Slashdot Mirror

Um, the public isn't the government, it's the people. I don't mind the government handling the bookkeeping on public assets, with proper oversight and reporting, of course, but I'm just a footsoldier in the tin foil hat brigade...

The problem is as it always is with the federal government. The Constitution only says one thing about the census:

"[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

from Article 1 Section 2, but our government has increased what is actually collected from a simple head count to a great deal more (intrusive) information as defined by 13 USC 141.

If the census only covered what is mentioned in the Constitution, one of those simple hand counters (the click type) would suffice.

During the last census, one of the census workers came to my house with this big long form. I told him that there were 2 voting age adults and 3 underage children residing there. He started asking all sorts of other questions, how much do you make, what race is everyone, etc. When I refused to answer he became all indignant telling me I was required to answer because it was a Constitutional mandate. When I pointed out that I did answer based on the Constitution he became angry.

At that point I told him to have me arrested and I'd see him in court and closed the door.

The fact is, the government needs all that data to continue with their social engineering and that is something I won't support.

So yeah, the system has cost overruns, and could be handled with just a piece of paper and a pencil, if, the government would do only what they were supposed to do.

After all, the constitution doesn't prevent us from being stopped and asked questions.

You completely misunderstand the Constitution. It's not a list of our rights, it's a list of the rights we give up to the government so that the government can do the job we want it to do. The Constitution does not give the government the authority or responsibility to stop us and ask us questions without a Warrant, and so it does not have that authority and should not do it.

It seems that Warrants might be the way to make this kind of detection Constitutionally valid. The Fourth Amendment says:

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 you claim that the "place to be searched" is "any vehicle emitting an unusual amount of radiation" and that the "persons or things to be seized" are the "driver and/or passengers of such a vehicle" and "the source of the radiation, if it is not a legally allowed source for public use", that might be particular enough even though it doesn't name specific people or places. Sooner or later, though, the practice is likely to wind up tested in the Supreme Court unless the police are very light-handed about it.

Contrast your own words to these:

"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."

I don't see anything about, "unless it's speech we really, really don't like," in there at all, do you?

1) FBI or some other agency suspects someone of something, and documents the suspicion, then files for a warrent.

That has existed from the founding of the USA, ever read the 4th Amendment? Law enforcement is required to get a court issued warrant.

3) if deemed a "dire emergency" they can enter the property, arrest citezens, or collect physical evidence, consistent with the scope of any warrent filed, wether approved yet or not.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act set up the FISA court which "rubber stamps" admin requests for search warrants. Heck the FBI can file for a warrant 48 hours after the FBI puts a wiretap in place or conducts a search.

They need to be able to snoop.

Are there needs to be a system of checks and balances, And there is, just get a court issued warrant. But the Bush admin fills no need to follow the Constitution of the USA.

If you are doing something illegal, it matters not how you are discovered, only that you are.

Ah, an advocate of torture.

Knowing who I call and how often is no more private information than who I send postal mail to.

They may know who you send mail to but they don't know who I send it to. I don't put my return address on my mail and I always drop it in a mail box on the street or at the post office. And no it's not because I'm paranoid, those I write to already have my address and if I drop an envelope in a public mailbox I know it will arrive at the post office. I've lost mail when I left it for the mailman to pick up.

I also approve of scanning of random e-mail messages sent in and out of the country, and also all e-mail sent to/from known terorist associated addresses (names added to a list with a judges approval).

Who gets to decide who's a terrorist? Many innocent people are still on the Do Not Fly list and have no way getting their name off it.

People who are paranoid about the FBI reading their secret love letters to their boyfriend and then the FBI telling their husband should have no fear. We'll make it illegal for the FBI to collect and store any information noo associated with known criminals or terrorists, and make it illegal for them to collect and store information about non-violent or minor crimes unless a warrent was issued and approved for local law enforcement.

And how will a victim know?

Reading your post you sound like you trust government, but many others don't. Fact is is government have killed way more people or violated their rights than have all of the terrorist in history. your chance of being killed by a terrorist is minuscule. As Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Or as Thomas Jefferson said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Technically, in the US, treaties do have the full standing of law, insofar as they don't contradict the Constitution. Whether or not a given administration follows the Constitution is another matter, hence the "technically".

Except that treason is explicitly defined int the Constitution -- Article III, Section 3 -- and alas, what Bush did doesn't fit the bill.

"In the United States, ex post facto laws are prohibited in federal law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull case of 1798, in which Justice Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws."

"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."

"However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006."

"Another example is the so-called Lautenburg law where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and subjects of restraining orders (which do not require a criminal conviction)."

• Senate and House of Representatives? Check.
  
• President? Check.
  
• The whole legislative process and presidential veto? Check.
  
• State of the Union addresses? Check.
  
• One Supreme Court? Check.
  
• We're still a republic and not a democracy? Check.
  
• Still got those basic freedoms? Check.

Exactly. Or, better yet, perhaps the gp should peruse this:

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

Check out A4

Sheesh!

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.

Abstractions are result of human creativity (and often its method). As such they are original and useful science(to some they even art). Therefore, they pass the litmus test for patentability directly established by The Constitution.

Wrong, The Constitution of the USA says "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". Progress not useful. Software patents however stifle progress.

"Which has zero meaning."

I refer you to the Constitution. In Article 6 we find;
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

While you may ascribe zero meaning to it, you'd be wrong.

"You are advocating for justice through barratry. In effect, the presumption of guilt."

I am advocating no such thing. Rather, I am advocating that as per the aforementioned legal document everyone has right to bring suit for grievances against them. The government should encourage and support this right, not discourage it through inaction and fear of failure. There is no presumption of guilt, but there is the presumption of oversight. The larger and more influential and entity gets, the more it needs to be inspected. Walmart falls into that category; it is just and right that it is under scrutiny because of the profound impact it has and can have. When you take away or put barriers in front of that scrutiny - that is where you start to develop problems.

I'm guessing part of the reason we get rid of them after one or two terms as president is because of the 22nd amendment.

Yeah, gaffed that, plus some bad typing in my post too. For those that want to know: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html is a good reference of what is NOT in the constitution. However, I believe that my post did fairly well conveying my point.

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
    -- Benjamin Franklin
      http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

Yeah, gaffed that, plus some bad typing in my post too. For those that want to know: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html is a good reference of what is NOT in the constitution. However, I believe that my post did fairly well conveying my point.

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
    -- Benjamin Franklin
      http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

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

[The U.S.] Constitution specifies copyrights and patents are to get artists to create in order that the public domain be enriched

Article I, Section 8: Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Not many places in the US Constitution is it explicitly stated why some provision is put in. Here it's clear: "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." I've never understood why the Supreme Court does not use that as a test of what is a reasonable copyright term. Up to a certain point, copyright promotes net progress (net == of society) by providing an incentive to creators to produce and share their work. But as you increase the copyright term, you get diminishing marginal returns. Eventually the yield in creative output is outweighed by the opportunity cost of not allowing society to have unencumbered use of the material. A law that extends copyright beyond that balancing point should be considered unconstitutional.

You have a legal right to assemble to petition your government for grievance.

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

Gee, I must have missed the part where the right to peaceably assembly existed solely for purposes of petitioning the government. I guess the Government has a right to prohibit my Bridge Club since after all we're assembling, but not to protest the government.

P.S. It's called freedom of association.

Nowhere in the constitution does it provide a "right" to privacy, but not only was such a right "interpreted" to exist when no such right existed before, it brought with it the "right" to an abortion with strong arguments that this right is absolute (no exceptions).

You've got that backwards. The 10th Amendment, http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html, affirms that all rights which aren't discussed elsewhere in the Constitution belong to the people. The Constitution is a list of the rights and powers of the government, giving the government a limited authority over the natural rights of the people. It is not a list of the people's rights granted by the government.

It is unconstitutional to interfere with a congress person going to or from congress. I believe it is also a federal crime to do so.

From the constitution:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;

Interestingly, giving DC congressional representation can be done with an act of congress, not a constitutional amendment. I'm not sure why.

#3 there is a big difference between passing a congressional bill and performing constitutional duties- I don't know how much you know about politics, but the ratification of a bill is far less stringent than the passing of an amendment and was made so for good reason as laws are able to be reversed easily and repealed and amendments become a part of the judicial system which governs the land.

You like so many others make the mistake of what the USA Constitution is. It does not say what the federal government must do, it instead limits what it can do. If the Constitution is quiet on something the federal government can do nothing about it. Amendment 10 even states this explicitly, "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." So there being nothing in the Constitution about health the federal government can do nothing about it, without an amendment. You want the feds to do something then propose an amendment, don't treat the Constitution like it's toilet paper. That's what Article 5 is there for.

Also, congressional laws are not part of the judicial branch they remain in the arm of the legislative branch with reaching powers over the other branches. when you have an amendment in order to challenge an action it needs to go to the court (judicial) branch in order to be challanged- not so with a bill/law.

I don't know where you went to school but if it was in the USA they taught poorly. Fact is is the USA Constitution setup a system with three legs, congressional, executive, and judicial whereby no one branch of government would have too much power. Fact is is one role of Supreme Court is to make sure the executive and judicial branches do not break the Constitution.

Unfortuantely it didn't take very long before it was broken. Though it may of been broken earlier the first tyme I can recall the Constitution being broken was by President Jackson. In Worcester v. Georgia the US Supreme Court ordered the release of 2 missionaries, Samuel A. Worcester and Elizur Butler, from gaol. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority, said they had to be released. However Jackson refused to release them saying "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

#3 there is a big difference between passing a congressional bill and performing constitutional duties- I don't know how much you know about politics, but the ratification of a bill is far less stringent than the passing of an amendment and was made so for good reason as laws are able to be reversed easily and repealed and amendments become a part of the judicial system which governs the land.

You like so many others make the mistake of what the USA Constitution is. It does not say what the federal government must do, it instead limits what it can do. If the Constitution is quiet on something the federal government can do nothing about it. Amendment 10 even states this explicitly, "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." So there being nothing in the Constitution about health the federal government can do nothing about it, without an amendment. You want the feds to do something then propose an amendment, don't treat the Constitution like it's toilet paper. That's what Article 5 is there for.

Also, congressional laws are not part of the judicial branch they remain in the arm of the legislative branch with reaching powers over the other branches. when you have an amendment in order to challenge an action it needs to go to the court (judicial) branch in order to be challanged- not so with a bill/law.

I don't know where you went to school but if it was in the USA they taught poorly. Fact is is the USA Constitution setup a system with three legs, congressional, executive, and judicial whereby no one branch of government would have too much power. Fact is is one role of Supreme Court is to make sure the executive and judicial branches do not break the Constitution.

Unfortuantely it didn't take very long before it was broken. Though it may of been broken earlier the first tyme I can recall the Constitution being broken was by President Jackson. In Worcester v. Georgia the US Supreme Court ordered the release of 2 missionaries, Samuel A. Worcester and Elizur Butler, from gaol. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority, said they had to be released. However Jackson refused to release them saying "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

"the US Constitution requires a seperation[sic] of church and state"?

Show me where it says that? AFAIK, that phrase didn't appear until a court decision in the 1940s -- exact case escapes my memory, but I _know_ the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. Want to check for yourself? http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Supplied Israel with advanced weaponry

Actually, this is the biggie in terms of terrorist recruiting. If we'd just let our most loyal ally in the Middle East (a democracy at that) be "driven into the sea" by the dictators and Islamic governments that surround it, as they keep screaming that they want to do, then either (1) they'd leave us alone, or (2) they'd be a lot less distracted from launching the kind of attacks against us on U.S. soil they keep saying they really want to make.

But the start of the thread was:

Quit doing things that make other people want to knock our buildings down.

That's an exceptionally poor foreign policy goal, IMHO, as it easily translates into "Ask terrorist states to lay out our policies for us so they're not offensive to Islamic radicals." I'm more in favor of "providing for the common defence" of the USA as our primary foreign policy goal at the moment. I don't believe appeasement has a very good track record at accomplishing that goal.

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2

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

The pardons of President William Clinton can illustrate some of the various reasons. Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger, for obvious familial reasons. He pardoned a pair of Hasidic Jews convicted of defrauding the government, restoring their civil rights but leaving monetary penalties intact. In a controversial move, he pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich, after application for clemency, in part, from the state of Israel, which had benefited from Rich's philanthropic gestures. President Ford pardoned President Nixon of any wrong-doing in order to put a close to the Nixon era for good. President James Madison pardoned army deserters in an attempt to refill the military's ranks for the War of 1812. President Abraham Lincoln pardoned all Civil War deserters on the condition that they return to their units to fight. Carter pardoned the Vietnam War draft dodgers to help in the long healing process the nation endured after that war.

Finally, there is no review of pardons. This issue, too, was brought up in the Constitutional Convention, that pardons be granted with the consent of the Senate, but the measure was defeated 8-1. In modern days, there is an office in the Justice Department where pardons are sent, and a Pardons Attorney who reviews and recommends applications. The President may still receive pardons personally, and may grant them at any time. The President need not provide a reason for a pardon, and the courts and the Congress have no legal authority to approve, disapprove, reject, or accept a pardon. Currently, the only way to change the pardon power is by constitutional amendment, though history has shown that the scope of the power can be modified by the courts (as in the acceptance doctrine).

The President has the power to completely overturn a criminal conviction. This is a full pardon. The conviction is wiped away as if it never happened. The President can commute a criminal sentence. The President can make a pardon conditional, vacating a conviction but leaving paid fines in place, or even making the payment of a fine a prerequisite before a pardon takes effect.

Sorry, that's the wrong definition.

In the US, Treason is specifically defined by the Constitution. Election tampering alas, does not fit this definition.

unfortunately, "no cruel and unusal punishment" http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am8 is only for criminal cases and this is a civil case. go back and (re)read your constitutional amendments. actually, (re)reading the consttution itself might not be a bad idea either.

It looks like to me that the basic premise for most things in the USA is to do something or grant something and then let the courts work it out after the fact. This has the benefit of getting things done cheaply along with that only the people who are grievously upset will bother to fight things in the courts (which is really those who have money to do so)

To me this is a direct result of a purely capitalistic approach - the worship of the Dollar.

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.

Read the post two up from here, or The Constitution...

The US Congress does not have the power to amend the Constitution. Just to put forward amendments to the State Legislatures.

I agree with your comment (our grants have also been replaced by loans) but I believe what he's asking is what Constitutional authority Congress has for passing these laws.

I believe Article 1, Section 8 is what SCOTUS says gives them the power: "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" (emphasis mine).

-mcgrew

I'd like to see how many of those college students would give up their other Constitutionally protected right, freedom from slavery. Would they take a million dollars in exchange for becoming a slave for about 40 years, until they turned 65 years old? Ten million?

Rights are inalienable. We can't surrender them, though sometimes we can suffer their infringement. The more temporary the infringement, the more voluntary, the more we can suffer it. But any infringement pressures people in a way that inevitably becomes intolerable, and we don't tolerate it. That's why we create governments to protect those rights. Because not only our rights, but the rights of everyone around us, are infringed only at a much greater cost, even if it can sometimes be postponed.

5th: No *PERSON* shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any *PERSON* be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6th: 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.
8th: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

5th: No *PERSON* shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any *PERSON* be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6th: 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.
8th: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

5th: No *PERSON* shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any *PERSON* be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6th: 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.
8th: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Remember the Amendment 25 of the Constitution succession rules will make Dick Cheney President if we impeach Bush first. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 If the worst "evil" twin in this administration is Cheney then they need to remove Cheney first before we remove Bush. However this will be mute in a year since the elections will be done by then we have a new President-elect. However I would like to be a witness to a full impeachment, conviction and sentencing of a sitting President and Vice President for what they have done. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton where impeached but got acquitted by the Senate and Nixon resigned before he got beyond the impeachment hearings. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html The best quote here is "Out from the frying pan into the fire" if we inpeach Bush first.

According to the Constitution, he's qualified.

He's over 35, he's a natural-born US Citizen, and he has a pulse.

Not IDs per se, but how about the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution?

Hell, I hate REAL ID as much as anyone, but rereading Article IV, Section 1, I'm beginning to wonder if this piece of shit actually is Constitutional (I hope not).

Taxes

The option to tax is not the requirement to tax. The income tax was temporary on the wealthiest 5% to pay for WWI, the entry into which by the U.S. has parallels to the unethical invasion of Iraq. Repealing the income tax would just put the U.S. back to between the founding of the Constitution and WWI.

Congress taking abortion out of the Supreme Court

Ron Paul explains the Constitutional basis directly in the bill:

(3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make "such exceptions, and under such regulations" as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Health Care

There is no need for this to be handled at the federal level -- states can handle it just fine.

Global warming

I personally would stretch the commerce clause to cover the environment since air and water do not know state boundaries, but I can go with Ron Paul's approach of first having the federal government "do no harm", such as by eliminating corporate welfare to big oil. Boulder is suing the federal government over global warming due to its OPIC and Imp-Ex agencies, which do things like pay for oil pipelines in third world countries under the premise of providing economic development to the countries. Ron Paul has long stated he would like to eliminate OPIC and ImpEx.

Income disparity

Going on a gold standard, as Ron Paul advocates, would eliminate the hidden tax of inflation. As I've mentioned here before, I make 4x now as a seasoned professional than I did 20 years ago when I just graduated. Yet when using CPI computed according to pre-Greenspan formulas, it's 8% per year and I make less now than I did 20 years ago. Under a gold standard, wages would not automatically fall every year, and things like the minimum wage (which BTW should be at the state and local level, not the federal level) would not lag behind real prices.

In short

Ron Paul is for personal liberty, including the Iraqis and the pre-born. He does not believe liberty should be extended to illegal immigrants, but would like to expand legal immigration somewhat once the incentives for illegal immigration are removed: welfare, education, healthcare, and birthright citizenship.

Article. VI.
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

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

If it was meant as an announcement and not a press conference then call it an announcement and don't fake it.

The person(s) behind this stunt should be thrown out the window head first as soon as possible. The current behavior is what you expect from a non-democratic country, so it's easy to assume that this is something that sticks a long way up to the top. How far may it go? President? This isn't the only case where strange or out-of-the ordinary actions have occurred. Too many incidents have been seen, some of them related to the USA PATRIOT Act

This at least calls from an infamous quote: You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

And while you are at it - complete the poll for the anachronistic Amendment 2

If it was meant as an announcement and not a press conference then call it an announcement and don't fake it.

The person(s) behind this stunt should be thrown out the window head first as soon as possible. The current behavior is what you expect from a non-democratic country, so it's easy to assume that this is something that sticks a long way up to the top. How far may it go? President? This isn't the only case where strange or out-of-the ordinary actions have occurred. Too many incidents have been seen, some of them related to the USA PATRIOT Act

This at least calls from an infamous quote: You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

And while you are at it - complete the poll for the anachronistic Amendment 2

How about this right? Don't you think the FEMA tactics are "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"?

Uh... what constitution is that in? It's not in the US Constitution.

Hundreds of years of precident have establish that 4th Ammendment rights apply to mail, telegraph, telephone, and recently email and SMS messages. You've actually heard of the 4th right, and it's application to wiretaps, right? There's only hundreds of years of precidant, you can't seriously have read the Constitution with any context and not know.

No... the people who support the FISA law are arguing that a judge should have to issue a warrant for the NSA to be allowed to gather certain intelligence. The constitution establishes a separation of powers. The entity capable of determining for the NSA or any other executive agency whether something is constitutional or not is the AG, specifically, the Office of Legal Council or OLC.

Did you just hear that phrase, or have you read the Constitution? "Separation of powers" doesn't mean within each branch, that branch itself is sovereign and no other branch can tell it what to do (a naive but wrong intepretation). It means that of all the powers a government might have to control not just the people but the government itself, each branch is given a distinct set of powers that hold sway over and counterballance the powers that the other branches have over them. There is a section where it is described what each branch is given the power to do, and yes that includes powers that govern the branches of government other than their own.

Article 3, Section 2 gives the judiciary the explicit power to decide cases involving the government itself, including all branches, that arise under the laws passed by Congress or the Constitution itself, the highest law of the land. You're confused thinking that because this "deciding" power is only executed within the auspices of a court case, that this is the only place the power applies. This is wrong. What the Constitution is saying is that "deciding" conflicts of law is a power exclusive to the Judiciary, so only decisions made there are enforceable under law. The FBI (executive branch) cannot put you in federal prison (executive branch) in accordance legalities and penalties defined in the U.S. Code (legislative branch) unless they bring you before the court (judicial branch) and the court rules that the laws are in harmony with the execution of those laws and with the Constitution itself.

What that means is that the Attorney General's opinion is nothing more than that -- an opinion. He can advise the President on what he believes is legal, and accuse some party before the court of doing something illegal. But his mere advice or accusation means nothing. Until the issue is brought before the court, no penalty is applied to the accused. And if someone accuses the government, only the court decides if the law applies and penalties can applied to the government. And that decision, in either case, is binding. And these decisions, since the inception of the Constitution, have included the issuance of warrants to allow the executive branch to conduct searches in accordance with the 4th Amendment. A binding decision on whether the 4th Amendment is respected or not.

You should really read the Constitution. I think once you read what it actually say, and what powers it grants to each branch regarding the actions of the other two branches, you will eventually come to appreciate a design where each section of an isolated branch of government with a different agenda is able to poke their fingers into the workings of another. When the checks and balances work, it does a very nice job of preventing any particular power of the government from being used too wantonly.

But just to reiterate -- yes, the Courts have the power to tell law enforcement agencies that they can or can't conduct surveillance, and there's no way you can have any clue and seriously be questioning this power.

It's a constitutional right to property -- 4th Amendment (check it out).

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure:
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.

I must be blind, no matter how many tymes I read or search the text of the 4th Amendment I don't see anywhere in it where "intellectual" never mind "intellectual property" is mentioned once. Nor do I see "intellectual" anywhere else in the USA Constitution.

I would have little incentive to develop my water-heating technology without a patent

May I suggest you read Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, sometime. He opposed patents generally. He described patents as "necessary evils, to be handed out sparingly" .

Without Patents, my technology (if marketable) would surely be recreated by some large corporation who would have no reason to pay me a royalty.

Who do you think owns a lot of patents? Those same corporations, well they don't really own the patents so much as patents are assigned to them by the employee who earned the patent. Or something like that. Without patents it would be harder for large corporations to exist.

The patent rewards it's creator, and encourages creation by ensuring the ability of the creator to earn money from his creation.

By giving one person a monopoly, especially for software and algorithms, others are in fact barred from further creations along the same line. General ideas should never receive any "protection", in a small number of cases at most only a specific implementation should be protected.

In regards to the Nobel winner's assertion that software patents reduce or restrict creation, I think he is wholly and completely wrong on this matter.

Again read Adam Smith sometime. "Patents were a conspiracy against the public" he said.

mankind has (thanks to property rights) been able to develop quite an expansive portfolio of technologies.

Far more software has been created without patent protection than software has been patented. Heck it's only been recently that any software was patented. How could all of that software been created without patents?

1) If I have a software patent, I would certainly be interested in developing derivative technologies of my OWN product.

And you'd be able to prevent a multitude of others from doing the same, the more people working on it the more things progress.

2) Patents can be a) licensed and b) transferred -- if YOU want to develop a product that derives from MY technology, you need only approach me with your idea and come to terms with me on a royalty for your use of my patent.

Or you can compleatly refuse and leave me with nothing. However without a patent then anyone else could make improvements without your approval.

So the next time I get stuck in a traffic jam for hours with thousands of other people because some poor bastard in a beat up el Camino knocked off on the freeway, I'm free to shoot him? I don't think it works that way. I think you're just a sick fuck. No, really, you need help. People like you end up doing crazy shit like bombing olympic events and such. If unsolicited email advertising bothers you that much, you are in serious need of psychological evaluation and some kind of anxiety medication. You should see a shrink. Soon.

But first, why don't you go read the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution while I quote a few words out of your own hypocritical mouth:

The point of even having a Constitution, laws, etc., is that we are supposed to abide by them. If we can ignore them whenever they happen to be inconvenient to our immediate needs (even the ill-defined "National Security"), then they are worthless.

Try reading the actual document before commenting. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Section 8 - Powers of Congress ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

It's been realized since Roman times that War is something special where the normal rules of civilized behaviour is suspended. The framers of the constitution also knew this.

What's not supposed to happen, is for the President to just decide he doesn't like some foreigner and send goons to kill him when there's not a war going on. There was a presidential no assassination rule.