Slashdot Mirror

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.

America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The Constitution is the foundation for law in this country, just because people vote in politicians who will do what they want it doesn't mean they can contravene that document.

Actually, the Founders were pretty 'big' on state's rights and individual rights, not so big on federal rights. Course, it's been awhile since the last challange to federal rights happened...

That may be true. But it will be a practical technique for a long time. Personally, I see nothing in the 4th amendment that is intended to limit non-intrusive searches, such as eavesdropping. Outlawing encryption would be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. However, whether or not it's a "good thing" I don't see anything unconstitutional about eavesdropping or "warrantless wiretapping."

Oh? What part of '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' are you having difficulty understanding? Seems to me that telecommunications is covered under 'papers and effects' by the Constitution. But, hey, IANAL The government keeps telling me that I'm too 'ignorant' to understand the full implications of this so I really need THIS instead.

That may be true. But it will be a practical technique for a long time. Personally, I see nothing in the 4th amendment that is intended to limit non-intrusive searches, such as eavesdropping. Outlawing encryption would be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. However, whether or not it's a "good thing" I don't see anything unconstitutional about eavesdropping or "warrantless wiretapping."

Oh? What part of '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' are you having difficulty understanding? Seems to me that telecommunications is covered under 'papers and effects' by the Constitution. But, hey, IANAL The government keeps telling me that I'm too 'ignorant' to understand the full implications of this so I really need THIS instead.

or at least make the primaries like in NH where anyone can vote for anyone regardless of party.

That's a start but repealing Amendment 12 would have a dramatic effect. By going back to how the president and vice president were chosen I think would have a big impact. Off course neither the Democrats nor Republicans would approve of it, they want their candidates to run as a team and not run against each other. That's why they passed the amendment to begin with. They didn't want the chance the president was from one party and the vp from another.

Is it really an essential liberty to not have to show your receipt as you exit a store? I think not.

Uh, ever heard of the Fourth Amendment?

Am I going to loose sleep over trying to retain this liberty? Nope, sorry. Bigger fish to fry.

If you're not going to lose sleep over the Bill of Rights being shredded, what are you going to lose sleep over?

Sigh,
Constitutional authority to declare certain facts "classified":

Legislative Body:
Article 1, Section 5, Paragraph (and sentence) 3.

From this flows the power to pass laws that require certain facts to be classified.
Took all of 15 seconds on Google.

Whether one thinks the power is, or has been, used properly by this -or prior- governments is a different discussion.

Oh yes, [sarcasm] excellent. [/sarcasm] I wonder which enumerated power of the constitution gives the federal government the power to tell citizens what businesses they can and cannot run. Oh, right, there is no such power.

That means that the power to tell citizens what businesses they can run either belongs to the states, or to the citizens. You'll note that TFS says "federal judge." Welcome to imperial government coercion, example # zillion+1.

So when you actually analyze the data in the report you find that the safest speed to drive on the freeway is 10 to 15 mph faster then the general flow of traffic. This won't improve revenue generation so they aren't going to advertise this. If they really wanted to improve safety they would become hardcore about little right-of-way violations or lack of attention, but they are too hard to enforce. Remember... Your government thinks you are their source of income. You are giving Them money instead of Them spending Your money. If as a group we don't stop them we will be living in a fascist state beyond anything that Orwell could have imagined.
Why? Because it will be economically possible for your government to do it.

I'll have to look into it at some point.

The original method of electing the president and vice president is in Article 2 section 1. Though reading it again I left out a lot. But like I said Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President changed it, the political parties wanted more power.

I'll have to look into it at some point.

The original method of electing the president and vice president is in Article 2 section 1. Though reading it again I left out a lot. But like I said Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President changed it, the political parties wanted more power.

The power to interpret the meaning of law and the constitution is granted to the Supreme Court.

Please show me where this is done in the constitution. I'll wait. Thank you. Just so you have a good starting point, article three establishes the judiciary, and doesn't say a word about this.

Notice both those sentences say the same thing (generally speaking). One would be protected fully by the first amendment, the second would be considered obscene by the FCC and the supreme court would rule you do not have the right to say it.

They would be acting entirely illegally by the highest law of the land should they so rule. What part of "congress shall make no law" is confusing you? Is it the "no" or the "law"? Or is it the part about congress? Look, if I say you, Fred Flintstone, may not steal my shoe, you simply cannot turn around and say "well, he meant that I could steal his shoe, obviously. I mean, hey, it's totally open to interpretation, isn't it?"

These interpretations ARE BINDING, AND ABSOLUTE. THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF ALLOWS FOR THIS.

No, in actual fact, it doesn't. It establishes the judiciary to try cases of constitutional law. That's all it does. Nowhere - absolutely nowhere - does it say that the supreme court has the power to "interpret" the constitution, nor does it say that any such act would be binding and/or absolute. Next time you enter an argument, gather your facts. Go read article three, which establishes the judiciary. You'll be amazed to find that not a single thing you claim is in there, or even remotely implied by what is in there.

True. The only Constitutional Amendment the United States ever repealed is the 18th Amendment which was repealed by the 21st Amendment. However, like many laws in the United States, they (the Executive, Legislative, or even the Judicial branch) can "tap dance" around the Constitution and its Amendments. A example of this is "Jim Crow Laws" in which "separate but equal" was twisted beyond all recognition until the Civil Rights Era which these laws were deemed unconstitutional.
I hate terrorist and the people that support the terrorist system but this doesn't give anyone the right to "trounce" the Constitution and its Amendments. We, in the United States, tend to have short memory span and we created a fair amount of bad laws, like the Irish Immigrant Act or the Executive Order which interred the Japanese during World War 2, which where deemed unconstitutional. We should learn from history before we become history.

Below is the link to an US Constitution website:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

1. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
2. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
3. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Constitutional topic: Presidential Pardons.

Everything except impeachment, also civil liability can't be excused (so Libby can still be sued into and beyond poverty), and contempt-of-court charges can't be pardoned either.

Of course it follows naturally the existing subversion of the political process and the failure of the two party system through corportate lobbying of candidates, which is the only issue in modern politics. Because until that's fixed nothing else can be.

Of couse, this is one thing that can be prevented from being broken but, to me at least, it looks like Benjamin Franklin is being proven right http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html

Without owning the rights to exploit whatever money can be made from it, would anyone bother?
Yes. They'd have to work with money they could make from it without being exploitative.

Besides, it sounds like you've added a value judgement into it. Who decides what is a 'useful' art, and what is not 'useful'? Copyright law as it stands doesn't have worry about that.
I was just quoting the authorizing document in my country when I mentioned "useful arts". If you think laws can be written without respect to the conditions under which they receive authority... I'm not sure if it's possible for us to have a meaningful discussion.

You don't have a right to their work.
Inherently, neither do they. However, We choose to grant authors a exclusive right to their works because We receive value in exchange for allowing such monopolistic control for a limited time.

You're going to have to explain how asking to people to pay for things is an abuse or undermines anything.
Why? When I talk about a major label abusing copyright, I'm thinking of subjects like employing the artists as paid contractors who do not retain copyright to their performances. Someone else has brought up the price fixing business, so you can discuss that with them, but there's nothing wrong with tribute being paid for a good ideas and art.

So then, why hasn't the supreme court ruled most of the federal government's regulation of commerce unconstitutional?

One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed multiple ex post facto laws, although this is (ref 1, ref 2) explicitly unconstitutional at both the state and federal level? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed wiretapping without a warrant, though this is, via telecommunications law, both illegal and unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed restrictions on the bearing of arms, though this is explicitly unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed the federal government to expand into powers that are not among the enumerated (ref), and further are explicitly assigned (ref 1, ref 2) to the states and the people? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court failed to knock down government sponsored religious expression (ref) (on coins, mottos, etc.)?

Why, indeed? The highest level answer is because the court is operating outside the legitimate authority granted by the constituting authority itself; they are exercising power without authority, acting as a ruling junta (a group ruling by force) without constraints with regard to what positions they may take. As is the executive branch with its pursuit of unconstitutional programs and actions, and both houses of congress with their numerous laws breaching constitutional prohibitions, and the federal government in general which has hugely overstepped the enumerated powers granted it by the constitution.

To expect the supreme court to fix things represents, unfortunately, a forlorn hope. They are every bit as corrupt as the rest of the government. The citizens, for their part, are both too comfortable to rise up against this government where they are aware of the issues, and further, for the most part, not even aware of the issues. If I had to describe the state of the average citizen's knowledge of how government is operating illegally (as the constitution is literally the highest law in the land (ref)), I'd say "woefully uninformed."

So then, why hasn't the supreme court ruled most of the federal government's regulation of commerce unconstitutional?

One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed multiple ex post facto laws, although this is (ref 1, ref 2) explicitly unconstitutional at both the state and federal level? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed wiretapping without a warrant, though this is, via telecommunications law, both illegal and unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed restrictions on the bearing of arms, though this is explicitly unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed the federal government to expand into powers that are not among the enumerated (ref), and further are explicitly assigned (ref 1, ref 2) to the states and the people? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court failed to knock down government sponsored religious expression (ref) (on coins, mottos, etc.)?

Why, indeed? The highest level answer is because the court is operating outside the legitimate authority granted by the constituting authority itself; they are exercising power without authority, acting as a ruling junta (a group ruling by force) without constraints with regard to what positions they may take. As is the executive branch with its pursuit of unconstitutional programs and actions, and both houses of congress with their numerous laws breaching constitutional prohibitions, and the federal government in general which has hugely overstepped the enumerated powers granted it by the constitution.

To expect the supreme court to fix things represents, unfortunately, a forlorn hope. They are every bit as corrupt as the rest of the government. The citizens, for their part, are both too comfortable to rise up against this government where they are aware of the issues, and further, for the most part, not even aware of the issues. If I had to describe the state of the average citizen's knowledge of how government is operating illegally (as the constitution is literally the highest law in the land (ref)), I'd say "woefully uninformed."

So then, why hasn't the supreme court ruled most of the federal government's regulation of commerce unconstitutional?

One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed multiple ex post facto laws, although this is (ref 1, ref 2) explicitly unconstitutional at both the state and federal level? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed wiretapping without a warrant, though this is, via telecommunications law, both illegal and unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed restrictions on the bearing of arms, though this is explicitly unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed the federal government to expand into powers that are not among the enumerated (ref), and further are explicitly assigned (ref 1, ref 2) to the states and the people? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court failed to knock down government sponsored religious expression (ref) (on coins, mottos, etc.)?

Why, indeed? The highest level answer is because the court is operating outside the legitimate authority granted by the constituting authority itself; they are exercising power without authority, acting as a ruling junta (a group ruling by force) without constraints with regard to what positions they may take. As is the executive branch with its pursuit of unconstitutional programs and actions, and both houses of congress with their numerous laws breaching constitutional prohibitions, and the federal government in general which has hugely overstepped the enumerated powers granted it by the constitution.

To expect the supreme court to fix things represents, unfortunately, a forlorn hope. They are every bit as corrupt as the rest of the government. The citizens, for their part, are both too comfortable to rise up against this government where they are aware of the issues, and further, for the most part, not even aware of the issues. If I had to describe the state of the average citizen's knowledge of how government is operating illegally (as the constitution is literally the highest law in the land (ref)), I'd say "woefully uninformed."

So then, why hasn't the supreme court ruled most of the federal government's regulation of commerce unconstitutional?

One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed multiple ex post facto laws, although this is (ref 1, ref 2) explicitly unconstitutional at both the state and federal level? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed wiretapping without a warrant, though this is, via telecommunications law, both illegal and unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed restrictions on the bearing of arms, though this is explicitly unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed the federal government to expand into powers that are not among the enumerated (ref), and further are explicitly assigned (ref 1, ref 2) to the states and the people? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court failed to knock down government sponsored religious expression (ref) (on coins, mottos, etc.)?

Why, indeed? The highest level answer is because the court is operating outside the legitimate authority granted by the constituting authority itself; they are exercising power without authority, acting as a ruling junta (a group ruling by force) without constraints with regard to what positions they may take. As is the executive branch with its pursuit of unconstitutional programs and actions, and both houses of congress with their numerous laws breaching constitutional prohibitions, and the federal government in general which has hugely overstepped the enumerated powers granted it by the constitution.

To expect the supreme court to fix things represents, unfortunately, a forlorn hope. They are every bit as corrupt as the rest of the government. The citizens, for their part, are both too comfortable to rise up against this government where they are aware of the issues, and further, for the most part, not even aware of the issues. If I had to describe the state of the average citizen's knowledge of how government is operating illegally (as the constitution is literally the highest law in the land (ref)), I'd say "woefully uninformed."

So then, why hasn't the supreme court ruled most of the federal government's regulation of commerce unconstitutional?

One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed multiple ex post facto laws, although this is (ref 1, ref 2) explicitly unconstitutional at both the state and federal level? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed wiretapping without a warrant, though this is, via telecommunications law, both illegal and unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed restrictions on the bearing of arms, though this is explicitly unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed the federal government to expand into powers that are not among the enumerated (ref), and further are explicitly assigned (ref 1, ref 2) to the states and the people? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court failed to knock down government sponsored religious expression (ref) (on coins, mottos, etc.)?

Why, indeed? The highest level answer is because the court is operating outside the legitimate authority granted by the constituting authority itself; they are exercising power without authority, acting as a ruling junta (a group ruling by force) without constraints with regard to what positions they may take. As is the executive branch with its pursuit of unconstitutional programs and actions, and both houses of congress with their numerous laws breaching constitutional prohibitions, and the federal government in general which has hugely overstepped the enumerated powers granted it by the constitution.

To expect the supreme court to fix things represents, unfortunately, a forlorn hope. They are every bit as corrupt as the rest of the government. The citizens, for their part, are both too comfortable to rise up against this government where they are aware of the issues, and further, for the most part, not even aware of the issues. If I had to describe the state of the average citizen's knowledge of how government is operating illegally (as the constitution is literally the highest law in the land (ref)), I'd say "woefully uninformed."

So then, why hasn't the supreme court ruled most of the federal government's regulation of commerce unconstitutional?

One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed multiple ex post facto laws, although this is (ref 1, ref 2) explicitly unconstitutional at both the state and federal level? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed wiretapping without a warrant, though this is, via telecommunications law, both illegal and unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed restrictions on the bearing of arms, though this is explicitly unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed the federal government to expand into powers that are not among the enumerated (ref), and further are explicitly assigned (ref 1, ref 2) to the states and the people? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court failed to knock down government sponsored religious expression (ref) (on coins, mottos, etc.)?

Why, indeed? The highest level answer is because the court is operating outside the legitimate authority granted by the constituting authority itself; they are exercising power without authority, acting as a ruling junta (a group ruling by force) without constraints with regard to what positions they may take. As is the executive branch with its pursuit of unconstitutional programs and actions, and both houses of congress with their numerous laws breaching constitutional prohibitions, and the federal government in general which has hugely overstepped the enumerated powers granted it by the constitution.

To expect the supreme court to fix things represents, unfortunately, a forlorn hope. They are every bit as corrupt as the rest of the government. The citizens, for their part, are both too comfortable to rise up against this government where they are aware of the issues, and further, for the most part, not even aware of the issues. If I had to describe the state of the average citizen's knowledge of how government is operating illegally (as the constitution is literally the highest law in the land (ref)), I'd say "woefully uninformed."

So then, why hasn't the supreme court ruled most of the federal government's regulation of commerce unconstitutional?

One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed multiple ex post facto laws, although this is (ref 1, ref 2) explicitly unconstitutional at both the state and federal level? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed wiretapping without a warrant, though this is, via telecommunications law, both illegal and unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed restrictions on the bearing of arms, though this is explicitly unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed the federal government to expand into powers that are not among the enumerated (ref), and further are explicitly assigned (ref 1, ref 2) to the states and the people? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court failed to knock down government sponsored religious expression (ref) (on coins, mottos, etc.)?

Why, indeed? The highest level answer is because the court is operating outside the legitimate authority granted by the constituting authority itself; they are exercising power without authority, acting as a ruling junta (a group ruling by force) without constraints with regard to what positions they may take. As is the executive branch with its pursuit of unconstitutional programs and actions, and both houses of congress with their numerous laws breaching constitutional prohibitions, and the federal government in general which has hugely overstepped the enumerated powers granted it by the constitution.

To expect the supreme court to fix things represents, unfortunately, a forlorn hope. They are every bit as corrupt as the rest of the government. The citizens, for their part, are both too comfortable to rise up against this government where they are aware of the issues, and further, for the most part, not even aware of the issues. If I had to describe the state of the average citizen's knowledge of how government is operating illegally (as the constitution is literally the highest law in the land (ref)), I'd say "woefully uninformed."

So then, why hasn't the supreme court ruled most of the federal government's regulation of commerce unconstitutional?

One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed multiple ex post facto laws, although this is (ref 1, ref 2) explicitly unconstitutional at both the state and federal level? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed wiretapping without a warrant, though this is, via telecommunications law, both illegal and unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed restrictions on the bearing of arms, though this is explicitly unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed the federal government to expand into powers that are not among the enumerated (ref), and further are explicitly assigned (ref 1, ref 2) to the states and the people? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court failed to knock down government sponsored religious expression (ref) (on coins, mottos, etc.)?

Why, indeed? The highest level answer is because the court is operating outside the legitimate authority granted by the constituting authority itself; they are exercising power without authority, acting as a ruling junta (a group ruling by force) without constraints with regard to what positions they may take. As is the executive branch with its pursuit of unconstitutional programs and actions, and both houses of congress with their numerous laws breaching constitutional prohibitions, and the federal government in general which has hugely overstepped the enumerated powers granted it by the constitution.

To expect the supreme court to fix things represents, unfortunately, a forlorn hope. They are every bit as corrupt as the rest of the government. The citizens, for their part, are both too comfortable to rise up against this government where they are aware of the issues, and further, for the most part, not even aware of the issues. If I had to describe the state of the average citizen's knowledge of how government is operating illegally (as the constitution is literally the highest law in the land (ref)), I'd say "woefully uninformed."

So then, why hasn't the supreme court ruled most of the federal government's regulation of commerce unconstitutional?

One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed multiple ex post facto laws, although this is (ref 1, ref 2) explicitly unconstitutional at both the state and federal level? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court allowed wiretapping without a warrant, though this is, via telecommunications law, both illegal and unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed restrictions on the bearing of arms, though this is explicitly unconstitutional (ref)? One might as well ask, why has the court allowed the federal government to expand into powers that are not among the enumerated (ref), and further are explicitly assigned (ref 1, ref 2) to the states and the people? One might as well ask, why has the supreme court failed to knock down government sponsored religious expression (ref) (on coins, mottos, etc.)?

Why, indeed? The highest level answer is because the court is operating outside the legitimate authority granted by the constituting authority itself; they are exercising power without authority, acting as a ruling junta (a group ruling by force) without constraints with regard to what positions they may take. As is the executive branch with its pursuit of unconstitutional programs and actions, and both houses of congress with their numerous laws breaching constitutional prohibitions, and the federal government in general which has hugely overstepped the enumerated powers granted it by the constitution.

To expect the supreme court to fix things represents, unfortunately, a forlorn hope. They are every bit as corrupt as the rest of the government. The citizens, for their part, are both too comfortable to rise up against this government where they are aware of the issues, and further, for the most part, not even aware of the issues. If I had to describe the state of the average citizen's knowledge of how government is operating illegally (as the constitution is literally the highest law in the land (ref)), I'd say "woefully uninformed."

Don't try to put yourself above everybody else. That would be a sure sign of arrogance. Like Tom said, Once you release it, it's no longer exclusively yours. You will get your money and you move on to the next big thing. I will not allow you to control things that I possess. It is insane to do so.

Are you a programmer? If so do you write closed or open source software? If closed do you allow anyone to copy your software and hand them out? If not you're arrogant too. As a writer I have as much right to be paid as programmers have. Now, if you want to write open source software and allow others to do what they want with it then that's your choice, just don't say everyone has to follow your example. Doing so is ARROGANCE.

Totally lame distraction to discredit the truth.

What truth" That you want something for nothing?

I can and do live without a daily injection of Hollywood drivel I couldn't even tell you what day of the week American Idol is on.

Neither could I. The only tv station my tv has been on for more than a year, it's been more than I year since I changed stations, is CNN. It's also been more than a year since I went to the movie theater. The only movies I've watched in that tyme are movies I bought on tape or dvd, or in the case of tape, movies I recorded more than 10 years ago. I don't download movies or music. I don't even play either on my computer. Nor do I have any pirated games on my PC. The only games I have on it are the games that came with the computer.

Your statement is nothing more than a demonstration of the weakness of your argument. It's like saying, "Oh, you're just having your period." and then leaving the room.

Not as weak as yours. I have tried to explain my position reasonably but all you do is offer drivel such as "Oh, you're just having your period." and then leaving the room."

So, abolish copyright and prove me wrong. I will be more than happy to accept it, and will bow down in humility. But remember, we need to match the 300 years that we suffered under these regs. The proof I already have is in the several thousands of years before copyright.

And how many of those works have been copyrighted? Since copyrights have been allowed 300 years I'd bet many more works have been written than all of the tyme before that. Go into any bookstore whether it's Barnes and Noble, Borders, or a small locally owned bookstore and you should be able to find thousands of books published in the past few years alone. Sure technology has made it easier and faster but you still could of gone into any bookstore or library 20 years ago and found a large selection of books. I know because I've been buying books for more than 25 years and was checking out books from the library for 40 years or more.

For me, you will have a difficult time trying to negate that.

Already negated, see above.

can understand that these regulations are necessary in a mercantile society, where pirates and their merchants(fences) make the rules.

You're mixed up, if pirates made the rules there would be no copyrights. Afterall they're breaking copyright.

You are sadly mistaken to believe that purpose of copyright is to protect the interests of the creator.

I suggest you read the Constitution of the USA. In Section 8 - Powers of Congress, you see where is 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;" It protects the interest of the creator for a limited tyme so they will create.

It does nothing of the sort. It is a toll booth that the creators must pass through to reach the public and vice versa, and it is harmful to both.

I call BS! If this were true then FOOS would never exist.

Don't try to put yourself above everybody else. That would be a sure sign of arrogance. Like Tom said, Once you release it, it's no longer exclusively yours. You will get your money and you move on to the next big thing. I will not allow you to control things that I possess. It is insane to do so.

Are you a programmer? If so do you write closed or open source software? If closed do you allow anyone to copy your software and hand them out? If not you're arrogant too. As a writer I have as much right to be paid as programmers have. Now, if you want to write open source software and allow others to do what they want with it then that's your choice, just don't say everyone has to follow your example. Doing so is ARROGANCE.

Totally lame distraction to discredit the truth.

What truth" That you want something for nothing?

I can and do live without a daily injection of Hollywood drivel I couldn't even tell you what day of the week American Idol is on.

Neither could I. The only tv station my tv has been on for more than a year, it's been more than I year since I changed stations, is CNN. It's also been more than a year since I went to the movie theater. The only movies I've watched in that tyme are movies I bought on tape or dvd, or in the case of tape, movies I recorded more than 10 years ago. I don't download movies or music. I don't even play either on my computer. Nor do I have any pirated games on my PC. The only games I have on it are the games that came with the computer.

Your statement is nothing more than a demonstration of the weakness of your argument. It's like saying, "Oh, you're just having your period." and then leaving the room.

Not as weak as yours. I have tried to explain my position reasonably but all you do is offer drivel such as "Oh, you're just having your period." and then leaving the room."

So, abolish copyright and prove me wrong. I will be more than happy to accept it, and will bow down in humility. But remember, we need to match the 300 years that we suffered under these regs. The proof I already have is in the several thousands of years before copyright.

And how many of those works have been copyrighted? Since copyrights have been allowed 300 years I'd bet many more works have been written than all of the tyme before that. Go into any bookstore whether it's Barnes and Noble, Borders, or a small locally owned bookstore and you should be able to find thousands of books published in the past few years alone. Sure technology has made it easier and faster but you still could of gone into any bookstore or library 20 years ago and found a large selection of books. I know because I've been buying books for more than 25 years and was checking out books from the library for 40 years or more.

For me, you will have a difficult time trying to negate that.

Already negated, see above.

can understand that these regulations are necessary in a mercantile society, where pirates and their merchants(fences) make the rules.

You're mixed up, if pirates made the rules there would be no copyrights. Afterall they're breaking copyright.

You are sadly mistaken to believe that purpose of copyright is to protect the interests of the creator.

I suggest you read the Constitution of the USA. In Section 8 - Powers of Congress, you see where is 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;" It protects the interest of the creator for a limited tyme so they will create.

It does nothing of the sort. It is a toll booth that the creators must pass through to reach the public and vice versa, and it is harmful to both.

I call BS! If this were true then FOOS would never exist.

http://www.usconstitution.net/

The constitution delineates what powers the government has - if the feds aren't allowed to do something to us, why should the states be allowed to?

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.

Unfortunately the States have conceded their representation to the Fed. Now that US Senators are no longer representatives of each state legislature, the states have ZERO say in what the Fed does to them. The 17th amendment should be repealed!

Forget that, I want to be able to vote for the senator that's supposed to represent my interests. Now if you want to talk about repealing an amendment then let's repeal Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Let every candidate run for president then the winner becomes president and second place is vice president. Of course the Democrats and Republicans will never go for this. They don't want to risk the chance the president will be from one party and the vp from another one.

Certain branches of government asking* for the information without warrents is pretty sleazy, but net illegal (that I know of).

The courts have held since at least 1798 that the constitutional restriction on ex post facto laws applies only to criminal laws. The Constitutional Dictionary has some more specifics.

First of all, the purpose of patents is not to spur inventors to invent.

Wrong, patents are specifically issued to encourage progress in the Arts and Sciences, at least in the USA:
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;

Abolish patents, and software firms will have no incentive to write anything: anyone can steal it.

Software has been written long before the first software patent was issued. If patents were needed as an incentive to write software then open source software would never exist. There is plenty of incentive to write software without patents.

Their only solution? Do what Microsoft does and have ridiculous anti-piracy measures that don't even work.

So Apache, Firefox, the Gimp, and Linux don't exist? Or do they have MS's anti-priracy measure built in?

Thanks to "winner takes all" my vote was essentially thrown out and changed to Bush since that's what the majority of my country voted for.

Well then get active with your state legislature and lobby to have the law changed. Lobby to have it so each candidate gets the same percentage in the electoral college as they get in the popular vote. Even better would be to also campaign to have Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-Presiden repealed. Go back to how the president and vice president used to be elected. Everyone ran for president then the electoral college voted until there were only 2 candidates left, then the final vote chose who was president and who was vp.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a law on the books against this already?

Let me ask you this: WHY do you feel it is wrong that they have to get a permit, besides the fact that it's in the constitution? Because if that's the only reason you have then -no offense intended- that sounds like dogma to me.

OK, several things. First, I have no particular objection to permits in principle; for the very reasons you mention, and a few others like them. However, the constitution is the only line of authority that exists for my government; in order for them to be operating legitimately, everything they do must comply with that document. So, if they want to say (for instance) that assembly requires a permit, but permits must be issued on request within so many hours or days, then they must amend (change) the constitution so that they have the authority to make such a law. There is a procedure for them to make such changes, they aren't by any means locked into the current state of affairs. Now, you observe that this is a small matter, and (in the case of the loonies in the KKK) it may well be, but in the case of a serious grievance needing to be presented to the government, it isn't a small matter, and the reason that the constitution guarantees freedom of assembly is specifically so that the government cannot undermine that situation. There's another problem. Let's say that it is entirely reasonable, whatever change they want to make. Regardless of what it is, lets just agree up front that it is 100% benign. Still, if we allow laws that do not follow the constitution in one area, where is the justification for us to say "no" in another area, such as restricting free speech, or removing the right to a jury trial? This is why they must make the changes according to the correct procedure before they can make such a law. That way, they will be in compliance. The procedure itself can be found here, under "Amendment."

The bottom line is, the government must act within its legitimate authority. If it does not, then it is telling citizens what to do without any authority, and all that is left at that point is coercion, that is, force or the threat of force. The founders of our nation were well experienced with coercive government, and the constitution was their attempt to see to it that the rest of us would not have to experience such a thing. It would work out, too, if our government would stick to the constitution, but as George W Bush says, "it's just a goddamned piece of paper" and at this point in time, it plays only a shadow of the role that it was intended to. This is a crisis that most of the country is unaware of because they aren't even familiar with the constitution, much less have an understanding of how it is supposed to authorize governmental authority.

the most significant changes have been the results of amendments

Hmmm. Did you mean to say that the most significant changes have been the results of ignoring the amendments? I mean, really, going from one to ten in order finds only amendment 3 to be relatively unmolested (and all that says is they can't arbitrarily quarter soldiers in our homes.) Otherwise, I'd say that in the last fifty years, most of the amendments in the bill of rights have been used mainly for toilet paper.

yay for no more slavery!

Ah, no. The 13th amendment doesn't do away with slavery at all. What it does is reserves it as a right of the government. All you have to do is be convicted of a crime - any crime - jaywalked lately? - and you are eligible for whatever they want to put you to work doing. Read it and weep.

The cosntitutiomn was ment as a way to presever our rights as humand, and limit what can be taken away. Howe3ver, none of that matters anymore since the Constitution is just goddamned piece of paper

there are things that could work as preventing the use of national ID's
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10

But then any lawer and paid by the government judge will make swish chease of even the most simplest of rights.

The cosntitutiomn was ment as a way to presever our rights as humand, and limit what can be taken away. Howe3ver, none of that matters anymore since the Constitution is just goddamned piece of paper

there are things that could work as preventing the use of national ID's
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10

But then any lawer and paid by the government judge will make swish chease of even the most simplest of rights.

We've seen this all before. Think about the Saint Valentine's Day massacre. Americans decided that the cause was the prohibition of alcohol to adults, not the availability of fire-arms, and in 1933 prohibition was repealed not the second amendment.

So understand that the statistics you read on "gun crime" in America are not objective facts but political choices. The compilers of the statistics decide that the situation with cannabis is not analogous to the situation with alcohol and chose to count crimes carried out in turf wars over the control of the illegal drugs trade not as "prohibition deaths" but as "gun deaths".

Also note that the DEA is an executive branch agency, and is fully permitted under the constitution under the executive branch's enumerated powers.

Can you please point to me where the USA Constitution gives the president the authority to create the DEA? I don't recall this permission so going through the COnstitution the only authority I see being given to the president is:

Article II. - The Executive Branch

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4 - Disqualification

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.

No matter how many tyme I read and search it I see nowhere where the DEA is authorized or where the president is given the authority to create it.

Beyond that, I don't see what the DEA has to do with a national law banning incandescent light bulbs. Did they suddenly become drugs?

Once a Treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land. Please read the U.S. Constitution.

Useful Links:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common /briefing/Treaties.htm#1

Quite incorrect, sir. International treaties are US law by Constitution and automatically override state laws. This is a power delegated to the United States explicitly by the Constitution so the 10th Amendment is not applicable.

US Constitution, Article VI:

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6

Which is one reason the US isn't a democracy. What the majority of people think is not necessarily the best course of action -- the will of the people can be a very dangerous thing.

Too true, which is why the framers of your constitution put in a section entitled Limits on Congress that says, amongst other things, "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."

This provides a nice empirical test of the claim "the US isn't a democracy." So long as Congress does not pass a law like the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which suspends Habeas Corpus for non-citizens the US could plausibly be claimed to not be a democracy. Now that the law has been passed, it is much more difficult to make that claim. Note that the language of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous and says nothing about the citizenship of the people for whom Habeas Corpus may be suspended.

The fact that Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 suggests that they know the voters will reward them despite the unconstitutional nature of the law. That sounds like a democracy to me.

As time passes, the US looks less and less like a democratic republic and more and more like a democratic oligarchy, in which a small clique of the ultra-wealthy ruling class both court and manipulate the unrestrained will of the populace, usually in the name of security of some kind. The Republicans focus on security against drugs and porn and terrorism; the Democrats focus on security against poverty and unemployment and porn (remember Tipper Gore?). This is a far cry from the republic your founders envisioned and to an extent achieved, in which the constitution put limits on the will of the people in the name of liberty.

You don't even have to look as far as the bill of rights on this one. It's in the Constitution. Look it up on wikipedia or on the net itself. Or check out the text of the Constitution.

Hanging by a thread yet? Still?

...in fact the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution are printed on paper made from hemp...

This is not correct. Those documents were written on parchment. Stop spreading this myth.
(References:
  http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a8.html - Question 145
  http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/treasure/declaration_facts.html - second question)

United States Constitution trumps Washington State law.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Section 9.
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

There is court precedence to back it up, too.
http://tinyurl.com/2pyvoh