Slashdot Mirror

You really think it will change? Obama is nothing more than a popstar. Consider what Martin Luther King said in his dream speech:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

but that didn't happen. Blacks voted for Obama because he is black. Last night I watch the returns flipping through various networks. They all detailed their various exit poll questions. You saw categories like:

• White evangelicals
• White catholics
• Whites with out a college degree
• Clinton supporters

and not once did they have a category concerning blacks. Why? Because the response rate there would likely have been 100%.

Obama's character was never investigated, the MSM was totally in his pocket. So this does not fulfill the dream of MLK, it just goes to show what can happen when you have a popstar candidate that the media likes and who has access to massive amounts of cash.

I wouldn't worry too much about Obama screwing the country though, if his track record is any indication. He'll merely be present in the Oval office for the next couple of years, after which he'll start running for his next office, probably as Secretary General of the UN. He's never actually done anything of note in any other post he's held, they've all been stepping stones to the next.

If I'm wrong, though, and he thinks he really can change America to his liking, then instead of seeing the election of the 44th President of the USA, we may be looking at the election of the 1st President of the USSA - United Socialist States of America.

Yes I'm bitter, bitter that the entire election was so one-sided as far as the coverage was concerned. Bitter that people didn't really vote the issues, they voted for the image. Bitter that I fully expect to get slammed with new government regulations and taxes. Bitter that the Republicans are just as much to blame for Obama's election as the mindless masses that fawn over him.

But time to move on.

To quote from the text of Dr. King's speech

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

Regardless of whether or not he would have agreed with Obama's politics, I think he would be proud to see that the citizens of the United States have shown themselves willing to accept a non-white man as President.

If he's able to truly make a difference and help the country turn around, I think he'd be prouder still.

Mod'ed interesting???

Why should someone accused of copyright infringement have it any easier (cheaper), than someone accused of running a red light, or breaking a contract, or committing a felony (tort, civil, and criminal examples mixed here deliberately)?

Screw being cheaper, if it was the same or even twice as much to defend your self this wouldn't be such an issue. IIRC, this all came about because it was costing the defendants at least $15,000 to even obtain an attorney since it is a federal issue, while the *AA's were offering settlements at a fraction of that - starting at $3,000. Your screwed from the get go, you simply can't go up against $1,000/hr attorneys with all that much hope by yourself, so you have no alternative than to take the settlement - guilty or not.

With traffic fines, you can represent yourself and half the time just showing up for court - it gets reduced, while the *IAA will just get annoyed and rams it up farther. The most expensive I've heard an attorney being for a simple traffic fine - is maybe $1,000, which is still somewhat plausible - $15,000 just to start things out isn't for 95% of the public.

Comparing this crap to a speeding ticket is ridiculous at best... I've never heard of anyone having to go bankrupt because of a traffic fine - hence the 8th amendment.

When it comes to breaking a contract - as a normal citizen there has always been a clause on what it takes to break said contract. With apartments, it was like 85% of the monthly rent, with cell phone companies (which has lately been squashed) it ranged from $150 to $500. From a few to many incidents with contracts and companies, IANAL but I think there is something somewhere that says the said company can't rape you because you decided to break the said contract - I'm not referring to the expensive contracts between businesses mind you.

When it comes felony convictions - You will have someone in your corner helping you fight the charges unless you just out right refuse the help. There is no such help for civil cases...

It's not so much individual authors as much as it is the corporations that push infinite copyright. And the hypocrisy is mind-blowing. Not only did Disney build their empire largely on public-domain works (Snow White, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Treasure Island, Peter Pan, Sleeping Beauty, to name just a few) but they also used PD works to fuel their late-80s/early-90s return to relevance! (The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Tarzan.) Yet they are one of the largest, if not THE largest, proponents of eternal copyrights.

The U.S. Constitution says the point of copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times [emphasis added] to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" The Copyright Act of 1790 "...secured an author the exclusive right to publish and vend "maps, charts and books" for a term of 14 years, with the right of renewal for one additional 14 year term if the author was still alive" clearly showing what they meant by "limited" back then. It doesn't say anything along the lines of "write a hit song/movie/book once and you and your descendants will never have to work like everyone else on the planet does."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_feature_films
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Thanks - I was going to look that up but you got there first.

For Reference Purpose: Sixth Amendement

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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

Pug

More specific the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Bearing in mind that the fourth amendment was drafted in 1776 - air transport, electronic timers and modern, relatively clean explosives did not exist. I suspect the counter-argument would be that this search is perfectly reasonable.

IMO it'd be far more reasonable if the search was carried out in front of you and then your luggage sealed before going through the conveyor belt towards the hold, but that'd mean rebuilding most airports.

Minor nitpick: There are no Constitutionally-protected rights except through amendments, making the parenthetical a bit redundant.

Bullshit. This is why the Founders were leery of promoting the Bill of Rights, on the grounds someone would argue that "It's not in the Constitution, therefore the people don't have the right".

This is the purpose behind the Ninth Amendment.

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

Just curious - will they actually have the right to inspect your property (open your bags) without you being present if you look at it from the strict view of what the constitution says?

More specific the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Of course - X-raying wasn't on the list when that amendment was written, but that should be OK, but as soon as the property is to be opened I would like to first have a warrant and then also be able to contest that before any proceeding.

Has there ever been a court verdict saying that the fourth amendment isn't valid here?

The presumption of innocence is not a part of the US Constitution.

Nixon greatly reduced the real and inflation adjusted federal debt in '74

He didn't reduce the real debt. The debt increased that year. Didn't you even look at the numbers in my last link? As for inflation adjusted debt... That's hardly an accomplishment. He took the country off the gold standard in '71, unconstitutionally I might add. When you're dealing with a fiat currency, it's easy to pay off your debt. Just print the money. In printing the money, you can not only reduce your debt, but you reduce the value of the remaining debt via inflation as well. Unfortunately, you're also ripping off anyone who trusted you and loaned you something of real value in the first place.

In today's terms, the founding fathers are nothing more than terrorist-loving war criminals.

Benjamin Franklin was almost tortured. James Madison opposed judicially sanctioned impalements and being drawn and quartered in public squares. His "cruel and unusual punishment" is embodied in the Constitution's 8th amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment. George Washington captured more than a thousand Hessian mercenaries at the battle of Trenton on Dec. 25, 1776 and ordered his troops to treat them with "respect and dignity and they will suffer no abuse or torture". Chairman of the Board of War and Ordinance John Adams wrote in a letter to Abigail Adams on 27 April 1777 of a "strong a light as the barbarity and impiety of Briton, in this persecuting war." The USA's Founding Fathers knew of torture and opposed it. It's such a shame the Bush admin has gone out of it's way to justify torture.

The Fourth Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourteenth Amendment
Sub-Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws."

Did you spot it? No, neither did I.

FYI, I'm English.

The Fourth Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourteenth Amendment
Sub-Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws."

Did you spot it? No, neither did I.

FYI, I'm English.

Copyrights are rights in the United States. Where do you get the notion they are merely "privileges?"

No, rights are not grant by government yet the USA Constitution specifically grants congress the power to grant copyrights:
United States Constitution Section 8 - Powers of Congress...
"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;"

Rights are natural whereas privileges are granted. Here is congress's power to grant copyrights, and patents.

Falcon

Since when was social healthcare unconstitutional? http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

"So socialized heathcare is unconstitutional? Is socialized police protection unconstitutional? Socialized fire protection? Socialized public education?"

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. We don't have any of those things in the U.S.A. The federal government provides money to the STATES for education, and perhaps for the other services you mentioned as well (I honestly don't know). However, the federal government does not provide me fire protection (most firemen in the U.S.A. outside large cities are volunteers anyway), education, or local police. These things are outside the enumerated powers of article I, section 8, U.S. Constitution -- http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8.

They won't be making a pile of cash out of trees.

Yes, because cash, a.k.a. legal tender, can only be made of gold or silver according to the US Constitution, article 1, section 10. Anything else is explicitly unconstitutional.

I'm speaking of Federal programs that appear to violate Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.

Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. And if you go by the old saw of "promote not provide", Article I Section 8 uses the word "provide".

So then you might insist that the "general welfare" part of Article I, Section 8 only applies to the enumerated powers in that section. The problem is that would apply equally to "common defense". So if Social Security is unconstitutional, so are:

• the United States Air Force (since it's not an army nor a navy)
• the CIA
• the NSA
• any other intelligence agency not attached to the army or navy
• NORAD
• our ICBM's
• U.S. Customs
• the Department of Homeland Security

But for some reason I've never heard of a single conservative complain about any of these, with the exception of DHS. It's almost as if they're picking and choosing when to complain about supposed 10th Amendment violations, like Evangelical hacks rant about homosexuality but not adultery from Republicans nor usurious rates from Countrywide. Huh, interesting.

That means the first thing that you did stupid, is chose the way you elect :)

Actually for it's time the way president were elected, via the electoral college, was needed. Some states were more rural while other were more urban with large populations. If the president was elected by popular vote then urban centers would control who was elected president. This is no longer true though, today cities could be either Democrat or Republican, or split. I will say though that I think the passing of the Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President, was a mistake. Before it's passage every candidate ran for president. Then in congress the electoral college would vote. If there were more than 2 candidates the candidate with the lowest vote count would be dropped then another vote taken. Eventually when there were only 2 candidates left the final vote would be for who would be president, with the loser becoming vice president. Of course this "robs" political parties of their power so they pushed to have president and vice president run as a team.

Me, I'd rather amend the constitution again. This amendment would repeal the 12th amendment, and would abolish the electoral college. Voters would vote directly for president, with every candidate running for president. Using one of the Condorcet methods of voting the winner would become president and runner up the vp.

For voting itself, paper ballots or e-voting, I propose something like the machines used in India. "Indian EVM compared with Diebold". "The Bombay Ballot".

Falcon

I think perhaps you missed my point. I am not saying that abuses don't happen

Perhaps you missed my point, abuses do happen. And if the government gets the power to deny anonymity then it will abuse that power.

There's an old saying about boxes and the order they are to be used in. If you oppose a regime that doesn't respect the voice box, the answer isn't whispering, it's moving to the next box.

Yes, I've said it myself. The first box is the soap box, speech, therefore the right to anonymous speech. Would you want your boss to be able to fire you because you exercised political speech he or she disagreed with? Would you want Brownshirts to monitor demonstrations and protests and take down names? I've also talked about the second box, the jury box and jury nullification. For the third box, ballot box, I support the Libertarian Party. Lastly I support the Right to Bare Arms.

Falcon

The government directly competes in the mail market with USPS.

The USA Constitution specifically gives the government power to establish the US Postal Service, "Section 8 - Powers of Congress"
"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads"

Falcon

Amendment I
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.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

Mod me -1 Troll if you want, but those are the facts.

you know that "Freedom of Speech" only refers to the law that Congress can't abridge it.

A valid point in the U.S. but what does it mean to the majority of humanity?

:-)

At the risk of getting the hook set in my mouth, I am going to dive in and take the big risk that you know that "Freedom of Speech" only refers to the law that Congress can't abridge it.

I'm sure you realize that it doesn't at all stop private people or entities from abridging "freedom of speech" (sometimes called 'freedom of speach') all they want?

But if the states began to pass a collective agreement to go proportional that would work ok. It would basically be each state passing a law agreeing to proportional electors once all the other states had also passed a similar law. Then it happens all at once.

What you describe is very similar to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 10.

Doesn't really matter... since a third party won't win this election.

A third party candidate won't win because people are always saying they won't so they won't vote for them. If everyone who says that did in fact vote for a third party then one could win.

Things aren't bad enough yet, and the people still believe the lies from R & D candidates.

This is all too true.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still better at this point in time. Maybe that will change someday, but not yet.

Yea, I wasted my vote in the 2000 election. Instead of voting for who I wanted to vote for, because the polls were so close I specifically voted against Bush by selecting Gore. I didn't want a President Gross, er Gore, but a President Bush was, and is, worse. So I vowed to never vote for the least bad and just vote for the candidate who came the closest in their stands on the issues that matter to me to my position. I don't know why I didn't in 2000 because I did every election both before and after 2000. I've voted for Democrat, independent and Independent Party (both as there are candidates that run independent of any party and there's an Independent Party), Libertarian, Reform Party, and Republican candidates. Some lost and some won.

I think what would help, which neither Democrat nor the Republican Party would agree to because it's take their power away, would be to repeal Amendment 12. Originally all candidates ran for President. Each tyme the Electors, elected by the voters, in the Electoral College voted for President the candidate with the least votes was dropped from the ballot. Then they'd vote again until there were only 2 candidates left. The final vote who determine the President with the loser becoming the Vice President. However in 1804 an amendment was ratified which changed that, candidates instead ran as a team. The political parties didn't want to risk the president and vp being from different parties.

In my amendment I'd also add the election follow one of the Condorcet methods of voting. Voters rank candidates by preference with the voter's first pick getting the most points and second choice get less points. Third choice if one gets even less, and no points at all for candidates that are not voted for. All of the voter points are then added up and the one with the most points becomes President while the runner up becomes Vice President. And instead of paper ballots or most e-voting machines I'd use machines like those used in India which is fool proof and tamper resistant.

Falcon

Someone needs to read moar....

Hmmm... you're right. The constitution is not written on hemp.. However, George Washington was still a hemp farmer, and the draft of the declaration of independence was written on hemp (I did get that one mixed up, but hey, I'm not American. hemp farming is legal in my country). And DonaldM probably meant canvas, not linen, but I can't really speak for him.

Regardless, hemp is a very useful plant. And the very first paper mill in your country was started by Thomas Jefferson, and it made paper from hemp. If 35% of the trees cut down are to make paper, don't you think it would make sense to switch back to hemp? That was my original point.

If the voters disagree, they can elect a different executive promising a new policy which, sadly in my view, means we'll be swearing in President Obama this January. No such recourse exists for when our unelected robed masters go on a power grab.

Actually Article II Section 4 provides recourse: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Judges can be impeached. Alcee Hastings is one such judge that was impeached.

Falcon

From Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

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;

While the current copyright legislation may adhere to the letter of this statement, it does not adhere to the intent. So sorry, but "lifetime of the author + 70 years" is not a fair time limitation, especially not in today's society. I hate to shout something that some would find absurd, such as "3 years, with a one-time 3 year extension (or no extension at all)", but it's the only way to fight the people on the opposing (and equally absurd) side shouting "125+ years is not enough!"

In my opinion, the entire work should be made public domain (including source code, etc.) once it's abandonware. The original "creator" abandoned it, so give it to the public. A later product is a derivative work? So be it. At least you got a huge head start on your competition, in terms of "deriving" works. Compete with your own products? Why not? If you can't make the next version be better than the previous version, then you have serious problems, and they don't necessarily relate to your product line. Maybe you should keep supporting the old version, instead of letting it fall by the wayside. (Don't get me wrong, Windows 3.11 was great, but is no longer all that relevant to Joe User, or even Joe Corporate User.)

The idea here, from the very beginning of our country, was to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts", not "secure financial gain in perpetuity for the producers of new products".

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

Article. V. - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

IOW, there are tools for regulating civilian use and ownership of handguns: amend the Constitution. We've done it before on other issues where the states or the Federal government needed authority it didn't already have, e.g., income taxation (16th Amendment), or to remind the States that certain rights may not be infringed or abridged, e.g., voting (15th and 19th Amendments).

The best I can find is in Calder v. Bull:

1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

It's obviously not 1, 2, or 4. 3 requires the punishment be greater.

I've heard of other precedents but I can't find them either.

And an entire article of the original US constitution was devoted to Canada joining the United States. That worked really well, too!

Um, something is confused in what you wrote. The separation of church and state is simply a convenient restatement of the prohibition against an established (state supported) religion in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. By deciding not to favor any one set of beliefs over all others, you prevent the state (with it's force and ability to tax away) from choosing people's religion for them.

Actually, the separation of church and state belongs to a letter written to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 and authored by Thomas Jefferson when he was governor. It has something to do with the churches fear of being outlawed because of some belief that the church was allowed to exist only as a formality of law not because of some inherent right.

In modern time, the wall of separation has come to mean that churches and religious organizations can't use public grounds and so on. I'm not talking about the concept with the living document, I am talking about the application of the concept. The first amendment was never intended to stop or restrict religious groups or churches from accessing public space.

As for "mentioning religion", I have no problem if an elected official is religious and uses that fact as a part of his/her campaign. But I do get very upset if I hear that elected official voting for laws that favor one set of beliefs over another, or using his personal religious justification to argue for a law (gay marriage, anyone?). If a law is really that good of an idea, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with an argument that doesn't rely on a religious dogma.

You elect people because of who they are and what is presented to you for consideration. When that person acts from who he is, you shouldn't be getting upset. I'm personally against gay marriage but not because of religious issues but because of it creates an entitlement of rights based on a choice. Marriage is supported by the natural act of reproduction and if you choose to not participate in that act, you shouldn't have any special rights because of that choice. There are ways to get the same benefits without marriage. As for men and women who are sterile, it is too difficult to screen them through so going by a sex instead of an ability known or unknown, is sufficient for me.

No, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution does not protect the right to hunt. Never has, never will. The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to be responsible for defense of community (and by extension, yourself).

As for "never meant for a modern world", that's also false. If you owned property in or near the LA riots of 1992, or in Southern Louisiana for about three months after Katrina, or were in one of the wrong classrooms at Virginia Tech, or any number of other more local instances where the police either opted out "until the dust settled" or were unable to prevent "bad things" from happening, you would know that you are still personally responsible for your own safety.

And as I said previously, it isn't the concept but the application. In this case, it actually changes the concept. I agree with you on this but there is a powerful political factions working to distort the constitution on the basis of it being a living document. That is the problem that causes distortions like these and what the op was referring to when the citizens don't know the constitution. It isn't really that they don't know it, it is that political factions among us has presented a different rendition of it. There is a difference of opinion in what some or most of the constitution says or means. That is the point I was attempting to make.

Activist court? Ugh. You're one of those people.

To a degree.

You don't seem to be aware that invalidating laws that violate the constitution and/or lawful treaties is th

I'm still shaking my head in disgust over a "warring talking heads" commentary on Canada's CTV network last night on this one. On the left, a Canadian professor who'd taught at Harvard. For the right, some guy I regret not catching the name of, from the conservative Hudson Institute. If it weren't the umpteenth time I'd seen it, I'd call it a classic example of the kind of brazen lying I've come to expect of these "think tanks".

I'll skip details on the other ways the guy embarrassed himself to any thinking audience - he tried maligning the Canadian's credentials at American law until the guy mentioned teaching at Harvard, for instance.

But towards the end, he actually said that the American constitution provides an exception to "for the Executive to suspend Habeas Corpus in time of WAR or insurrection" (emphasis mine). It doesn't. And there's no way a professional at that level made that big a mistake.

The framers chose all their words carefully, and it says:

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

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

INVASION, not War. What do Invasion and Rebellion have in common? Only then do you have entire armies on American soil harming its public. Only when you'd have to give whole armies habeas corpus can you suspend it. If you have few enough enemies to manage with a court system, they all get the court system.

I guess I'm steamed because it was just the night before I learned the stat that not only did 70% of Americans at one point believe Saddam personally set up 9/11, but 80% of those supporting the Iraw war did so because of that belief. Which means that terrible damage can be done to America, not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocents, by lies such as the one I heard, espoused on TV, last night.

I leave it to the Americans on /. to decide what you'd call a guy who'd lie about the content of your constitution to encourage and support the breaking of it.

Oh, yeah, and one other part of the lie, one in support of their endless reaching for Executive power: the exception to habeas corpus is for the CONGRESS, not the Executive. The Executive can't suspend it at ALL, not unless Congress passes a law allowing it. The Executive simply can't break the law, period. Not under the Constitution.

If you can keep it.

The real power in this country _should_ be with the state governments, not the feds. The feds are constitutionally limited by the 10th Amendment in their powers, and all things not explicitly allowed them are reserved for the states or the people. These limits have been skirted for so long (witness the programs I proposed eliminating that provide what's called 'specific aid') that no one thinks anything about it. In a perfect world, the feds shouldn't even know my name unless I apply for a passport. The states should be handling all of the affairs of their citizens, and the feds should be administering programs that meet the needs of the states themselves (defense, border protection, coining money, etc).

Oh, right, Article 10 and 11.

Really worked for this guy, right?

> Try and remember that first section of US
> constitution is based on English Bill or Rights

Nope. Sorry. Not even close.

The first section (Article 1) of the constitution deals with the structure of government.

Refresher course on line here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

In fact, ratification of the Constitution was in doubt due to the observation of the people that there were no protections of individual rights in the document. Promises of amendments to correct this issue were finally agreed to by states in order to get the constitution passed.

Only then were people's rights enshrined in in the first 10 amendments, the most important of which and the least observed being Amendment 10:

"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."

In fact, that single amendment would have sufficed and we would be better off with just that single amendment. Too many people believe the constitution enumerates our rights. This is totally backward. The constitution Limits Government. Something sadly lacking in Britain.

We can't even agree on most of the amendments, certain sentences are twisted and abused, the entire constitution of the US is wrapped up in a semantic nightmare wherein we try to interpret what we -want- to interpret out of a two hundred year old document.

The only reason the amendments, and Constitution, have been twisted around is so that those who do the twisting get to say what it means. Take for instance the 2nd, because it mentions militias anti-guns activists say the right to bare arms is not a person right only a collective right. However if you read the writing of the Founding Fathers that it is in fact a personal right, the Founding Fathers feared government and wanted people to have the means of overthrowing the government. Thomas Jefferson said it quite succulently when he wrote:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

It wasn't long ago that people didn't directly vote in their Representatives and Senators.

The citizens voted for the Representatives it was the Senators the state legislators chose, see:

Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

And:

Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

That's a pretty big change don't you think?

And changed via the 17th Amendment.

The fact that the constitution sets out so little on the requirements for election?

The only requirement I see that could be added was a test on the Constitution, which I fear most politicians would lose. Are you suggesting only a certain class of people should be representatives and senators, an aristocracy? The Constitution specifically bans an aristocracy.

We can't even agree on most of the amendments, certain sentences are twisted and abused, the entire constitution of the US is wrapped up in a semantic nightmare wherein we try to interpret what we -want- to interpret out of a two hundred year old document.

The only reason the amendments, and Constitution, have been twisted around is so that those who do the twisting get to say what it means. Take for instance the 2nd, because it mentions militias anti-guns activists say the right to bare arms is not a person right only a collective right. However if you read the writing of the Founding Fathers that it is in fact a personal right, the Founding Fathers feared government and wanted people to have the means of overthrowing the government. Thomas Jefferson said it quite succulently when he wrote:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

It wasn't long ago that people didn't directly vote in their Representatives and Senators.

The citizens voted for the Representatives it was the Senators the state legislators chose, see:

Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

And:

Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

That's a pretty big change don't you think?

And changed via the 17th Amendment.

The fact that the constitution sets out so little on the requirements for election?

The only requirement I see that could be added was a test on the Constitution, which I fear most politicians would lose. Are you suggesting only a certain class of people should be representatives and senators, an aristocracy? The Constitution specifically bans an aristocracy.

We can't even agree on most of the amendments, certain sentences are twisted and abused, the entire constitution of the US is wrapped up in a semantic nightmare wherein we try to interpret what we -want- to interpret out of a two hundred year old document.

The only reason the amendments, and Constitution, have been twisted around is so that those who do the twisting get to say what it means. Take for instance the 2nd, because it mentions militias anti-guns activists say the right to bare arms is not a person right only a collective right. However if you read the writing of the Founding Fathers that it is in fact a personal right, the Founding Fathers feared government and wanted people to have the means of overthrowing the government. Thomas Jefferson said it quite succulently when he wrote:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

It wasn't long ago that people didn't directly vote in their Representatives and Senators.

The citizens voted for the Representatives it was the Senators the state legislators chose, see:

Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

And:

Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

That's a pretty big change don't you think?

And changed via the 17th Amendment.

The fact that the constitution sets out so little on the requirements for election?

The only requirement I see that could be added was a test on the Constitution, which I fear most politicians would lose. Are you suggesting only a certain class of people should be representatives and senators, an aristocracy? The Constitution specifically bans an aristocracy.

No, freedom of speech is an individual right. A collective right is one that a group holds. ie, as a regulated militia, that militia has the right to keep and bear arms. As opposed to some jackass in a trailerpark. Go do a little reading, it might enlighten you.

What part of:

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.

don't you understand?

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

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

The rights that are spelled on in law, dumbass. I don't give a fuck what an OpEd piece in the NY Times says. I can turn to the Constitution and the U.S. Code, also known as the LAW.

Here let me help you:

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;

That "right". Does that answer your question, dipshit?

Here is some more reading for you:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

"Voting is a privilege, not a right as some would have us believe."

I need for you to point out to me in the Constitution where you got that ridiculous assertion.

Have you ever read the Constitution? For starters, the 14th Amendment specifies that people denied the vote for "participation in rebellion or other crime" still be counted for purposes of apportioning Representatives, implying that voting is not a right. More importantly, nowhere does it guarantee voting rights to anybody for any reason -- eligibility to vote is left completely up to the states, and prior to the 17th Amendment the only office for which it even mandated a popular vote was Representative. The 17th Amendment mandates a popular vote for Senator, but even now it doesn't require a popular vote for President -- your state legislature can forego the popular vote for the Presidential election and choose your state's Electors itself, or empower the Governor to do so, or choose them with a coin flip if it wishes.

Now it's true that the 15th, 18th, and 26th Amendments prohibit states from denying or abridging voting "rights" on the basis of race, gender, and age, but beyond that it still leaves voting eligibility up to the states. They're free to put whatever other restrictions they wish on voting. Many states deny the vote to felons, for example, and a growing number deny it to people without government-issued photo ID.

"Voting is a privilege, not a right as some would have us believe."

I need for you to point out to me in the Constitution where you got that ridiculous assertion.

Have you ever read the Constitution? For starters, the 14th Amendment specifies that people denied the vote for "participation in rebellion or other crime" still be counted for purposes of apportioning Representatives, implying that voting is not a right. More importantly, nowhere does it guarantee voting rights to anybody for any reason -- eligibility to vote is left completely up to the states, and prior to the 17th Amendment the only office for which it even mandated a popular vote was Representative. The 17th Amendment mandates a popular vote for Senator, but even now it doesn't require a popular vote for President -- your state legislature can forego the popular vote for the Presidential election and choose your state's Electors itself, or empower the Governor to do so, or choose them with a coin flip if it wishes.

Now it's true that the 15th, 18th, and 26th Amendments prohibit states from denying or abridging voting "rights" on the basis of race, gender, and age, but beyond that it still leaves voting eligibility up to the states. They're free to put whatever other restrictions they wish on voting. Many states deny the vote to felons, for example, and a growing number deny it to people without government-issued photo ID.

"Voting is a privilege, not a right as some would have us believe."

I need for you to point out to me in the Constitution where you got that ridiculous assertion.

Have you ever read the Constitution? For starters, the 14th Amendment specifies that people denied the vote for "participation in rebellion or other crime" still be counted for purposes of apportioning Representatives, implying that voting is not a right. More importantly, nowhere does it guarantee voting rights to anybody for any reason -- eligibility to vote is left completely up to the states, and prior to the 17th Amendment the only office for which it even mandated a popular vote was Representative. The 17th Amendment mandates a popular vote for Senator, but even now it doesn't require a popular vote for President -- your state legislature can forego the popular vote for the Presidential election and choose your state's Electors itself, or empower the Governor to do so, or choose them with a coin flip if it wishes.

Now it's true that the 15th, 18th, and 26th Amendments prohibit states from denying or abridging voting "rights" on the basis of race, gender, and age, but beyond that it still leaves voting eligibility up to the states. They're free to put whatever other restrictions they wish on voting. Many states deny the vote to felons, for example, and a growing number deny it to people without government-issued photo ID.

"Voting is a privilege, not a right as some would have us believe."

I need for you to point out to me in the Constitution where you got that ridiculous assertion.

Have you ever read the Constitution? For starters, the 14th Amendment specifies that people denied the vote for "participation in rebellion or other crime" still be counted for purposes of apportioning Representatives, implying that voting is not a right. More importantly, nowhere does it guarantee voting rights to anybody for any reason -- eligibility to vote is left completely up to the states, and prior to the 17th Amendment the only office for which it even mandated a popular vote was Representative. The 17th Amendment mandates a popular vote for Senator, but even now it doesn't require a popular vote for President -- your state legislature can forego the popular vote for the Presidential election and choose your state's Electors itself, or empower the Governor to do so, or choose them with a coin flip if it wishes.

Now it's true that the 15th, 18th, and 26th Amendments prohibit states from denying or abridging voting "rights" on the basis of race, gender, and age, but beyond that it still leaves voting eligibility up to the states. They're free to put whatever other restrictions they wish on voting. Many states deny the vote to felons, for example, and a growing number deny it to people without government-issued photo ID.