Slashdot Mirror

I am happy with the USPS, and, coincidentally, it happens to be mandated by the US Constitution.

Not mandated, as much as permitted by Article I, Section 8.

Congress has the power to establish the Post Office, but it is not required to. Nonetheless, since it is a legitimate Federal function per the Constitution, I have no problem with the USPS.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

welfare: physical and mental health and happiness

Or from your own source: welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

I'm not American, but it seems your constitution demands your Federal government look after the healthcare of its people.

We live in a country that is protected by a military funded by the government

That is one of the few purposes of the federal government.

If my house is on fire, the fire is managed by a fire department funded by the government
Law enforcement is provided by a police or sheriff's department funded by the government
I drive to work on roads whose maintenance are funded by the government
I was educated at public schools funded by the government

Yea, by local and state governments. Property tax pays, or should pay, for primary and secondary education, fire protection, and law enforcement. Road building and maintenance should be paid for with tax on miles driven.

But these are all different departments of government

Almost all of which are not authorized by the Constitution of the USA. The Constitution is not a list of things the government must do but is a limit on what it can do. If it does not authorize something the federal government can not do it. The 10th Amendment - Powers of the States and People even states that, "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."

Falcon

We live in a country that is protected by a military funded by the government

That is one of the few purposes of the federal government.

If my house is on fire, the fire is managed by a fire department funded by the government
Law enforcement is provided by a police or sheriff's department funded by the government
I drive to work on roads whose maintenance are funded by the government
I was educated at public schools funded by the government

Yea, by local and state governments. Property tax pays, or should pay, for primary and secondary education, fire protection, and law enforcement. Road building and maintenance should be paid for with tax on miles driven.

But these are all different departments of government

Almost all of which are not authorized by the Constitution of the USA. The Constitution is not a list of things the government must do but is a limit on what it can do. If it does not authorize something the federal government can not do it. The 10th Amendment - Powers of the States and People even states that, "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."

Falcon

Except now the law is firmly established by the Supreme Court. That might change the liability question if someone repeated this or a similar action.

It was established, on 15 Decemeber 1791 when the 4th Amendment was ratified.

Falcon

there was no way the administrators could have been expected to know whether their actions were constitutional.

The problem with this though is that the Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure specifically states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If admin in a US public school does not understand that then they should never have graduated.

Falcon

The Constitution does go past the 10th Amendment...something about regulating something or ether between the states...

There are many local ISPes that do not serve interstate. In my greater area there are a number of local ISPs that only serve the area.

And if you look at the Constitution it provides for flexibility. For example, General Welfare, which is mentioned twice.

Yes, it allow mentions liberty. The Preamble says:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Now if you look the definition for "welfare" it says:
"welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being."
Thomas Jefferson said of the 'general welfare clause":
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." In Federalist No 41 James Madison said
"the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content."

As you say the feds have gone after people in California for marijuana after the state legalized medical marijuana.

Rather atrocious. It boggles the mind that it's conventional wisdom that Prohibition was a complete failure with alcohol, yet we insist on continuing Prohibition 2.0: WOD.

Agreed bigtime!!! All these politicians and drug warriors have their heads stuck in the sand. There never has been much debate about it, but hopefully it's a good sign that CNN's Anderson Cooper has been having part of his show AC 360 all week about "America's High: The case for and against pot" with drug legalization proponents debating drug warriors on legalization. Now I haven't watched all of them in their entirety but what I did see it looked like the legalization hands were better.

The whole reason we have regulation and oversight is because we already tried free market Libertarianism

No, we have not tried free markets. The closest we came to free markets was in the 1830s. Alexis de Tocqueville was so overwhelmed by what he saw when he toured the USA in 1831 he wrote his books "Democracy in America" extolling how free people were. As there was still slavery, which Thomas Jefferson wanted to end, there wasn't a compleat free market but it's the closed we've had to one. Since then big businesses have become more and more powerful and have bought politicians to write laws favorable to them. In a free market businesses wouldn't have the power to buy them off and the politicians wouldn't have the power to enact bad laws.

Oh, and that Daily Kos link does not say those problems cited were caused by a

The Constitution does go past the 10th Amendment...something about regulating something or ether between the states...

There are many local ISPes that do not serve interstate. In my greater area there are a number of local ISPs that only serve the area.

And if you look at the Constitution it provides for flexibility. For example, General Welfare, which is mentioned twice.

Yes, it allow mentions liberty. The Preamble says:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Now if you look the definition for "welfare" it says:
"welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being."
Thomas Jefferson said of the 'general welfare clause":
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." In Federalist No 41 James Madison said
"the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content."

As you say the feds have gone after people in California for marijuana after the state legalized medical marijuana.

Rather atrocious. It boggles the mind that it's conventional wisdom that Prohibition was a complete failure with alcohol, yet we insist on continuing Prohibition 2.0: WOD.

Agreed bigtime!!! All these politicians and drug warriors have their heads stuck in the sand. There never has been much debate about it, but hopefully it's a good sign that CNN's Anderson Cooper has been having part of his show AC 360 all week about "America's High: The case for and against pot" with drug legalization proponents debating drug warriors on legalization. Now I haven't watched all of them in their entirety but what I did see it looked like the legalization hands were better.

The whole reason we have regulation and oversight is because we already tried free market Libertarianism

No, we have not tried free markets. The closest we came to free markets was in the 1830s. Alexis de Tocqueville was so overwhelmed by what he saw when he toured the USA in 1831 he wrote his books "Democracy in America" extolling how free people were. As there was still slavery, which Thomas Jefferson wanted to end, there wasn't a compleat free market but it's the closed we've had to one. Since then big businesses have become more and more powerful and have bought politicians to write laws favorable to them. In a free market businesses wouldn't have the power to buy them off and the politicians wouldn't have the power to enact bad laws.

Oh, and that Daily Kos link does not say those problems cited were caused by a

It wasn't until the 14th Amendment that what you said was true. The major rights in the BoR have been "selectively incorporated" via the 14th to apply to the states. Before the Civil War, a state that didn't give you freedom of speech in its own constitution didn't have to obey the Constitution's 1st Amendment.

You're right the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment barred stated from abridging privileges or immunities. However Article IV - The States Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition says "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." That sounds like what's a right in one state other states have to honour.

Madison staunchly opposing a national bank

That I didn't know but I know his friend Thomas Jefferson had a big problem with banks saying they were more dangerous to liberty than standing armies. What I find ironic about TJ is that he had his own standing army, the US Marine Corp. And about 100 years before Teddie Roosevelt did he sent them to Tripoli in the Med to fight the Barbary pirates in the First Barbary War.

Falcon

There is no debate on the fact that this is an invasion of privacy. It seems to be a sort of test to keep tech savvy people (would that be everyone?) out of the hiring process. I am shocked at this. Here is an interesting note, the US constitution aside from the 9th amendment does not guarantee the right to privacy. The right to privacy is enforced by the interpretation of the First, Third and Fifth amendments and of the Ninth amendment itself. The Fourth Amendment contains an explicit interpretation of the right to privacy specific to computers. They are still open to interpretation. So the issue is just not about private passwords here, there's a lot more being brought up. In India, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution expressly guarantees the Right to Privacy. There is some confusion and no explicit mention in the constitution of Britain either. From the little reading I have done, the right to privacy (and therefore keeping my own passwords from the state) has been created through addendum and interpretation of prior articles of constitution rather than a specific article or amendment mentioned in the constitution. ---- IANAL

They don't have to accept gold and silver. That part of the Constitution you refer to is Article I, Section 10 and says that States can't make anything currency except gold and silver (all other money is reserved to the Federal Government, hence the Federal Mints); nothing about what the government has to accept.

What you're thinking of is that the dollar bill used to be backed by gold. Other nations could at any time they wanted trade money for gold (and vice versa) with the US government. The Smithsonian Agreement ended that however. The US Government no longer trades money for anything other than more money.

What this guy did was try to pay his employees one amount and report a different amount. For example, he bought gold coins that had a face value of $100 for $500. He then gave the coins to an employee for a week's pay. His expense for that employee was $500; but he reported on the employee's W2 that the employee was paid $100. That's illegal. -- He argued that the face value of the payment method is all that matters. IRS operates on a Cash basis, what he paid for the employee is what he should report (employment taxes aside). This still leaves some room for a discrepancy based on the value of gold when he purchased it to when the employees were paid, any gain would have to be reported on the employee's tax return however.

This comment is a personal opinion, it does not constitute legal or tax advice.

Possibly there is an apples/oranges comparison at work here.
The US has close to 10 times the population of Canada. California alone has more people than Canada.
Nothing in my argument precludes a Canada-style system in any one of our 57 states. Citizens should have the right to vote as they see fit. Just ask Mitt Romney, and he'll tout his Massachusetts work.
The entire sub-prime crisis ought to have been precluded a priori by a simple reading of Amendment 10. You don't need chemotherapy to contain a cancer driven by a carcinogen you don't ingest.
The US has plenty of room for socialism. I'm arguing that implementing it federally must be opposed.

If you blow away the 16th Amendment, you can repeal the entire IRS, and the cell phone tax en piss-ant.
Rock on, Leahy: you're a true patriot.
Save the other barrel for the Federal Reserve.
Amputating moral hazard is a bipartisan concern.

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;

From USConstitution.net:

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

Or to translate:

Amendment 9: You still retain all your rights, even if we didn't mention them here.
Amendment 10: If we didn't talk about it here, the Feds can't do it.

i didn't say the attempts at intervention were, the decades that led to the conditions that facilitated it were.

The US did not have libertarian/laissez-faire policies fr decades before the Great Depression. In 1890 Teddy Roosevelt, the Trust Buster, signed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. With the ratification of Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights, ratified in 1868, corporations started their push for corporate personhood. After the Civil War there was no libertarian or laissez-faire policies. And government got bigger and bigger.

I'd answer basically the same for this post.

Oh, the third reply is the same as your second. I had the same thing happen to me yesterday. I tried to submit a reply but got a 503 error. I then tried two more tymes. When I went online today I saw my post was posted 3 tymes.

Overall the US has not had libertarian or laissez-faire policies since before the Civil War, but I think I just repeated that.

Now I do believe government can have a place in business and economics but not what and how it's doing it now. Government's place would be to make sure there's a level playing field. Otherwise it should stay out.

Falcon

Funny, but I just want to know, what part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..." does Sanchez not understand?

It almost makes me wish for the "good old days" of B-1 Bob.

Hmmm. Just to be clear....

Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress shall have the power:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Have you ever heard of and read the USA Constitution? It does not give the federal government the power over Medicaid, medicare, or social security.

It's also disingenuous of you to state social services are all evil when you yourself are already benefiting from them.

I did not say it was evil, so because you want to make things up I'm ending this here.

Falcon

We're not talking the president asking congress to spend more money on post offices or change patent laws. The founders said the republic should make decisions about those things and then clearly left the rest to democracy.

If you want, argue about whether the founders had a good idea or not, but don't try to say they intended for the president and congress to deal with every decision that people can make. The founders were in favor of splitting decisions up between government and people, which is why they were so careful to write that into the laws that we now routinely break.

Wow, I can't believe you would bring the founding fathers and the constitution into this. They aren't on your side. Your side is supposed to say that stuff is outdated and no longer applicable.

We're not talking the president asking congress to spend more money on post offices or change patent laws. The founders said the republic should make decisions about those things and then clearly left the rest to democracy.

If you want, argue about whether the founders had a good idea or not, but don't try to say they intended for the president and congress to deal with every decision that people can make. The founders were in favor of splitting decisions up between government and people, which is why they were so careful to write that into the laws that we now routinely break.

Wow, I can't believe you would bring the founding fathers and the constitution into this. They aren't on your side. Your side is supposed to say that stuff is outdated and no longer applicable.

The 4th amendment is most probably the most explicit protection of privacy; however, I believe that the 3rd, 9th, and 14th amendments also pertain to privacy. I am not a lawyer nor am I licensed to practice law nor give credible legal council.

The 4th amendment is most probably the most explicit protection of privacy; however, I believe that the 3rd, 9th, and 14th amendments also pertain to privacy. I am not a lawyer nor am I licensed to practice law nor give credible legal council.

The 4th amendment is most probably the most explicit protection of privacy; however, I believe that the 3rd, 9th, and 14th amendments also pertain to privacy. I am not a lawyer nor am I licensed to practice law nor give credible legal council.

The 4th amendment is most probably the most explicit protection of privacy; however, I believe that the 3rd, 9th, and 14th amendments also pertain to privacy. I am not a lawyer nor am I licensed to practice law nor give credible legal council.

I sort of agree. However, I was thinking more along the lines of what the founding fathers intended as the parent suggested.

Amendments would be corrections to their intent and why I do share the same concern, I'm not sure they were completely applicable to the original intent of the founding fathers or what they were trying to create.

Anyways, an interesting piece of trivia. Did you know the original 10 amendments that make up the bill of rights was supposed to be 12 but two took several and almost 200 years to pass. The first two amendment of the bill of rights failed ratification with the bill of right and didn't become amendments until well after the bill of right were in place. In fact, the first amendment in the original bill of rights was what became the 14th amendment and passed in 1868 and the second amendment passed in it entirety in 1992.

Here's a link: www.usconstitution.net. Navigate to that page and search for 'copyright'. I have a hunch you won't find it.

Somebody either slept through their civics class or was educated in one of the fine union indoctrination camps known as public "schools". Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly states "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

So, while it make wonderful fodder for the MoveOn crowd, any comparison of debt to the party controling the EXECUTIVE branch is a non seqitur. I would love to see that graph, with the party in control of the Senate and House shown. That would not only be enlightening, it would be honest. It would also be more honest if your graph included THIS administration's debt. But then, only a moron would support the current resident of the White House, so I am not surprised.

Mainly because treason is specifically defined in the Constitution.

And these abuses, while the may be (IMO) "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", do not fit the definition of Treason.

Don't like that? Then amend the Constitution to define Treason the way you want it.

The constitution gives congress the right to

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>

DRM, on the other hand, gives 'Authors' control of their 'writings' for an unlimited time. As such, DRM is not protected by article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. This means that DRM provisions are now far more susceptible to (for example) a first-amendment challenge than most other copyright provisions.

"Pretty sure the slavemasters had spears, swords and whips whereas the slaves had none of these"

You're right. And the slaves in the American South didn't have those weapons either. The point being that guns had nothing to do with the maintenance of slaves in the old south. If you do some research here http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html you'll see the Bill of Rights adoption was not at all related to the question of slavery.

A much more interesting read can be found here: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html where you'll see that the 2nd Amendment and the slavery question have no intersection.

Or do some googling and see for yourself.

http://www.usconstitution.net/

Worked for a long time.

It's interesting to read the original verbiage for the second amendment as submitted by Madison to Congress:

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

Considering how little the meaning of each was changed while being condensed, I definitely support the Heller interpretation of the second amendment.

Under that theory, a compact is only binding if it is explicitly stated that no single member of the compact can render it null and void at will.

That's a silly and irresponsible interpretation that makes neither intuitive nor logical sense.

Article VI:
"This Constitution, " ... ", shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

10th Amendment: "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."

But the power to decide the "Supreme Law of the Land" had been delegated to the Constitution, and despite the admitted and obvious brilliance of the "The South had their fingers crossed" defense, the nature of the word "Secession" mean they were trying to render the Constitution to the Status of "The Constitution formerly known as 'The Supreme law of the Land'", a right explicitly denied them.

Sorry - your theory lacks the legal insight typically demanded by any five-year old going "But you promised!" - Pug

Under that theory, a compact is only binding if it is explicitly stated that no single member of the compact can render it null and void at will.

That's a silly and irresponsible interpretation that makes neither intuitive nor logical sense.

Article VI:
"This Constitution, " ... ", shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

10th Amendment: "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."

But the power to decide the "Supreme Law of the Land" had been delegated to the Constitution, and despite the admitted and obvious brilliance of the "The South had their fingers crossed" defense, the nature of the word "Secession" mean they were trying to render the Constitution to the Status of "The Constitution formerly known as 'The Supreme law of the Land'", a right explicitly denied them.

Sorry - your theory lacks the legal insight typically demanded by any five-year old going "But you promised!" - Pug

No, even if the North had lost, it would have been unconstitutional and illegal.

The Constitution having no provision for being unilaterally rendered null and void by one or more signatories, to legally and Constitutionally secede would require agreement such that a Constitutional amendment would render the secession legal, as listed under Article V.

That such a thing would be required is obvious - that no such attempt was even attempted by the Southern states, equally so. Accordingly the attempt to secede was simply forswearing their oaths before man and God.

Pug

"a tremendous portion of the American annual budget goes toward the Military-Industrial Complex"

Ah yes, I know, this is slashdot, and I'm going to get modded troll/flaimbait, but just for your edification, our Federal government was created with a very limited amount of powers in mind, most of which were focused DIRECTLY at military affairs. I'm not sure why people whine and complain that the government spends tons of cash on defense but not on XYZ, when its the job of the government to spend money on defense.

For a list of enumerated powers (not the squishy interpreted ones), check out:

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

I'm glad to see the government spend money on things it is SUPPOSE to... now if it would just cut out the shit that its not (like social security, Medicare, ponies, butterflies, and good will towards men).

Do you have a link to what was the original intent of copyright?

Here you go: The United States Constitution

I have no idea what the original intention of copyright was in the TPB's part of the world (Europe has a different view of such matters, although we're trying to "harmonize" ourselves with the EU for some reason) but here in the United States it goes like this:

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;

If you were intending to imply that slavery is in some way contradicted by the US Constitution, you may want to reexamine that belief.

Additionally, you should refer to the discussions of slavery in the drafting and adoption of the Declaration of Independence. The United States was founded upon the principle of equality, yes, but it was quite clear to all concerned that this did not extend to slaves. If that document had been otherwise drafted, it would not have been adopted.

Um, no.

Since changing the US constitution is too much work

Fortunately, ignoring the Constitution is very easy — as long as you have "bipartisan support". And no, I don't mean the Guantanamo and the like, which are, actually, arguably legal (however distasteful).

A lot more profound example is the requirement, that all the government can only use "gold or silver coin" as means of payment (Article 1 Section 10):

"No State shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts"

When the US abolished gold standard in 1971 and the dollar became "fiat money", all State tax-refunds, welfare payments, salaries of the State-employees, etc. became unarguably unconstitutional.

And yet, chances are very good, dear reader, you read about the issue here for the first time in your life... Now, I don't claim the economic acumen to argue whether or not Gold Standard was (or would be?) a good idea. But I have that "ideological rigidity" to be disturbed by a violation of the Constitution, that is so blatant and yet so ignored...

Can't happen, per the 12th Amendment. The Pres and VP must be from separate states.

Actually, the wording of the amendment is such that they *CAN* be from the same states, but then the Electoral college reps from that state would have to vote for somebody from a different state for either Pres or VP.

Given that CA has a humungous number of electoral votes, you could wind up with a different VP than was nominated at the convention (not that this would necessarly be a bad thing).

This is why Cheney had to change his official residence to WY from TX prior to the 2000 election.

Thx for clarifying! I didn't know that! Found a citation: Q145. "What kind of paper was the Constitution written on?".

Said source also had this interesting tidbit...

This is not to say that a copy of any of the documents was never written on hemp paper - just not the copies we see in the Archives Rotunda.

IT's not because, ideally, the President is above the law, but it is because, he (or she!), is not subjugated to the Congress. They are equal branches of government.

NO NO NO! Please take a High School Civics class.
The 3 branches of government are part of a checks and balance system set out by the Constitution.
From Checks and Balances:

The American constitutional system includes a notion known as the Separation of Powers. In this system, several branches of government are created and power is shared between them. At the same time, the powers of one branch can be challenged by another branch. This is what the system of checks and balances is all about.

A simple google search for second amendment slaves

But I guess you can't be bothered to show evidence to support your argument?
You're arugment really does not make since anyway. Why would "we the people" require weapons to put down a slave revolt? Couldn't the police, army or state militia put down a slave revolt? Just the same way the Army put down a city wide riot in the New York Draft Riots. And mind you thoes were not slaves, but full citizens that have a right to bear arms.

Seems to me you're in dire need of reading, in full, The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Just a single sentence from the Declaration of Independence refutes slavery.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Also note that the U.S.A. was the first country in the world to abolish slavery, before France, before England. In fact some African, European, and Asian countries still support slavery today!

Perhaps you should read a bit of history about Abolitionism before you start throwing blame around. Realize the conservitive Republicans' were responsible for abolishing slavery. It's also interesting to note that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex was passed down party lines after Republicans overcame a 54 day filibuster by southern Democrats!

A lot of people don't know this, but Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, he was the first abolitionist president, he fought a bitter civil war to end slavery with Republicans in the north calling themselves The Union and Democrats in the south calling themselves Confederates attempting to cede from the union. Also, there is no refuting the huge role that the Christian Quakers played in the abolition of slavery.

Again, if you can provide me with some solid evidence to back up your claim I'm happy to read it, you claim it's "simple" to find, I did the search and just found a bunch of conspiracy theorist web sites and nothing that actually backs up your claim in the least bit. Our country was founeded on Stoic Natural Law. Stoics emphasized the universal ideas of individual worth, moral duty, and universal brotherhood. The idea of slavery is against Stoic Natural Law.

If I've failed to sway your opinion perhaps our friend Thomas Paine can. Just read the first few pages of this book and then tell me what you think of the 2nd amendment.

As opposed to a "natural" legal right? All legal rights are "unnatural". We make them up to make our society a place worth living.

Perhaps you're not an American, US citizen, but if you are then you need to read Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence". Notice where he writes "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These rights are natural. However the Constitution of the USA grants congress to establish copyrights. Because government can grant them they are not rights, as government can grant or deny them they are privileges not rights.

Falcon

Then FDR came along. FDR didn't give a damn about the Constitution

Horseshit.

FDR threatened to pack the court

If you gave a damn about the Constitution, you might know that it doesn't limit the Supreme Court to 9 justices. There's been as few as six and as many as ten sitting justices, and FDR's plan was not only perfectly Constitutional, it had precedent. Ah, consistency: the enemy of all wingnut arguments.

Otherwise all this New Deal stuff (wage controls, price controls, etc.) would (and did) fail the Constitutionality test.

Wrong again. Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. If you're response to that is the canned "promote, not provide", Article I, Section 8 uses the word "provide." And if your response to that is that General Welfare is limited to the specific list in Section 8, then Common Defense is also similarly listed, since it's not only in the same section, but the same sentence as General Welfare.

In other words, if Social Security is unconstitutional because it's not specifically spelled out as a Congressional power, then so is the Air Force, as Congress only has the power to fund an army or a navy. As well as the CIA, the NSA, and any other intelligence agency not attached to the Army or the Navy. Ditto for our spy satellites, border patrol, and large parts of the FBI.

But I've bet you've never heard a wingnut bitch about the unconstitutionality of the New Deal and the Air Force. It's almost like their standards and ethics depend entirely on the situation, like they were partisan hacks or something. Huh, interesting.

So, I would assume the issue is what Democrats like to call the "Living Constitution" meaning that the Constitution doesn't mean what it meant when it was written/ratified, but what 5 Justices think it means today (president be damned). Like Lewis Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty, words mean only what he says they mean. Conservatives refer to these people as "Activist Judges", and in stead believe that the way to change the Constitution is via Amendments (last one passed during Clinton). In short, the Constitution is a social contract and means what it meant when written/ratified.

You mean liberal activist judges like Antonin Scalia?

The idea that liberal judges are advocates and partisans while judges like Justice Scalia are not is being touted everywhere these days, and it is pure myth. Justice Scalia has been more than willing to ignore the Constitution's plain language, and he has a knack for coming out on the conservative side in cases with an ideological bent. The conservative partisans leading the war on activist judges are just as inconsistent: they like judicial activism just fine when it advances their own agendas.

Justice Scalia's views on federalism - which now generally command a majority on the Supreme Court - are perhaps the clearest example of the problem with the conservative attack on judicial activism. When conservatives complain about activist judges, they talk about gay marriage and defendants' rights. But they do not mention the 11th Amendment, which has been twisted beyond its own plain words into a states' rights weapon to throw minorities, women and the disabled out of federal court.

The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a state brought by "Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." But it's been interpreted to block suits by a state's own citizens - something it clearly does not say. How to get around the Constitution's express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that "despite the narrowness of its terms," the 11th Amendment h

Next we could start cutting social programs.

Which would be a disaster. You're right about Wall Street; greedy investment bankers can reap what they sow. But the reason the rest of the economy is in bad shape is because the middle class doesn't have any damn money but does have a lot of debt. Welfare and medicare keep people from starving to death or dying in the streets. Social Security prevents the elderly and the disabled from becoming homeless.

After those, you could start whacking a lot of the unconstitutional things the feds are involved with, such as the department of education.

General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. If you're response to that is the canned "promote, not provide", Article 1, Section 8 uses the word "provide". If your response to that is that General Welfare is limited to the enumerated list in Section 8, then Common Defense is equally limited.

In other words, if the Department of Education is unconstitutional, so is the Air Force, because Congress only has the power to raise funds for an army or a navy. In addition to the USAF, our spy satellites would be unconstitutional, as well as the border patrol, large parts of the FBI, as well as any intelligence agency not a party of the Army or the Navy. Instead of bailing out CitiGroup, pass single payer health care. Spend a trillion dollars on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure rather than on bailing out greedy investment bankers.

And all the "green" subsidies should go away too.

Too bad we can't put climate change on pause while we resuscitate the economy.

Follow this up by cuts to foreign aid. Should we really be giving tons of money away when we can't even keep our government in the black at home? That's a recipe for disaster.

Ignoring the rest of the world, now that's a disaster. Foreign aid is a drop in the bucket, yet it helps maintain stability around the world. Even if you're a self-centered elitist, you want foreign aid because it means more customers for American products.

And for everything else in the budget, cut it by 10% but demand they provide the same level of service. I GUARANTEE you that could be done. In the private sector, companies are always having to drive out costs to remain competitive and profitable, especially in down times like this when their revenues drop.

You can tell your high school gymnastic team that they all need to lose 10 pounds. Might be great for the less motivated athletes, not so great for the ones who are already down to 3% body fat. So yes, there's a great deal of wasteful spending that could be cut - but you don't want to take money from underfunded programs.

One last thing to do, this time on the revenue side: cut taxes.

Only if you are talking about cuts for the middle and lower classes. There has never been a single tax cut for the rich that has ever produced a single job in this country. Not one. If a business owner thinks his business will benefit from expansion, he'll go ahead and expand it - and write off the costs on his tax returns. His personal income tax rate is irrelevant to the economics of scale.

A fact ignored by the media is that when Bush cut taxes, revenue actually rose.

A dishonest argument that started with Reagan. The reason you can cut taxes on the richest Americans and see tax receipts rise is simple: our population is growing. A nation of 300 million people and a top rate of 35% will produce more tax receipts than a nation of 280 million and a top rate of 38%. What puts the lie to your argument is the fact that Clinton raised the top tax rate and receipts went up more than they did under Bush.

If you want to see a real tax policy in an economic crisis, look to the Great Depression and WWII. We had 91% marginal rates and a tax on windfall profits. Go ahead and temporarily slash taxes on the middle and lower classes - but bring back the 91% marginal rates and tax the hell out of Exxon.

If a person moves to a different state can the state they left behind still enforce their laws on that person? Can the state of New York force the state of California to enforce actions that are illegal in the state of California?

Maybe that was rhetorical, but yes; well, the things agreed to in that state, at least. Contractual obligations transcend state lines according to the constitution (for what it's worth).

And about the promises.. I'm all for people upholding their promises. We could definitely use more of that. :)

However, I feel like this is thought-crime territory. The whole purpose of the non-compete is to stop you from divulging company secrets - But the method which they employ makes you promise not to work for another company in your area of expertise... or don't work at all. If it were just one company doing this, it wouldn't be so bad. But I'm betting all the big corporations do, as well as many upstarts and smaller companies because it has become the industry norm.

I happen to think you can very much keep a promise of non-disclosure and still work for a competitor, but the way this is rigged means your employer preemptively punishes you by capping your career to prevent something that may or may not happen.

Basically, your employer doesn't trust you at all. You get nothing from the employer except a job, but that job may be your last one for a few years. Heh... The sole beneficiary here is the company and something seems unfair about it, IMO.

He is, however, as part of his oath...bound to enforce the laws of the land. The ones that are on the books, and the ones he signs into law, he is indeed compelled to enforce them. He has no choice on that.

That's not technically true. The Presidential Oath is this:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution says nothing about the President enforcing any laws. See Article 2. Constitutional topics discuss the President's duty to "ensures all laws are carried out", but this is not mentioned in the Constitution.

As a current practical matter, see Signing Statement.

Presidential signing statements maintain particular potency with federal executive agencies, since these agencies are often responsible for the administration and enforcement of federal laws.

In addition, the President can pardon anyone for any reason, so he can prevent someone from being prosecuted for an infraction - making a law technically unenforced.

The President can also direct funding (or not) to impact the implementation of a law, like No Child Left Behind which has never been fully funded by the Bush Administration, eventhough they championed the bill:

Organizations have particularly criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to fully fund the act. Noting that appropriations bills always originate in the House of Representatives, it is true that neither the Senate nor the White House has even requested federal funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act's main provisions. For example, President Bush requested only $13.3 of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006.