No offense but fuck off. I did not buy a Chinese made computer, and I do not use a Chinese made smart phone.
If you want to say U.S. consumers in general have been part of the problem, I agree. But you should be careful about making claims about people you don't know.
"So unless you are talking about nationalization of successful international businesses, then your comment has no meaning."
As far as I know, the U.S. government is the only entity that has declared "most favored trading partner", so of course I was referring to the U.S.
"The only way it would make sense is if you suggested that US government should turn around and actually provide a business friendly environment inside the country"
I disagree. Many companies are (with or without the U.S. government) ceasing their offshore outsourcing of manufacturing. It isn't as economical as it once appeared to be. And (although I doubt this is their primary motivation) offshoring has also been shown to be damaging to our economy.
No, of course I wasn't suggesting "nationalizing" any businesses.
"And technically they are right. There was no end of the war called, and no peace treaty."
"Technically" there was never a war to end. That was the first "police action" (non-declared "war") for the U.S.
"DPRKs claim that Korea is one nation is also the reasonable one. The only reason it was split was due to a political problem between the USA and the Soviets. There is no Korean cultural reason for the split."
Hahaha. Especially that last sentence. It's a hoot. HAVE you seen the recent "tourist" films smuggled out of North Korea? Or reading the stories of other visitors there?
South Korea wants nothing to do with the North, and most of the people in S.K. are grateful for the intervention of the U.S.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm not defending the U.S. actions. I'm simply questioning some of your assertions, which contradict some of the evidence I have seen come out of Korea lately.
"If Chinese GOVERNMENT wanted to hurt Apple, they'd start there."
It's government all right. And no, they most definitely would NOT start there.
The Chinese government is a crowd of sneaky back-stabbers. They want our business, but they also want to steal all our secrets. So they leave the businesses (mainly) alone, at least to our faces. Then they hack and grab when they think we aren't looking.
It's far past time we dropped China as a Most Favored Nation trading partner, and brought our manufacturing back home.
"There's no way to talk about immigration, especially employment-based immigration, without talking about the economic system."
Yes, there is, because immigration policy is a purely political thing. Sure, it might affect economics, but it is not driven by economics in any real sense. It is driven by Congress.
My point was simply that while immigration policy might affect the economy or capitalism, immigration policy is NOT capitalism, or driven by capitalism. Lobbying is driven by corporations, but even that is not capitalism. That is politics. Lobbying, of one kind or another, occurs in socialism and other systems too.
"Lets face it, if you had to pick a country to play The Empire in Star Wars, the USA would definitely be it."
Maybe so, but that's pretty irrelevant. North Korean propaganda is based on events surrounding the Korean War, not so much modern events. Though they do try to blame international economic sanctions on the U.S. But that leaves them with a problem, because they can't admit to their people that there are "international" sanctions at all. It's all a plot by the evil U.S., according to their propaganda.
I should clarify: I know the Constitution is not a matter of contract law. My point behind the analogy is that you delegated the authority to do one thing, but the entity to which you delegated it decided to do things way beyond the powers you actually delegated.
There is nothing in either common or Constitutional law that allows it to do that.
"Per Wikipedia: 'The Report of 1800 was a resolution drafted by James Madison arguing for the sovereignty of the individual states under the United States Constitution and against the Alien and Sedition Acts.'"
First, this demonstrates that Wikipedia is not always correct. The "Report" was not an argument in itself, but rather an explanation of previous arguments he made in the Virginia Resolution of 1798.
But again, you miss the point: the whole reason Madison was saying this was BECAUSE state sovereignty was guaranteed by both the Constitution and other guarantees that were made to the states before ratification.
If you knew your history, you would know that this is an incredible show of integrity on the part of Madison, because he was personally in favor of a stronger Federal government. He made these arguments against his own opinions, for the simple reason that they were the truth about what the Constitution was agreed to mean.
"... with as much authority as the States themselves had in declaring independence from Britain"
That was a war. The context is completely different. So that a straw-man argument. A rather ridiculous one, in my opinion.
"Whatever you think about the particular result, it's impossible to argue that a state can secede from the union."
Nothing I mentioned has anything to do with secession. Another straw-man argument. This is one of statists' favorite straw-man arguments. (I'm not accusing you of statism, but nevertheless it is one of the statists' favorites.)
Try a more fitting analogy: suppose you contracted with Person X, a CPA, to manage your finances. A while later you turn around, and find that Person X is now doing all kinds of things in your name that you never authorized it to do: spending your money on things you didn't approve, telling you what to do with your house and your property, and so on.
Would you say that Person X is exceeding his authority? Of course you would.
Let's say that further, you tried to use force to stop Person X from stealing from you, but you failed. Does that then make Person X legally in the right? Of course not.
Either the Federal government is exceeding its lawful authority, or it is not. Any argument (such as yours) that "it is okay because it has done it before" is just so much bullshit.
"yeah its 15 pages of questions that should take about 45 minutes to fill out, maybe an hour. all in all not that bad."
15 pages *IS* not just a little, but A LOT more pages than I need to do income tax. That is hardly a recommendation. And I highly doubt it would "take about 45 minutes" to an hour to fill them out: you have to collect and go through all your records, and so on.
And I agree that healthcare should not be an issue for the United States, but that completely misses the point. The question is whether the "Affordable Care Act" actually makes things better. And I think the vast majority of the evidence so far says no. Sure... pre-existing conditions will be covered. So it will help those people. But it's hardly free. The cost has already been higher premiums for everybody.
"Its the brainwashed "minority" and leader that is the problem."
If you had watched recent videos of people visiting North Korea, you would know that the brainwashed are not the "minority" there. For generations now they have been constantly inundated with propaganda about how the United States is the epitome of evil, and apparently the majority actually believe it.
"Yeah tell me about it. Like ending slavery or giving women voting rights."
You completely missed the point.
First, f you would bother to look again, you will find that while the Constitution did have provision for slavery (it had to, in those days, in order to get ratified), it ALSO already contained language enforcing equal rights, allowing for the eventual abolition of that same slavery. No "change" to the Constitution was necessary. Though it was done anyway, in the form of an amendment. Same with women's suffrage.
But that is the point you missed. There is a well defined and established method of making changes should they become necessary. That is entirely different from changing the "interpretation" of what it originally said.
"You mean, that act that provides subsidies for low-income people to buy insurance with, and tightens the screws on employers who don't provide health insurance? That prohibits insurance companies from dumping/refusing you because you were sick?"
Have you seen the pile of paperwork that people are supposed to fill out to apply for such subsidies? There are so many requirements and exceptions that people have already (before it is even fully implemented) been saying that it's worse than doing income tax... and that is bad, indeed.
And in addition, of course, it's also unconstitutional. A number of states have already refused to comply.
"Sorry to point this out, but your constitution is nowhere near as comprehensive a document as to be able to fully define what the Federal government does, so the Federal government does decide what it's own powers are in all but a narrow range of situations."
Sorry to point this out, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Our history irrefutably shows that our Federal government was only allowed strictly defined, clearly enumerated powers, and was not to exceed those powers. Your assertion that it has more power than that demonstrates your ignorance of the real issue here.
Yes, it attempts to continue to increase its own powers. But that is the problem.
Uh... "capitalism" has nothing to do with lobbying Congress and the President to change immigration policy. Capitalism is an economic system. What you're talking about is politics.
Have they been mixed together? Yes. But it is easy to demonstrate that the mix is largely unhealthy (and a sharp deviation from true capitalism).
"Of course you need to search all over the world if you only want highly skilled people."
According to a recent study mentioned in Mother Jones and elsewhere, H-1B workers are not even close to the "best and brightest" as these companies claim. In fact they probably don't hold up to American workers. All they are is cheap.
And LED bulbs? Still new enough that you have the uninformed Luddites bitching that they cost $60 each, despite the fact that you can now buy them for under $20 regularly and around $10 on sale - Still pretty damned expensive, but in the "worth it" range for the handful of lights you use the most.
You missed the point. This wasn't about LED bulbs. This was mainly about "smart" bulbs... networked or color-changing or both.
What amiga3D said. What's really the sad part is that any such interpretation is invalid on its face. We know what the historical documents said about the precise meaning of every part of the Constitution. None of it is ambiguous. It is only claimed to be ambiguous by people who want to change it. And EVERY change made so far has proven to be for the worse.
--
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson
... For the sake of completeness I should add: "And which has already driven insurance premiums up significantly, and will likely do so much more once all the provisions are in place?"
"'Patriot Act' was a very highly manipulative naming for a very unpatriotic act. Smoke and mirrors all too common and further enabled by current major media."
Kind of like "Affordable Care Act"? The one that would fine people thousands of dollars for not buying insurance they already couldn't afford to buy?
"Laws usually have many provisions, and each provision is separately vulnerable to attack."
In this particular case, though, the gag order provisions were not severable from the other provisions, which is why the judge ruled the whole thing unconstitutional, rather than just part of it.
"But the US Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, came to the brilliant conclusion that they were supreme."
And therein lies the problem. At least if you listen to the Federal Government, rather than reading history.
When debating about whether to ratify the Constitution, the States were repeatedly guaranteed that the Supreme Court would be the ultimate arbiter ONLY when it came to matters of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. On questions of WHETHER the Federal government was exceeding its Constitutional powers, the Supreme Court was not to be relied on. Because -- of course -- the Supreme Court is part of that same government. And it was never intended that the Federal government should have the authority to decide what its own powers are. If it were, there would have been no need for a Constitution in the first place.
Following is an excerpt from James Madison's "Report of 1800" before the Virginia legislature. Modern English translation below.
"However true therefore it may be that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
In other words, the Supreme Court is normally "supreme" in matters of normal Federal law, but NOT "in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact" (the States). His reasoning for this is perfectly solid: since via the Constitution, the States were creating the Federal government, and ceding some of their powers to it, the Federal government cannot be more powerful than the States themselves, except in those areas explicitly set out by the states in that same Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot lord it over the States because the States created it and gave it power in the first place, which is a logical contradiction. ("On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it;")
And where the question of whether the Federal government has exceeded its authority arises, the Supreme Court is no more immune to power-grabbing than the other branches of the Federal government. ("... the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.")
Therefore, when the Federal government is deemed by the States to have exceeded its rightful powers as enumerated in the Constitution, it is "the right and the duty" (as he and Jefferson wrote elsewhere) for those States to resist the Federal government, and declare that "law" null and void.
That is exactly what you are seeing today, with a great many states voting to "nullify" Obamacare, certain gun and marijuana restrictions, and other Federal "laws" that they feel are unconstitutional.
"That's just one (probably the most famous) example of the Court reversing itself, but there's a lot more."
Now all we need is a reversal of Wickard v. Filburn (arguably on its way, with all the recent State nullification of Federal "interstate commerce clause justified" laws.
And a few others, too. But that would be a big one, and as I say there is a very good chance we will see it before many years are out.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense but fuck off. I did not buy a Chinese made computer, and I do not use a Chinese made smart phone.
If you want to say U.S. consumers in general have been part of the problem, I agree. But you should be careful about making claims about people you don't know.
"So unless you are talking about nationalization of successful international businesses, then your comment has no meaning."
As far as I know, the U.S. government is the only entity that has declared "most favored trading partner", so of course I was referring to the U.S.
"The only way it would make sense is if you suggested that US government should turn around and actually provide a business friendly environment inside the country"
I disagree. Many companies are (with or without the U.S. government) ceasing their offshore outsourcing of manufacturing. It isn't as economical as it once appeared to be. And (although I doubt this is their primary motivation) offshoring has also been shown to be damaging to our economy.
No, of course I wasn't suggesting "nationalizing" any businesses.
"And technically they are right. There was no end of the war called, and no peace treaty."
"Technically" there was never a war to end. That was the first "police action" (non-declared "war") for the U.S.
"DPRKs claim that Korea is one nation is also the reasonable one. The only reason it was split was due to a political problem between the USA and the Soviets. There is no Korean cultural reason for the split."
Hahaha. Especially that last sentence. It's a hoot. HAVE you seen the recent "tourist" films smuggled out of North Korea? Or reading the stories of other visitors there?
South Korea wants nothing to do with the North, and most of the people in S.K. are grateful for the intervention of the U.S.
Don't misunderstand me: I'm not defending the U.S. actions. I'm simply questioning some of your assertions, which contradict some of the evidence I have seen come out of Korea lately.
"If Chinese GOVERNMENT wanted to hurt Apple, they'd start there."
It's government all right. And no, they most definitely would NOT start there.
The Chinese government is a crowd of sneaky back-stabbers. They want our business, but they also want to steal all our secrets. So they leave the businesses (mainly) alone, at least to our faces. Then they hack and grab when they think we aren't looking.
It's far past time we dropped China as a Most Favored Nation trading partner, and brought our manufacturing back home.
"There's no way to talk about immigration, especially employment-based immigration, without talking about the economic system."
Yes, there is, because immigration policy is a purely political thing. Sure, it might affect economics, but it is not driven by economics in any real sense. It is driven by Congress.
My point was simply that while immigration policy might affect the economy or capitalism, immigration policy is NOT capitalism, or driven by capitalism. Lobbying is driven by corporations, but even that is not capitalism. That is politics. Lobbying, of one kind or another, occurs in socialism and other systems too.
"Lets face it, if you had to pick a country to play The Empire in Star Wars, the USA would definitely be it."
Maybe so, but that's pretty irrelevant. North Korean propaganda is based on events surrounding the Korean War, not so much modern events. Though they do try to blame international economic sanctions on the U.S. But that leaves them with a problem, because they can't admit to their people that there are "international" sanctions at all. It's all a plot by the evil U.S., according to their propaganda.
"That people think and are human? F = U"
You're just reinforcing my point. Thanks.
I should clarify: I know the Constitution is not a matter of contract law. My point behind the analogy is that you delegated the authority to do one thing, but the entity to which you delegated it decided to do things way beyond the powers you actually delegated.
There is nothing in either common or Constitutional law that allows it to do that.
"Per Wikipedia: 'The Report of 1800 was a resolution drafted by James Madison arguing for the sovereignty of the individual states under the United States Constitution and against the Alien and Sedition Acts.'"
First, this demonstrates that Wikipedia is not always correct. The "Report" was not an argument in itself, but rather an explanation of previous arguments he made in the Virginia Resolution of 1798.
But again, you miss the point: the whole reason Madison was saying this was BECAUSE state sovereignty was guaranteed by both the Constitution and other guarantees that were made to the states before ratification.
If you knew your history, you would know that this is an incredible show of integrity on the part of Madison, because he was personally in favor of a stronger Federal government. He made these arguments against his own opinions, for the simple reason that they were the truth about what the Constitution was agreed to mean.
"... with as much authority as the States themselves had in declaring independence from Britain"
That was a war. The context is completely different. So that a straw-man argument. A rather ridiculous one, in my opinion.
"Whatever you think about the particular result, it's impossible to argue that a state can secede from the union."
Nothing I mentioned has anything to do with secession. Another straw-man argument. This is one of statists' favorite straw-man arguments. (I'm not accusing you of statism, but nevertheless it is one of the statists' favorites.)
Try a more fitting analogy: suppose you contracted with Person X, a CPA, to manage your finances. A while later you turn around, and find that Person X is now doing all kinds of things in your name that you never authorized it to do: spending your money on things you didn't approve, telling you what to do with your house and your property, and so on.
Would you say that Person X is exceeding his authority? Of course you would.
Let's say that further, you tried to use force to stop Person X from stealing from you, but you failed. Does that then make Person X legally in the right? Of course not.
Either the Federal government is exceeding its lawful authority, or it is not. Any argument (such as yours) that "it is okay because it has done it before" is just so much bullshit.
"You'r essentially saying the people there are to dumb to know they are being lied to. Which I doubt."
Doubt it all you like. I was referring to evidence I have actually seen. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please let us see it.
"yeah its 15 pages of questions that should take about 45 minutes to fill out, maybe an hour. all in all not that bad."
15 pages *IS* not just a little, but A LOT more pages than I need to do income tax. That is hardly a recommendation. And I highly doubt it would "take about 45 minutes" to an hour to fill them out: you have to collect and go through all your records, and so on.
And I agree that healthcare should not be an issue for the United States, but that completely misses the point. The question is whether the "Affordable Care Act" actually makes things better. And I think the vast majority of the evidence so far says no. Sure... pre-existing conditions will be covered. So it will help those people. But it's hardly free. The cost has already been higher premiums for everybody.
"Its the brainwashed "minority" and leader that is the problem."
If you had watched recent videos of people visiting North Korea, you would know that the brainwashed are not the "minority" there. For generations now they have been constantly inundated with propaganda about how the United States is the epitome of evil, and apparently the majority actually believe it.
"Yeah tell me about it. Like ending slavery or giving women voting rights."
You completely missed the point.
First, f you would bother to look again, you will find that while the Constitution did have provision for slavery (it had to, in those days, in order to get ratified), it ALSO already contained language enforcing equal rights, allowing for the eventual abolition of that same slavery. No "change" to the Constitution was necessary. Though it was done anyway, in the form of an amendment. Same with women's suffrage.
But that is the point you missed. There is a well defined and established method of making changes should they become necessary. That is entirely different from changing the "interpretation" of what it originally said.
"You mean, that act that provides subsidies for low-income people to buy insurance with, and tightens the screws on employers who don't provide health insurance? That prohibits insurance companies from dumping/refusing you because you were sick?"
Have you seen the pile of paperwork that people are supposed to fill out to apply for such subsidies? There are so many requirements and exceptions that people have already (before it is even fully implemented) been saying that it's worse than doing income tax... and that is bad, indeed.
And in addition, of course, it's also unconstitutional. A number of states have already refused to comply.
"Sorry to point this out, but your constitution is nowhere near as comprehensive a document as to be able to fully define what the Federal government does, so the Federal government does decide what it's own powers are in all but a narrow range of situations."
Sorry to point this out, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Our history irrefutably shows that our Federal government was only allowed strictly defined, clearly enumerated powers, and was not to exceed those powers. Your assertion that it has more power than that demonstrates your ignorance of the real issue here.
Yes, it attempts to continue to increase its own powers. But that is the problem.
Uh... "capitalism" has nothing to do with lobbying Congress and the President to change immigration policy. Capitalism is an economic system. What you're talking about is politics.
Have they been mixed together? Yes. But it is easy to demonstrate that the mix is largely unhealthy (and a sharp deviation from true capitalism).
"Of course you need to search all over the world if you only want highly skilled people."
According to a recent study mentioned in Mother Jones and elsewhere, H-1B workers are not even close to the "best and brightest" as these companies claim. In fact they probably don't hold up to American workers. All they are is cheap.
And LED bulbs? Still new enough that you have the uninformed Luddites bitching that they cost $60 each, despite the fact that you can now buy them for under $20 regularly and around $10 on sale - Still pretty damned expensive, but in the "worth it" range for the handful of lights you use the most.
You missed the point. This wasn't about LED bulbs. This was mainly about "smart" bulbs... networked or color-changing or both.
What amiga3D said. What's really the sad part is that any such interpretation is invalid on its face. We know what the historical documents said about the precise meaning of every part of the Constitution. None of it is ambiguous. It is only claimed to be ambiguous by people who want to change it. And EVERY change made so far has proven to be for the worse.
--
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson
... For the sake of completeness I should add: "And which has already driven insurance premiums up significantly, and will likely do so much more once all the provisions are in place?"
"'Patriot Act' was a very highly manipulative naming for a very unpatriotic act. Smoke and mirrors all too common and further enabled by current major media."
Kind of like "Affordable Care Act"? The one that would fine people thousands of dollars for not buying insurance they already couldn't afford to buy?
"Laws usually have many provisions, and each provision is separately vulnerable to attack."
In this particular case, though, the gag order provisions were not severable from the other provisions, which is why the judge ruled the whole thing unconstitutional, rather than just part of it.
"But the US Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, came to the brilliant conclusion that they were supreme."
And therein lies the problem. At least if you listen to the Federal Government, rather than reading history.
When debating about whether to ratify the Constitution, the States were repeatedly guaranteed that the Supreme Court would be the ultimate arbiter ONLY when it came to matters of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. On questions of WHETHER the Federal government was exceeding its Constitutional powers, the Supreme Court was not to be relied on. Because -- of course -- the Supreme Court is part of that same government. And it was never intended that the Federal government should have the authority to decide what its own powers are. If it were, there would have been no need for a Constitution in the first place.
Following is an excerpt from James Madison's "Report of 1800" before the Virginia legislature. Modern English translation below.
"However true therefore it may be that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
In other words, the Supreme Court is normally "supreme" in matters of normal Federal law, but NOT "in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact" (the States). His reasoning for this is perfectly solid: since via the Constitution, the States were creating the Federal government, and ceding some of their powers to it, the Federal government cannot be more powerful than the States themselves, except in those areas explicitly set out by the states in that same Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot lord it over the States because the States created it and gave it power in the first place, which is a logical contradiction. ("On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it;")
And where the question of whether the Federal government has exceeded its authority arises, the Supreme Court is no more immune to power-grabbing than the other branches of the Federal government. ("... the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.")
Therefore, when the Federal government is deemed by the States to have exceeded its rightful powers as enumerated in the Constitution, it is "the right and the duty" (as he and Jefferson wrote elsewhere) for those States to resist the Federal government, and declare that "law" null and void.
That is exactly what you are seeing today, with a great many states voting to "nullify" Obamacare, certain gun and marijuana restrictions, and other Federal "laws" that they feel are unconstitutional.
"That's just one (probably the most famous) example of the Court reversing itself, but there's a lot more."
Now all we need is a reversal of Wickard v. Filburn (arguably on its way, with all the recent State nullification of Federal "interstate commerce clause justified" laws.
And a few others, too. But that would be a big one, and as I say there is a very good chance we will see it before many years are out.