Broadcast Flag Back in Congress

If something gets shot down once... by Pichu0102 · 2005-09-27 06:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

...Why is it legally allowed to try again? I mean, it seems like no matter what, if someone wants something done that people don't like, it's not a matter of if it will happen, it's a matter of when it will happen.

Re:If something gets shot down once... by Brunellus · 2005-09-27 06:42 · Score: 1

The devil is in the details. If the regulation's wording changes slightly, then it may be allowable.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-27 06:42 · Score: 1, Informative

Because last time it was shot down was on a technicality, basically the FCC was found not to have the power to enforce the Broadcast Flag.. There was no ruling on the Constitutionality of the flag itself..
Re:If something gets shot down once... by advocate_one · 2005-09-27 06:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

you would be pretty upset if it was a piece of crucial legislation you wanted that had been shot down and thus could never be resubmitted now wouldn't you...

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by HikingStick · 2005-09-27 06:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

...Why is it legally allowed to try again?

The ability to try again with failed legislation is one of the greatest strengths of our political system, but at the same time it is one of the biggest problems.

The number of other provisions and amendments that make it through in this manner is probably staggering. The only thing that could be done to curtail this practice would be to require single-purpose bills that can't be loaded full of non-related crap. Of course, that would require a major change in our our legislative process works...

--
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Re:If something gets shot down once... by bedroll · 2005-09-27 06:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's the way the system works. For dumb things and good things. Imagine if we didn't allow legislation to be reintroduced. We wouldn't have half the civil rights we do now. Sure, it may force dumb things to die, but it would also mean that one especially poor congressional class could permanently ruin our country.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by Naikrovek · 2005-09-27 06:51 · Score: 1

if that were the case, all you'd have to do is change something in the law and try again - then its a new law all over again. its like overloading methods, if the signature is different, they're not the same.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by MindStalker · 2005-09-27 06:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, but how bout rules on amendments. Is this amendment in any way related to cost cutting? I doupt it.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by ThaFooz · 2005-09-27 06:57 · Score: 4, Funny

The only thing that could be done to curtail this practice would be to require single-purpose bills that can't be loaded full of non-related crap. Of course, that would require a major change in our our legislative process works...

Why not just tack your proposal onto some popular bill?
Re:If something gets shot down once... by 0123456 · 2005-09-27 07:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

"The only thing that could be done to curtail this practice would be to require single-purpose bills that can't be loaded full of non-related crap"

Alternatively you could just enforce the Constitution: then 99% of laws would be thrown out immediately... including this one.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by Ryan+Amos · 2005-09-27 07:12 · Score: 1

The problem with the constitution is that its meaning depends on context and interpretation; it doesn't cover all situations by a long shot. That's why the SCOTUS exists, they're the "official" interpreters of the constitution.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by HUADPE · 2005-09-27 07:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

The last attempt wasn't in a law. According to TFA "the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Federal Communications Commission overstepped its authority in mandating that all consumer electronic devices capable of receiving digital television signals incorporate support for the flag." That means that an administrative agency, the FCC, did not have authority to do it, Congress still might.

Either way, it is a bad piece of policy which should be junked.

--
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by PMuse · 2005-09-27 07:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

In the courts, if your claim is denied and you bring the same claim again, it will be denied immediately because it is a thing decided ("res judicata").

In congress, if your request is denied and you bring the same request again, it will require more contributions.

--
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Re:If something gets shot down once... by ReverendLoki · 2005-09-27 07:35 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, the FIRST attempt was by an act of the FCC, which was smacked down by the courts. The LAST attempt was indeed by law, in a piece of appropriation legislation, according to TFA. It too was smacked down. The LATEST attempt is also by law, in a budget reconciliation bill.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:If something gets shot down once... by msaavedra · 2005-09-27 07:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Where in the Constitution does it say that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to be the official interpreters of the Constitution? IIRC, it never says that explicitly. I suppose it could be interpreted to say that, but by whom? The Supreme Court, of course, since that is their purpose ;^)

--
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
Re:If something gets shot down once... by IWannaBeAnAC · 2005-09-27 08:02 · Score: 1

Hmm, I find it hard to see a finding of "you have no right to do that" as a 'technicality' ...
Re:If something gets shot down once... by ArsonSmith · 2005-09-27 08:04 · Score: 1

One small change could be done to fix this. Line item votes in congress. Each congressman has to vote on a bill by signing off on each line of text in that bill as either Accepted, required or rejected. This not only gives everyone knowlege of exacly what every congressman votes on, but would get rid of stupid crap like this.

Of course it sounds too much like the line item veto that was tried and failed with the president. The problem with that is it gave far to much power to the president, line item voting empoweres congress to cut the fat on legislation.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by ArsonSmith · 2005-09-27 08:09 · Score: 1

Perhaps the part that says the judicial branch interprets the law??? I suppose you could interpret that how you want. But it is up the the Supreme Court.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by phlegmofdiscontent · 2005-09-27 08:12 · Score: 1

Hah hah hah, it's all part of my evil plan. Once my "Give Phlegm of Discontent All Powers" clause is tacked on to the "Children, Families, and Puppies Act", I'll have total control, and then .... Canada is fucked!
Re:If something gets shot down once... by poot_rootbeer · 2005-09-27 08:12 · Score: 1

Why is it legally allowed to try again?

Why shouldn't it be?

If a progressive Congressman had introduced a bill to abolish slavery in the 1780's, and it had been voted down then, wouldn't that have meant that when the country DID decide to get rid of slavery in 1865 that they COULD NOT do so? We'd still have slavery today.

If you mean that a particular law should not be tried again during the same session of Congress, that makes more sense, but it tends to work out on its own that this doesn't happen. The leadership in Congress knows there's no point to having a second vote if it's going to be exactly the same as the first, so if a bill gets re-introduced it's going to be substantially different from the original form. That's how the system works.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by dgatwood · 2005-09-27 08:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Indeed, the most broken thing about the U.S. government is the notion of unrelated riders. These should, IMHO, be found unconstitutional across the board, as they represent a deliberate attempt to subvert the constitutional process of checks and balances.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by petsounds · 2005-09-27 08:25 · Score: 1

No, the biggest problem is the lack of a line-item veto. If we had that, none of these damaging riders would pass and we could at least have a *chance* of putting legislation into law that isn't full of pork. Of course pulling the legislators away from the corporate trough is a bit tougher.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-27 08:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

I sort of agree, but would like to point out that them being able to tack on legislation anomynously is a large part of the problem. Wouldn't it be nice to know which Congressmen were responsible for trying to force such an unpopular piece of legislation on us? They might like the MPAA's money, but not if it would ruin their career.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by bedroll · 2005-09-27 08:33 · Score: 1

Har har..
Seriously though, since I do tend to agree with you about having a poor congressional class, imagine the damage they could do if there were a provision that no piece of legislation could be reintroduced? The first thing they would do is introduce legislation accepting gay marriage constitutional, then shoot it down. Basically anything they want to block would be introduced during times when the opponents think they can squash it.
Obviously our system works best on the assumption that good things will eventually get through and bad things will continually get denied, even if that's not really the case. That's why we have the judicial branch as a last resort.
I agree with other posters who have said that a more effective, though still radical, change would be to limit the scope of legislation to be topical. Such a law could not only limit the scope of congress to impart such legislation, but force the judicial branch to invalidate any non-topical addendum to the law should such an addendum be challenged.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by PhilipPeake · 2005-09-27 09:02 · Score: 1

In addition to getting ridof unrelated ammendments, each and every bill should be read in its entirety to the assembled house/senate. Such readings only being valid while 75% of the members are present -- drop to 74% and its re-scheduled for reading. No bill passes without a full reading.
At the moment, most of your congress persons ever see a bill, its reviewed by their junior staff, and in many cases the vote is determined by their party, or by the size of the check from the real owners of the democratic process -- virtually never by any consideration for the idiots who put them there.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by msaavedra · 2005-09-27 09:22 · Score: 1

Perhaps the part that says the judicial branch interprets the law???

Which part is that? As far as I can tell, the Constitution never says anything about the Judicial Branch doing any interpreting. It is completely implicit. In fact, I think the whole idea of needing to "interpret" something in this sense (that is, searching for implicit meanings within a text) is a sort of post-modern thing that the framers of the Constitution wouldn't have given as much thought as academics do now.

--
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
Re:If something gets shot down once... by dwandy · 2005-09-27 09:47 · Score: 1

not being an american, it is one of the things i have found most perplexing about your legal system ...
shouldn't a law for Penguin Control at least be in a bill that is somehow related to penguins??

--
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Re:If something gets shot down once... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-27 10:27 · Score: 2, Informative

More like: They said "We aren't saying whether or not the Broadcast Flag has merit, we are merely saying that the FCC overstepped it's congressionally recognized powers by attempting to mandate such a flag to hardware manufacturers. The FCC's original position is that since it wasn't clearly defined that it DIDN'T have the power to makeup such mandates, that it was perfectly ok for it to do so.

It was a Good Thing (tm) in that it put the FCC in it's place and better defined what the FCC can not go out and arbitrarily decide, but the ruling did NOT make a determination on whether or not the Broadcast Flag itself was constitutional.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by Wild_dog! · 2005-09-27 10:37 · Score: 1

Well how about tacking on something that counters this to the same bill. That way it both passes and fails at the same time.
Stalemate!
Re:If something gets shot down once... by quantum+bit · 2005-09-27 11:22 · Score: 2, Funny

not being an american, it is one of the things i have found most perplexing about your legal system ... shouldn't a law for Penguin Control at least be in a bill that is somehow related to penguins??

Yes, it should, and it's asinine the way that the system is abused. Pisses me off to no end.

When I run for president in 2016, it's going to be on a strict "no-pork" platform. If there's even one unrelated rider, it gets vetoed, no matter how important the bill may be otherwise. No exceptions.

/no, I'm not kidding
//no, I don't actually expect to win, but what the hell
Re:If something gets shot down once... by Dachannien · 2005-09-27 12:00 · Score: 1

The last attempt was never *actually* attempted. Public outcry prevented it from being brought up in committee at all.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by antic · 2005-09-27 12:07 · Score: 1

The only thing that could be done to curtail this practice would be to require single-purpose bills that can't be loaded full of non-related crap.

It seems to me that the only time bills are attached to others, is to aid their passage when they would have otherwise not succeeded. Can someone tell me what advantages exist in allowing this and, if none, why it hasn't changed.

It just comes across, to me as someone foreign to the system, to be a really dodgy way to get things done.

--
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
Re:If something gets shot down once... by belmolis · 2005-09-27 13:12 · Score: 1

Yes, it should. Some states have constitutional requirements to this effect. For example, the Missouri constitution contains the requirement that:

No bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title...

Unfortunately, there is no such requirement in the federal constitution.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by Guppy06 · 2005-09-27 15:50 · Score: 1

The Constitution was written in plain language so that things like that can be interpreted with a minimum application of common sense.

"It says here in the Constitution 'Congress shall not,' but they just did. The Constitution also says 'I'm the supreme law of the land.' Who's job is it to decide whether a law agrees with the Constitution?" It was either that or the state courts (look up "state nullification").

The real problem is that the federal government has been expanded as far as common sense can allow, yet the people we like to put into office want it expanded even further (without going that pesky amendment process). "It says 'Congress regulates interstate commerce,' so we can make a federal law banning the sale and consumption of marijuana even if it doesn't cross state lines." "It says 'Congress can raise an army,' so we can forcibly conscript people into the federal army." "It says 'for a limited time,' so we can just extend the term of copyrights to more than a century so long as there's techincally a limit."

Why? Because we obviously want it. Just look at the poll numbers.
Re:If something gets shot down once... by MercuryMan2000 · 2005-09-27 16:09 · Score: 1

Yeah, I've lived in Oregon since 1989 and have voted down a state sales tax almost every year!
You would think that once we said "NO!" that would be the end of it, but it keeps coming back.....

Sort of like a horror movie!

--
Matt Anderson John 8:32

Say what? by lucabrasi999 · 2005-09-27 06:41 · Score: 5, Funny

smacked down in court

Hey! I saw that match! The Rock crushed the MPAA with the People's Elbow.

if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by yagu · 2005-09-27 06:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

From the post: This latest attempt involves tacking on an amendment to a budget reconciliation bill. Since reconciliation is about cutting spending--something that always sounds good--such legislation cannot be substantially changed by the Budget Committee once it is presented...

So, the MPAA is now taking the route on total non-representation. Their initial approach obviously was non-representational/non populist and of course they have their own greedy self-motivation. That's okay, you can petition the government for legislation, and for protection. But they lost that battle and now look to win the war with their own Trojan Horse, a virus if you will (how ironic). The thing I find MOST egregious and offensive about this is they are sneaking their agenda in under the radar in a bill totally unrelated to their issue and likely to be passed. Normally this is a technique to snag pork for legislators and representatives, a sleezy technique for allocating money. But this is more pernicious and evil -- where the intent is to screw the entire entertainment consuming public (virtually everyone). What a crock.

Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by nacturation · 2005-09-27 06:45 · Score: 1

As long as it benefits politicians as well, the odds of getting this "feature" of being able to tack anything onto an unrelated bill is going to stay in place. "Support the More Money for Education bill... (oh, and minorities no longer have rights). Think Of The Children!"

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by ivan256 · 2005-09-27 06:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

We need a constitutional amendment that disallows text in a law that doesn't fit the spirit of the law's title.

It would make for some amusing titles, and some great TV on CSPAN.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-27 06:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

The MPAA knows it works. One of their members already not only got a law this way, they get it re-approved with every new budget.

Disney got a law ORDERING the FAA to impose a no fly zone over Disneyland and Disney World into the Omnibus spending bill - the national budget. When the budget came up for renewal the two years thereafter Disney made sure this order stayed in it. Actually it came from Senator Hollings, "The Senator from Disney."

The ORDER was necessary because the FAA, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security said there was no threat to Mickey. No matter. Disney always wanted a way to keep banner tow planes away.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by bmongar · 2005-09-27 06:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Missouri actually has such a constitutional amendment. It was used to overturn the anti-stripper law last month.

--
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by Intron · 2005-09-27 07:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

We already know how well titles reflect the content:

"Patriot Act"
"Clear Skies"
"Medical Privacy Act"

The best-named recent bill was probably

"Can Spam"

--
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by wh33lz · 2005-09-27 07:06 · Score: 1

Actually, in the house, all amendments must be germane (on the subject of the pending bill or other business; a strict standard of relevance). This prevents such amendments from being introduced and creating "Christmas Tree Bills." Unfortunately, in the Senate, there is no such rule.

--
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist.." -Sedgwig
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by JBHarris · 2005-09-27 07:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

The article is extremely short on details. What senator (from what state?) introduced this bill?
What is the bill's title? Number?
How can I verify this article?
I will not write an email to my Senators unless I can present myself as an informed citizen.

This article is lite on 'information', therefore doesn't really inform me of anything.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by NewWorldDan · 2005-09-27 07:13 · Score: 1

Attaching this sort of crap to other bills ought to be illegal. That's why I live in Minnesota, where it is.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by PMuse · 2005-09-27 07:17 · Score: 1

But they lost that battle and now look to win the war with their own Trojan Horse, a virus if you will (how ironic). The thing I find MOST egregious and offensive about this is they are sneaking their agenda in under the radar in a bill totally unrelated to their issue and likely to be passed.

Every issue should have a separate up or down vote. Two constitutional amendments would help to acheive this end.

AMENDMENT A
Congress shall pass no law exceeding in length this Constitution.

AMENDMENT B
The President may disapprove any item of appropriation in any bill. If any bill is approved by the President, any item of appropriation contained therein which is not disapproved shall become law. The President shall return with his objections any item of appropriation disapproved to the House in which the bill containing such item originated. The Congress may, in the manner prescribed under section 7 of article I for bills disapproved by the President, reconsider any item disapproved under this article.

--
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by shane_rimmer · 2005-09-27 07:24 · Score: 1

You have that backwards.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by Apple+Acolyte · 2005-09-27 07:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

The House of Representatives actually has the capacity (that it routinely exercises) to make motions rejecting non-germane amendments to bills. In contrast, the Senate, which prefers to leave individual Senators as unencumbered as possible, lacks such a provision. And unfortunately, once riders are attached to reconciliation bills, they are likely there to stay unless the bill dies in conference (which happens often enough). For everyone's edification, it should be noted that pieces of Patriot Act II (a.k.a. the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003") were passed in a similarly surreptitious fashion by way of a Senate spending bill.

--
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by Politburo · 2005-09-27 07:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Sibling poster incorrectly points out that you have the Germane rule switched around. In any case, if I remember my Congressional Politics class correctly, the Chair gets to rule on the germaness of amendments. In effect, the germaneness rule only limits the minority party (typical of the House). The Supreme Court has routinely ruled that the Congress is free to set and interpret its own rules, so this action is not unconstitutional or illegal, just annoying.

There is a limited germaness rule in the Senate. My recollection is that amendments to appropriations bills must be germane.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by iabervon · 2005-09-27 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

The real problem is that the good guys play too fair. If the big media lobbies can get provisions into bills for things like the broadcast flag, why can't the other side get things in with the opposite effect? Just slip in an amendment requiring any station that uses a technological measure to restrict the use of content transmitted over the public airwaves to lose its license to the spectrum. Outlaw the sale of anything which includes technology that would block the recipient's right of first sale. There are plenty of measures which would effectively stop the **AA's ability to cause trouble, and it evidentally doesn't take much to get bills passed without general support.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by ArsonSmith · 2005-09-27 08:26 · Score: 1

Allow it but make congress vote on each line of a bill as required, accepted or rejected. This would be simliar to line item veto except it wouldn't give the power to the president it would distribute it through congress.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by pixelpusher220 · 2005-09-27 09:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

because there isn't any 'other side'. ALL members of congress are on the take from special interests and nobody is going to seriously propose stopping it. And even if they did, the rest come down HARD on anyone who even speaks out of line

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by DeepHurtn! · 2005-09-27 10:08 · Score: 1

...and it evidentally doesn't take much to get bills passed without general support.
That's where you're wrong: it takes lots and lots of money.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by gcauthon · 2005-09-27 10:36 · Score: 1

How about a rule? How about the Byrd Rule? Note one of the clauses in particular:
Byrd rule tests - Section 313(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act sets forth six tests for matters to be considered extraneous under the Byrd rule. The criteria apply to provisions that:

are outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
So unless the MPAA's broadcast flag is within the jurisdiction of the House Budget Committe, then this will be rejected (I hope).
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by Nethead · 2005-09-27 11:14 · Score: 1

Washington State has Section 19: BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT. No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

It's worked well for us for over a century.

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by ntk · 2005-09-27 11:21 · Score: 1

Yep, you're rightThe EFF piece is more a briefing on what we understand is going on behind closed doors right now. It's in the next few weeks that you'll see whether they decide to go ahead with this plan, and what will emerge.

It's more a head's up than a call to arms right now.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by mOdQuArK! · 2005-09-27 11:25 · Score: 1

While I applaud your motivation, I doubt your solutions would do anything useful, and would actually probably cause more of a problem.

Your A amendment is useless simply because a short law doesn't necessarily mean it's a good law, and/or does nothing to stop Congress from passing many more bills with all the pork they want.

Your B amendment merely shifts more legislative power to the President, which means that Congress will have to kowtow to the President's every desire if they want to get anything of theirs passed. I suppose if you have absolute trust the President's motivation & competence, then that'd be fine - but if you had THAT much trust, then you might as well go to a dictatorship.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by mOdQuArK! · 2005-09-27 11:38 · Score: 1

We need a constitutional amendment that disallows text in a law that doesn't fit the spirit of the law's title.

The basic problem with bill titles is that you don't have a disinterested 3rd-party examining the bill's contents & deciding on the title of the bill - instead you have the people with a vested interested in the bill's passage basically designing the bill's title for best marketing effect.

Not sure you can enforce a Constitutional amendment for something as vague as what you're suggesting. You'd probably be able to get rid of a LOT of shenanigans by just having very strong Balanced Budget Constitutional amendment - make sure that the Congresscritters are only allowed to spend whatever came in as tax revenue & whatever they managed to save from the last year. I can only imagine what kind of fights would break out if the Congresscritters actually had to think about where they were going to get the money for their pork.

A Constitutionally-mandated expiration requirement might be nice too...
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by shane_rimmer · 2005-09-27 12:00 · Score: 1

The rules of the House prohibit amendments of a subject matter different from the text under consideration. This rule, commonly known as the germaneness rule, is considered the single most important rule of the House of Representatives because of the obvious need to keep the focus of a body the size of the House on a predictable subject matter. The germaneness rule applies to the proceedings in the House, the Committee of the Whole, and the standing committees. There are hundreds of prior rulings or "precedents" on germaneness available to guide the Chair.

From here
Well, I think I certainly had that mixed up. Sorry about that.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by Dachannien · 2005-09-27 12:12 · Score: 1

From an e-mail Danny O'Brien sent me when I asked him pretty much the same question:
I was considering holding off on this post until we knew enough to be able to take some sort of action, but in the end felt it was better to give everyone a (longish) briefing as to what was gong on behind the scenes, and then push heavily when we finally see the language. I'd rather explain now, and push it into people's consciousness, than have to overexplain things later on.

There's a chance there'll be something to do as early as later this week: at the moment it's all behind doors.

So keep watching - more news is forthcoming. Hopefully it'll be good news.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by Guppy06 · 2005-09-27 16:30 · Score: 1

"We need a constitutional amendment that disallows text in a law that doesn't fit the spirit of the law's title."

Come on! Have you seen Congress' definition of "interstate commerce" lately? They won't change the law to fit the title, they'd simly modify the title to be sufficiently vague. "The Act to Protect Our Children." "The Child Protection Act." "The Protection of Children Act." "The Protection Act for Children." "The Feinstein-Hollings Child Protection Act."
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by Baricom · 2005-09-27 17:13 · Score: 1

I'm curious. Do you see any downside to wcdw's proposal? It seems like a pretty good idea to me.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by PMuse · 2005-09-28 06:25 · Score: 1

As variants on the idea of a line item veto, wcdw's proposal seems fine to me. The variant I put in the grandparent is just one way of coding a line item veto.

--
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by PMuse · 2005-09-28 06:55 · Score: 1

AMENDMENT A: Congress shall pass no law exceeding in length this Constitution.

In essence, this is a rule against unrelated amendments. Unrelated amendments prevent debating an idea on its merits. They are also the main method of passing pork. I suggest word count as the mechanism because it replaces the subjective arguments over what is or is not 'related' with an objective metric.

If forced to vote on their laws 10000* or so words at a time, legislators would have a much harder time explaining their voting records to their constituents. To be sure, one can pack more than one subject into 10000 words, but there are practical limits.

--
*The bare Constitution is ~4600 words and the Amendments add another ~6000 words. This length is selected because (1) it's a manageable size and (2) because the laws of today can't claim to be important enough to merit more words than were needed to design the whole system of government. By constrast, the omnibus budget bill passed in Nov 2004 was 3000 pages long and weighed 14 pounds.

--
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by PMuse · 2005-09-28 07:09 · Score: 1

Your B amendment merely shifts more legislative power to the President, which means that Congress will have to kowtow to the President's every desire if they want to get anything of theirs passed. I suppose if you have absolute trust the President's motivation & competence, then that'd be fine - but if you had THAT much trust, then you might as well go to a dictatorship.

I do not understand your objection. There is already a veto and a method of override for whole bills. This proposal would extend the same veto and method of override to line items in bills.

While it would without doubt reduce congress's ability to confound the president's existing veto power by wrapping many items into a conglomerate bill, it is a far cry from 'kowtowing', 'absolute trust', or 'dictatorship'. One can observe that from use of this proposal in several states already. Additionally, it is limited to spending items only, not other laws.

This amendment would address a systemic ill that encourages over spending. Electing a competent, honest president is a separate problem.

--
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by mOdQuArK! · 2005-09-28 16:56 · Score: 1

In essence, this is a rule against unrelated amendments. Unrelated amendments prevent debating an idea on its merits. They are also the main method of passing pork. I suggest word count as the mechanism because it replaces the subjective arguments over what is or is not 'related' with an objective metric.

I think it's too arbitrary a metric - the metric doesn't have anything directly to do with the goal of restricting unrelated amendments, and would encourage the kind of word-weaseling & loopholes that the legislature already has enough of. You'd get like laws that end up sounding like like "The detailed implementation of this law are described in the My-Favorite-Lobbyist Newsletter", or "All decisions having to do with this issue will be left up to the industry association". Both statements are well short of your word limit, but I think you'd agree don't constitute good law.

You'd probably also see the legal language strained & butchered as legislators try to fit things into the word limit, much like lazy students will destroy an essay to either try and make it meet a minimum or maximum # of words.

If you're looking for a systemic way of encouraging clarity & brevity (although it won't necessary solve the problems I listed previously), how about this: a legislator must propose the full text of the bill orally, and completely by memory. Amendment proposals must also restate the full modified law orally, and completely by memory. That kind of rule would encourage laws that are easier to remember, and might get rid of a few legislators whose brain cells have stopped functioning too well.
Re:if not legitimately, then by subterfuge by mOdQuArK! · 2005-09-28 17:16 · Score: 1

I do not understand your objection.

I don't understand why you think it's a good idea to give the President such a fine level of control over the legislative process. With a Constitutional line-item veto, the President could pretty much MAKE Congress do whatever he wanted, unless he pissed 2/3 of the Congress off enough so that they would override every single line-item veto he tried.

I think you'll agree that, regardless of how you feel about the current President, there have been Presidents in the past who were so aggressive about using their political power, that having a tool like a line-item veto ("if you don't vote the way I tell you to, your state will never see an ounce of federal money ever again") would have devastated the system of checks & balances (however clunky the current system is).

This amendment would address a systemic ill that encourages over spending.

If you want to address a systemic over-spending habit, and you're assuming that you can pass a Constitutional Amendment, then why aren't you considering a Balanced Budget Amendment? - basically, requiring that the government not be allowed to spend more than it has taken in through revenue or what it saved from a previous fiscal period.

As I stated before, I applaud your motivation, but your solutions seem to be very indirect ways of achieving your goals. If you assume that you can pass a Constitutional Amendment, then its power is pretty much absolute in the U.S. legal system (as long as it can be enforced) since it constrains all three branches of government. So you don't need to be indirect about your solutions - just pick a simple, enforceable solution. (See Prohibition for an example of a Constitutional Amendment which couldn't be enforced...

Open Ended by mysqlrocks · 2005-09-27 06:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

...Federal Communications Commission overstepped its authority in mandating that all consumer electronic devices capable of receiving digital television signals incorporate support for the flag, the media industry has been working on getting Congress to enact the flag.

Wow, all consumer devices capable of receiving digital television signals? That is very open ended legislation. I hope this only applies to over-the-air signals? Even so, I think it's too much.

--
Bradley Holt

Bill riders by lightyear4 · 2005-09-27 06:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Non-germane riders snuck into bills shall be the death of this country.

Re:Bill riders by aborchers · 2005-09-27 07:02 · Score: 1

Non-germane riders snuck into bills shall be the death of this country.

I think you meant to say not "shall be" but "have been".

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Re:Bill riders by Politburo · 2005-09-27 07:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Instead of blaming the legislative process, which has been virtually unchanged for over 200 years, why don't you blame the legislators?

The term "snuck into bills" is misleading. After a bill is reported out of committee, amendments must be offered on the floor during the Committee of the Whole. There's nothing secret or sneaky about it.
Re:Bill riders by lightyear4 · 2005-09-27 07:49 · Score: 1

When I wrote that riders are "snuck into bills," I meant every word of it. Riders can be slipped in at many points, especially during markup where a limited group of legislators are present. They are usually attached at odd hours as well, often late in a day when the floor is nearly empty.

The EFF action letters *MISS THE POINT* by ivan256 · 2005-09-27 06:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

When you write to your representatives and senators, be sure to include the key point that the EFF leaves out:

These laws, when combined with the DMCA, take power away from congress and give it to anybody. Corporations, and individuals alike. Even if they're not US citizens or US based. Congress should reserve the power to grant rights for intellectual property creators for themselves, instead of giving a blank law-making check to content industries.

Make sure you tell your congresspeople that they are giving power reserved for them by the Constitution to whomever wants to wield it.

Re:The EFF action letters *MISS THE POINT* by garcia · 2005-09-27 06:54 · Score: 1, Troll

Congress should reserve the power to grant rights for intellectual property creators for themselves, instead of giving a blank law-making check to content industries.

What Congress *should* do and what the conglomorates pay them to do are two different things.
Re:The EFF action letters *MISS THE POINT* by fliplap · 2005-09-27 07:42 · Score: 1

Or, spend some time writing your own letter (takes me all of 5 minutes). When I send mail to my rep, through house.gov, I automatically get this:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me on an issue of importance to you.

Please know that I value all letters my office receives. They allow me to better understand the concerns of the people I represent. Unfortunately, due the ease with which electronic mail, postcards and fax machines allow for the generation of "form" letters, some drafted by a third party, I no longer have the resources to respond to those communications. However, be assured that I review a copy of every form letter my office receives and I will continue to respond to letters sent by constituents who have written a personal correspondence.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.

Sincerely,

ED PASTOR
Member of Congress
Re:The EFF action letters *MISS THE POINT* by ivan256 · 2005-09-27 07:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

My representative isn't so kind to justify my messages with an automated response, but I got the following from Senators Kerry and Kennedy last week:

---

September 27,
2005

[My home address edited out]

Dear Mr. Baboval:

Thank you for contacting me. I
appreciate that you took the time to write
and am glad to hear your concerns. Your
message has been forwarded to the
appropriate staff in my Senate office. I
take into account the correspondence my
office receives. However, due to the amount
of email we receive we are unable to respond
individually to each message.
Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry
United States Senator

----

Thank you for your message. Hearing from people like you is important because it allows me to better understand the constituents that I serve in the United States Senate.
As you can imagine, my office receives a great number of messages every day regarding a variety of issues - this is particularly true of e-mails. It makes me proud to know that my constituents take an active role in our government by corresponding with me, and I look forward to responding to your concerns in greater detail. In the meantime, I just wanted to let you know that your e-mail has been received, and to ask for your patience until I send you a more detailed response.
Again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to visit my website http://kennedy.senate.gov/ to follow my work in the Senate and to learn more about the services my office can provide to you.
Warmest regards

Ted Kennedy

----

That's why I typically both e-mail, and then send a hard copy through the USPS. I never use the canned text from some form letter (though I may use bits and pieces of it).
Re:The EFF action letters *MISS THE POINT* by ivan256 · 2005-09-27 08:19 · Score: 1

I know it was automated. That's what I was saying.

Not surprising. by laughingcoyote · 2005-09-27 06:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Only slightly off topic-does anyone else find the fact that Congress is allowed to "bundle" legislation like this distasteful? Shouldn't each up or down vote be on -one- thing, without all these ridiculous "riders" attached?

Back to the subject-it is indeed also important to contact broadcasters, and possibly the MPAA itself, and make sure they know you won't be watching, and why. And then stick to it. It's not like there's a whole lot worthwhile on TV anyway, and they'll continue to attempt to ram this thing through Congress unless it's made to hit 'em in the wallet.

--
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.

Re:Not surprising. by Fnord666 · 2005-09-27 06:51 · Score: 1

Like the old saying goes, anyone who has any respect for the law or for sausage should never see either one of them being made.

--
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Re:Not surprising. by E8086 · 2005-09-27 07:56 · Score: 1

"does anyone else find the fact that Congress is allowed to "bundle" legislation like this distasteful?"

That was allowed to save time, for the first few decades Congress didn't have that much to do, then as the number of Congressmen slowly increased to 435 it became easier to combine similar proposals, "similar" was lost over the years. Now there is the unfortunate practice of trading votes for pet projects, the pork barrel. And of course there are those owned by industries, Hatch of Utah, who will gladly attempt to sneak shady bills into a larger one that is guaranteed to pass, say the RealID into a military spending bill. Or broadcast flag inot a hurricane relief bill. It's up to the subcomm gatekeepers to keep out the trash and only allow similar useful legislation to be attached, but that doesn't always happen. The line item veto was an attempt to allow the President to strike select items in the bill before signing the rest, but that was to reduce spending, I don't know the dollar amount thet'd put on the Broadcast flag, it only lasted a year.

--
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Re:Not surprising. by object88 · 2005-09-27 08:11 · Score: 1

Only slightly off topic-does anyone else find the fact that Congress is allowed to "bundle" legislation like this distasteful?

Yes. Very much so. It muddles the entire process.

Timing is right by smchris · 2005-09-27 06:44 · Score: 2, Funny

Now's the time to tack it onto a Katrina spending bill. Republican and Democrat alike will be _forced_ to vote for it "for the children," blah, blah.

Re:Timing is right by ImaLamer · 2005-09-27 06:50 · Score: 1

Now's the time to tack it onto a Katrina spending bill. Republican and Democrat alike will be _forced_ to vote for it "for the children," blah, blah.

What a horrible, badly timed troll! Especially in light of all the money we are sending out the back door to the president's pet project: Iraq.

Besides, your view isn't realistic. Senators, Republican senators mostly, have already said they won't spend money to rebuild New Orleans. Senators as far away as Alaska have been fighting the idea that we even feed any of these people. You think the Katrina spending bill will get rammed through, but it won't go through as fast as defense spending bills have been pushed through in the past few years.

--
Get your Unix fortune now!
Re:Timing is right by object88 · 2005-09-27 07:24 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Now's the time to tack it onto a Katrina spending bill. Republican and Democrat alike will be _forced_ to vote for it

Perhaps you think you're making a joke? Sadly, you're not too far off the mark. Lots of vitally important government spending is being cut to make room for (needed) Katrina money. I'm not saying that we shouldn't dump boatloads of money into the rebuilding process, but rather that we need to seriously look at where it's coming from. (I'd start with recalling Bush's tax cuts for the upper 1%.) MoveOn.org has the details... this is a snippet from an email (editted for layout):

The excess the Republicans' proposed cuts is almost unbelievable. You can read the full proposal here. Here are just some of the most egregious cuts:
$225 billion cut from Medicaid, the last-resort health insurance program for the very poor.
$200 billion cut from Medicare, the health care safety net for the elderly and the disabled.
$25 billion cut from the Centers for Disease Control
$6.7 billion cut from school lunches for poor children
$7.5 cut from programs to fight global AIDS
$5.5 billion to eliminate all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
$3.6 billion cut to eliminate the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities
$8.5 billion cut to eliminate all subsidized loans to graduate students.
$2.5 bullion cut from Amtrak
$2.5 billion to eliminate the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
$417 million cut to eliminate the Minority Business Development Agency
$4.8 billion cut to eliminate all funding for the Safe and Drug-Free schools program And the list goes on and on.

The NY Times also has coverage.

This is something that needs attention from our (sorry to non-US /.ers) house and senate representatives. MoveOn has an online petition, but I'd highly recommend calling your representatives directly. You can find your senator and represenatives (with your zip code) online.
Re:Timing is right by Suzumushi · 2005-09-27 09:24 · Score: 1

Again this is off topic, and not to sound insensitive, but I'm astounded at the amount of money that was being spent/wasted on those projects! It's obvious that the money spent on those projects was ill-managed. It saddens me to think that we were spending billions of dollars fruitlessly on those programs and now we are going to spend billions to reconstruct a town below sea level...Maybe the problem isn't how much were spending, but HOW we are spending it. Oh, and I got a tax cut, but I didn't know that I was in the top 1% Yippee! Lucky me! Here I thought I was lower middle class and all...
Re:Timing is right by smchris · 2005-09-27 10:19 · Score: 1

Troll? Sir, you aren't nearly cynical enough for the real world.

1. Weird stuff gets tacked onto legislation all the time. And you generally just notice the stuff that floats to the top. Get yourself a subscription to the Federal Register and perhaps your state registers. You'll want to wear Depends reading them after you see the amazing proposals in committee hearings that _don't_ "quite" make it through each and every session.

2. Who says a disaster bill has to do anything to benefit the populace in general much less New Orleans in particular? They can _say_ it's "for the children" in front of the TV cameras while it is really a Halliburton contract to repair oil rigs, can't they? Are you saying the children don't deserve oil, citizen? Well, are you?

3. The reason Alaska in particular is bitching is because they don't want to give up the money for their 200+ million pork barrel bridge project to 50 people and they're getting testy about the ridicule.

4. Iraq spending/Katrina spending: what's the difference? As long as it is a no-bid contract to Halliburton, it's all good. And as long as it's just promissory notes to China, it isn't like the interest is costing us much, is it?

"The question isn't whether you're paranoid. The question is whether you're paranoid _enough_." -- Strange Days
Re:Timing is right by ImaLamer · 2005-09-28 07:14 · Score: 1

No, see I disagree with the entire KBR/Halliburton rebuilding deal. The Iraq contracts should show you why, it doesn't even have much to do with Cheney.

However I thought you were attacking the idea that tax money should flow towards these areas. That isn't true - but they should go to smaller contractors.

Want to stimulate the economy? Invite people from around the country to participate in bids for building projects. The housing boom is just over and we have talent and people waiting for work.

--
Get your Unix fortune now!

why is it... by MooseTick · 2005-09-27 06:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why is it that the people who seem to complain about this are the ones who also complain about there being nothing good to watch on TV? If there isn't anything good, then why do you care if they put in a flag that prevents you from doing something with someone else's content that they paid to create and distribute?

Is the problem that you could do whatever you wanted in the past with that content, and now that the owner is technically capable of excerising their right to control the distribution of their works it isn't fair?

--
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs

Re:why is it... by Hope+Thelps · 2005-09-27 06:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Why is it that the people who seem to complain about this are the ones who also complain about there being nothing good to watch on TV?

Could you cite stats on that or at least give examples of, say, a dozen specific people?

TIA.

--
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Re:why is it... by d34thm0nk3y · 2005-09-27 07:12 · Score: 1

Why is it that the people who seem to complain about this are the ones who also complain about there being nothing good to watch on TV? If there isn't anything good, then why do you care if they put in a flag that prevents you from doing something with someone else's content that they paid to create and distribute?

Just because I am not excersizing all of my rights this very instant does not mean I wish to give them away.
Re:why is it... by arkanes · 2005-09-27 07:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let me make a comparison. I'm not gay and have no interest whatsoever in homosexual pornography. But I would fight against a law forbidding it.
Similarly, though I have no real desire to tape shows off TV, I have a very real desire to preserve my right to do so.
Re:why is it... by gr8_phk · 2005-09-27 07:17 · Score: 1

"Is the problem that you could do whatever you wanted in the past with that content, and now that the owner is technically capable of excerising their right to control the distribution of their works it isn't fair?"
Good thing I don't have mod points, or you wouldn't get an explanation - just a Troll rating. The reason is that they don't actually have a "right to control the distribution of their works". Please site the part of copyright law that says so if that's what you think. They also don't have a legal right to stop me from recording broadcasts. The Sony case confirms my right to record shows for later viewing. The broadcast flag gives them a new right, while taking one away from the public.
On another note, I don't like most of what's on TV, but there are occasionally things that I'd like to watch and sometimes record. It's currently my right to do so. Why don't you think I should be upset when an industry wants to take away my rights by sneaking this through on the back of a totally unrelated bill?
Re:why is it... by UtucXul · 2005-09-27 07:39 · Score: 1

Why is it that the people who seem to complain about this are the ones who also complain about there being nothing good to watch on TV? If there isn't anything good, then why do you care if they put in a flag that prevents you from doing something with someone else's content that they paid to create and distribute?
I happen to like a lot of things on TV and think this is horrible, unjust, and dangerous. And, this type of flag will be used to prevent me from using something I paid for (my TiVo for example) the way I want to. If people are so afraid of someone watching or taping their content, maybe they just shouldn't ever broadcast or distribute it at all. That should keep it nice and safe without trampling on everyone else.
Re:why is it... by cpt+kangarooski · 2005-09-27 08:24 · Score: 2, Informative

The reason is that they don't actually have a "right to control the distribution of their works". Please site the part of copyright law that says so if that's what you think.

You mean 17 USC 106(3)?

They also don't have a legal right to stop me from recording broadcasts.

You mean 17 USC 106(1)?

The Sony case confirms my right to record shows for later viewing.

No it doesn't. It basically says that it's ok sometimes, and it indicates that it's difficult for copyright holders to demonstrate instances where it's not ok.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:why is it... by gr8_phk · 2005-09-27 09:01 · Score: 1

Yes, my mistake on distribution. Distribution is like sales, and they certainly have the right to do that. They don't have a right to control my use of stuff after they've given it to me though. Broadcasting is like distribution.
The industry does not have a right to stop my recording (they are not law enforcement, much as they'd like to be). The only valid question is weather I have a right to record or not. And if it's hard for them to "demonstrate instances where it's not ok" then why should we put them in charge of making that decision?
The answer to the original question remains the same: the public is going to lose the ability to do something they presently can (legally) do - that's why they are upset. Also, the people who watch the least television are the ones who need a recorder the most. If someone watches all the time, they know what's on and when. An infrequent viewer might hear about something cool that's going to be on ONCE, and set the Tivo or VCR to make sure he doesn't miss it. That's the veiwer the industry is going to lose with the broadcast flag. OTOH, if it's on tape he may skip the commercials - in which case they may not care if they lose that viewer.
That's really the main benefit I see for the industry. If you have to watch it live, you can't skip the commercials. I personally mute commercials a lot on certain channels because they are so darn loud - mute is simpler than adjusting the volume correctly. Is that next? It'll be illegal to manufacture televisions with a mute button? Oh, and once you leave a channel, you're not allowed to come back until the next show starts? Actually, that would help me a lot - I could only flip through them all once and then I'd just have to turn it off...
Re:why is it... by bigpat · 2005-09-27 09:16 · Score: 1

Why is it that the people who seem to complain about this are the ones who also complain about there being nothing good to watch on TV? If there isn't anything good, then why do you care if they put in a flag that prevents you from doing something with someone else's content that they paid to create and distribute?

Don't forget that this law applies to manufacturers of electronic equipment, not individuals who might be doing the copying. Essentially it will require them to disable certain features of their product when this flag is detected in the signal. It may or may not be technologically hard to do, but it does mean that more lawyers will be involved with product design than before.
Re:why is it... by 91degrees · 2005-09-27 10:00 · Score: 1

Is the problem that you could do whatever you wanted in the past with that content, and now that the owner is technically capable of excerising their right to control the distribution of their works it isn't fair?

Yes.

I had certain legal rights before. I still have certain legal rights. The broadcast flag may prevent me from excercising some of these rights. I quite like these rights.
Re:why is it... by cpt+kangarooski · 2005-09-27 10:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Broadcasting is like distribution.

No, broadcasting is a transmission of a performance or display. Distribution can't be done by broadcast alone.

The industry does not have a right to stop my recording (they are not law enforcement, much as they'd like to be).

First, what's law enforcement got to do with anything? Copyright is more a civil matter than a criminal one. Second, they do have that right; the question is whether you have a defense that allows you to do so anyway.

And if it's hard for them to "demonstrate instances where it's not ok" then why should we put them in charge of making that decision?

They aren't; the courts make the decision.

Personally, I oppose this, but it does no good to misunderstand just how bad the law is right now.

--
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re:why is it... by chgros · 2005-09-27 10:14 · Score: 1

Let me make a comparison. I'm not gay and have no interest whatsoever in homosexual pornography. But I would fight against a law forbidding it.
As Voltaire said (pardon my French :) ):
"Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites mais je me battrai jusqu'à la
mort pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire."
("I don't agree with what you say, but I'll fight to death for you to be allowed to say it")
Re:why is it... by gr8_phk · 2005-09-28 05:03 · Score: 1

"And if it's hard for them to "demonstrate instances where it's not ok" then why should we put them in charge of making that decision?"
They aren't; the courts make the decision.
The broadcast flag will take that decision from the courts and hand it to broadcasters. They will decide when it's OK and when it's not OK to record something.

Neat juxtiposition on the Main Page by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-09-27 06:46 · Score: 1

Broadcast flag coming back, followed quickly by BitTorrent getting venture capital (Mysterious future- if you're not a subscriber you'll see it soon). I guess my question is- what are they going to do with all of those digital tuners the don't pay any attention to the Broadcast Flag?

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Neat juxtiposition on the Main Page by Shakrai · 2005-09-27 07:43 · Score: 1

I guess my question is- what are they going to do with all of those digital tuners the don't pay any attention to the Broadcast Flag?

It will just be illegal to sell them. Can you find a new VCR that ignores Macrovision these days?

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Neat juxtiposition on the Main Page by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-09-27 08:16 · Score: 1

It will just be illegal to sell them. Can you find a new VCR that ignores Macrovision these days?

I don't know- I buy most of my consumer electronics used. I can find plenty of them that do so at the pawn shops...heck, I can still find beta players at Value Village- I even saw a three-eye projection TV set there a few months ago.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

So are they going to set the "evil bit" also? by Hulkster · 2005-09-27 06:47 · Score: 4, Funny

Per the RFC

Re:So are they going to set the "evil bit" also? by Agelmar · 2005-10-11 07:37 · Score: 1

I realize that the parent post is a joke, but for those who do not / did not know about the Evil Bit proposal, and may be infuriated that such a seemingly idiotic proposal is out there: Please note that the proposal date is 1 April (April Fool's). Don't get all uptight about the linked to 'Evil Bit RFC', it too is a +1 Funny type thing.

"budget reconciliation" != "cut spending" by dada21 · 2005-09-27 06:48 · Score: 4, Informative

When you call your representative, you should be aware of the following:

Congress has made a law that allows a certain increase in budgetary line items per year without calling it an increase. I'm not sure what that allowed percentage is, but if they allow 7% and only raise an item 6%, they can legally say they LOWERED that item's budget!

Our budget includes Social Security receipts but not complete payments. We've never had a truly balanced budget in decades.

Our budget is allowed emergency appropriations that can include money for any pork project as long as "emergency" is in the bill's title.

108th Congress Analysis what a scam!

Re: "budget reconciliation" != "cut spending" by Castar · 2005-09-27 07:28 · Score: 1

Hmm. I think this is slightly offtopic (since the Broadcast Flag doesn't really _actually_ have anything to do with funding), but I can think of a possible reason things work that way: If the budget increase doesn't keep up with inflation, then in real terms the budget actually has decreased.

This may not be the case, depending on the actual percentages, but that's one justification I can think of.

Regardless of the financial stuff, I think it's pretty awful that something totally unrelated to budgetting like the broadcast flag can be cloaked in that sort of bill, not to mention the fact that corporations can even *attempt* to write laws for us. There's obviously a lot of rotten stuff going on in the US government.

--
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Re: "budget reconciliation" != "cut spending" by bleckywelcky · 2005-09-27 08:25 · Score: 1

I realize the point of such increases without calling them increases would be to keep up with inflation. However, the point still remains, only in congress could an increase in a budget be called a decrease. Sheesh.
Re: "budget reconciliation" != "cut spending" by dada21 · 2005-09-27 08:40 · Score: 1

Which is why I constantly say campaign finance reform won't work; we need Congressional Power reform.

You cannot blame a corporation for taking advantage. The people keep voting these offenders in, mandating everyngad law.
Re: "budget reconciliation" != "cut spending" by dada21 · 2005-09-27 09:36 · Score: 1

I've explained this before, LRC is a site that combines 50+ unique authors in one pool. Many of my favorite researchers have joined LRC recently, killing their own sites off. Plus LRC works on my PDA (my sole browser).

As for States seceding before Lincoln won office, huh?

November 6, 1860: Lincoln wins election
December 20, 1860: S. Carolina secedes
January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes
January 10, 1861: Florida secedes
January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes
January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes
January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes
February 7, 1861: Choctaw Nation secedes
March 2, 1861: Texas secedes
March 4, 1861: Lincoln Inaugurated
March 16, 1861: Arizona secedes
May 6, 1861: Arkansas secedes
May 20, 1861: N. Carolina secedes
May 23, 1861: Virginia secedes
June 8, 1861: Tennessee secedes
October 31, 1861: Missouri secedes
November 20, 1861: Kentucky secedes

The man who runs on a pro-tariff ticket wins and a month later secession begins.
Re: "budget reconciliation" != "cut spending" by idonthack · 2005-09-27 10:03 · Score: 1

GP said "in office", not "won office".
You said yourself that Lincoln's inauguration was March 4, 1861. 8 states seceded before that, 7 after. That's about half.

(Hint: You're not actually in office until you're inaugurated)

--
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
Re: "budget reconciliation" != "cut spending" by dada21 · 2005-09-27 10:20 · Score: 1

I know :) I was just attempting to show that his lack of links but utilization of a provable fact is misleading. The timing of the secession had little to do with when he was inaugurated, more to do with his big election platform and his election win.

He called me out on my links, but I reviewed my posts and found them to be valid. I'll start quoting snippets of each link from now on :)
Re: "budget reconciliation" != "cut spending" by Arandir · 2005-09-27 18:53 · Score: 1

It gets worse when you talk to the special interests. If one bill increases spending five billion and another increases it four billion, and the second will be escoriated as a heartless attempt by Republicans to starve [children|elderly|poor] for the benefit of the wealthiest 1%. It doesn't matter if it's after-school sports or New Orleans levees, if not every dollar asked for is approved then it's an intolerable budget cut.

p.s. Not that I'm defending Republicans. Their mantra of "small government" went out the window the instant they got control over all three branches of government. Sheesh.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re: "budget reconciliation" != "cut spending" by idonthack · 2005-09-29 10:25 · Score: 1

I got your point. I just felt like pointing out that he wasn't technically wrong, and you weren't technically right :)

--
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?

My solution by vanyel · 2005-09-27 06:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

...I think that whenever a device includes broadcast flag support, there should be the option to block any program that includes it. If they don't want me to watch their show, then I don't want to watch it.

Re:My solution by Medevo · 2005-09-27 06:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

I like your idea, but only if there is some way to make me NOT PAY for the content.

Currently, the bundles that cable/satellite offer smack similar to how CD's work, there is a couple good channels in each price increase, along with lots of stuff I don't want (one hit wonder songs and filler).

TV is still trying to hold onto the fact that unless you buy a outrageously priced DVD of LAST SEASON, you are forced to pay for content you don't want. The BBC is going to start moving to a simultaneous release model (online and on air, but people think the online will either have DRM, have commercials, or just be some fancy streaming) for some of its bigger downloaded shows like Dr Who.

Medevo
Re:My solution by Se7enLC · 2005-09-27 08:07 · Score: 1

a great idea, except they are going to put it on all the shows you WANT to watch. Feel free to record and distribute all the infomercials and news segments you want, but anything entertaining like a movie or series television program will be flagged as "do not record" or "do not keep recording > 1 week" or something equally totalitarian.
Re:My solution by vanyel · 2005-09-27 08:56 · Score: 1

Good. I watch too much as it is...and then they'll wonder where everyone went...

So who should we call? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-27 06:49 · Score: 1, Interesting

It says senate reconcilliation bill, but says "call your congressman". Should we call our senators or house member?

Re:So who should we call? by Red+Flayer · 2005-10-11 02:13 · Score: 1

A Senator is a congressman.

Congress is composed of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Both a Senator and a Representative can be called a Congressman, but Senators prefer to be addressed as "Senator so-and-so" while many Representatives prefer to be called "Congressman so-and-so," -- this leaves open the possibility that that they could be a member of the upper house, which helps with impressing people.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai

Totally inappropriate by millennial · 2005-09-27 06:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is the same sort of thing that got the REAL ID act passed. It's totally inappropriate, and it's a hijacking of the true democratic process. Irrelevant riders simply should NOT be allowed on bills.

--
I am scientifically inaccurate.

How long... by Deathbane27 · 2005-09-27 06:51 · Score: 1

...until some brave independent slips an amendment about terrorism, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, or some other hotbutton issue onto an unrelated bill, so that congress as a whole will wake up, get pissed, and make this sort of bill amending illegal?

Heck, why not use this unrelated amendment attaching tactic to pass the no-unrelated-amendment-attaching law itself?

Yeah, I know it will never work. Congress doesn't give their power tools away. Unless corporations ask for them.

--
If it ain't broke, it needs more features!

Re:How long... by gcatullus · 2005-09-27 06:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

This has already happened, witness the "Real ID Act". Ostensibly to streamline drivers' licenses, this act is described as "To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.' It was attached to HR 1268, which was a nescessary spending bill to fund troops in Iraq. No one has woke up yet it apears.

Not Parental Control - Copyright Enforcement by Mr+Guy · 2005-09-27 06:52 · Score: 5, Informative

This isn't to let you block "Debbie Does Backdoor Prison Slut Vixxxens 7", it's to let the people broadcasting the SuperBowl enforce their "right" to prevent you from rewinding to rewatch a play, or CBS to enforce their "right" for you to watch CSI only once and then find it in syndicate or buy the DVD if you want to watch the episode again. It's HBO enforcing their "right" to prevent you from taping "Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy" off HBO, or Comcast preventing you from recording something off pay per view.

This has nothing to do with your rights. This has everything with broadcasters trying to sell the same content more than once, and preventing you from keeping what they've broadcast.

--
Never confuse volume with power.

Re:Not Parental Control - Copyright Enforcement by Kenja · 2005-09-27 07:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Ah, my bad. I get all the crap their trying to get passed as law mixed up sometimes. Still, all they need to do to stop people from trying to record their content is to make it not worth watching even once. Seems to be working well enough.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Re:Not Parental Control - Copyright Enforcement by cloudkiller · 2005-09-27 07:57 · Score: 2

Maybe I should introduce a 'conversation flag' bill. Then when someone talks about something I produce, let's just say I produce the super bowl, I can fine them for infringing upon my intellectual property. My motto can be something like, "I'm all for you enjoying the game, just keep that enjoyment to yourself." Hell I could probably fine people for cheering at a game. Their cheering might alert people on the streets, people who did not pay to see the game, that something cool just happened like the home team just won the game. If they know the outcome, how can I sell the game again?

--
[an error occurred while processing this sig]
Re:Not Parental Control - Copyright Enforcement by Jester1023 · 2005-09-27 08:25 · Score: 1

...This has everything with broadcasters trying to sell the same content more than once...
CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI:New York, Law and Order, Law and Order: SVU, Law and Order: CI...
I think they're succeeding.
Re:Not Parental Control - Copyright Enforcement by wiredlogic · 2005-09-27 08:55 · Score: 1

Remember that HBO is not a broadcaster. Neither are most of the channels carried on cable and satellite television. They can do anything they want with their signal and collude with hardware and media conglomerates to restrict viewing anyway they want because they don't brodcast an unscrambled/encrypted signal over the public airwaves.

The FCC only has jurisdiction over the content and format of terrestrial broadcasting. This is the local broadcast networks only.

Given the special exemptions the FCC has given to the transmission of "indecent" material on old-school satellite (provided its scrambled) I would expect them to look the other way if a cable or satellite system implemented a broadcast flag on their own.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.

Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! by brian0918 · 2005-09-27 06:52 · Score: 1

The phrase "worst natural disaster in history" is often stated by those who have little actual knowledge of history. It would appear that this case is no different.

How can by ericdano · 2005-09-27 06:52 · Score: 1, Interesting

How can they tack on this crap? Why can't they just pass laws/bills that do what they are supposed to do? I can't understand how Demos/Repubs can get away with this. It's like in California where we have one guy getting his gay marriage bill pushed through without having it put up for a vote by the people......

And then they wonder why we think politicians suck....

--
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--

Re:How can by Temsi · 2005-09-27 08:32 · Score: 1

It's like in California where we have one guy getting his gay marriage bill pushed through without having it put up for a vote by the people......

And then they wonder why we think politicians suck....

Actually, gay marriage was put up for a vote by the people, and the people said no.
However, when the issue is a constitutional issue, an up or down vote by the people doesn't matter. E.g. if the people voted YES on a law that limited freedom of speech, the law wouldn't stick just because people voted on it. The Supreme Court would strike it down as unconstitutional. That's what's supposed to happen with the gay marriage issue, the bans need to get struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, but seeing how far right the courts are being stacked, I don't see that happening any time soon.

--
-- This sig for rent.
Re:How can by Guuge · 2005-09-27 15:38 · Score: 1

And then they wonder why we think politicians suck....

They do? I've never heard anyone defend the integrity of politicians in general.

It's too painful to defend these guys by Prospero's+Grue · 2005-09-27 06:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

You know, I'm a believer in copyright, and the rights of the copyright owners to make a living from their works - and I've been in more than a few debates in the on-line world where my opinion has been decidedly unpopular.

I've gotta say, though, over time I've been getting more and more quiet - and less inclined to defend the point-of-view of the *AA, whose positions I respected (even if I disagreed with many of their tactics).

I'm already at the point where I'm beginning to fully support DRM-cracking tools and software. They're becoming the only tools consumers have to defend their legitimate rights.

--
The opinion above is fiction. Any similarity to real opinions, including facts and logic, is purely coincidental.

Re:It's too painful to defend these guys by garcia · 2005-09-27 07:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm already at the point where I'm beginning to fully support DRM-cracking tools and software. They're becoming the only tools consumers have to defend their legitimate rights.

That's because people ignored the eroison of rights all along. It won't be until it's too late that the public will come to their senses and realize the Constitutional attrocities that have been committed under their noses all these years.

Just wait, when TVs no longer work because the media conglomorates can't determine if you are using a computer or an old TV to watch the content then people will finally get pissed off enough to care.

Until then, everyone will just stare at their TVs and laugh and cry when told to.
Re:It's too painful to defend these guys by E8086 · 2005-09-27 08:19 · Score: 1

"I'm already at the point where I'm beginning to fully support DRM-cracking tools and software. They're becoming the only tools consumers have to defend their legitimate rights."

I'm pleased to hear that more people are noticing that we are increasingly having to do something illegal to exercise our legal rights. When we buy something on a digital medium we are allowed a backup copy, a good thing since we know how fragile floppies and CDs/DVDs are. But thanks to the DMCA and the **AAs decision to encrypt/copy protect the items we've purchased we have to bypass that encryption violating the DMCA to use our fair use rights of the backup copy.

"I'm a believer in copyright, and the rights of the copyright owners to make a living from their works"

I think the words artists and copyright holder need to be further separated. It is increasingly the case that in an attempt to make a living off thier work they are forced to sign over the copyright to the record labels are a used as marketing tools making maybe a few thousand a year while the record company, now having ownership of the work and the artist, takes all the profits. All the "help the artists" marketing is a bunch of BS, they are the only ones who can help the artists by increasing the value of the contracts and not forcing them to forfeit their copyright ownership.

DRM is the thing that takes things that should work together and makes them not work. The DMCA encourages more anti-competition monopolistic behavior between companies than it "defends copyright".

--
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Re:It's too painful to defend these guys by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2005-09-27 08:28 · Score: 1

It won't be until it's too late that the public will come to their senses and realize the Constitutional attrocities that have been committed under their noses all these years.

Will this be before or after hell reaches absolute zero?

--
May the Maths Be with you!

Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-09-27 06:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

What the hell are you talking about? CNN.Com is still on Katrina- and word is that *maybe* the dead will hit 2000 once they find them all, certainly NOT the 20,000 many feared. Rita had a death toll in the hundreds. Certainly not the worst natural disaster in history- or even this year, as the Indian Ocean Tsunami took 100,000 lives.

I'm not saying it wasn't bad- and I've got my own wishes for persecution of government officials, both local and federal, for their crimes against the people during this disaster. But it doesn't help very much claiming that it happened today or 20,000 people died.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Dont see why this is needed. by Castar · 2005-09-27 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Broadcast flag isn't for people to block content they don't want to see. It's for companies to mark content they don't want you to be able to record.

Which, when you look at their public attitudes, has to be "everything". The only thing I can see them allowing is sports events and news. I'm sure they don't want to miss out on possible revenue from DVD versions of TV shows.

--
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.

Re:Dont see why this is needed. by WormholeFiend · 2005-09-27 06:54 · Score: 1

First they came for not suitable viewing material and I said nothing because I don't watch...

Oh wait!

Why are they allowed to do this? by junster2 · 2005-09-27 06:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why is an ammendment allowed on a bill that has nothing to do with the original bill?

I wish we had line item veto at the national level. It would keep crap like this from ever seeing the light of day.

If you can't pass a law without being sneeking behind peoples backs, you should really rethink your usefulness within society.

Re:Why are they allowed to do this? by ebrandsberg · 2005-09-27 07:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Personally, I think there should be an ammendment to the constitution that would disallow that, one vote by congress, ONE fundamental thing they are voting on--if they can't summarize what the vote is about in spirit completely in a single page document, then chances are there is pork and hidden provisions tucked away in stuff like this. If a court finds that a provision in a bill is not at least summarized in the one page summary, then that provision should be struck down.
Re:Why are they allowed to do this? by wh33lz · 2005-09-27 07:11 · Score: 1

They tried the line item veto once- then found it was unconstitutional. Besides- do you think "W" would stop a bill that would help big business?

--
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist.." -Sedgwig
Re:Why are they allowed to do this? by Phanatic1a · 2005-09-27 07:48 · Score: 1

Why is an ammendment allowed on a bill that has nothing to do with the original bill?

How do you determine "nothing to do with"?

I mean, sure, you can find two cases that *obviously* have nothing to do with, but what about all the other cases? The last Federal highway bill included several million for IRS tax code enforcement. Does that have nothing to do with the bill, or is it justified by the fact that the IRS folks who enforce tax code use the highways?

Silly example, but you get my point: to prevent this, you'd need a Constitutional amendment, and the language in it would need to be pretty damned legalistic, intricate, and specific, to define a specific level of "nothing to do with" beyond which amendments may not attach.

Seems to be that this "problem," such as it is, could be solved by simply enforcing the Constitution we currently *have*. I see nowhere in the Constitution where the legislature is given the power to pass this sort of law, to tell manufacturers of hardware that they must manufacture their hardware in a particular way. Hell, I don't see why the design of a television is any less a creative endeavour than the design of a sculpture, so such a law would seem to be a violation of the creator's First Amendment rights in the first place.

Worrying about the specific legislative process by which Congress passes a law that is fundamentally unconstitutional seems to be placing focus on the wrong problem entirely.
Re:Why are they allowed to do this? by Maxo-Texas · 2005-09-27 08:11 · Score: 1

Not necessarily.

You could avoid the legalese by putting it to some kind of vote.

Say that you had to contact 1100 people randomly (who couldn't serve more than once per bill) and they had to agree by a simple majority that it was not related for it to be removed.

That would be easy to phrase as an amendment.

---
Another alternative would be to require a vote to add it to the base bill as related. Then at least you could use bad examples against senators and representatives when they ran again--- "Is it true.... Senator Dobson... that you voted that "Pig farm subsidies" were related directly to military base closures? Would you care to explain your reasoning on that?"

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Why are they allowed to do this? by bitbucketeer · 2005-09-27 08:24 · Score: 1

We do have a line item veto... Bubba signed that into law. The hub-bub at the time was that it allowed the executive branch to legislate by changing the law as it was passed by the legislative branch, and the constitution expressly forbids any one branch from exercising the powers of the others. But as long as the judicial branch gets to behave legislatively via judicial activism, I guess it's only equitable that the executive branch get in on the act. Unfortunately, neither Bubba nor Dubya have exercised their brand spanking new line item veto powers yet.

Numbers? by Mercano · 2005-09-27 06:56 · Score: 1

So anyone have some specific bill/ammendment numbers yet I can reference when I start pleading the case to the local senators?

--
#include <signature.h>

Re:Dont see why this is needed. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-27 06:58 · Score: 3, Informative

You got it all wrong. This flag has nothing to do with filtering shows that you can/can't watch. What this flag does it prevents you from copying shows. If this went into effect you couldn't tivo a show, then burn it to a dvd to take with you on a trip, or transfer shows from your tivo to your computer to watch later but free up space on your tivo. You won't able to make your own pvr out of your computer that can bypass this stuff. Turn your pc into a pvr right now and you are fine. Do the same after this flag goes into effect and it is illegal. This has nothing to do with weither or not you can watch a show, but is about what you can do with the content that you watch.

read here for more information about the flag. http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/

Sent a message to Washington State's senator by flyingace · 2005-09-27 06:59 · Score: 1

I just sent a verbose message to Maria Cantwell. I urge everybody to take immediate action on this.

Re:Sent a message to Washington State's senator by laughingcoyote · 2005-09-27 07:33 · Score: 1

That's two for her so far, then. I hope everyone who reads this and disagrees will do the same.

--
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.

Grant me a vent, please. by abscondment · 2005-09-27 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Someone seriously needs to organize a giant, demonstrative protest.

We could all crap in tupperware and ship our excrement straight to the MPAA/RIAA, with a signed note saying "Thank you for shitting on the law making system in America".

Re:Grant me a vent, please. by wiggles · 2005-09-27 07:51 · Score: 1

I hope nobody here gets the bright idea to take you up on this, unless they really want to be thrown in jail for delivering a biological weapon. Human excrement is biohazardous, and requires special handling.
Re:Grant me a vent, please. by geekoid · 2005-09-27 08:15 · Score: 1

This will haqppen when people stop saying "Someone needs to..." and start saying "I will ..."

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Grant me a vent, please. by sploxx · 2005-09-27 09:44 · Score: 1

Are you selling tupperware?

devils (RIAA) advocate here by Brigadier · 2005-09-27 07:00 · Score: 1

Well a good example would be Jim Crow ... was the basis for society once then changing thinking deemed it unsuitable. Plus isn't Bush installing his new (R) supreme court judges. I think the term hammering it in is more appropriate than one might think. Just a little more lobbying (lube) will do it.

Lubbyist Lube - the only way to greese over congress so you can fsk the American people up the ass

Solving the problem by famazza · 2005-09-27 07:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Buy your new TV set broadcast-flag compatible
Go Canada (or beyond Mexico)
Disable the broadcast flag
Get back home

Seriously. Can't MPAA understand that skiping broadcast-flag is as simple as bring a single circuit board from outside US? DMCA is only valid in US, until now, and a passthrough to ignore broadcast-flag is very easy to implement.

Even if US enforces DMCA to other countries (in CAFTA, for example), I have serious doubts that third-world countries will be able to have a serious fiscalization.

--

-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?

Re:Solving the problem by tepples · 2005-09-27 08:21 · Score: 1

Can't MPAA understand that skiping broadcast-flag is as simple as bring a single circuit board from outside US?

Can't you understand that the legislation covers importing non-compliant devices as well as manufacturing such devices within the United States?
Re:Solving the problem by object88 · 2005-09-27 08:25 · Score: 1

1. Buy your new TV set broadcast-flag compatible
2. Go Canada (or beyond Mexico)
3. Disable the broadcast flag
4. Get back home

Good thought. However, that's technically illegal as per the DMCA:
"No person shall manufacture, import , offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that controls access to a (copyrighted) work." - DMCA, Section 1201

(Emphasis added.) So you could bring your TV out of the country and rig it up, but you couldn't bring it back. Realistically, I can't imagine that this isn't enforcable. (At the same time, I don't relish the idea of sticking a huge TV in the back of my car and driving 12+ hours...)

Now, you could drop a load of cash on an video editting suite that happened ignore the Broadcast Flag while importing or capturing signals, and that would be legal, as copyright circumvention isn't the primary purpose. Or that's the way that I read it.

Despicable tactics by It+doesn't+come+easy · 2005-09-27 07:03 · Score: 1

How long will the US legislators (and US citizens) put up with such a corrupt political process? Tactics like these is an affront to government by the people, since the broadcast flag has already been rejected by the current legislative body. If the MPAA were to be successful in this effort, they would literally be hijacking our law making process and twisting to their own selfish ends. I am continually amazed at the audacity of businesses when they become involved in the political process. If our legislators don't out and out reject the broadcast flag simply on the merits of the tactics employed by the MPAA then I say it's time for new legislators.

--
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.

What about HDCP? by ShadeARG · 2005-09-27 07:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

As far as I can tell HDCP already prevents you from recording a pure digital source. While the broadcast flag could be ignored, HDCP continuously negotiates between the input and output device to decode realtime picture display. Without an HDCP compliant output device using HDMI or DVI the output is not usuable, which effectively makes it a very hard nut to crack. It will be a very effective form of High Definition DRM once component output is done away with.

Re:What about HDCP? by BRTB · 2005-09-27 07:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

Here's a HDCP remover box. You knew somebody was going to make one eventually. Uses the same HDCP/DVI decoder chip that goes into TV's, just instead of blasting the signal out to a tube/DLP/whatever it outputs a nice unencrypted signal right back to 2 DVI's. There'll be a HDMI-cable version soon I bet... if not, adapter cables are all over the place, HDMI and DVI are pin-compatible for video signal.

Spending should be seperate from non-spending by autopr0n · 2005-09-27 07:03 · Score: 1

I don't understand why this kind of BS is allowed. We need an amendment that requires laws and regulations to be voted on seperately from budgetary crap.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:Dont see why this is needed. by garcia · 2005-09-27 07:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

The only thing I can see them allowing is sports events and news.

Oh, the NFL and MLB will find a way to block those too I'm sure. "No NFL broadcast may be reproduced without the express written permission of the NFL" If they could, they would make that extend to Tivo and other DVR units as well.

Re:Dont see why this is needed. by aztracker1 · 2005-09-27 07:05 · Score: 1

This isn't about the V-Chip, it's the broadcast flag... Ex. The Olympic Committee decides to set the broadcast flag.. that tells your Tivo/VTR that you can *NOT* record this... ie, you can't record tv.. this goes through, and people won't be allowed to watch programs on TV except to watch them as broadcast.

--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info

Links to more easily contact your representatives by ghee22 · 2005-09-27 07:06 · Score: 4, Informative

link from DownsizeDC.org
link from EFF

--
"Persistence is annoying success." - ghee22 11:28:1999 - 10:53:PM

Line Item Veto by Mr+Guy · 2005-09-27 07:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because God forbid the President be allow to send individual parts of the bill back to congress and tell them to grow the hell up.

--
Never confuse volume with power.

Re:Line Item Veto by bofkentucky · 2005-09-27 07:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've come to the conclusion that the president should personally call out the offending pork loader when he vetoes the bill. Post on the white house website what a moron senator X is for ruining a good bill. If we've got 50 24 hour news channels, why not put them to use for ridculing politicians.

--
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Re:Line Item Veto by Ryan+Amos · 2005-09-27 07:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

Not a problem with this congress. The line item veto was introduced because the Republicans kept tacking stupid amendments on to necessary legislation so they could dare Clinton to veto it (and then use it against him in the next legislation; "Clinton vetoed the Feed All Starving Children bill! He hates children!" when he vetoed it because there was a rider that assigned a $10 billion construction contract to Halliburton.)

It's a constant cycle though, notice how the economy tanks after the Republicans have been in power for 6-8 years? Our national debt perfectly reflects the money management skills of most americans...
Re:Line Item Veto by Politburo · 2005-09-27 07:26 · Score: 1

A line-item veto makes the executive a de facto legislator and weakens the system of checks and balances. If the President does not like part of a bill, they should veto it and use the bully pulpit to win public approval for their version of the bill (something the current president has never done). The Supreme Court was correct in ruling the line item veto unconstitutional.
Re:Line Item Veto by wcdw · 2005-09-27 07:46 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, this is not always possible. Who is going to veto an emergency spending bill for e.g. Katrina? It has to be pretty egregious pork at that point to veto the bill outright and delay getting those funds into the hands of those who need them.

How about a compromise; the President gets to line-item veto anything he wants. Congress then has the option of allowing the amended bill to proceed, or to consider it a full veto, and 'withdraw' the bill.

This would put the onus back on Congress to account for the pork, but still leave effective control in their hands.

--
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
Re:Line Item Veto by shmlco · 2005-09-27 07:49 · Score: 1

Which brings us back to the point that bills should be single purpose. Every law deserves its own day in court, as it were, and each should be debated on its own merits.
Why in hell should a "must pass" military appropriations bill be used as a cover to pass a national id card system? Why is a budget bill covering a communications act? Isn't either one important enough to deserve their own debate?
The real problem lies in the fact that too many of these "sliders" would not stand on their own two feet. And so legislators try to sneak them by, hidden in the muck.

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:Line Item Veto by SomeoneGotMyNick · 2005-09-27 07:50 · Score: 1

Because God forbid the President be allow to send individual parts of the bill back to congress and tell them to grow the hell up.

Maybe it was my donut eating binge at work. Why, when I read that statement, it reads in the voice of Cleveland from The Family Guy?
Re:Line Item Veto by bnenning · 2005-09-27 07:53 · Score: 1

The line item veto was introduced because the Republicans kept tacking stupid amendments on to necessary legislation so they could dare Clinton to veto it

Short memory. During the 80s it was the Republicans who wanted the line item veto to keep Congressional Democrats from doing exactly the same thing.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:Line Item Veto by Politburo · 2005-09-27 07:55 · Score: 1

Who is going to veto an emergency spending bill for e.g. Katrina?

Someone with the balls to stand up and say "This is wrong". The President really has the high ground in these situations, as witnessed with the government shutdown that resulted from the impasse between Clinton and the GOP.

Your solution would appear to work.. but would be a line-item veto in name only and not really different from the current system, imo.
Re:Line Item Veto by Politburo · 2005-09-27 07:58 · Score: 1

Right, so the problem is not with the system, but the people. The legislators, and the president that signs the final bill, are the ones that need to be held accountable.

The Congress is free to make its own rules in the Constitution. If the leaders of Congress can't handle this responsibility, they simply need to be replaced.
Re:Line Item Veto by Maxo-Texas · 2005-09-27 08:02 · Score: 1

I'm not sure it is really constitutional what they are doing these days anyway.
Congress is supposed to send laws to the president. Not 1300 page omnibus bills with thousands of laws at once.

It's really bad when the laws are not even remotely related to the same subject. To me it violates the original constitutional concept of the role of congress.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:Line Item Veto by wcdw · 2005-09-27 08:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think the important difference (besides possibly not being struck down by the Supreme Court ;) is that it offers a compromise solution. By being able to approve the bill - as intended - and reject the graft, the President has the ability to put the onus back on Congress.

If it's a "must pass" bill (such as is typically used for the slimiest of these tricks) and the President says "sure, I'll pass it, but hold the side of pork", it is then up to Congress to 'justify' the pork. The same circumstances that make it difficult for the President to reject such bills now then gets turned back around on Congress. They might be willing to pull 'routine' bills with attached pork, but it would be hard to stall e.g. disaster relief just because their toys got taken away.

--
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
Re:Line Item Veto by ArsonSmith · 2005-09-27 08:16 · Score: 1

push the line item veto back to congress then with line item voting. Make each senitor/rep responsible for each line of every bill. This would help to insure that they actually paid at least writting initials worth to each line of a bill and it would hold them accountable for what they say they stand for.

This way they can't say I voted for the bill that feed hungry children, not the tacked on portion that slaughered puppies.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Line Item Veto by Politburo · 2005-09-27 08:22 · Score: 1

I just don't see what's different, except for the procedure. The President can already say "sure, I'll pass it, but hold the side of pork" by vetoing the bill, and explaining to the public why the bill was vetoed. If Congress decides to not address the main issue of the bill again (e.g disaster relief), then the President can say "There is no disaster relief because the Congress has not presented me with an appropriate spending bill."

By being able to approve the bill - as intended - and reject the graft

The bill that comes out of Congress is the bill as intended. If it has riders/pork/etc. in it, then Congress meant for that pork to be there.

The onus is always on Congress to pass appropriate legislation. The executive acts as the check that Congress passses appropriate legislation. When the Congress and President are in cahoots, this system is effectively removed. There are two solutions. One is to ensure a divided government (historically this has been the case). Another is to elect leaders that whose principles are rooted in the Constitution; not the party. What we have right now is a legislature and executive that are controlled by people who consistently put the party above everything else.
Re:Line Item Veto by Politburo · 2005-09-27 08:29 · Score: 1

An interesting idea, but unworkable from a practical sense.

The solution is balls. People in Congress need balls to stand up and vote against these bills with riders, no matter what the original legislation was. They should be casting no votes (or abstentions) on these bills, and holding press conferences immediately afterwords to explain why the bill was inappropriate. The President needs balls to stand up and veto bills that slip through with inappropriate riders.
Re:Line Item Veto by pixelpusher220 · 2005-09-27 08:38 · Score: 1

Agreed...the problem stems from having the ssame party in control of the House, the Senate and the Whitehouse. They all want pretty much the same pork!

Or more cynically, since they are on the same 'side' there's not political upside to pointing out the largess of your partners...

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Line Item Veto by wcdw · 2005-09-27 08:39 · Score: 1

Sorry, possibly a bad choice of words. How about "the bill, in the spirit in which it was conceived"? Nah, that doesn't do it either, given the 'spirit' in Congress. Awfully hard to pin down that language, actually.

And yes, I've been familiar with the american system of government for over 40 years. And in all that time, I've become increasingly convinced that it simply doesn't work. It doesn't matter a gnats fart in a windstorm what Congress is supposed. They have amply demonstrated that they cannot be counted on for anything, unless one is a multi-million dollar corporation or special interest group.

As for electing a suitable candidate, all I can say is ha. From as best I've been able to determine, the few good candidates I've seen over the years have either been swamped by, or joined, that great pork barrel culture.

What we NEED is to throw out every freaking law written in the past 200 years (except possibly the amendments) and start from scratch, this time actually paying attention to the constitution. What can happen in reality is something entirely different.

--
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
Re:Line Item Veto by Suzumushi · 2005-09-27 08:45 · Score: 1

Exactly! What happens all too often for these loaded bills, is that if a politician votes against it because of all the loaded garbage, it comes back to haunt him/her at re-election. "Senator Jim-Bob is an evil man because he voted against a bill for giving money to blind orphans! He hates blind orphans!" Those same campaign posters will not make mention of the fact that tacked onto the bill for blind orphans was a ridiculous piece of drivel like...oh...I don't know...a broadcast flag system. And since politicians are really only worried about re-election...
Re:Line Item Veto by shmlco · 2005-09-27 08:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, but I have no control over, say, the Senator from the Commonwealth of Virgina. If he slides a pork appropriation onto a bill meant for something else, there's nothing I, as a citizen of the State of Colorado, can do about it. I can't vote against him. I can't replace him. He is not accountable to me.
And HIS citizens are going to be happy he brought home the bacon, so they're not going to do anything about it either.
So the only thing I can do is make sure my senator does the same thing, which benefits no one, and subverts the system.

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:Line Item Veto by ArsonSmith · 2005-09-27 09:00 · Score: 1

I'm not sure how this would be unworkable or practical.

Basics, define a line as being x characters long say 120 to be generous.

then on each line of the ballot have the three catigories

___Required ___accepted ___rejected

where Required means this line has to be in here or I vote down this entire bill, accepted means I aggree with/accept the line but the bill will be fine with out it, and rejected means we cannot have this line in this bill.

This will give Congress the requirement to have balls and answer directly for what they vote for.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Line Item Veto by Dunkirk · 2005-09-27 09:31 · Score: 1

Well, given the +4 and +5 commentary on Slashdot these days, 90% of the posters and moderators here would be in favor of 49 of those 50 channels RIDICULING BUSH 24/7. Yes, yes. Of course. Number 50 would be Fox News. And that's JUST what I'm talking about. So, given this, I doubt he's going to be very sympathetic when it comes to things people like "us" care about given "our" level of support for his administration. Face it, there comes a time for ALL of us that we simply start ignoring the people in our lives who have nothing positive to say.

--
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
Re:Line Item Veto by ChristTrekker · 2005-09-27 10:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

A number of presidents have vetoed relief/aid bills in the past. I used to have a number of them collected in my quotations list, but I lost that when I reformatted my machine and the backup failed. I believe one was Teddy Roosevelt, concerning a draught in Texas - but that's purely from memory so I may be wrong. Personally I like Col. David Crockett's "Not Yours To Give" speech on the floor of the House.

--
Constitutionally Correct
Re:Line Item Veto by ChristTrekker · 2005-09-27 10:22 · Score: 1

Actually, just throw out the 16th and 17th Amendments - and every law that's passed since then, if you really feel like it. Those two alone are almost completely responsely for the vast increase in the size of government and usurpation of our rights by it in the last century. With Congress unable to arbitrarily filch from our pockets, and states having a voice in the federal government again, checks and balances are restored.

--
Constitutionally Correct
Re:Line Item Veto by justzisguy · 2005-09-27 11:05 · Score: 1

A senator or representative is only a moron outside his or her district for pork. Inside, it's a job well done, bringing home the bacon. Example: All the other states save Alaska are outraged by the bridge to nowhere, but back on the frozen tundra, they're heros.

On the one hand, these guys do risk alienating the voters for introducing this bad legislation, but on the other hand, they risk enough funding to pay for their re-election.
Re:Line Item Veto by bofkentucky · 2005-09-27 12:26 · Score: 1

I thought senator and US rep elections were being bought with out of state soft money, At least that's all I heard in my states congressional races last year?

--
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Re:Line Item Veto by Pig+Hogger · 2005-09-27 13:04 · Score: 1

It's a constant cycle though, notice how the economy tanks after the Republicans have been in power for 6-8 years? Our national debt perfectly reflects the money management skills of most americans...
Indeed. See my .sig below.
Re:Line Item Veto by thisislee · 2005-09-27 13:54 · Score: 1

no. you rip your senator a new asshole for allowing the pork-filled bill to pass.
Re:Line Item Veto by Guuge · 2005-09-27 15:05 · Score: 1

I doubt he's going to be very sympathetic when it comes to things people like "us" care about given "our" level of support for his administration.

Forget the broadcast flag for a moment. Whether you're a tree-hugging liberal or a Bush-kissing conservative, you're probably opposed to lots of pork in the budget. The reason the President doesn't give a hang has nothing to do with the political alignment of the people and everything to do with helping his friends out. He can't bring himself to punish people who screw up in his own administration, so how do you expect him to deny a little pork to a fellow Republican?

Oh, and here's the disclaimer:
This post mentions Bush. All negative associations and statements made, both real and imagined, are not to be taken as personal attacks on either Bush or his supporters. They merely represent the author's (possibly mistaken) interpretation of the relevant facts and data with respect the Bush administration, its policies, and/or its programs.
Re:Line Item Veto by Guppy06 · 2005-09-27 16:00 · Score: 1
You have two solutions:
1. A constitutional amendment through Congress. Except you'd need 2/3 majorities in each house, from the people responsible for the pork to begin with. Write your congresscritters, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
2. A constitutional convention. Except that the last time we had a convention to amdend the constitution, we eneded up with a new constitution outright. Blue states will worry about religious rights, red states about gun rights, and there's no way in Hell 3/4 of them are going to to agree to give each other that kind of power. The last time anybody tried doing something that even vaguely resembled a constitutional convention, nobody would touch it with a three-meter pole. Google for "conference of the states" and Utah.
Re:Line Item Veto by Guppy06 · 2005-09-27 16:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

"A line-item veto makes the executive a de facto legislator"

And neither the power to veto nor to introduce legislation make him a "de facto legislator?" And let's not forget the fact that the other named member of the executive has an occasional vote. Ever wonder why there's no admonishment in the federal constitution that the three branches of the federal government shall be separate even though such a provision was in most state constitutions at the time?

After all, look at all the executive power given to the Senate, such as oversight on all executive appointments and treaties. Heck, they even have judicial powers during impeachments.

"they should veto it and use the bully pulpit to win public approval for their version of the bill "

Can't work so long as we have a Twelfth Amendment. Separate tickets for president and vice president means that you don't get to run for president unless you have very strong connections with the people who decides who runs for which office: the political parties. If you complain about your own party's pork you may not make the ballot next year. Complain about the other party's pork and you come off as needlessly partisan.

And the bully pulpit has its limits. With the Twelfth Amendment and winner-takes-all on the exeuctive's side, and the Seventeenth Amendment and single-seat-districts on the legislature's side, both sides have the illusion of a public mandate, each saying "The majority of the people like us, therefore the majority of the people must like what I'm about to do." With both branches operating under something vaguely resembling direct elections, everybody has equal claim to "working for the people."

And then there's the matter of vote buying. Pork not only helps get legislators get re-elected, but the president can take equal credit and get a few more votes to swing his way (or at least toward the incumbent's party).

Using the "bully pulpit" is ultimately damaging for all the politicians ("Can't they all just get along and run the country already?"). The line item veto allows for pork to disappear as quietly as it was inserted.
Re:Line Item Veto by shmlco · 2005-09-27 17:39 · Score: 1

I expressed my displeasure with him on the "must pass" millitary budget/national id fiasco. He pointed out that not to vote yes on the military spending bill would have been suicide. Which brings us back around. We need, like several state legislatures, to enact legislation that prohibit riders that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. If you need a new aquarium for your hometown, then put it up there and let it get voted on...

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:Line Item Veto by Politburo · 2005-09-28 04:26 · Score: 1

... and the only people who could introduce such legislation are?

It always comes back to the legislators. If they aren't going to stop this behavior on their own, why would they voluntarily amend the rules to prohibit it?
Re:Line Item Veto by bill_mcgonigle · 2005-09-28 05:50 · Score: 1

Agreed...the problem stems from having the ssame party in control of the House, the Senate and the Whitehouse. They all want pretty much the same pork!

No, the problem stems from a system with two parties that are 95% identical, who manage to convince 80+% of the populous that if only $THE_OTHER_PARTY was in power none of this ever would have happened. So 40% of the population spends an inordinate amount of energy getting $THE_OTHER_PARTY back in power, at which time nothing much really changes, and the situation flips around so the other 40% is doing exactly the same thing. The now-complacent other 40% stays that way and supports their party because if they don't $THE_OTHER_PARTY might take power.

This is perfect, because it ties up resources that would otherwise be concerned with reforming the government.

Another 15% isn't really interested and don't pick a team unless they're in a voting booth and then there's the last 5% who are 'too small to matter'.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Contact your represntative by sp00 · 2005-09-27 07:07 · Score: 4, Informative

The EFF has setup a contact form here.

Attention on the broadcast flag by null+etc. · 2005-09-27 07:10 · Score: 1

On a somewhat related topic, I wonder why the EFF web site doesn't have any updates about the FBI's task force to crack down on deviant pornography.

Re:Attention on the broadcast flag by geekoid · 2005-09-27 07:38 · Score: 1

What wrong with that? Nothing that what.

They can craete any task force they wish. The question is, how is it used?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Attention on the broadcast flag by null+etc. · 2005-09-27 08:37 · Score: 1

Well, yesterday they just cracked down on Suicide Girls, a site portraying bondage etc. While that's not my cup of tea, I hardly consider that to be a subject so obscene that the federal government needs to get involved.

BRING IT ON! by jvollmer · 2005-09-27 07:13 · Score: 3, Funny

My message to the MPAA, RIAA et al is,
as King George would say: "Bring it on!"

If they are going to make television less appealing
I'm prepared to ditch my TV and spend the rest of my
life reading and writing.

Try applying DRM to paperbound books I already own, SUCKAS!

I invite everyone else to do the same - If we do, free TV will reappear.
but no one will want it. Indeed, they will have to pay people to
watch it.

3) Profit!!!

If it's not Consolidated Lint, it's just fuzz!

Re:BRING IT ON! by jvollmer · 2005-09-27 10:37 · Score: 1

You didn't read my comment carefully, did you?

Pork Delivery System by rumblin'rabbit · 2005-09-27 07:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ain't going to happen. Tell ya why.

It can costs tens of millions to get a federal politician elected. This means that politicians needs financial backers. These financial backers expect favours in return, often in the form of pork. Since getting even a single piece of legislation through is difficult, pork is best delivered as an amendment to a piece of completely unrelated legislation that is already well on its way to being passed.

No unrelated amendments = less pork = less money for politicians.

Whadya trying to do, screw up the whole system?

Re:Pork Delivery System by kwatz · 2005-09-27 07:27 · Score: 1

Just attach it to an appropriations bill - or better yet, a reconciliation bill! Those annoying pork barrel legislators will be none the wiser!
Re:Pork Delivery System by wcdw · 2005-09-27 08:02 · Score: 1

Whadya trying to do, screw up the whole system?

Yes!

--
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
Re:Pork Delivery System by Pecisk · 2005-09-27 08:04 · Score: 1

And you want to know why politician needs tens of millions to get elected? Because people still threads politics as a game, as show. And they get it! All democratic politics system has failed big time, but no one is brave enough to admit it. And no - I don't call no regime change. We simply need to clean up this mess.

But my pick is it will happen when shit will start to try to enter into our mounths.

Sorry for the rant, but it is really sad to see democracy to fail.

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Re:Pork Delivery System by dryeo · 2005-09-27 14:02 · Score: 1

Isn't there a clause in the constitution that allows the citizens to bypass politicians and ratify an ammendment to the constitution?

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

I prefer not buying and not... by Karma_fucker_sucker · 2005-09-27 07:13 · Score: 1

copying...stealing....whatever you want to call it. Is my life not as full as it was? I don't think so. I dont' miss anything I have stopped buying/consuming: CDs and Cable TV, so far.

Just my $0.02

--
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III

Re:I prefer not buying and not... by zbose · 2005-09-27 08:30 · Score: 1

Me too.
- I don't buy CDs (for some reason there isn't a whole lot of music I am interested in anymore). I listen to NPR.
- I don't pay for cable (or even have a TV). I play video games, read books, and surf for entertainment, news and information.
- I almost never go the theaters anymore (once every 2-3 months maybe). Instead I wait for netflix to get a bunch of dvds I want to rent (including some tv shows I enjoy) and I go on a 1-2 month renting spree. Eventually I can't find anything I want and I cancel my subscription until the next time.

What is interesting about this is that I don't behave this way because I hate the RIAA, MPAA, congress, or whatever. I do it because I am not interested in consuming what is on TV, CDs, in movie theaters, etc. TV has lame ads, CDs seem to be full of crap songs (I am ok with iTunes though) and movies are way to expensive (for rehashed content). My attention has shifted without a concious effort. I think this behavior will occur more and more as "they" keep locking down our easy access to content.

Of course its back by nurb432 · 2005-09-27 07:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

And it will keep coming back until its passed.

They have the money, and the will. So its just a matter of time before its passed into a law.

Then good luck ever getting it repealed. In another generation or so, it will just be accepted as ' its always been that way'.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Of course its back by poot_rootbeer · 2005-09-27 08:19 · Score: 1

Your .sig is [presidential assassin John Wilkes] "Booth was a patriot", and I'm supposed to read your thoughts on the state of politics in the United States with a straight face???
Re:Of course its back by nurb432 · 2005-09-27 09:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

The definition of a patriot is a person that is willing to die in the defence of their country.

Regardless of his reasoning being right, or wrong, he felt that his country was at risk and took action. In the process laying his life on the line, for his country.

That would qualify him as a patriot.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Of course its back by Buran · 2005-09-27 09:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

You did consider the fact that it's very possible for people to do unexpected (for the cause they claim to support) things that do in fact support that cause, even if at first glance that doesn't seem to be so, don't you? Do you even know why he acted the way he did? He did, you know, have plans in mind that didn't involve blasting someone away at a theater. It's actually a rather interesting story, and it does make you think about the motivations of people like Booth, but most people don't know it.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Of course its back by Buran · 2005-09-27 09:15 · Score: 1

So if it's inevitable for bills to return over and over and over and over, then why don't we see the same bills over and over and over and over in every single session? We don't; bills don't pass, and don't come back. Every session has a far wider variety of bills than can be explained by the rubber bouncing bill that just won't die.

No, it's not inevitable. Far from it. And laws do get repealed, you know, there's this thing called "prohibition" that once was a law, but isn't anymore because enough, but not all, of the people didn't want it to be a law.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Of course its back by fishbowl · 2005-09-27 09:37 · Score: 1

>No, it's not inevitable. Far from it. And laws do get repealed, you know, there's this thing
>called "prohibition" that once was a law, but isn't anymore because enough, but not all, of the
>people didn't want it to be a law.

They just changed their drug of choice. 1937. Prohibition is alive and well and has put more people in jail since 1937 than *ever* before, *anywhere*.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:Of course its back by Buran · 2005-09-27 10:08 · Score: 1

There has, however, never been a constitutional amendment banning any controlled substance other than alcohol.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Of course its back by evilviper · 2005-09-27 12:45 · Score: 1

The definition of a patriot is a person that is willing to die in the defence of their country.

That's not even close to the actual definiton of a patriot.

Regardless of his reasoning being right, or wrong, he felt that his country was at risk and took action.

When he gave his life, he did so not in an effort that could possibly have helped his 'country', but in anger, seeking only vengance.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Of course its back by nurb432 · 2005-09-27 23:48 · Score: 1

Sorry But i dont agree on either statement.

While in retrospect his actions didnt stop the destruction of his country ( the south ), noone could have known at the time it would have been ineffective. It was a gamble.

His execution could have used a bit more planning, but his intentions were valid, which is all that matters in this context.

And as far as I'm concerned, anyone that puts his life on the line for his country is a patriot.

( this has veered way OT, so im done )

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Your Kongress-Kritter could care less. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-27 07:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

Why waste your time contacting them?

If the broadcast flag happens, just walk away from using the broken media.

www.technocracy.ca says:

"Vote With Meaning

The only real vote is purchasing power. What we buy we vote for. With an abundance of purchasing power we can vote as often as we like, every day of the year, and always win our vote. "

Re:Your Kongress-Kritter could care less. by einhverfr · 2005-09-27 12:48 · Score: 1

Thanks for the encouraging subject line even though your main post contradicted it.

Seriously, your Congressman could care less. Your congressman cares about your vote. We just need to get enough of them onto this that enough of them don't support it.

If the MPAA goes unopposed, who else will Congress listen to?

Or to put it another way, your vote might not count as much as the threat of your vote. You can only vote after the fact anyway...

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Trojan Legislation by bubba_ry · 2005-09-27 07:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

How is it even possible or legal that this type of legislation can be appended to a bill who's purpose doesn't even come close to the flag proposal? It's not much of a stretch to view this as trojan legislation.

I'm no lawyer, congressman, what-have-you; can anyone out there shed some light on how this is OK? Does it stand on precedent alone (others have done it)? We see it all the time. It doesn't make sense that something as non-topical to cutting spending as the broadcast flag could be introduced this way...

Re:Trojan Legislation by Dhalka226 · 2005-09-27 08:16 · Score: 1

I'm no lawyer, congressman, what-have-you; can anyone out there shed some light on how this is OK?
Morally or legally?
Legally speaking, Congress sets its own rules for itself. There's nothing in the Constitution that says "a bill must address one and only one subject." Congressmen allow it because it benefits all involved (that is, all the congressmen involved!). The ones likely to vote for it had it come up separately get to walk back to their MPAA overlords, shake hands and accept a hefty check to help their re-election campaign. Those who wouldn't (couldn't) do so hope nobody notices. If somebody does notice, and creates a huff about it, they just put on their righteous indignation face and swear up and down that those dirty [name-of-the-other-party-here] snuck in another provision under the radar, the damn sneaks! Meanwhile they know that regardless of what happens, it will be their turn to do the same thing on another bill shortly enough.
The answer to your question is a resounding YES: It has been done before many, many times. In fact the so-called "Patriot Act II" provisions snuck in attached to a "must-pass" omnibus bill a couple years ago. It's sad, but perfectly alright within the rules that Congress has set up for itself.
If one wants to give them the benefit of the doubt (the schmucks!), one could argue that it would be too difficult and time consuming to attempt to enforce a "bill must be one topic" provision and would seem to create an entire bureaucracy for determining what "one topic" means for every bill. Personally I think that's a load of bunk, but hey.
Re:Trojan Legislation by Dhalka226 · 2005-09-27 08:27 · Score: 1

Replying to myself... great. One step closer to insanity.
The situation reminded me of a Simpsons episode that I had to share. Krusty got elected to Congress and the Simpsons wanted him to pass a bill re-routing airplanes around their house.
Speaker: "We will now be voting on the flags for orphans... and airplane re-routing bill?! Oh well, it's paperclipped!" (Apologies if the quote is wrong.)

First they came for the Jews by woodsrunner · 2005-09-27 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller

Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! by ArsenneLupin · 2005-09-27 07:16 · Score: 1

Just because more (people/animinals) dieded during those things don't make them worse. :P

Indeed. What qualifies as a "worst disaster" is a disaster where not just more people died, but where more Americans died.

(And that less than a year after the Tsunami...)

Off-Topic Bill tack-ons should be ILLEGAL by amigabill · 2005-09-27 07:18 · Score: 1

I nominate we all start encouraging our congresmen and congresswomen to put together some legislation that would outlaw tacking on ammendments to bills which are off-topic to the bill at hand. Copy protection of TV shows has nothing to do with government budget reconciliation stuff. It's off-topic, and has no place being attached to such a bill.

If it can't stand on it's own, it should be illegal to hide it in something unrelated just to sneak it past those voting congresspeople that never actually read what they are voting on. OK, sure, that's most of them, but that should be illegal as well. If you haven't read it, they shouldn't vote on it at all or have to abstain that particular item.

But as these tricks are all part of how they do things, it will likely never change. And reading those laws is surely a lot of work, and they won't want to do that before voting...

So, as it will all remain as is and we the people are screwed, I'm going to ask my congressmal to consider attaching something of my own to this spending bill that will make it legal for me to punch each and every congressperson once a year. Make a big shindig of it all and such, at taxpayers expense of course. And I get to show them what I think of their shenanigans with nothing to worry about myself!

Re:Off-Topic Bill tack-ons should be ILLEGAL by iggymanz · 2005-09-27 08:32 · Score: 1

a good point to raise now that Greenspan has mentioned we have have hit the "tipping over" point on the national debt - out of control of government's ability to pay the interest. This is how 99.99% of pork gets through the system, and this broadcast flag is very similar to pork in that it gives huge economic concessions/advantage to select big corporations
Re:Off-Topic Bill tack-ons should be ILLEGAL by fishbowl · 2005-09-27 09:35 · Score: 1

National debt? If you loan money to someone who can't pay, especially if you *keep* lending them money, sooner or later you must bear the responsibility for making that poor choice.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Re:Solving the problem: your stuck there bud. by denis-The-menace · 2005-09-27 07:19 · Score: 1

Seriously. Can't MPAA understand that skiping broadcast-flag is as simple as bring a single circuit board from outside US? DMCA is only valid in US, until now, and a passthrough to ignore broadcast-flag is very easy to implement.

It's called economics.
ATI is releasing ONE version of their cards. The version that won't get them into court by another organisation with more money than them. (aka Broadcast-enabled only)

We Canucks get the same shaft as you.
Our politicians aren't bought and sold like yours are.
They screw us for free!

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration

Ouch by PacketScan · 2005-09-27 07:22 · Score: 4, Funny

Call it the Bend over and Take it Flag.

The practical question... by dpilot · 2005-09-27 07:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Beyond writing to Rep. Sanders and Sen. Jeffords, since I suspect Sen. Leahy is one of those backing this MESS, I need to think about practical considerations.

I've been thinking of a pending hdtv card, planning to buy before the broadcast flag came into effect. Last spring when the courts threw out the FCC's ability to impose the broadcast flag, I shelved my plans. Keep in mind that I have no other hdtv hardware or services, and this is just a hedge against the future. Even without the other hardware, I want the non-broadcast-flag hdtv card while I can still get it, because someday I will have hdtv hardware/services.

So does anyone have a clue when Son of Broadcast Flag will rear it's ugly head?
What's the new deadline to buy an hdtv card?
Can anyone comment on preferences between pchdtv-3000 and air2pc (or any others) for use with MythTV?

Honestly, this is about rights of corporations vs rights of people. With this congress and this administration, I expect to lose. I'll fight in the meantime, but I also plan to make preparations to lose.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

A Loaded Statement by hode · 2005-09-27 07:26 · Score: 1

reconciliation is about cutting spending--something that always sounds good

If that isn't a loaded statement, I don't know what is...

My letter, FWIW by wcdw · 2005-09-27 07:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

This was my letter to my congresscritters, for all the good it will do.

Although my direct concern is Congress once again allowing industry to set law (the so-called 'Broadcast Flag'), my issue goes beyond that item.

It is far past the time to make it unconstitutional to add unrelated items to bills. It's primary use is deceit, along with the plausible deniability of claiming it was 'snuck' in at the last minute. A secondary effect is pork, which, with the current National Debt, we hardly need.

I urge each of you to sponsor and support legislation towards this end.

And PLEASE stop letting special interest groups in this country virtually write their own laws. That is NOT what our founding fathers had in mind for this country. How about considering "we, the people" for a change???

--
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!

Re:My letter, FWIW by Jordan+Catalano · 2005-09-27 08:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

I want a pre-emptive measure. I want some senator with the balls to say "Fuck the media companies. They're not my constituents." I want a bill that reiterates that the airwaves are public, that exclusive broadcast rights to a piece of the spectrum are a priveledged gift not given lightly by the people. I want a guarantee that anything broadcast via this public medium have certain rights over it, those being to view, edit, and permanently archive content, at full broadcast resolution, so long as it is not retransmitted or distributed, except as allowed by copyright law. If a company can't agree to that, it shouldn't be using public airwaves in the first place.

Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! by dantheman82 · 2005-09-27 07:30 · Score: 1

Do not feed the trolls! Alternatively, oh Marxist Hacker, you could do better to stir up the proletariat to rebellion...

--
This sig donated to Pater. Long live /.

Re:but what can we do by jejones · 2005-09-27 07:31 · Score: 1

In descending order of effect:

hand-written letter
typed/printed letter
phone call
email
email that has text exactly like that of umpteen other emails
online petition

Minnesota law tries to do this, by ianscot · 2005-09-27 07:33 · Score: 1

Minnesota's 2003 concealed weapons law was found to violate the state's constitutional requirement that a bill have only one "subject."

That requirement is, needless to say, selectively enforced.

You've got to be a big Orwell reader. How one determines the boundaries of a "subject" or "spirit" when it comes to the propagandistic law titles we've gotten to over the last 20 years, I could not imagine. Defining the edges of a law's "spirit" would make for great C-Span, you're right. Lots more "I love America" acts, too.

--
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.

Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-09-27 07:34 · Score: 1

Wrong type of Marxist- I'm a distributist Capitalist- read Das Kapital, not the Communist Manifesto.

Having said that- I don't think this guy is a troll. I think there's a slim, very slim, but also very real, possibility that he is a victim of Katrina- and only just now got back into slashdot after spending WEEKS in one of those information-black-out Red Cross Shelters. Never assume somebody's a troll before you have proof.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:Tin foil hat time, people! by geekoid · 2005-09-27 07:36 · Score: 1

you are a troll. Not for the point, but for the way made it.

If the point was made to intentionally bait someone, then you would be flamebait.

I'll just call you stupid.
OTOH you have more fingures.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! by Qzukk · 2005-09-27 07:37 · Score: 1

Depends. There were 20 someodd dead in that bus that blew up while evacuating. Was that caused by Rita? The current "official" count (10, apparently) includes a family that died of carbon monoxide poisoning from running a generator indoors because Rita knocked out their power. Of course, we're arguing over some miniscule numbers, but you can see how the source of the numbers could vary wildly based on who's counting and how.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.

Kind of vague by alan_dershowitz · 2005-09-27 07:39 · Score: 1

I don't necessarily disagree with your position, but who gets to decide what the "spirit" of a bill is? Under any other circumstance, Slashdot would be outraged at the vagueness of a statement like this. For example, see Slashdot's group opinion on terms like "community standards", "obscene", etc.

Bill riders like this broadcast flag crap were one of the reasons for the presidential line-item-veto (which was shot down as unconstitutional. It put power into the hands of the executive branch that was constitutionally delegated to the legislative.)

Re:Kind of vague by ivan256 · 2005-09-27 07:59 · Score: 1

but who gets to decide what the "spirit" of a bill is

Why, the courts, of course.

There are arguments to be made both for and against more specific language than "spirit." I can see merits on both sides.
Re:Kind of vague by StarvingSE · 2005-09-27 08:08 · Score: 2, Funny

I suggest the following method of rating amendments on a bill:

Every couple of weeks, certain legislatures will get "moderator access"

Then, they get to mod any 5 amendments as the following:

-Insightful
-Informative
-Funny
-Troll

etc.

Only amendments modded +5 make it into the final bill.

Sounds good to me!!!

--
I got nothin'
Re:Kind of vague by alan_dershowitz · 2005-09-27 08:26 · Score: 1

As long as you're up front about this in effect being a line-item-veto for the Supreme Court (assuming you mean that the court could strike down only a portion of the law.) That's EXTREMELY risky imo, the potential for constant interference by the courts would be very high. By invalidating and eliminating only a part of a bill, they are de-facto legislating.

The other alternative is that the court would strike down the whole thing. In that case, the worst that could happen is that in the case of a violation, the courts would either not risk invalidating the entire package, in effect making their power to do this worthless in any case where the potential good of a law even slightly outweighs the potential bad of the bill rider. The alternative would be invalidating the entire bill over trivial riders, which would be extremely unpopular.

I'm not saying you are an idiot or anything, an amendment like you are saying could do a lot of good in many cases. I am just trying to point out some (imo) significant mischief potential.

Obligatory Simpsons Quote by cmburns69 · 2005-09-27 07:40 · Score: 5, Funny

From Bart's Comet:

KENT BROCKMAN
With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.

SPEAKER
Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of--

CONGRESSMAN
Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.

SPEAKER
All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?

FLOOR
Boo!

SPEAKER
Bill defeated.

KENT BROCKMAN
I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work...

--
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!

Re:Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-27 10:31 · Score: 1, Interesting

Then it's settled, all we need is another organization that will propose some law no one will vote for to kill any bill the MPAA or RIAA get their hands on. A marijuana legalization law tacked onto this bill would be enough to sink it good, then repropose the original version of the bill clean of the MPAA/RIAA proposal and have it passed immediately (assuming it would have passed the first time).
Re:Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Flendon · 2005-09-28 08:27 · Score: 1

Whenever one of these riders comes up that episode is exactly what comes to mind. Thanks for the link. This is the biggest thing wrong with the system as I see it.

--
chown -R us ./base

Line-Item veto, for this? You're kidding. by ianscot · 2005-09-27 07:41 · Score: 1

I wish we had line item veto at the national level. It would keep crap like this from ever seeing the light of day.

What it would do is give an opposing-party President with a narrow disadvantage in congress the power to kill stuff like this, potentially, yes. Clinton would have fit that profile. You think for a minute that W. Bush would expend political capital to do the right thing here? That wouldn't happen, period.

The argument that line items would either wipe out non-germane riders or eliminate pork is laughably naive. It would become a selectively-used partisan weapon for the party who had the White House.

--
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.

Re:Tin foil hat time, people! by compro01 · 2005-09-27 07:43 · Score: 1

Hmmmmmm, ... I bet you'll call me a troll now.

no, i'll call you a crackpot who doesn't seem to have a [four letter word]ing clue on what this is about.

this is a back door around the betamax decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sony_Co rp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc.&o ldid=21147597)

people have the LEGAL RIGHT to record whatever they damn well please off the TV for personal use.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time

BOTH by bluGill · 2005-09-27 07:44 · Score: 1

This has to pass the house and the senate. The either can vote no and kill it. Note that it is close to the no-debate time, which means that most of the debate is over, so you need to move hast. All they can do once this is in no-debate is kill the whole thing, which they don't want to do.

They are killing not just this flag, but also things like Katrina relief. Though I don't know what is in this particular budget, you can bet the MPAA will make sure everyone knows about the popular things that were in it should the whole bill be killed.

On Demand Content by size1one · 2005-09-27 07:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

This wouldnt be an issue if:

1) digital cable weren't so overpriced.
2) more stations provided on demand content. 3) content available on demand is available for longer periods (not just a month)

I think the problem goes deeper than just wanting people to buy dvds and watch shows in syndication. Eventually we will see more of #2 as broadband speeds increase and make it possible because most people would rather pick what AND when they consume content rather than have schedules dictated by television stations. The problem with DVRs is that they prevent stations from being able to charge for "on demand". Its silly to pay an extra X dollars PER month when they can pay a 1-time cost of the DVR.

Now as for DVRs needing to wait for the show to air before being able to deliver you the content, shows that are aired on a weekly basis are only available on demand AFTER thier original showing. "On demand" will only get you access to shows your DVR missed or are being rebroadcast.

Bastards. by moxley · 2005-09-27 07:50 · Score: 1

It's just one more example of the the institutionalized corruption in our country - using the loophole/sneak style of legislation, using laws or rules in a spirit which is contrary to democracy; and this isn't even one of the more egregious examples.

So let's say they finally get this thing passed. How long before someone discovers a workaround or codes a hack? Probably not long.

Make it so that people can't record or tivo their "fixes" (TV is the drug of choice, at least in the US), they'll be pissed and the resourceful will find away around it. What then? throw em in jail? I wouldn't be surprised if thats what these "Associations" try to do.

Please explain by zoloto · 2005-09-27 07:51 · Score: 1

(Definitely not trolling in a negative way here)

Not that I disagree with you, but if you could explain how the consitiution, if enforced, would be adequate (with or without extra "law(s)" or (an) "amendment(s)", it would be extremely beneficial not just to me, but to others who've seen your highly scored moderated comment.

I for one welcome this discussion!

Re:Please explain by roystgnr · 2005-09-27 08:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not that I disagree with you, but if you could explain how the consitiution, if enforced, would be adequate (with or without extra "law(s)" or (an) "amendment(s)"

It required amendments to make the Constitution's intent explicit, but fortunately they both were passed two centuries ago.

Unfortunately, Amendment IX is practically unenforceable because while everyone can agree that there are human rights not explicitly protected by the Consitution, nobody entirely agrees on which rights those are. Amendment X is theoretically enforceable, but hasn't been enforced in so long that it's probably too late to start now; no Supreme Court Justice wants to be the guy who says "Hey, did you guys notice that most of the federal laws on the books are unconstitutional?"
Re:Please explain by aaronl · 2005-09-27 08:11 · Score: 2, Informative

The Federal does not have authority under the Constitution to do most of what it is doing today. The Constitution lists a number of function which the Federal is limited to doing. Our government has made use of the inter-state commerce clause and the general welfare clause to enact all sorts of legislation. If you read those clauses, however, you realize that they do not allow the Federal to expand their powers past those enumerated in the Constitution.

If you properly enforced the Constitution, any power the Federal has created that is not enumerated in the Constitution would have to be removed.

One mention of general welfare allows the Federal to use monies they have collected to pay for things that in the general welfare of the country. The other mention of it, which is in the preamble, states that one of the purposes for the Constitution is to promote the general welfare of the country.

One mention of commerce allows the Federal to regulate commerce that takes places across a State border. The other mention says that the Federal may not regulate commerce in an unequal fashion; if they regulate, they must regulate every party the same.
Re:Please explain by robertjw · 2005-09-27 10:43 · Score: 1

no Supreme Court Justice wants to be the guy who says "Hey, did you guys notice that most of the federal laws on the books are unconstitutional?"

Why not? Last I checked, Supreme Court Justices were appointed for life. I don't think it would be impossible to think that one of the Justices might get a spine and start changing the interpretations for Amendments IX and X.

How screwed would the US government be if somebody like John Roberts took a Supreme Court seat and then decided to start upholding state's rights? I would love to see that, just to add a little extra chaos to our world.

--
Find coupons in Greeley

Re:but what can we do by geekoid · 2005-09-27 07:52 · Score: 1

According to my representitives, that is no longer true. Email is a perfectly acceptable(and perferred) method of contact.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

You tell me... by hummassa · 2005-09-27 07:54 · Score: 1

The Chairman of our House of Representatives (Câmara Federal) was kicked out for receiving a US$3000/month bribe from the guy who owns the on-site restaurant...

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

I don't think that trying again is the problem... by Eric+Damron · 2005-09-27 07:56 · Score: 1

I thinik that being able to tack on unrelated riders to other bills is the real problem.

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! by geekoid · 2005-09-27 07:57 · Score: 1

valid point, but even if you took ALL people who died in that region over the last month, attributed it all to katrine, it still would be enough to fill all the numbers at this point.

Now, if you want to speculate about deaths that will be casue by mold and bacteria growth in the next 10 years, then they could surpass those numbers.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Dont see why this is needed. by wcdw · 2005-09-27 07:59 · Score: 1

Turn your pc into a pvr right now and you are fine. Do the same after this flag goes into effect and it is illegal.

Not _quite_ true. You would still be allowed to build a PVR; however, the capture hardware would have to 'enforce' the broadcast flag, and refuse to capture anything that had it set.

--
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!

Self-serving items in bills by ldholtsclaw · 2005-09-27 08:01 · Score: 1

If you want to see something that will really make your blood boil, try reading the IRS code. I was researching some obscure rules WRT depreciation and ran across a huge listing of various properties. When you scroll to the top of this list, you'll discover that every time our "representatives" pass a bill dealing with the IRS, they tack on their property holdings and, presumably, those of their buddies making them exempt from all taxes forever. Now if this isn't a gross misuse of their power, I don't know what is.

Re:Self-serving items in bills by laughingcoyote · 2005-09-27 08:05 · Score: 1

If you've really found this out, I'd advise you collect the data and contact your local newspaper. I imagine they just might be interested to hear that. They're going to want the proof, though, and I wouldn't mind seeing it myself.

--
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Re:Self-serving items in bills by MBGMorden · 2005-09-27 08:17 · Score: 1

Something sounds fishy about your comment. The IRS doesn't tax property, they tax revenue. States and/or counties collect property and sales taxes, therefore no bill dealing with the IRS would have a need to list "untaxable property", since the IRS wouldn't be taxing it in the first place.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain

Re:Less racism by object88 · 2005-09-27 08:03 · Score: 1

While many of the cuts listed are bad, others aren't so bad either.

No disagreement. I don't understand all of the budget matters; I was quoting from the MoveOn press release to get people interested and aware (one way or the other). My personal opinion is that the goverment is taking efforts to eliminate a few of the better-spent dollars (PBS/CPB, CDC, AIDS prevention and Peace Corps funding, Energy Star, etc.) and that there are some good cuts (NASA, pinile implants, Congress pay increase rollback, etc.).

Iraqi WMD by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-27 08:03 · Score: 1, Funny

"unless they really want to be thrown in jail for delivering a biological weapon. Human excrement is biohazardous, and requires special handling."

Quick! Into the sewers of Baghdad! We've found the WMD at last!

Not really... by Faw · 2005-09-27 08:04 · Score: 2, Informative

You could send them a Fecalgram. Why won't they ship worldwide? Read their testimonials. :)

President Clinton by tepples · 2005-09-27 08:07 · Score: 1

Besides- do you think [President Bush] would stop a bill that would help big business?

As if the Democrats could do any better. President Clinton signed the No Electronic Theft Act (1997), the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (1998), and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998).

3 Word Solution: Line-Item Veto by fahrbot-bot · 2005-09-27 08:09 · Score: 1

It's amazing the things that Congress says are good for the country, but they won't support. Presidential line-item veto, congressional term limits.

The line-item veto is arguably good for the country, but Congress quietly cheered the downfall of the line-item veto as it saved their pork-barrel projects from cancellation (http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html).

Unfortunately, Congress's gain is the taxpayers' loss. One year's experience with the line item veto taught us all an important lesson: the line item veto works. In 1997 President Clinton used this new veto 82 times to delete unnecessary expenditures in 11 spending bills. The savings to taxpayers total nearly $2 billion over five years. True, in a $1.75 trillion annual budget, this is not a huge sum. But even by Washington standards, $2 billion is still real money -- and a whole lot of pork.

As for term limits, People who argue about the peoples' right to choose their representatives (as often given by the Senators and Congressmen opposed to term limits), don't seem to have a problem with the 22nd amendment limiting the President to two terms (had to get Franklin Roosevelt out of office you know...)

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Re:3 Word Solution: Line-Item Veto by Politburo · 2005-09-27 08:26 · Score: 1

It's a fallacy that a line-item veto is necessary to control spending. A line-item veto is a spending control, but it's not the only one. The two biggest spending restaints are the Congress' self-control, and the executive's ability to veto bills. Our current Congress and President have used neither of these tools.

Regarding the OT foray into term limits, I am against term limits and for the repeal of the 22nd.
Re:3 Word Solution: Line-Item Veto by fahrbot-bot · 2005-09-27 08:44 · Score: 1

I actually agree with you on both points. The current Congress and President are unrestrained (e.g., the $286.4 billion transportation bill) and term limits (and 22nd amend) are generally bad.
I brought up the topic of term-limits as an example of the hypocrisy often demonstrated by our elected officials. At no time during the offensive against Congressional term limits did I hear an elected official bring up repealing the 22nd amend.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:3 Word Solution: Line-Item Veto by hunterx11 · 2005-09-27 08:54 · Score: 1

If Congress didn't support the line-item veto, why did they pass the Line Item Veto Act of 1996?
Also, FDR died in office.

--
English is easier said than done.
Re:3 Word Solution: Line-Item Veto by fahrbot-bot · 2005-09-27 09:35 · Score: 1

If Congress didn't support the line-item veto, why did they pass the Line Item Veto Act of 1996?
Well, it was supported by the GOP as part of their "Contract with America" and Clinton supported them, but then a bunch of strict constitutionalist (both Repub and Dems) objected and supported the lawsuit to have it repealed (again: http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html)
In fact, last December, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), long the prince of pork on Capitol Hill, declared that if the court strikes down the line item veto, it would be "my Christmas wish come true." ...
"We feel that the liberties of the American people have been assured," said Byrd. "Without adequate control by the citizens represented in Congress, liberty is threatened."
Of course, most state governors have line-item veto power...
Also, FDR died in office.
See, term-limits do work. No, you're correct. The amendment was passed in 1951, six years after FDR's 1933-1945 term "ended". Truman was in office from 45-53 (also a Democrat like FDR). Next came Eisenhower in 53 (a Republican). Hmmm... Presidential term limits enacted after five consecutive Democratic terms...go figure.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Commerce clause by tepples · 2005-09-27 08:12 · Score: 1

I see nowhere in the Constitution where the legislature is given the power to pass this sort of law, to tell manufacturers of hardware that they must manufacture their hardware in a particular way.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce ... among the several States ...; 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; ... And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." Translation: The Congress may regulate anything that is bought or sold, especially anything relating in any way to original works of authorship.

His name is proof enough by spun · 2005-09-27 08:12 · Score: 1

JismTroll?!? How much more trollish can you get? Also, by distributist, do you mean a supporter of distributism? I had not heard of this economic philosophy before. Seems to be founded by Catholics, not Marx. I find it very compatible with my own thinking on the matter.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:His name is proof enough by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-09-27 08:30 · Score: 1

Also, by distributist, do you mean a supporter of distributism? I had not heard of this economic philosophy before. Seems to be founded by Catholics, not Marx. I find it very compatible with my own thinking on the matter.

Dorthy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement were the Roman Catholic Version of the International Workers of the World. Her interpretation of Marx is, near as I can tell, the most workable because it puts back in the one thing Adam Smith and Karl Marx forgot: Human Relationships. I think that's the first Wiki article I agree with- and it's interesting how they tie the Catholic Worker Movement back to the Papal documents and GK Chesterton without touching the obvious influence of Marx (though, Marx took much of his inspiration from scripture, especially two chapters in Acts, so it could be I'm misreading this).

Modern, more technical forms of this include the small computer industry (which both software and hardware started among hobbyists in garages), the permaculture movement (which seeks to maximize food production in urban settings), and of course, the ambient energy movement (where each house in a community is either grid impact negative or net grid impact zero when it comes to electricity).

Mass production of course goes against all of this- but I think personally maximum distribution of the means of production is a good thing in the long run.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Re:but what can we do by bluGill · 2005-09-27 08:12 · Score: 1

Sending an email or calling may or may not doing anything useful. However sitting in silence does less.

When you contact your representative you are sending a message that you care and are watching. Odds are you base your next vote in part on his vote. There will always be those are who unhappy, but when a large number of voters speak, it becomes clear to anyone wanting re-election that they had better vote your way, because those who speak up between elections tend to ignore commercials, and also tell people on the street independently who to vote for. This word of mouth is worth more than all the commercials money can buy, and it is free.

The best way is a face to face meeting. These are hard to get though, so most people don't bother. If you do, perpare ahead of time. Watch congress on the floor (you can get this on cable in most areas, if not go to your state government and watch them) Practice with many others, and make sure they play devils advocate (but not all, get some who are just barely awake to nod as if they are listening). If you get 15 minutes make sure you are done in less than 10! Have answers for every possible question prepared and memorized ahead of time. Make sure all your facts are correct, even if it means you have to admit a static that is against your position (One lie will negate your whole message). Have a short handout of facts to present. Design whole thing so that your words can be repeated on the floor in debate - and make every effort to give him credit for your words if that happens (it won't word for word, but you should try to inspire things). Last, but most important: make sure you are impassioned about the whole issue.

For everything else, odds are the representative will not see your words anyway. What is important is staffer collect statistics of each position and send that on. If we litterally slashdotted congress, that message would get across.

Email is the best practical (face to face is not practical) way to contact your representative. It is easy, fast, and can be read at anytime. A sample of emails is sent directly to the representative (generally the better written ones, popular subjects will have the best examples of each sent on - but staffers pick which are sent, so they can choose bad examples if they are against an issue).

Phone calls are taken by staffers, they will pass your word on, but that is it. These are less meaningful because there is the appearance that people can call effort, while written things took some effort.

Physical, hand-written (not typed!) letters used to be best. After the anthrax scares of a few years ago though, letters are routed all over for decontamination before they are opened. There is much danger that the issue will be gone, one way or the other, before your letter is opened.

A Fax is the worst - a fax is a business only tool (by perception voters do not own fax machines). Business do not vote. A business that wants something needs to deal in money, but in accordance with finance laws and ethics. You need to send a message that you represent an actual vote, not money that can influence other voters.

There are two different types of messages: one written by an organization and sent by many (the EFF has a form letter), and ones you write yourself. The form letter will be passed on, with a note that they got n copies of this (so long as many send it, if only a small number send it, this is useless) The hand written note is more valuable though, because if passed on it will be read more thoroughly, and it is more likely t be passed on than a form letter than only a few copies were received.

Most important of all: VOTE based on issues. Don't vote for the nicest person, don't vote for the best looking person. Don't vote for the person who doesn't sweat. Don't vote for the person you want to sleep with. Don't for the person everyone else is voting for. Vote for the person who will pass the laws as you want them passed. Make sure you do you

I Shouldn't Have to by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2005-09-27 08:16 · Score: 2

I shouldn't have to call my Congress-critter every single fsking time about this.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Marbury vs. Madison by clem.dickey · 2005-09-27 08:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Where in the Constitution does it say that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to be the official interpreters of the Constitution? ... I suppose it could be interpreted to say that, but by whom? The Supreme Court, of course

You guessed it. (Or maybe you already knew that, having remained awake for the first day of your US History class.) The case was Marbury vs. Madison.

Re:Marbury vs. Madison by Jelanen · 2005-09-27 08:47 · Score: 3, Informative

The actual first instance of interpretational SCOTUS opinion, or, reading into the Constitution crap that ain't there, was Scott vs. Stanford. (Ref: Justice Antonin Scalia, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2005-03-15) Marbury vs. Madison just cemented the Court's recognized authority of judicial review; considering whether a law is Constitutional or not.
Re:Marbury vs. Madison by msaavedra · 2005-09-27 09:12 · Score: 1

The case was Marbury vs. Madison

Thanks, that's exactly what I was thinking of, though I couldn't remember the name of the case. I just thought the circularity in the situation was funny.

--
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
Re:Marbury vs. Madison by boarder8925 · 2005-09-27 11:56 · Score: 1

Allowing the Supreme Court (or any of the branches, for that matter) to set its own limits is like asking a kid to limit how much candy he'll take if he's allowed to take as much as he wants.

--
Keep your eyes to the sky.

Re:Tin foil hat time, people! by almound · 2005-09-27 08:19 · Score: 1

Tin foil hat, man! You're crazy.

Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! by Cro+Magnon · 2005-09-27 08:20 · Score: 1

Minor nitpick, but Katrina might still be the worst disaster this year. The tsunami happened late LAST year.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.

Broadcast by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2005-09-27 08:21 · Score: 2

In the not too distant future, this is how this scenario is going to play out. The broadcast flag is bad technology piled on top of an obsolete distribution mechanism. Podcasting and other distribution is going to change the formula. The middlement who would benefit from the broadcast flag are going to be cut out.

Broadcast? WTF is that?
Why would that affect me?
Do they mean podcast?

No?

OK, Bye. (puts headphones back on)

--
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!

Re:but what can we do by phlegmofdiscontent · 2005-09-27 08:22 · Score: 2, Funny

I've always found that breaking into your representative's office, stripping, and then waiting on their desk for them to arrive is a very effective way to get their attention. As for getting them to see my point... Well, I've never been an effective public speaker.

Not Distributors Fault by SyntheticTruth · 2005-09-27 08:27 · Score: 1

Blame the Content Producers, not the Content Distributors (aka the Cable/Satellite companies.) For instance, it is *not* possible for a cable company to just get ESPN or just MTV. If you want those popular channels, you *have* to accept what the Producers bundle with it, hence it then being forced onto the channel line-up. It's the #1 reason why the Producers are so set against an ala-cart legislation being passed, forcing them to allow Distributors to pick-n-choose (and thus allowing the same for their subscribers) which channels to carry.

Where is the EFF getting this information from? by black+hole+sun · 2005-09-27 08:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

They dont list any sources other than a vague reference to a "reconciliations bill" due in October, and none of my googling and searching http://thomas.loc.gov/ can find the bill in question. I'd like to see a source for this concern, and until then it's all just smoke and mirrors or whatever the phrase is...

Re:Where is the EFF getting this information from? by time$lice · 2005-09-27 08:59 · Score: 1

I need links to the actual bill. Has it been proposed/drafted? Has this 'tack-on' already occurred or is it just speculation? I've searched and read the article but nothing points to anything concrete.

If I'm going to write my congressmen, I need to be able to back the claims made with proof. If I had mod points, I'd mode the parent up in a heartbeat.

And to keep on-topic. If the MPAA/RIAA is doing this, it's to be expected. They said yesterday they WANT to sue a 13yr old for sharing. These people are the scum of the earth and care about nothing other than money and control. Allowing this 'bill' to pass will only add to their domination.

The MPAA has nothing by XHIIHIIHX · 2005-09-27 08:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

All this stuff is very useless. I have hundreds of gigs of mp3 files and cd's are really cheap nowadays. So after I burn and listen to a CD a while and get bored of it I leave it in a friendly spot like a bus stop or on a mailbox, etc. They can try and try and try to force this broadcast flag but one hacked piece of hardware is enough to unlock the entire thing. As digital TV quality goes up the ability to tape right off the screen gets better and better (analog hole), not so many years ago in the telecine room film motion pictures were projected onto screens and recorded with a video camera to port movies to television. The quality might be a few percentages below the "digital realm" but who really cares? MP3's sound a little off but obviously the millions of itunes users aren't total audiophiles. I mean, they are today paying for a non-digitally-perfect representation of a song, and for some reason the recording industry feels that people would not be willing to trade non digitally perfect copies of movies or songs. It really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Re:The MPAA has nothing by Simonetta · 2005-10-11 03:06 · Score: 1

not so many years ago in the telecine room film motion pictures were projected onto screens and recorded with a video camera to port movies to television.

The telecine machine projected the film image right onto the image sensor of the video camera. It used a very low rated light bulb. The focus was precisely set. The light of the image was not put onto a screen and reflected onto the video camera lens.

The big trick of the telecine machine was changing the frame rate of the mediums. The film was about 24 frames per second and the video was about 30 frames per second. I believe that the film was slowed a bit and a frame or two were dropped.

Re:Less racism by NotoriousQ · 2005-09-27 08:52 · Score: 1

While many of the cuts listed are bad, others aren't so bad either. Fewer crashing, mostly empty, dirty trains rocketing through our neighborhoods? By bye Amtrack!

Meanwhile the govt subsidizes bankrupt airlines, that can not provide decent passenger service, safety, guarantee of travel (apparently I have the "please bump me" sticker on the back), even if the next plane is in 24 hours.

Personally I want to see all the crap airlines go bye bye before amtrak does.

--
badness 10000

Why is the US alone on this one? by nanoakron · 2005-09-27 08:54 · Score: 1

Ummm...Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand only allow single-purpose bills. And I'm pretty sure the rest of the Western European democracies do as well.

So why is the US out on its own on this one?

-Nano.

If you didn't vote Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-27 09:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

you ASKED for this!
___________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself!

Wobblies! by spun · 2005-09-27 09:18 · Score: 1

Did you know the IWW is still around? I used to do union organizing with them, about the time Judy Bary was getting herself blown up for mixing union organizing with environmentalism. Knowing the ties it has to other movements, I'm liking Distributism even more.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Wobblies! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-09-27 09:21 · Score: 1

Actually so are the Catholic Workers- though both are far less revolutionary these days.

One interesting idea I've seen recently though needs a federal bureaucracy to work: A national shipping tax of $1/mile to encourage local economies to develop (by making mass centralized production less profitable and able to compete).

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Wobblies! by spun · 2005-09-27 09:36 · Score: 1

We need more creative ideas for making change happen within the system. Revolutionary ideologies always seem to fall prey to powerful, amoral men rising to the top in the chaos that revolutions create. Yet reform is the enemy of revolution, in that quick band-aid type fixes discourage real change. What we need are a plethora of small synergistic changes, none too revolutionary in itself, that work together to create real revolution without the chaos.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Wobblies! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-09-27 09:45 · Score: 1

Myself, I'm starting at home. As we get rid of our consumer debt, we're investing in permaculture and ambient energy (it helps that when my brother bought our parent's farm, the contract requires him to share up to 1/3rd the harvest with me- as long as I either work for or pay for the harvest...now if I can only get a car that I can fuel up either in the city or on the farm, from stuff created in the city or on the farm, to make the 40 mile trip. I'm seriously thinking about exploring running cars on apple whiskey). I really think that will be key in a few years- individuals creating energy+ and food+ homes and who are willing to share with their neighbors....

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Who in government is responsible this time? by erroneus · 2005-09-27 09:26 · Score: 1

Let's focus our complaints a little more too. I have read all the articles linked from here and I didn't see which member of congress is adding this rider to the reconsiliation bill. So who is it?

No Link, No Action by duerra · 2005-09-27 09:26 · Score: 1

Nobody here in this discussion has seemed to have found the link (nor have I), and the article doesn't have any links to the bill which is supposedly-infringing. How the hell am I supposed to tell my representatives to vote "no" on a bill if I don't even know what effing bill we're talking about?

I can't believe the article is missing such critical information. This entire story is very frustrating because *anybody* who took action to blindly listen to the requests of the article to write letters of protest without any means of verification are no better than the *AA making attempts to quietly attach the supposed ammendments to the supposed bill.

That said, I'm still looking...

--
A community-oriented lyrics site

Re:Shay's Rebellion by fishbowl · 2005-09-27 09:32 · Score: 1

>It's time to clean things up.

You first. Do you have 3999 other people who are pissed off enough to lay their lives down so that others may have an opportunity to live under less tyranny? Until you've got an issue that's important enough for people to decide that the issue is more important than life or death, you'll have no "armed rebellion."

For best results, find an issue so divisive that it persuades even military people -- entire chains of command, and people who control the industries that supply them -- to join your cause.

Good luck with your revolution. I'll watch it on TV.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Re:Tin foil hat time, people! by sk8er376 · 2005-09-27 09:47 · Score: 1

this is a back door around the betamax decision...people have the LEGAL RIGHT to record whatever they damn well please off the TV for personal use.

True, but there is a slight problem, that in this case it was actually a 5-4 decision, ive done enough research on the court system for this year's debate topic to tell you that this is a super weak example. in the upcoming court if this was brought up i have a slight feeling that it could be overturned because this will be brought up again in the supreme court if this broadcast flag is passed through congress and especially with the recent unpleasentry of Roberts being essentially confirmed for chief justice, im afraid of the supreme court ruling in favor of the broadcast flag.

And Muslims! by rumblin'rabbit · 2005-09-27 09:56 · Score: 1

Muslims also don't touch pork. If the U.S. elects only Jews and Muslims then pork will be eliminated, and politics should run much smoother.

Line Item Veto Ammendment Announced Today by krouskop · 2005-09-27 09:59 · Score: 1

Ironically enough, today a line item veto ammendment was brought forth by Republican Senator Jim Talent of Missouri:
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid =85381

You give the **AA the power... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-27 10:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

...by thinking their products are essential. They aren't - it's all just entertainment.

Until you change your behavior, they'll continue to have that power.

Learn to play an instrument and kill your TV. You'll be better for it.

This is not the USSR by Darth+Cow · 2005-09-27 10:29 · Score: 1

Don't be silly -- it's legal to try to pass a law because we aren't in the USSR or Communist China. The policy of "Democratic Centralism" you alude to (making decisions once and requiring everyone to stick by them) is extremely dangerous in that it fails to be able to account for shifts of political opinion. It's why we can overturn laws or amend our constitution.

happens all the time by Scudsucker · 2005-09-27 10:44 · Score: 1

I belive they're called "riders". You take an unpopular piece of legislation and attatch it to a popular bill. Another such rider in this bill will open up ANWR in Alaska to drilling. I'm sure there's all kinds of crazy stuff in there.

Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! by brian0918 · 2005-09-27 12:21 · Score: 1

Try reading a book.

Best To Attack During The Rumor Stage? by cmholm · 2005-09-27 12:30 · Score: 1

I understand your reluctance to reduce the SNR in your rep's mail bin. On the other hand, I'm willing to cut the EFF some slack and assume the source of their rumor is pretty solid. It was what, six months ago for the last episode? That sounds about right for a media cartel to get its act together for another try on the Hill.

If I assume the rumor is close to the truth, I'm thinking now is the time to write in. If a proposal is still being mooted, it's easiler to kill than it is after someone's gone to the trouble to get it inserted into draft legislation.

Anyone who has a copy of their previous Broadcast Flag letter won't need more than about five minutes to edit it for reuse.

--
Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.

Really Marbury vs. Madison? Or is it different? by einhverfr · 2005-09-27 12:34 · Score: 1

IANAL....

You guessed it. (Or maybe you already knew that, having remained awake for the first day of your US History class.) The case was Marbury vs. Madison.

Ok. Fair enough. But it is more complex than that. Look at the recent Supreme Court decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, for example (the case was thrown out because the plaintiff lacked standing).

The basic issue is this: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made..."

In other words, I don't see any logical way you can start with the Constitution and go in any direction other than giving the judiciary the power to apply it as they see fit to cases. In order to do this, they must be able to interpret it. Maybe Marbury v. Madison was the first to actually put it in so many words, but I fail to see how judiciary can act without this power. For example, what should the Judiciary do if, say, Congress passes a law stating that the Methodist Church is now the National Religion? Can they do anything other than saying that Congress overstepped its authority? Or should Congress be able to reinterpret the Constution as they see fit?

Same with habeas corpus. Should the Executive have the power to ignore the Constitution by detaining people indefinitely without trial, and shall there be no recourse in the courts? Or do the courts have the right to interpret the Constitution and demand that a suspect (like Jose Padilla) be tried or released?

See--- case law really isn't. The courts have no authority to write laws or legislate from the bench (though I argue that Scalia certainly tries, and this charge I won't even level against Thomas who seems more consistant, if consistantly wrong, in his judicial philosophy). Case law is merely the principle that courts should be consistant, and that tests which are designed in one case should be used consistantly in very similar cases. In this way, case law is like very strong advice. For example in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court laid out a fair amount of logic regarding if and when a precedent can be overruled. Yes, it can occasionally be done, c.f. Brown v. Board of Education, Lawrence v. Texas, and others. But it should be done infrequently and in a controlled way.

I find it interesting that those on the right-wing on one hand seem to want an abandonment of case law and at the same time want to see more consistancy in how cases are delt with.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Re:Can't contact Congressman by cnerd2025 · 2005-09-27 13:11 · Score: 1

Try one of your Senators. It isn't automatically made law or anything. Laws have to pass both the House and Senate, and the appropriations bills all originate in the House. The Senate is much less of a rubber-stamp than the House is.

If I understood your post by themusicgod1 · 2005-09-27 13:27 · Score: 1

don't think mass production goes against that at all. Alvin Toffler's book 'future shock' outlined a very different mass production than most people think of; A Toffleresque mass production might very well be more like what you are looking for. Unless I misunderstood what you're getting at, or what he was getting at. It would be a continually redefining, upgrading superprocess. A mechanism of creations of pure uniqueness, addressing the needs of more and more people and leaving out fewer and fewer. Add in 'decentralization' and I think we are getting somewhere.

Myself? I'm going to put serious effort into learning FORTRAN.

--
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.

Re:If I understood your post by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2005-09-28 11:02 · Score: 1

don't think mass production goes against that at all. Alvin Toffler's book 'future shock' outlined a very different mass production than most people think of; A Toffleresque mass production might very well be more like what you are looking for. Unless I misunderstood what you're getting at, or what he was getting at. It would be a continually redefining, upgrading superprocess. A mechanism of creations of pure uniqueness, addressing the needs of more and more people and leaving out fewer and fewer. Add in 'decentralization' and I think we are getting somewhere.

The problem is, the more people whose needs you address, the more you push OTHER people out of work- other people that have the *same* human dignity and right to work that you do. That's where decentralization comes in- for Toffleresque mass production to actually result in an increase in standard of living, the point shouldn't be to serve *more* people- but rather to serve *people we know*. The central point of distributism is to make human dignity and human relationships central; because artisans save their best work for the people they *know* and dare I even say *love*.

This actually does create Toffleresque mass production eventually- because there will be surpluses in some neighborhoods and shortages in others. But it won't cause the surpluses to force other people creating the same good out of business- because they have a primal right to their local customers above an outsider.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

No filibuster? by sockonafish · 2005-09-27 13:39 · Score: 1

I wasn't aware of the MPAA clause in Article I. Why does Ars think this would be exempted from being blocked by a filibuster?

Re:GET SOME PRIORTIES!!! by Tarwn · 2005-09-27 13:48 · Score: 1

Not to minimize katrina, but:

I believe last time I looked there were approx 1400 deaths due to Katrina...lets double it in case I missed some massive updates recently:
If we look at general natural disasters in the past century alone, Katrina wouldn't even make the list
There are still at least 14 atlantic tropical cyclones (hurricanes) ahead of Katrina in the last 230 years.

But why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good trolling...

--
Whee signature.

Re:Really Marbury vs. Madison? Or is it different? by mrchaotica · 2005-09-27 14:04 · Score: 1

I find it interesting that those on the right-wing on one hand seem to want an abandonment of case law and at the same time want to see more consistancy in how cases are delt with.

What's so hard to understand about that? Both of those conditions can be satisfied; all you have to do is codify the case law. I don't know if that's what the liberals want, but it sounds like a good idea to me -- even if it's as obtusely written as usual, having all the law pertaining to a certain situation in the same place would certainly make it eaiser to understand, since you wouldn't need to go searching through bunches of court cases. And anything that makes the law easier to understand is a good thing, especially since a common man is supposed to be qualified to defend himself.

--

"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Re:Really Marbury vs. Madison? Or is it different? by einhverfr · 2005-09-27 15:48 · Score: 1

IANAL....

What's so hard to understand about that? Both of those conditions can be satisfied; all you have to do is codify the case law.

How perchance do you intend to do that?

I don't know if that's what the liberals want, but it sounds like a good idea to me -- even if it's as obtusely written as usual, having all the law pertaining to a certain situation in the same place would certainly make it eaiser to understand, since you wouldn't need to go searching through bunches of court cases.

So you want justices to be ammending US code in each case? And how is this not legislating from the bench? Oh, and heaven help us try to read the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.

And anything that makes the law easier to understand is a good thing, especially since a common man is supposed to be qualified to defend himself.

Most of the time, IME, most laws are pretty easy to understand. For example, when trying to determine what the tax status was on services I offer via my business, I went and read the Washington tax code. The problem exists, however, when you have (sometimes deliberate) vagueness in the law. The perfect example is the Sherman Act which if read as literally as possible would effectively outlaw all contracts. In these cases, what the courts do is they create *tests* to help determine whether a law is violated in a given circumstance. Such tests might include such ideas as market power (Sherman Act), whether an action is on balance anticompetitive when weighing it against its procompetitive aspects, etc. In general, I think that most of the time, it is easy to stay on the good side of the law, but these areas come into effect mostly when there are gray areas. The Lindows case is a perfect one. They had a good case (in the US) and in the end the plaintiff ended up settling the case by paying off the defendant in exchange for a name change of their products.

Also one has to note that in the case of statutory issues, Congress can always rewrite a law based on an unfavorable court decision.

Finally it occurs to me that conservatism *by definition* favors stability of tradition. This is one area where the right wing has parted ways with dictionary conservatism. For example, I consider myself a left-leaning conservative because I believe that change is best made incrimentally, and that the focus on social progress is misguided, though issue-for-issue I tend to be more likely to side with Democrats than Republicans. Real conservatism aught to be a philosophy which favors incrimental optimizations of the current system rather than a radical change on the basis of someone's ideas of morality (see Scalia's dissent on Lawrence for a good example of what I am arguing against). True conservatism should seek to build on what we have now. Upholding Roe v. Wade should be the conservative thing to do.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

The Prophecy has been fulfilled by Prophetic_Truth · 2005-09-27 16:05 · Score: 1

They call me Prophetic_Truth.

--
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+

Re:Really Marbury vs. Madison? Or is it different? by mrchaotica · 2005-09-27 16:06 · Score: 1

So you want justices to be ammending US code in each case? And how is this not legislating from the bench? Oh, and heaven help us try to read the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.

I was thinking of something more along the lines of periodically collecting all the court decisions, summarizing and organizing them, and then submitting the result to Congress for approval. The idea wouldn't be to change the intent of anything, but just to keep it neat and tidy.

--

"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Re:Really Marbury vs. Madison? Or is it different? by einhverfr · 2005-09-27 16:09 · Score: 1

That is not a bad idea actually, and it might actually keep them from getting anything done, which is quite on topic actually because maybe such would keep the broadcast flag out. Or maybe it wouldn't.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

The State of Minnesota has such a provision by kcb93x · 2005-09-28 05:17 · Score: 1

Minnesota Constitution, Article 4, Section 17:

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/A rticle4.htm

Sec. 17. LAWS TO EMBRACE ONLY ONE SUBJECT. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.

In fact, we all were reminded here in Minnesota of this constitutional article not too long ago, when the courts struck down our concealed-carry law, not because the law itself was illegal, but because it came attached to a DNR-related bill. (that was unrelated to guns, arms and the like)

(Copy and pasted from my post on http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=150232&cid =12598707 here)

Now we just need to get our national representatives to agree to such a provision. How about it, boys and girls?

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Re:The State of Minnesota has such a provision by bill_mcgonigle · 2005-09-28 06:06 · Score: 1

2006 Highway Bill?
2006 Energy Bill?
2006 Spending Bill?

I see how this helps in a few edge cases but I can't see how the majority of pork just doesn't get held until the proper bill comes along.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:The State of Minnesota has such a provision by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2005-10-11 07:32 · Score: 1

I mean, if they actually had to spell out individual spending bills like "Bike Path for Congressman X District" and "Coast Guard Headquarters Expansion For Virginia" then Congress would never get it done. They couldn't possibly vote for that many bills in one lifetime, much less one year. They'd have to greatly reduce the number of laws passed to something one human could actually understand and process, rather than converyor-belting through countless tens of thousands of mini sublaws handing out cash. Congress couldn't keep up!

Oh.

Wait.

Nevermind.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:The State of Minnesota has such a provision by bill_mcgonigle · 2005-10-11 09:45 · Score: 1

Boy, you sound like you're suggesting we'd need more legislatures to handle the local work.

Maybe 50 or so...

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:Really Marbury vs. Madison? Or is it different? by bill_mcgonigle · 2005-09-28 05:58 · Score: 1

I don't think your solution is quite right (Congress is often struck down in SCOTUS decisions), but you're barking up the right tree - the laws of the land really consists of the laws of the land overlaid by the decisions of the courts, which modify the laws of the land.

There should be some mechanism to refactor this so you don't have to keep all of the US Code and the SCOTUS decisions in your head. I can't see how a thousand years into the Republic this would even be possible.

The best I can come up with is the US Code being editable by the SCOTUS. Their decisions could come down basically as the edits, and the current case's outcome would be obvious in light of the revisions.

"But that's legislating from the bench" everyone will cry. OK, I hear you - so convince me that's not what's happening now, simply by another name.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Why is it legally allowed to try again? by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 06:06 · Score: 1

The first tyme it was tried was through the FCC. The FCC issued rules requiring it, however the courts found the FCC had exceded it's authority. It didn't say congress can't do it though. So the MPAA/RIAA pay some congress critters to add it to a reconciliation bill. If it makes to a bill that Dubya signs then more than likely it'd end in court again.

When the MPAA/RIAA isn't able to get it's one way then it buldozes way another way. Because they're trying to be so heavy handed I've decided when I can I'll support groups like Creative Commons, Opsound, and Magnatune amoung others.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

perplexing legal system ... by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 06:37 · Score: 1

shouldn't a law for Penguin Control at least be in a bill that is somehow related to penguins??

It should be this way but isn't. Congress critters like to stuff unrelated items in to other bills.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:perplexing legal system ... by ArsenneLupin · 2005-09-28 08:53 · Score: 1

Congress critters like to stuff unrelated items in to other bills.
Penguins, on the other hand, like to stuff entire families of herrings into their bills!

Same with habeas corpus by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 07:15 · Score: 1

Should the Executive have the power to ignore the Constitution by detaining people indefinitely without trial, and shall there be no recourse in the courts? Or do the courts have the right to interpret the Constitution and demand that a suspect (like Jose Padilla) be tried or released?

No person should be held without charges brought against them, what's next requiring all Muslims to register? Then make them wear arm bands with a red cresent on their sleeves? Then we can herd them all into a gheto a la Warsaw. Actually this has already been before the USSC when as president Lincoln authorizes the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. on 27 April 1861. Then when "Chief Justice Roger Taney declares the president's actions unconstitutional, Lincoln blatantly ignores the ruling."

I find it interesting that those on the right-wing on one hand seem to want an abandonment of case law and at the same time want to see more consistancy in how cases are delt with.

Of course. Much like democrats, republicans want to do what benefits them, so when case law fits it's "good" when it doesn't it's "bad" and needs to be overturned.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

understanding laws by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 07:27 · Score: 1

anything that makes the law easier to understand is a good thing, especially since a common man is supposed to be qualified to defend himself.

The best way to make it easier for the common man to understand laws is to get rid of a bunch of them, throw out a bunch of damn law books. For instance they can start with if the USA Constitution grants the government to create said law. Continue by getting rid of victimless crimes such as drug and prostitution laws, actually these would be gone with the first step as the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to either regulate or to outlaw them.. Then give the common man quizes on the laws that are left and if the laws aren't understood get rid of them.

--
Should there be a Law?

look up "state nullification" by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 07:50 · Score: 1

Myself, I like a Fully Informed Jury and Jury Nullification.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

mass media ridiculing Bush? by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 08:02 · Score: 1

49 of those 50 channels RIDICULING BUSH 24/7

The mass media is ridiculing Bush? Where was the ridicule when the mass media was beating Bush's war drums? They took what he and his admin said hook, line, and sinker without questions it. I'm still waiting to see those stockpiles of WMDs.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:mass media ridiculing Bush? by dk_dunkirk · 2005-09-28 09:01 · Score: 1

Normally, I wouldn't bother, but you just PROVED MY POINT, and I just couldn't resist pointing this out. Have a read of the parent post again, and, if you're still confused about what I wrote, well, whatever.

Sheesh.
Re:mass media ridiculing Bush? by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 09:34 · Score: 1

Let's see what you said:

49 of those 50 channels RIDICULING BUSH 24/7

All of those channels were beating Bush's war drums, er most were at least. I don't consider going along with Bush's war plans as ridiculing him. Quite the opposite.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
Re:mass media ridiculing Bush? by at_18 · 2005-10-02 07:49 · Score: 1

Dude, re-read comment #13662038, which is the one from which the quote is taken.
Re:mass media ridiculing Bush? by falconwolf · 2005-10-02 10:28 · Score: 1

Dude, re-read comment #13662038, which is the one from which the quote is taken.

And that's the one I replied to to begin with. I even included the part I was replying to. In the post Dunkirk writes how "49 of those 50 channels RIDICULING BUSH 24/7", to which I replied that they were beating Bush's War Drums to ridicule him. NOT!!! If anything it was supporting him not ridiculing him. I don't see how you could miss it.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

get rid of all laws by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 08:13 · Score: 1

What we NEED is to throw out every freaking law written in the past 200 years (except possibly the amendments) and start from scratch, this time actually paying attention to the constitution. What can happen in reality is something entirely different.

Agreed 110%.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

David Crockett's "Not Yours To Give" speech by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 08:36 · Score: 1

Thanks for the link. Guess I'm be spending some tyme seeing what other speechs Ron Paul has on his site.

Faclon

--
Should there be a Law?

loaded bills by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 08:51 · Score: 1

Exactly! What happens all too often for these loaded bills, is that if a politician votes against it because of all the loaded garbage, it comes back to haunt him/her at re-election. "Senator Jim-Bob is an evil man because he voted against a bill for giving money to blind orphans! He hates blind orphans!" Those same campaign posters will not make mention of the fact that tacked onto the bill for blind orphans was a ridiculous piece of drivel like...oh...I don't know...a broadcast flag system. And since politicians are really only worried about re-election...

There is a solution to this, immediately after the vote hold a press conference and outline exactly why you voted the way you did. Then if you voted against a bill because of one item on it say that, and that if it is removed then you would vote for the bill. Truth be told though as a whole congress doesn't read the entirety of every bill otherwise they wouldn't come back and say they didn't know a certain part of it was there.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Can't work so long as we have a Twelfth Amendment. by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 08:59 · Score: 1

The Twelfth Admendment I definately would like to see gone. It was much better the way the constitution was originally written as far as presidental elections are concerned.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

A constitutional amendment through Congress. by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 09:04 · Score: 1

To admend the constitution doesn't require congress, the states themselves can admend it as well.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:A constitutional amendment through Congress. by Guppy06 · 2005-09-28 09:09 · Score: 1

See point 2. The only way to amend the constitution outside of Congress is through a convention.
Re:A constitutional amendment through Congress. by falconwolf · 2005-09-28 09:38 · Score: 1

See point 2. The only way to amend the constitution outside of Congress is through a convention.

My mistake, I misread what you said. Sorry.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:but what can we do by Red+Flayer · 2005-10-11 02:25 · Score: 1

Do you work for a Congressperson, handling incoming correspondence from constituents... if so, you probably have better info than me. But AFAIK, from working on campaigns over the past decade, phone calls are still weighed much more than emails.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai

Thanks that made me smile by olegm · 2005-10-11 04:03 · Score: 1

As they said: "Blame Canada". Who could argue with intelectual giants such as them?

--
Mac os X, Beautiful, elegant, Unix. Need I say more?

Re:but what can we do by bluGill · 2005-10-11 04:52 · Score: 1

I don't work for a congressperson. Just reporting what I've been told. Since the anthrax scares email has been upgraded in importance, previous to that email wasn't as useful, so depending on when you worked on a campaign, your info might be out of date.

Each congressperson is different. I'm sure each (which might be more the staff than the congressperson) has different rankings, and they can even change slightly. I know some have stated on their webpage that email is the best way to contact them, but that may not translate into their treatment of anything.

states' rights .... by Douglas+Simmons · 2005-10-11 05:12 · Score: 1

I just want to note that the Row Wade case does not legalize abortion, it illegalizes the prohibition of any state to enact such a law. In otherwords, it limits the right of states to make their own laws and constitutions. If the majority of people in Alabama believe abortion is murder and they feel like they are surrounded by a holocost in infanticide, and that makes them feel sad, the politicians they elect may not make such a law. And that makes me said. So, if you want to conserve the notion that we are a group of states and like snowflakes each state may be made up of people with different persuasions, the federal government has no business enforcing such a law. You can call that conservative, wanting to preservie the protection of states' rights.

Oh and by the way, everybody seems to refer to Roe v Wade as "The Law of the Land" but it is only a trial verdict that made its way up the appeal lader. It's the precedent of the land.

Which reminds me of this joke: Q: How does Bush feel about Roe v Wade? A: He really doesn't care how the people get out of New Orleans (roe/row, get it?).

But they ARE his constituents... by jimbro2k · 2005-10-11 06:18 · Score: 1

The media companies have the money (more than you do!). They pay for his election. They are the ones whose interests he is paid and obligated by (unwritten) contract to represent. The role of the voters is the same as that of the voting machine - a simple mechanical part of the process.

--
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.

CALL AND WRITE YOUR SENATOR!!!! by yfarren · 2005-10-11 08:59 · Score: 1

If you senator is on the list of 20, call and write them. If you truly care about this issue, CALL AND WRITE YOUR SENATOR. If you want to jerk off and whine and complain, fine, do it here. Talk about how corrupt government is. If you want to CHANGE things, this is your chance.

Go to the US House Of Reps. Website(http://www.house.gov/) find your representative, call and write him.

Then, call and write BOTH your senators (http://senate.gov/).

Garnted, what is going on is going on in comittee, so if your senator isnt on the right comittee, it wont much matter. Still, it is importatant to let your congressmen know how you feel

Slashdot Mirror

Broadcast Flag Back in Congress

350 of 417 comments (clear)