called liberals, who are not real liberals, is in what part of government is big. Real classical liberals believe in liberty and small government.

Falcon

To the best of my knowledge newspapers in the United States are not regulated in the manner that you claim. Nor should they be if the 1st amendment is to mean anything.

Here's one. There are others. Education is an attitude, not a document.

No, I've made my bed on the side that says Government has no business regulating the manner or content of speech.

Speech is already regulated. You're again confusing commercial with political speech. And even political speech is not fully protected. If you don't believe me, post a blog article that you think that Obama should be killed at his next public appearance. If you don't get your terminology straight, you have no chance of making a reasonable argument.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the majority from stripping those rights away from the minority.

Nonsense and day-dreaming. Jim Crow laws were acceptable to the majority while they were in force. Slave ownership used to be acceptable. These things were acceptable because the majority - both numerical and of political, economical and legislative power - believed them to be acceptable. Any sufficient majority can strip the constitution of any protection it currently offers, and can even completely remove the constitution. You clearly have no historical perspective. What's more, your lack of historical perspective blinds you to the changes that are possible.

airlines are a private industry - there's nothing that states they have to let you fly.

Therein lies the rub, individual airlines should be the ones to set security procedures not the government. I as a passenger should be able to decide if I want to board an airline's flight that requires ID or one that does not. If an airlines wants to do an anal exam, they should be allowed to require one. Then if a passenger doesn't like that requirement s/he could then fly on an airliner that does not require it. Oh, and there's nothing that states government can't prevent passengers from flying either.

If you're not a US citizen, you're not protected by the Constitution.

Can you point out to be where in the Constitution of the USA it limits rights to only US citizens? Here's what James Madison had to say about Constitutional Rights of Non-Citizens. Thomas Jefferson said "An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." It would have been quite easy for the Founding Fathers to exclude foreigners from having rights too, but did they? No! They said the opposite.

Falcon

[T]he Obama administration is abandoning its policy of using nationality alone to determine which US-bound international air travelers should be subject to additional screening...

They're actually now trying to correlate security screening with specific, known information about actual suspects, rather than saying, "So you're from Pakistan? Would you mind coming with me, sir?" The new policies will be far from perfect, I'm sure, but they seem more sensible than a "random" screening based solely on nationality.

Yea, it's imperfect. Not only that but the Constitution of the USA does not give the federal government these powers.

Every time technology makes another leap forward, we have to reclaim the Fourth Amendment, and often we have to reclaim the entire Bill of Rights, because technology gives [the authorities] powers that were not envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Fair enough, but I think the founding fathers would also have had a difficult time envisioning several dozen unrelated people climbing into a flying metal tube to cross the ocean in a matter of hours. They also probably didn't foresee the rise of ideologies that make those flying tubes attractive targets for persons armed with concealable explosive devices. Saying that the Founding Fathers were poorly-versed in 21st century technology and geopolitics doesn't mean much by itself. I'm willing to bet the passengers on any of the airplanes that have been subject to terrorist attacks in the past few years would have been willing to undergo a full body scan if it meant the bad guy couldn't get on the plane with them.

Then amend the Constitution. Don't treat it like TP. As for what the Founding father envisioning, they easily envisioned government goons knocking down doors and dragging away the people inside. As for terrorists, as President, Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to fight Barbary pirates in North Africa. Between them and what the British did the Founding Fathers knew what the enemy was capable of. British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton of the Green Dragoon wasn't known as a butcher for nothing, he "practiced total war -- burning houses, destroying crops, the end justifying the means".

Falcon

In India, there's no Right to Privacy as strongly guaranteed under the US Constitution.

Nonsense again. The US Constitution says NOTHING about a right to privacy, let alone a "strong guarantee." Educate yourself first. Just fucking google it. Takes 2 seconds. http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy

Sure there is; we re-establish the Republic. Put the emphasis back onto the States and away from the Federal Government.

No, the emphasis should be on the individual and personal responsibility.

First step? Repeal the 17th Amendment; turn the Senators back into wards of the State Legislatures.

No, first step repeal Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Second step, ratify the 29th amendment which shall state:
Congress shall be limited to one regular session every other year for not more than 120 days. The President shall be able to call for a special session that will focus on one specific topic if needed.

Additionally the 30th amendment shall be ratified stating each bill proposed by congress shall be about one topic only, that it not be more than X pages (somewhere less than the 1000s of pages now, say not more than 10 or 20), and that the average adult can understand it. None of this burying government run student loans in health insurance bills.

The 31th amendment shall require a sunset provision for every new law, congress and the president would have to vote, approve, and sign new laws every 4 years say. If a law is not renewed then it is removes from the law-books.

Falcon

Here's a good quick read on the topic. Martial Law in the USThe Supreme Court ruled Lincoln's declaration of Martial Law unconstitutional, by way of Milligan, a Confederate dissenter (funny how that works). It was martial law, though. I'm not sure how much weight the Supreme Court has at that point...

You just got the right to healthcare

Completely false.

That huge mistake that the House and Obama managed to force through is a "law", and laws can be easily repealed. Laws in and of themselves cannot grant "rights", any more than a politician repeating the same old rhetoric makes what s/he is saying "honest".

The bits enumerated in the first ten amendments to the Constitution? Those are "rights", and cannot be (easily) repealed.

The "car insurance" story to justify what Congress just passed is a lie. Nobody is forcing you to use the public roadways, but if you do, the required level of insurance protects the other guy, not yourself. If you are driving on your own property, you aren't required to have insurance.

This "law", on the other hand, requires citizens to buy into a contract with a non-government agency (aka the health insurance company), something that has never been done before. If you fail to buy insurance for yourself, the IRS is authorized to penalize you. Call it what you will, but it is still "socialized medicine". It is not something that Congress is authorized to put into law, according to the Tenth Amendment.

At this writing, more than a dozen states are suing to challenge this bill, and if the SCotUS has any legitimacy left in it, they will pay attention and do something about it. If they allow this to remain in place, there will be hell to pay, and it won't be pretty.

searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently

There are three things on trial in any trial such as this. Both offense/defense and the law itself. You decided that the law was not on trial, fine (btw it should be). You do not have to 'vote' what the law says. That is why there is a jury trial. Seriously? You convicted him? At step 5 he is asking why he is being 'charged'. You basically sentenced this dude to 2 years of jail. For standing up and asking 'what the fuck are you doing'. If someone had just smashed me in the head I wouldnt exactly be all calm and ready to comply with anyone who did that. Neither should you. You *LET* them punish someone for not being a good citizen and following the rules. Let me be probably one of many who say it here. You suck. But what do you care you got home in time to rattle of some pithy remark here on slashdot.

The day we are asked to 'just conform' is the day we are asked to ignore this http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 and http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5

searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently

There are three things on trial in any trial such as this. Both offense/defense and the law itself. You decided that the law was not on trial, fine (btw it should be). You do not have to 'vote' what the law says. That is why there is a jury trial. Seriously? You convicted him? At step 5 he is asking why he is being 'charged'. You basically sentenced this dude to 2 years of jail. For standing up and asking 'what the fuck are you doing'. If someone had just smashed me in the head I wouldnt exactly be all calm and ready to comply with anyone who did that. Neither should you. You *LET* them punish someone for not being a good citizen and following the rules. Let me be probably one of many who say it here. You suck. But what do you care you got home in time to rattle of some pithy remark here on slashdot.

The day we are asked to 'just conform' is the day we are asked to ignore this http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 and http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5

It got modded troll, but it's 100% true. The Iraq war wasn't a necessary war, at all. It has wasted a trillion dollars, and we have nothing to show for it but a bunch of fresh graves. The money we wasted in Iraq is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. 9 billion dollars in Iraq is totally unaccounted for, and the Republican deficit hawks didn't seem to care when it happened and they don't seem to care now. We wasted enough money in Iraq to pay for universal health care, AND a trip to the moon.

An Iraqi war that cost 1 trillion dollars is about 10 months of Pelosi-led deficits.

If we're lucky, it won't turn into 5 months of Pelosi-led deficits.

And you'd better believe the astronomical deficits the US is seeing now are Pelosi-led:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

"Separation of church and state" is a term coined by a supreme court justice Hugo Black in 1947 (long after the founding fathers were all dead).>

Try again. Black was quoting Thomas Jefferson. http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Had you RTFAed, you would have known that...

Firstly, If you have representatives, its not a democracy, its a republic.

If you have representatives you may have a representative democracy.

Representatives in a republic do face the difficult choice of doing what they think is right versus doing what the majority of their constituents want.

Representatives are not needed in a republic. So long as the head of government is not a monarchy or hereditary head of state it is a republic. NAZI Germany was a representative democracy, and therefore also a republic. On the other hand Monaco, surrounded by France and the Med, is a Principality ruled by a monarchy. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are monarchies as well. Morocco, where Bogart's Casablanca is, is a Constitutional monarchy. So is the United Kingdom.

simply voting based on your perception of the majority of your constituents desires is essentially reverting back to mob rule.

I agree, and so did the USA's Founding Fathers. That's why they only gave the federal government limited power, if the Constitution does not enumerate a power the federal government does not have that power. Of course some people twist things around when they say it's a living document. Of course it can be changed, by amending it which has been done 27 tymes. Therein lines a big difference between the USA and other constitutional democracies, government is limited in it's powers. The USA's Constitution itself can fit on two pages of paper, adding the amendments my printer software said it was 20 pages. The EU's proposed constitution, which voters in France vetoed as did those in the Netherlands, however was 852 pages. Now while the EU Constitution is dead the Treaty of Lisbon has been approved and signed.

Falcon

You really, really like to watch Fox News don't you? I hear them use that term all the time, and it's just ridiculous how right-wingers parrot their talking points in unison.

I never watch or listen to Fox News. Right now my TV is tuned to CNN, the only news I watch on TV. The only other station I watch is the History Channel. Two, I not a right winger, I am a center winger. I believe in and support liberty and small government. In other words I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Actually both are liberalism. Both the French and US Revolutions were based on this Liberalism.

The reality of the situation is that although the majority of people reject "Obama's Plan", once you explain to them what's actually in the bill the majority flip-flops into supporting it. That simply speaks to how good of a PR job Republicans have done.

Citation needed.

Obama isn't "forcing" a bill onto anyone. The Democrats were elected to a majority. It's their turn to enact legislation that satisfies their voter base's ideals. It's that simple.

Most people are against Obama Care so he is trying to force it down people's throats. And yes, until you can prove that once it's explained to them voters support it it is forcing it on people. As for a majority, yes Democrats have one now, but the latest elections saw the Democrats lose some seating. And I fully expect them to lose more come November if they insist on passing this health care plan.

Another thing, you say congress owes voters what they want. No they don't, they take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA. If you think doing what voters want and passing health care is part of it please tell me where health care is mentioned in the Constitution. And remember the Constitution places a limit on what government can do, if something is not mentioned government does not have the power. Here'e a hint, Article 1 Section 8 enumerates the powers of congress. Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People goes further and states "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." Nowhere is health care delegated to the government. Now the Constitution allows a method by which health care can be added, it's called amending the Constitution. If the Democrats want to propose an amendment I'll support their effort to make the proposal. Then I'll promptly oppose said amendment, as some have said, though I disagree with what people may say I'll support their right to say it.

What the federal government does have the ability to do, as I've said a number of tymes, is to force states to allow interstate commerce, ie require states to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines. Which in not allowed now, each state regulates who can sell insurance in the state. So when someone, such as those political ads demanding a public option, state only a couple of insurance companies offer insurance in some states, remember that. If only one or two companies offer insurance in a state it's because that states grants them a monopoly/duopoly or whatever. I live in Minnesota and if health insurance is cheaper in South Dakota I should be able to buy that insurance.

Of course that's only part of the solution to rising medical costs. Another part of the solution is to give people who buy their own health insurance the same tax deductions employers get for offering insurance. When an employer offers insurance it can deduct the cost of insurance from it's taxes but when a private person buys insurance they can not deduct the cost from taxes.

By allowing a free marke

You really, really like to watch Fox News don't you? I hear them use that term all the time, and it's just ridiculous how right-wingers parrot their talking points in unison.

I never watch or listen to Fox News. Right now my TV is tuned to CNN, the only news I watch on TV. The only other station I watch is the History Channel. Two, I not a right winger, I am a center winger. I believe in and support liberty and small government. In other words I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Actually both are liberalism. Both the French and US Revolutions were based on this Liberalism.

The reality of the situation is that although the majority of people reject "Obama's Plan", once you explain to them what's actually in the bill the majority flip-flops into supporting it. That simply speaks to how good of a PR job Republicans have done.

Citation needed.

Obama isn't "forcing" a bill onto anyone. The Democrats were elected to a majority. It's their turn to enact legislation that satisfies their voter base's ideals. It's that simple.

Most people are against Obama Care so he is trying to force it down people's throats. And yes, until you can prove that once it's explained to them voters support it it is forcing it on people. As for a majority, yes Democrats have one now, but the latest elections saw the Democrats lose some seating. And I fully expect them to lose more come November if they insist on passing this health care plan.

Another thing, you say congress owes voters what they want. No they don't, they take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA. If you think doing what voters want and passing health care is part of it please tell me where health care is mentioned in the Constitution. And remember the Constitution places a limit on what government can do, if something is not mentioned government does not have the power. Here'e a hint, Article 1 Section 8 enumerates the powers of congress. Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People goes further and states "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." Nowhere is health care delegated to the government. Now the Constitution allows a method by which health care can be added, it's called amending the Constitution. If the Democrats want to propose an amendment I'll support their effort to make the proposal. Then I'll promptly oppose said amendment, as some have said, though I disagree with what people may say I'll support their right to say it.

What the federal government does have the ability to do, as I've said a number of tymes, is to force states to allow interstate commerce, ie require states to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines. Which in not allowed now, each state regulates who can sell insurance in the state. So when someone, such as those political ads demanding a public option, state only a couple of insurance companies offer insurance in some states, remember that. If only one or two companies offer insurance in a state it's because that states grants them a monopoly/duopoly or whatever. I live in Minnesota and if health insurance is cheaper in South Dakota I should be able to buy that insurance.

Of course that's only part of the solution to rising medical costs. Another part of the solution is to give people who buy their own health insurance the same tax deductions employers get for offering insurance. When an employer offers insurance it can deduct the cost of insurance from it's taxes but when a private person buys insurance they can not deduct the cost from taxes.

By allowing a free marke

You really, really like to watch Fox News don't you? I hear them use that term all the time, and it's just ridiculous how right-wingers parrot their talking points in unison.

I never watch or listen to Fox News. Right now my TV is tuned to CNN, the only news I watch on TV. The only other station I watch is the History Channel. Two, I not a right winger, I am a center winger. I believe in and support liberty and small government. In other words I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Actually both are liberalism. Both the French and US Revolutions were based on this Liberalism.

The reality of the situation is that although the majority of people reject "Obama's Plan", once you explain to them what's actually in the bill the majority flip-flops into supporting it. That simply speaks to how good of a PR job Republicans have done.

Citation needed.

Obama isn't "forcing" a bill onto anyone. The Democrats were elected to a majority. It's their turn to enact legislation that satisfies their voter base's ideals. It's that simple.

Most people are against Obama Care so he is trying to force it down people's throats. And yes, until you can prove that once it's explained to them voters support it it is forcing it on people. As for a majority, yes Democrats have one now, but the latest elections saw the Democrats lose some seating. And I fully expect them to lose more come November if they insist on passing this health care plan.

Another thing, you say congress owes voters what they want. No they don't, they take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA. If you think doing what voters want and passing health care is part of it please tell me where health care is mentioned in the Constitution. And remember the Constitution places a limit on what government can do, if something is not mentioned government does not have the power. Here'e a hint, Article 1 Section 8 enumerates the powers of congress. Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People goes further and states "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." Nowhere is health care delegated to the government. Now the Constitution allows a method by which health care can be added, it's called amending the Constitution. If the Democrats want to propose an amendment I'll support their effort to make the proposal. Then I'll promptly oppose said amendment, as some have said, though I disagree with what people may say I'll support their right to say it.

What the federal government does have the ability to do, as I've said a number of tymes, is to force states to allow interstate commerce, ie require states to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines. Which in not allowed now, each state regulates who can sell insurance in the state. So when someone, such as those political ads demanding a public option, state only a couple of insurance companies offer insurance in some states, remember that. If only one or two companies offer insurance in a state it's because that states grants them a monopoly/duopoly or whatever. I live in Minnesota and if health insurance is cheaper in South Dakota I should be able to buy that insurance.

Of course that's only part of the solution to rising medical costs. Another part of the solution is to give people who buy their own health insurance the same tax deductions employers get for offering insurance. When an employer offers insurance it can deduct the cost of insurance from it's taxes but when a private person buys insurance they can not deduct the cost from taxes.

By allowing a free marke

It now turns out that the "anti-war" movement was really just against Bush. Notice the absence of mass protests as Obama continues Bush's policies, this time with a "surge" in Afghanistan

That may be true of some antiwar activists but not all. Iraq was no threat to the US, I'm still waiting to see the WMDs that would create mushroom clouds over US cities.

Now what most Americans probably don't know is that the US created the conditions for what happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan the US aided and supplied the Mujahideen there. As they say Afghan was the Soviet's Vietnam. But after the Soviets withdrew so did the US. Some of the Mujahideen then became the Taliban while others the Northern Alliance. With Iraq, both Reagan and Bush Sr armed and supported Saddam. In 1988-89 congress debated imposing sanctions on military aid to Saddam after it was confirmed he used WMDs on Kurds, Marsh Arabs, and others in Iraq but both Reagan and Bush SR argued it was against America's interest to cut off aid. Before Saddam ordered the invasion of Kuwait he could do no wrong, but when he did order the invasion Bush turned on him. And why did Saddam order the invasion? Because Kuwait was slant drilling into an Iraqi oil field.

Don't tell me with a straight face that the media gave George W. Bush a "free pass" as that is absurd.

What is absurd is to say the media didn't give George W Bush a free pass. I didn't hear one reporter question the existence of those WMDs Bush stood on television claiming Saddam had. After none were found the media didn't bat an eye supporting Bush saying the invasion was about regime change and not about WMDs. Or the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't about capturing bin Laden. Again Bush stood on TV demanding the Taliban turn over bin Laden, "or else". When the Taliban asked for proof bin Laden had anything to do with 911 Bush beat his chest and ordered the invasion of Afghanistan.But when bin Laden wasn't captured the invasion was no longer about that. To deny this is to deny reality.

I'm sick to death of our hypocritical politicians, Democrat and Republican alike.

Same here.

Look for the biggest "throw the bums out" election results in American history this November.

I wish this were true but I seriously doubt it. Most American voters have short memories as well as suffer from "all of Congress sucks but my reps." I am somewhat hopeful Kennedy's seat going to a Republican means other incumbents, in both parties, will also lose their seats but I doubt it.

This is a golden opportunity to pass term limits for Congress as their favorable poll number is now a mere 11 percent.

I don't like what's going on but I don't like term limits either. Instead I propose a Constitutional Amendment like what Texas has. In Texas the legislature only meets in odd numbered years, not every year, and the session only lasts for 140 days. 140 days every other year? Now here's my proposal:
Amendment 28 - Limiting how long congress can be in session:
Congress shall only meet in odd numbered years for 3 months. The president can call for a special session but such session shall only deal with a single issue.

I also propose another amendment, Amendment 29 - Amendment 12 Repealed, how the President is Chosen.
Each candidate shall run for President in an election with Condorcet or ranked voting. The winner shall be President with the candidate in second place being the Vice President.

Falcon

Wrong:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Appropriations for the army are limited to two years. Other appropriations may be for any period of time. There has, in fact, been talk from time to time of changing the procedure in congress to make all the major appropriations bills two-years bills, so that they only have to deal with half of them every year.

The Congress shall have 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;

Whether or not the work in question promotes the progress of useful arts is certainly a subjective issue that a court will have to decide. You may question if the courts would even consider such an argument. They have certainly done so before. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service.

The requirement to deposit a copy with the LoC was dropped decades ago.

While I conceded in another post that the copy is deposited with the copyright office, the copyright office is actually part of the Library of Congress. However, it is possible to deposit an unpublished work and have it kept out of the LoC catalog.

Since I suspect that wasn't the point you were trying to get at I suggest you read that other post before you respond.