Slashdot Mirror

In the U.S. Congress, a voice vote allows a legislator to neither confirm nor deny to his constituents that he voted for a controversial bill. It takes 20 percent of a house to force a roll-call vote. From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5: "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal."

the current President of the U.S. Senate

IQgryn wrote:

Last I checked, Biden was Vice President.

Of course he is. Perhaps you're not from the United States, but its constitution states the following:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate

Perhaps, however should he be held accountable for the actions of thousands of others? Of which was never proven that others copied from him it is assumed though. The only thing admitted to was that he copied the junk of the net. All other arguments at this point are mute.

Their real argument (at least at this point) is 22k per song 'fair' and doesnt go against the constitution? This is about all they can argue at this point. They seem to have a bit of case law (which caries a good deal of weight, and they list out) in their favor. At this point they are not arguing whether *HE* distributed anything he admitted to that. They are arguing is 650k a cruel and usual? A 1000:1 damages (which is the minimum being argued for) or the 32000:1 that was awarded is not excessive. The typical ruling even for commercial infringement is 3-8:1 not the crazy amounts being bandied about here. The rest of the argument is about how if allowed to stand how they could literally stop making music and just sue people to make money. Not exactly a 'promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts'.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am8

The thing most people do not realize is there is 4 things on trial at every trial; the defendant, the plaintiff, and the law itself, and the judges. At this point in the trial stage the law and the judge are on trial. Is the law wrong, did the judge rule wrong according to the law, or by following the law the judge do something wrong. These are the points that the defendant is bringing up. They are good arguments.

My family has asked me about this sort of thing being a computer dork. I told them it is basically like he shoplifted 24 cds and then is going to spend 20 years in jail for it.

I swear people are so lazy when it comes to jury duty. The citizens on that jury should be bitch slapped for awarding that. If it had been me on that jury I would have done the min 750x24 with a note saying it should be much less but by law we are only allowed to do this. This is really a case of petty theft. Literally a mountain out of a mole hill.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

On the other hand, what you describe is malfeasance in office, a violation of the oath of office, etc.. and should be considered one of the "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" that are grounds for impeachment.

that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit.

In exchange for not paying taxes, churches were told they could not do political stumping. This came about as a direct result of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church meddling in political affairs for centuries.

The Founding Fathers were smart enough to recognize this and forced the separation onto our new nation. And before you claim that the words aren't in the Constitution, recognize that both Jefferson and Madison explicitly stated that separation both during the haggling over the wording of the Constitution as well as in letters, with Jefferson using that exact phrase. Madison, in a letter to the President of the College of Charleston in South Carolina, specifically stated he disagreed with a pamphlet the President had distributed which tried to link Christianity and the new government. In fact, Madison explicitly states, in the fourth paragraph, that the Papal system, which combines government and religion, is the worst of governments.

For reference: Jefferson's Danbury letter, including parts he did not include in the final letter.

Madison's letter to Jasper Adams in which he clearly states that neither State nor religion should intrude on one another's toes. More quotes from Madison showing his desire for separation of Church and State.

I'm not sure how much more clear what the Founding Fathers thought about concerning the role of religion in the new country can be. They clearly wanted, and specifically stated as much, that there is a wall between the two entities. And for good reason.

Several US states wrote a right of secession into the documents by which they formally ratified the Constitution. Virginia's for instance says "that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression". And the first Congress didn't order them to go back and take that bit out...

What many people fail to understand is the US Constitution does not GIVE anyone any rights. If AFIRMS those rights exist and are real and shall not be messed with by government. The Bill of Rights was written for the People, not the nipple heads in government.

Please have a look @ the following links;

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

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

It is time we Americans read and fully understand what our founding Farther's established for this great country of ours.

What many people fail to understand is the US Constitution does not GIVE anyone any rights. If AFIRMS those rights exist and are real and shall not be messed with by government. The Bill of Rights was written for the People, not the nipple heads in government.

Please have a look @ the following links;

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

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

It is time we Americans read and fully understand what our founding Farther's established for this great country of ours.

And when the citizens are finished, they can all kick back and enjoy a nice, cold glass of their twenty-second amendment right.

So this is all about presidential term limits? Color me confused.

lol--oops. That was supposed to be the 21st amendment, not 22nd.

And when the citizens are finished, they can all kick back and enjoy a nice, cold glass of their twenty-second amendment right.

So this is all about presidential term limits? Color me confused.

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.

GPP (jfengel) writes:

And by explicitly circumscribing what governments may not do, they implicitly give the government the right to do everything else.

So, they also explicitly circumscribed what the US government may do.

The Bill of Rights DOES have teeth.

Yes? Well, let's see.

Any time a Fourth Amendment rights violation occurs, any case, at any level, DIES on the spot and any evidence that stems from that violation must be discarded along with the case. Period.

No. For instance, the constitution does not authorize any search unless it is reasonable, and it defines reasonable as showing probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and the subsequent generation of a warrant. The country is pervaded by searches that violate the requirement; and they don't kill the cases, nor is the evidence discarded. There are search laws for within X miles of the border; there are search laws for searching US citizens at the border; there are search laws for searching people's cars, homes, and etc., all without complying with amendment IV. So you're completely wrong here. next:

It's just that you can't presume that the government has ANY requirements to observe the Bill of Rights restrictions on their activities

The constitution - also known as the highest law in the land - forbids such laws and activities to the federal government. So you can indeed presume that they cannot do so - they are not authorized to do so. If they do such things, they are in violation of the law.

For example, in the decision of U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Judge Fee states:

Read amendment four. Find me where it states anything about "only people how fight get these rights. Back yet? Didn't work out so well, did it? It doesn't say, or imply, or reference, any such thing, anywhere. So the fact is, Judge Fee is making law where he has no authority to do so.

Your rights in this space are NOT automatic. You must insist upon them and they must actually apply. The reason why they "don't have teeth", etc. is because NOBODY seems to be willing to actually challenge each in every one of these when they encounter them for reasons of "you can't fight city hall", etc.

No. You miss the entire point. When I say that the constitution has no teeth, I mean that when government stooges like Judge Fee enter into unauthorized lawmaking such as your fine example above, which is the very first step and the primary responsible step in unauthorized government power acquisition, there's nothing in or about the constitution that says, for instance "...and if any government official or member of the judiciary violates this portion of the constitution, they shall be hung by the neck until dead." People like Fee can do anything they want, because the constitution is a paper full of laws without consequences. It'd be like a law that said you can't drive over 50 miles an hour, but authorized no fine, no license pulling, no insurance fee changing, no pulling you over, no nothing. It just says you can't speed. Such a law is absolutely toothless, unable to control you in any wise; and that is exactly how the constitution is written. It isn't about the defense of rights in a courtroom by the citizen; it's about a complete lack of defense against the government disobeying the authorizing document that gives them the right to exist in a very specific manner, and no other manner.

...you could actually be ignorant of the pervasive violations in the constitutional areas I named. The government -- by which I mean the congress and the supreme court, and all the courts below them, consistently step far out of constitutional bounds, just as they are now.

Ex post facto law is forbidden both the federal and state governments. Both have made such law and use it presently; two good examples are removing the right to carry firearms post-sentencing for felons, which increases their sentence exactly per the definition[3d], and registering sexual offenders post-sentencing, which does the same. The constitution says in article I, section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. That takes care of the feds. In Article I, section 10: No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law. That takes care of the states. That SCOTUS has attempted in "that depends on what you mean by 'is'" fashion to redefine punishment as only some of the content of judicially ordered consequences only serves to solidly implicate SCOTUS in the crime of constitutional violation, and in fact is exactly the type of Article III attempt to pursue article V goals I was mentioning previously. There is no constitutional authority for judges - at any level - to define, or redefine, what the constitution means. Article III does not provide for it, nor does article V reference article III by jot or tittle. Article three assigns SCOTUS to sit in judgment on constitutional law cases. Not to make or judge constitutional law itself. Obviously they have usurped this power, but READ the constitution: It is not given them, and therefore it is wholly unauthorized.

First amendment violations are everywhere. "Free speech zones." No speech within X distance of a funeral. Permits required for public meetings. The classic, and totally wrong, "no shouting fire in a theater" (we shout "fire" in schools... we call it a "fire drill" and there is no problem - and those are kids! We're all trained for it. Further, if someone trampled someone else, THAT is a crime and we have laws for it, thereby obviating ANY supposed social need for violating the 1st amendment in the trumped-up theater example.) Suppression of comic artwork that offends (and that's all it is, because there is certainly no "victim.") The FCC forbidding ANY significant citizen use of the broadcast bands, and handing them over tied with a neat bow to corporations. The bottom line here is that the 1st amendment reads: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech and so barring exercise of article V, no law such as the above is authorized. Consequently, these are all solid examples of unauthorized exercise of power, ie, government out of control.

2nd amendment violations are everywhere. The 2nd amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. For those who cannot be bothered to do a little research, "well regulated" means "everyone should show up bearing a specific minimum number of bullets, arms and comparable ready equipment", not "subject to regulations." "Militia" means capable fellows of fighting age. Not "national guard" or "army." They're simply saying that in order that it may be possible to immediately gather useful fighting folk from the populace at any time, ready to go in a reasonably organized fashion on literally no more than hours notice, said fighting folk are going to need to be armed. Regardless, that phrase is not a directive to the government, it is explicatory, that is, simply shows some of the rationale they were using at the time. The operative phrase is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Well, that's pretty damned clear, isn't it? Are there laws that infringe on the rights

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

By making laws which say you can not practice religion at a school is directly against this. But maybe I am 'interpreting' it wrong...

Separation of church and state is a judicial branch thing and congress cant really get involved because of this.

The current 'purging' of church from schools is a boogieman and even flys in the face of the letter of the law. It is racism perpetuated upon a large group of the united states with a dose of misunderstanding of the law.

Let's say it actually was a "Russian Gang" operating out of say, Russia. What can US Gov't agencies do against this? Can they do anything within the law besides call up Russia and tell them to 'take care of it.' It's not like we can drop commandos into Russia and go after them, nor can we launch electronic attacks on this gang (act of futility).

According to the US Constitution, Section 8, Congress has the power to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

I see this type of activity as an attack, just because it's two private entities, this IMHO is no different than if SAP tried to hack into Oracle.

Hey Fed, I'm sick of US companies wasting time, money and effort to deal with these people bent on conducting electronic warfare.

As a side note, I wonder how much $$ is wasted in terms of extra capacity (servers, network, CPU, power) is needed by US companies to deal with all this BS (spam, people hacking in etc..) floating around the internet.

I once heard a presentation by a guy at Yahoo who managed a few of their datacenters. When asked about how they deal with DOS attacks his response was that they had more computing capacity then the internet could deliver to them, so they just absorb whatever attacks are sent their way.

Dear Messrs, Dent, Bilirakis, and King,

Since your high school civics classes obviously forgot to include it in your course of study, please allow me to introduce you to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.:

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 is mine).

Thank you.

The exact wording was different, because it's usually in a different language, but it's the same meaning.
Usually it's just before a totalitarian regime takes over.

That's crap.

As I've demonstrated in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1470340&cid=30372884, it's unnatural for the common person to have any significant privacy due to both pragmatic as well as philosophical constraints.

What he said is True, in the logical domain. What rubs is its implication towards our station.

The U.S. Constitution does not convey privacy ( http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy ). it's more about not being bullied. IMO.

Any Privacy Right, I would agree, is most closely addressed in the 9th Ammendment, but that reserves any right to Knowledge Of What Your Neighbors Are Up To for the people. That makes sense. Village and all that.

Do I have a right to interfere with you if you bring biological work home with you? ....uh... yeah!

So there is an Right To Knowledge about one's neighbors that is ill-addressed in SCOTUS rulings about the ephemeral 'Privacy' meme. And you've bought it line totally sinker.

It's still a class war. Those early rulings to be AFCertain that the rich had Privacy to do their deeds.

Which works against the rest of us...

Patents are neither the means of production nor property. At most patents tell how something is made. And unlike property what government can grant it can take away too. Patents are granted, there is nothing natural about them. With property on the other hand government can only take if just compensation is given.

Now that only applies to the USA, other nations have other laws. But in the US patents are not rights, in the US government can not grant rights, it can only enforce or deny them.

Falcon

Patents are neither the means of production nor property. At most patents tell how something is made. And unlike property what government can grant it can take away too. Patents are granted, there is nothing natural about them. With property on the other hand government can only take if just compensation is given.

Now that only applies to the USA, other nations have other laws. But in the US patents are not rights, in the US government can not grant rights, it can only enforce or deny them.

Falcon

I think you meant Amendment 10.

There is no Article 10 of the US Constitution, it only has 8 articles - you referenced section 10 of Article 1, which lays out the restrictions on the States.

Since it's short and sweet, here's the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

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.

The federal government has somehow managed to get around this to a large degree by citing inter-state commerce (which the constitution states is the purview of the Feds). SOX would fall under that as well, and actually a heck of a lot better than most of the federal government's interferance into State afairs do.

We need a good Article 10 fight. Now.

Washington is out of control, and has been for a while. As good a time as any to make a stand.

Do you want the email on the professor I read it with? Just so you can notify him personally that the laying out of branches of government, establishing the election process, citizen rights, free speech and all that has nothing to do with democracy. He'll be so surprised.

If he is surprised, then he's an idiot, too. I repeat, read it yourself.

Pray tell, what makes a country democratic, if not free speech, free elections, oversight of government, balances to prevent accumulation of power, basic rights of all citizens, habeas corpus?

What makes a country a democracy is majority rule, it has nothing to do with any of those other things at all.

I take back the part about reading the constitution. Maybe you should start with a dictionary.

*Whoosh!* There goes the point right over your head. Big content is stealing from you.

They're taking your history and your heritage. Imagine a ludicrous extreme, such as the hospital you were born in saying that you can no longer use the name that you were given at birth unless you pay for it because it happened on their premises, therefore they own the rights to it. Or if you are in immigrant, imagine someone telling you that you can no longer describe where you're from, because that information is "owned" by the country from which you came. (God forbid you draw a map!)

Similarly, the music that was on the radio when I was a child? I'm prohibited by law from sharing that with my friends. Movies that have become so deeply ingrained in our culture that we constantly refer to them... "May the force be with you." "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more." "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." "Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!" Yeah, in spite of them being part of the very fabric of our culture, you're legally prohibited from sharing them with your kids without paying your pound of flesh to people who did something great decades ago (or in some cases, to estates of long dead people).

Look, I'm all for compensating artists justly for what they do. In 1962, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr released a clever little song called Love Me Do. It was a bona fide hit, and they made a lot of money off of it. So be it, they deserve it. But now it's 47 years later. Do you really contend that the song was so unbelievably great, so untouchably amazing, that Paul, Ringo, and the estates of George and John should STILL be making money when a radio plays it?

Or let's look at it another way. Don't you think that's being way too overgenerous to artists? I mean, these past few years, I've been doing some of the greatest work in my professional life in a computer datacenter. I've gotten consistently great reviews, and I feel like I've made a real positive difference for the company where I'm employed. They've paid me well, I'm not complaining. But if I walked out tomorrow, wouldn't you agree that it's kind of silly to expect them to STILL keep paying me because they're enjoying the fruits of my labor while I worked there? 50 years after I'm dead, should they STILL be paying my estate because my contributions in the first decade of the 2000's contributed to the history of the company being great?

When I retire, I'm going to be living off of money I've saved up during my lifetime specifically because I don't expect my former employers to still be paying for my work 70 years after I die. Why is it that an artist who writes a hit song, a writer who writes a best-seller, an actor who turns in an Oscar-winning performance, gets that luxury? My opinion is that if you want to continue making money off of your work, get out there and work like the rest of us do. No one should get a lifetime + 70 years of resting on their laurels because they did something great. Like the rest of us, if they want to retire in comfort, they should set aside some of the money they make during the height of their popularity so they'll have it after the limited time that copyright is supposed to be valid.

The constitution doesn't mention the trucking industry either. (Shocking that nobody at the 1788 convention ever heard of Mack trucks!) But the federal government regulates trucking, because trucking is part of interstate commerce, and that is mentioned in the constitution.

Yea, so? There's even howls that Mexican drivers are trucking in the US. As long as they obey the laws of the road and US drivers can work in Mexico that's fine with me. I am all for open borders.

The premise behind the current reform effort is that health care is a kind of interstate commerce. This guy says that it isn't.

I agree, health or medical care is not interstate commerce. However insurance is yet the federal government isn't using the interstate commerce clause on it. Before the health care bill was voted on in the House, TV ads complained some states only have a couple of companies offering health insurance in those states. So what did the ads suggest? A public option. If instead they had analyzed why those states didn't have competition they would have found out there is no competition because each state limits who can offer insurance in the state. What those who wanted to reform health care could have done was use the interstate commerce clause to open up the market. Allow people to cross their state line and buy health insurance in another state. Did the House do that? No.

From that link:
"Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?'"
How about amendments 9 and 10, in the Bill of Rights? Apparently this congresscritter believes the government can do whatever it wants, whereas many of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted a limited government. After all that's what the American Revolution was about, fighting against a big tyrannical government.

Maybe you haven't heard, or read, me say it but I fear government far more than any business or corporation. The most deaths a business was responsible that I know of is Union Carbide. When their plant in Bhopal leaked there were less than 4000 confirmed deaths. The NAZI killed more than 600,000 Jews alone. Stalin massacred an estimated 20,000,000 while the death toll attributed to Mao is 50,000,000. Pol Pot murdered millions more, and hundreds of thousands were massacred in Rwanda.

Businesses have nothing over governments. Governments can be used to control businesses but not the other way around, unless voters allow it. Even the US has bloody hands, not counting the Native Americans who were massacred and had their land stolen. US governments have supported despotic and murderous regimes in other countries.

Falcon

The constitution doesn't mention the trucking industry either. (Shocking that nobody at the 1788 convention ever heard of Mack trucks!) But the federal government regulates trucking, because trucking is part of interstate commerce, and that is mentioned in the constitution.

Yea, so? There's even howls that Mexican drivers are trucking in the US. As long as they obey the laws of the road and US drivers can work in Mexico that's fine with me. I am all for open borders.

The premise behind the current reform effort is that health care is a kind of interstate commerce. This guy says that it isn't.

I agree, health or medical care is not interstate commerce. However insurance is yet the federal government isn't using the interstate commerce clause on it. Before the health care bill was voted on in the House, TV ads complained some states only have a couple of companies offering health insurance in those states. So what did the ads suggest? A public option. If instead they had analyzed why those states didn't have competition they would have found out there is no competition because each state limits who can offer insurance in the state. What those who wanted to reform health care could have done was use the interstate commerce clause to open up the market. Allow people to cross their state line and buy health insurance in another state. Did the House do that? No.

From that link:
"Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?'"
How about amendments 9 and 10, in the Bill of Rights? Apparently this congresscritter believes the government can do whatever it wants, whereas many of the USA's Founding Fathers wanted a limited government. After all that's what the American Revolution was about, fighting against a big tyrannical government.

Maybe you haven't heard, or read, me say it but I fear government far more than any business or corporation. The most deaths a business was responsible that I know of is Union Carbide. When their plant in Bhopal leaked there were less than 4000 confirmed deaths. The NAZI killed more than 600,000 Jews alone. Stalin massacred an estimated 20,000,000 while the death toll attributed to Mao is 50,000,000. Pol Pot murdered millions more, and hundreds of thousands were massacred in Rwanda.

Businesses have nothing over governments. Governments can be used to control businesses but not the other way around, unless voters allow it. Even the US has bloody hands, not counting the Native Americans who were massacred and had their land stolen. US governments have supported despotic and murderous regimes in other countries.

Falcon

Then it is certainly legal for them to do, and, consequently, nothing to blame telcos for...

So the 4th Amendment means nothing?

Falcon

You do realize that the founding fathers understood that they could not predict the future, right? That clause is in there to account for things they could not foretell.

Yes, they knew they could not foresee the future. Therefore they included a way to change the Constitution, by amending it. Now are there any amendments to give the federal government the power to control, mandate, or regulate health care and insurance? No, therefore the federal government does not have that power. The power it does have it is not using, and the bill the House passed does not change that fact. The interstate commerce clause, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" is not used. Because the federal government does not use that clause here, I can not go across a state line and buy health insurance where it is cheaper. If that one simple clause was enforced and people got the same tax deductions employers get for buying insurance the competition between insurance policy issuers would lower the cost of both health care and insurance.

Falcon

You do realize that the founding fathers understood that they could not predict the future, right? That clause is in there to account for things they could not foretell.

Yes, they knew they could not foresee the future. Therefore they included a way to change the Constitution, by amending it. Now are there any amendments to give the federal government the power to control, mandate, or regulate health care and insurance? No, therefore the federal government does not have that power. The power it does have it is not using, and the bill the House passed does not change that fact. The interstate commerce clause, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" is not used. Because the federal government does not use that clause here, I can not go across a state line and buy health insurance where it is cheaper. If that one simple clause was enforced and people got the same tax deductions employers get for buying insurance the competition between insurance policy issuers would lower the cost of both health care and insurance.

Falcon

PleasE go to college. You'll learn all about the Constitution. You really need the knowledge.

I have gone to college, I actually learned about the Constitution in Jr High though. Did you learn about it and US history anywhere? After having fought a tyrannical regime for independence the USA's Founding Fathers wanted to make sure government would not become tyrannical again. They set down guidelines by which government was to stay within. If the authority is not in the Constitution then the federal government can't do it. Especially notice amendments 9 and 10. Nine says that just because a right is not enumerated that it can be disparaged or denied. The tenth specifically states that if the Constitution does not give the federal government the power it does not have that power. That power is left to the states or the people.

Why an I wasting my tyme, I seriously doubt you'll change even when given facts.

Falcon

Ever hear of the "necessary and proper" clause? Before you go spouting off about the Constitution, read and understand it first.

Golly, I must of missed where it says health care is necessary or proper. But I do see where Amendment 5 say "or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." While money may not be private property, it is a way to gain that property.

Falcon

That's right.

I'd like a reason to oppose things

How about the Constitution of the USA? Can you point to one place in there where the federal government is given the power control health care and medicine? And remember if it does not give a power then government does not have that power, it is a document limiting what government can do.

Now if you believe the government should do something the Constitution provides a way for it to do that, via amending it. Amazingly it has been amended 27 tymes already.

I personally like our parks, roads, fire/police/military, medicare, public educational finding/grants,

First, the Constitution gives the federal government the power to build and maintain roads. It also gives the power to defend the people and nation. Next there is nothing in the Constitution preventing state and local government from providing all these other things. And generally they have been pretty good at it. Actually with the feds into so much it can dictate to states what they must do. No Child Left Behind ring a bell? If a school doesn't meet federal requirements it can lose funding. Now if the feds did not have as high of taxes as it does then states and local governments could raise their own taxes and spend it on what they want instead of the feds dictating to them. Another example is Real ID. The feds want to tell the states they either have an ID that meets federal guidelines or they lose road funding. That's what they did with the minimum drinking age.

Anyone who believes in the purity of their ideals is suspect.

Then apply that to government as well. I have never ever heard of businesses exterminating and massacring millions of people but governments have a history of doing exactly that. Yes, even the government of the US.

if the private path went further towards these goals I'd vouch for it instead. Right now the private path seems to be a complete failure, individual greed and the general well being seem to be diametrically opposed.

You're assuming that the private path has been tried when in fact it has not been tried in more than 60 years. Instead government has been interfering with medicine and health care all this tyme.

Your statement is against the text of the bill, so the burden of proof is upon you.

You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not the responsibility if citizens to prove someone is not needed, it's the responsibility of government to prove that something is needed and that it has the power. Governments exist for the people, not the people existing for the government.

Falcon

That's right.

I'd like a reason to oppose things

How about the Constitution of the USA? Can you point to one place in there where the federal government is given the power control health care and medicine? And remember if it does not give a power then government does not have that power, it is a document limiting what government can do.

Now if you believe the government should do something the Constitution provides a way for it to do that, via amending it. Amazingly it has been amended 27 tymes already.

I personally like our parks, roads, fire/police/military, medicare, public educational finding/grants,

First, the Constitution gives the federal government the power to build and maintain roads. It also gives the power to defend the people and nation. Next there is nothing in the Constitution preventing state and local government from providing all these other things. And generally they have been pretty good at it. Actually with the feds into so much it can dictate to states what they must do. No Child Left Behind ring a bell? If a school doesn't meet federal requirements it can lose funding. Now if the feds did not have as high of taxes as it does then states and local governments could raise their own taxes and spend it on what they want instead of the feds dictating to them. Another example is Real ID. The feds want to tell the states they either have an ID that meets federal guidelines or they lose road funding. That's what they did with the minimum drinking age.

Anyone who believes in the purity of their ideals is suspect.

Then apply that to government as well. I have never ever heard of businesses exterminating and massacring millions of people but governments have a history of doing exactly that. Yes, even the government of the US.

if the private path went further towards these goals I'd vouch for it instead. Right now the private path seems to be a complete failure, individual greed and the general well being seem to be diametrically opposed.

You're assuming that the private path has been tried when in fact it has not been tried in more than 60 years. Instead government has been interfering with medicine and health care all this tyme.

Your statement is against the text of the bill, so the burden of proof is upon you.

You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not the responsibility if citizens to prove someone is not needed, it's the responsibility of government to prove that something is needed and that it has the power. Governments exist for the people, not the people existing for the government.

Falcon

The reason is that the point isn't to fix the healthcare industry. The goal is to socialize it. We already have Medicare, Medicaid and SSI.

Medicare and Medicaid are health insurance policies but SSI isn't. SSI is disability insurance.

I agree with the rest though, as passed this bill isn't about fixing health care it's about socializing it. Nor does the Constitution of the USA give the federal government the power to offer a "public option". The one power it does give isn't used, the interstate commerce clause To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. The federal government can make it so that health insurance issued in one state can be bought and used in any other state. As it is now each state decides who can sell or offer insurance in the state. Some states only have a couple of companies offering insurance because the state only allows those companies to offer insurance.

Falcon

The reason is that the point isn't to fix the healthcare industry. The goal is to socialize it. We already have Medicare, Medicaid and SSI.

Medicare and Medicaid are health insurance policies but SSI isn't. SSI is disability insurance.

I agree with the rest though, as passed this bill isn't about fixing health care it's about socializing it. Nor does the Constitution of the USA give the federal government the power to offer a "public option". The one power it does give isn't used, the interstate commerce clause To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. The federal government can make it so that health insurance issued in one state can be bought and used in any other state. As it is now each state decides who can sell or offer insurance in the state. Some states only have a couple of companies offering insurance because the state only allows those companies to offer insurance.

Falcon

No, only the FSF (which wrote the GPL under which the ImageMaster code was released) can make the definitions here.

By what law or right can the FSF define something but others can't? I can't find it anywhere in the Constitution of the USA.

Falcon

What does the United States Constitution have to do with the Free Software Foundation's definitions of anything? If I write something, I get to define terms. It's pretty simple. They wrote it, and own the term, so they can define it.

No, only the FSF (which wrote the GPL under which the ImageMaster code was released) can make the definitions here.

By what law or right can the FSF define something but others can't? I can't find it anywhere in the Constitution of the USA.

Falcon

That is how Article VI of the Constitution is [mis]interpreted. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6

Just because some paranoid mcarthyist hacks in the government think some guy seems a bit whack doesnt mean they should have a right to go around fucking people over with no fly lists unless its proven in a court.

Actually, this has been to the supreme court, and so isn't going to change.

You see, when the public backed the idea that people convicted of certain crimes (sexual, violent) should be publicly listed (on web sites, etc.), the courts decided to find a way to pretend that wasn't an ex post facto violation for the previously convicted (and those not convicted, because they put them on there as well, for instance those with adjudication withheld judgments.)

In order to pull that bit of conceptual legerdemain off, they said that the government has the right to list the citizens, because such listing is (get ready now) "not punitive" because the government isn't the agent causing the listee problems. It's the other citizens, businesses, etc. doing it, you see. That whole... can't get a job, a place to live, credit, being the targets of posters on telephone poles, the occasional outright mugging or murder, and of course, being driven to suicide. Not the government's problem or responsibility.

Since, the justices said, while giving each other dancing hip shots on the head of this particular pin, such listing (cough) isn't punitive, it doesn't violate ex post facto, which explicitly forbids either the states or the feds from changing a punishment by adding to it after it has already been set at sentencing (among other things.)

Of course this concept -- the idea that such listing isn't punitive -- is utterly nonsensical, but the thing is, it is nonsensical at the level of the supreme court, which makes it a formidable thing to overturn (practically, it makes it almost impossible, actually.)

What falls out of it, though, is a magical government right to put citizens on all kinds of lists without their consent, and without any judicial process whatsoever, regardless of the consequences that fall out of such listing in trying to pursue one's life.

From this, we get no-fly lists, where the government isn't stopping you from flying, it's the airline; the no-buy lists, where the government isn't stopping you from buying, it's the car dealer or other dealer; the terrorist list, where the government isn't stopping you from getting a job, it's the employer, and so forth.

This is just one of many fine examples of why we should not tolerate the "re-interpretation" of constitutional issues by the people in the courts. The constitution obviously means exactly what it says; it is the literally the constituting authority for the government; therefore, the government does not have the authority to do anything that is outright forbidden in the constitution, not directly, and not by invoking this kind of legalistic bullshittery. If the people want to change something in the constitution, that's what article five is for.

So while the argument that the government "should" go through judicial process to commit these harms to the citizens and others within our borders is sound, sensible, and constitutionally obvious, the supreme court has made it a non-starter.

First of all there is no "right to travel".

Yes, there is, and courts have upheld it: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel

If he fails to define the term, then the term must be taken at face value. Welcome to reality.

Please explain in detail the difference between "copyrighting industry" and "copyright industry". Especially in light of your definition of "industry of copyrighting works (and also of enforcing those copyrights)" which seems to be a fine definition of "copyrighting industry".

When you say

Innovation has come from the creative side not the part involved in copyrighting.

you are making my argument for me.

In fact creativity has been regularly shown to be stiffled[sic] by forceful copyrighting.

That is a temporary side effect of copyright's main purpose which is

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

Your argument seems to be that one should not be allowed to control the results and make a profit off of one's work if such control may interfere with someone else taking advantage, using, and possibly making a profit off said work or even is some else merely can not or does not wish to pay the asking price for the work. This is disingenuous.

for example the copyright on a GPL product enables the author to dictate that it cannot be redistributed under a proprietary licence.

So, it is OK for an author to dictate the use and terms of redistribution of his work when you agree with those terms and they benefit you, but not when they only benefit the author, which is the true reason for copyright in the first place? How hypocritical of you.

Slander? Talking point?

Dude, in case you missed it, petroleum imports are a significant part of our trade imbalance, contributing to the movement of lots of capital offshore. That's not a "slander", it's a whole fucking shitload of our money.

On the use of military power to protect access to energy, again there are lots and lots of real asshole leaders in the world, constantly threatening their neighbors. But the only one the U.S. got all military with, was Iraq. Twice.

In 1952-1953, the U.S. helped Britain overthrow the elected leadership of Iran, mostly because they were getting uppity and nationalizing their oil. This isn't slander, it's a whole pissed-off country because the U.S. and Britain were fucking around with their society. For oil.

This was a slashdot comment. On word usage big guy, I cite definition 3 from a common online dictionary.

Energy research management is being managed with such monumental incompetence that somebody has to step in. Here is a quote from the preamble of the U.S. Constitution (citation): ... promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity....

The whole purpose of "the government" is to be instrumental in preserving our national security. Economic security counts too, and this society has been woefully inadequate in preparing for the days when petroleum either gets expensive or becomes a weapon of economic dominance.

Forget the flowery language. It's real goddamned simple: This country has blown a shitload of our capital and our international reputation to preserve access to petroleum resources. It's time to regain control of our own destiny by developing our own energy resources. The research that would have made this a much less painful process could have been done decades ago.

And your response is a perfect example of what I mean when I talk about entrenched interests screaming "socialism" to prevent us from coming to a broad consensus to prepare for conditions that will occur sooner or later.

Yes, spending bills originate in the House and have to pass the Senate, too,...

Um, no

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

I find it interesting that the preamble of the constitution says that the right to life is unalienable, but you say that " That's not a right. You have the right to due process before the state deprives you of life". I am not a constitutional scholar, but it certainly sounds to me that the right to life is inalienable.

Well for starters, that isn't the preamble of the constitution that you quoted. It's the American Declaration of Independence. It also says that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights but that doesn't stop us from locking up criminals. You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to understand it either, just read the plain text of the 5th amendment to the US Constitution. Here's the relevant part: "nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

but locking someone up for life, certainly seems like a workable alternative to killing them

Why? Because it's more humane? What's humane about being locked in an 8 foot by 10 foot room for the rest of your natural life? If you've committed egregious crimes then I really don't see why society can't put you out of our collective misery. Why should society have to expend limited resources to support someone who murdered/raped innocent people or whom betrayed that society (treason/espionage) and placed every member of it in harms way?

Personally I'd say that it's better to keep a million killers alive for 100+ years than it is to execute an innocent man - for I may be that innocent man.

If you are that innocent man are you seriously going to tell me that being locked in a cell for the rest of your life is preferable to death? Innocent people being convicted of crimes is a horrible outcome regardless of what the punishment is. If I was in that situation I'd rather be dead than live the rest of my life clinging to the hope that the person who actually committed the crime comes clean. I'd probably off myself after my appeals were exhausted.

But that also makes me a better judge of what is reasonable - it hasn't happened to me, and thus I am less biased and blood thirsty

Why do you assume that capital punishment has anything to do with being blood thirsty?

you really do need to give them a kick in the groin when they fail to realise that their idea of 'nirvana' isn't a good fit, let alone a perfect one for everybody else.

I never claimed that our system is a good fit for everybody else. This discussion started when some naive individual suggested that one world government would represent an improvement over the current system. If your issue is with one size fits all solutions then I would think that you would stand with me in opposition to this ridiculous idea.

My own personal pet peeve with US society, is that I find it very ironic that a country that enshrines into its constitution that church and state must be kept 100% separate, and does a horrible job of it compared to a country like Denmark, that has a state religion enshrined into its constitution.

Why do you think we do a horrible job? Because some politicians wear their religion on their sleeve? So what? The US goes so far as to allow people like Tom Cruise to freely practice his religion of choice. Many European countries (Germany, France) fail miserably on this point. Why aren't you criticizing them as well?

Actually, my biggest pet peeve with US society is that instead of having a media that is eternally in opposition of the government, you have one that is essentially a propaganda machine for the parties. Fox does the better job (I think the opposing 'team' there would be MSNBC),

Fox and MSNBC aren't propaganda machines. They are echo chambers that have found i

Well, to be fair this does seem like the kind of thing that should be established in, you know, a law or act or something.

Can you point out where the Constitution of the USA gives the power to pass "a law or act or something" to regulate the internet to government?

Falcon

"Freedom of speech" applies only to political action and only when such action is peaceful and doesn't constitute or promote violence.

The First Amendment says nothing about Freedom of Speech only applying to political speech, but it does specifically state no law shall not be passed abridging it. And OneLook Dictionary Search defines "abridge' as "verb: reduce in scope while retaining essential elements". Limiting free speech to only political speech is abridging it.

Her actions hinder the police's ability to do their job (obstruction of justice)

If so then she could have been charged with obstruction of justice, which the Post article states she was not charged with. She was instead charged with "identifying a police officer with intent to harass".

Cops are not allowed to publish information on who they have under surveillance

Cops are not allowed to beat people either but they do. Police lobbyist are even trying to have a second bill of rights citizens won't enjoy. Like the lady who was beat by the police.

Civil servant or not, it crosses the line when you place them or their families at risk

They placed themselves and their families in danger. Nobody held a gun to their heads and ordered them to go into law enforcement. I enlisted in the US Army, did you spend tyme military? The specialty I willingly went into was infantry, where I knew if a war broke out I would be on the first lines. My nephew is now a Marine stationed in Iraq, after having served before there he even re-enlisted, and got a $250,000 bonus for it. Now he expecting to be sent to Afghanistan.

Falcon

Would you please point out where in the Constitution it says the federal government can build dams, fund road construction, and so forth?

Of these the Constitution only gives the federal government authority for some roads, the interstate commerce clause allows the interstate highways. Article 1 - The Legislative Branch, Section 8 - Powers of Congress also allows the Post Office and postal roads. Dams, which I support the removal of, are not an authorized function of the federal government. Neither is the Energy Department, Federal Communications Commission, or many other authorities, bureaus, departments, and offices. For years I've advocated for the abolishment of all of them.

If you want to limit the government in that way, we're going to have a very powerless government.

Which is what I want, a weak government. The more power the government has the more it can violate people's rights. And as I've repeatedly said I do not trust government. I'd be more likely to say "Swing heil" than "Sieg Heil".

Falcon

There is no such thing as a military which has the ability to protect everyone on a block except Steve Jones who refuses to pay - it either protects the block or it does not.

The last tyme I can recall the US was invaded was the Battle of New Orleans. When I was in the Army I was stationed in one of the units that fought in the battle, the song The Battle of New Orleans" written by Johnny Horton was about my unit. Yes the territory of Hawai'i was attacked, the Roosevelt admin allowed it, however it was not invaded by Japan but by the US.

I don't see anything unconstitutional about bailing out banks

What part of the Constitution of the USA gives the federal government the power to bailout banks? You can't because it doesn't and the Constitution set limits on what government can do, if something's not in the Constitution the federal government can not do it. Heck the 10th Amendment - Powers of the States and Peoples, spells that out "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."

One of the Founding Fathers even warned against banks, Thomas Jefferson, he said "that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."

How, exactly, is it outside of the government's power to provide loans to banks so that they don't collapse and destroy the economy?

See above. The Constitution only created a government of limited power. And where's the prove the economy would have collapsed if the banks had not been bailed out? Never mind, you'll just say some economists said it and I'll reply others said otherwise.

These bailouts are not free cash handouts, despite what the media wants you to think.

They weren't? So a bunch of bank executives who created the problem for the banks didn't end up with millions of dollars? And banks who were well run and didn't need bailouts weren't penalized?

Fslcon

How come no one even asks anymore whether a bill would violate the constitution?. Section 1,8 lists the 20 powers that congress has, go ahead and read them, they are written in plain English unlike any bill that has been passed in the last few decades. The 10th amendment explicitly reserves any other power to the states or to the people.

Nowhere in those 20 listed powers can you read anything about telecommunications or anything that could be remotely interpreted to justify net neutrality.

How come no one even asks anymore whether a bill would violate the constitution?. Section 1,8 lists the 20 powers that congress has, go ahead and read them, they are written in plain English unlike any bill that has been passed in the last few decades. The 10th amendment explicitly reserves any other power to the states or to the people.

Nowhere in those 20 listed powers can you read anything about telecommunications or anything that could be remotely interpreted to justify net neutrality.

I understand your current position, even if I don't agree. However, I think there is something you are overlooking, which is the collateral damage to society brought about by RIAA attempting to stop those "folks who infringe on their copyrights".

Yes, because the "collateral damage to society" brought about by this is actually relevant compared to the fucking neoconservative right dragging us into wars or the batshit loony left spending my fucking money on idiotic social programs with no actual benefit.

Actually, yes. It is relevant, and possibly more important than the "fucking neoconservative right draggin us into wars". Congress authorized the war (whether that's an actual declaraion is a matter of debate and possibly semantics).

The fallout from extended copyright defeats the purpose of copyright as stated in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (emphasis mine).

If the collateral damage actually restricts such "progress", then copyright, as currently provided, and lobbied for by the media companies is in direct violation of the Constitution, and any in Congress who do not act to correct it are in violation of their duties to uphold and defend the Constitution.