>>>>>the ability to do some terrible things without accountability should be reserved for the government. >> >>You've never been on a date have you?;)
"How do you write women so well?" - receptionist. "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability." - Jack Nicholson. - As Good As It Gets
>>>Parents have total power of attorney till the kid is eighteen
The world doesn't work like that anymore. I heard a story a few days where Parents lost custody of their kid because, "They were teaching the child that the government can not be trusted." You are no longer the ultimate master in your home - your kids are, and they are backed the Child Protective Services. You teach the wrong thing, and you will lose custody.
It's moving towards 1984 where parents were afraid to speak, for fear the kids would report them, and the CPS would arrest the mom and dad.
And yet I agree that corporations (or any other group) should not be treated as individuals. If Microsoft Corporation wants to run an ad saying "Vote Obama in 2004", they should be forbidden from doing it. Corporations have no more rights than a rock or tree.
But Bill Gates or any other MS employee? That's just fine and dandy if they want to run a "Vote Obama" ad.
Really? I'd like to see 10.6 running on either 384 or 512 MB. (I searched youtube and found nothing.) Also doesn't hacking your 384 megabyte Mac to run 10.6 violate Apple's Law... I mean, license? Like using a Hackintosh PC, if you get caught, you could get in serious trouble with Apple Corporation?
I've seen Win7 running on as little as 128 megabytes (without violating any license/restrictions). It can do single-tasking, but not much else. It operates about as well as XP on 128 MB.
.
>>>being able to install on one machine, and move the hard drive to another machine
Yeah I'm aware of this hack, to get OS 10.5 to operate on an older Mac that Apple forbids you from using (i.e. below 800 megahertz). I tried to use it on my old 600 megahertz Mac but it failed for some reason (shrug). I'm also aware that doing that violates Apple's 10.5 license.
Aside -
BTW I'm not anti-Apple. I've used Apples since circa 1986 to 2009; in fact the Quadra Mac was one of my favorite computers. I'm just anti-Apple zealotry. I'm tired of hearing people tell me if I'm not using Apple, I'm an "idiot".
I'm simply flabbergasted that someone (the previous poster) thinks the DC Gun Ban should still be in effect. The Supreme Law is clear - the people have a right to own weapons.
Commonsense is also clear - an unarmed city is a big target for criminals to steal, rape, whatever and not have to fear getting shot. It's like a whole city of defenseless sheep just waiting for the wolves to attack.
Then why it it necessary for Congress to pass unconstitutional laws like "You must buy hospital insurance, or be fined"? They should simply amend the Constitution to make it legal.
The real answer is that Congress knows they can ram through unconstitutional laws and there's nothing to stop them. (That's right - not even the U.S. Court because the Congress frequently ignores them.) This is why we need to give power to the State Legislatures, the ones that originally created the Congress, to nullify unconstitutional laws.
Same applies to the EU. A majority of 13 Member States should have the power to nullify EU Acts that are unconstitutional (powers not granted to the EU by the Lisbon Treaty).
You don't. Segregation wasn't an invention of the State legislatures. It was an invention of the National legislature (congress) and sustained by the national court (SCOTUS), and thereby became the law of the whole continent. ALSO segregation was far, far worse in the north than the south. Many blacks of that time said they enjoyed more freedom in the south than they did in northern cities like Chicago or Philadelphia.
Also:
It was the national government that *forced* Utah to outlaw multiple-partner marriages. Now I don't personally believe in polygamy, but if that's what Utahans want, then that's what they want. It's THEIR state and their lifestyle, not mine. The Congress had no authority to overrule them, but did it anyway.
Almsot everything unjust has had its genesis in the national government, not the state government. Hence the need for State Majority (25+) to nullify bad Congressional laws, since they are so frequent.
And once again, I get called a "racist" by somebody.
Yes I know you didn't use that word specifically, but you implied it. I joined the Tea Party protests in December 2008 (immediately after Bush signed that idiotic TARP bailout bill - I hate Bush). That does not mean I am not in favor of Jim Crow laws, since I don't give a damn if you're black, brown, white, or pink with purple poka-dots. I'm not racist.
- BTW which president was it that rounded-up Asian-Americans and threw them into concentration camps? - Which president was it that arrested Suffragettes like Alice Paul, arrested reporters who published anti-war articles, and also belonged to the KKK?
(Hint: They were both Democrat.) Blindly loving any Democrat politician and hating a Republican politician (or viceversa) is foolish. As Judge Napolitino says frequently, "There is ONE party, the big government party, with two branches. One wants war and the other wants socialism - either way, BOTH want more control to run your life."
>>>Our government is a balance. Legislative/Executive/Judicial, State/Fed
Correct.
>>>If individual states could undo any law, where is the balance there?
Not correct. I did not say that. (Lately I'm starting to wonder if slashdotters lost their ability to read?) I said, quote, "If 25 States declare a U.S. Law unconstitutional....." THEN the law would be nullified. If an individual state declared it unconstitutional, or even 24 states, the U.S. law would still be in full effect.
Only after the 25th state declared the law unconstitutional would the U.S. law be nullified. An example where this would be useful? Making medical marijuana legal. Or making gay marriage legal. Currently both are banned by U.S. Law, but if 25 states declared these bans unconstitutional, then the U.S. law would be null.
>>>If SCOTUS can justify overturning the DC handgun ban without citing precedence or any case law
Say what? The SCOTUS cited this law: The Constitution. They also quoted a couple of the founders in their decision, including James Madison who wrote the constitution. No citations??? They used plenty of citations.
I also find it odd that you disagree with the Court's decision, considering (1) that DC crime has *dropped* since handguns became legal again. (2) Or considering that the law is clear - the people have the right to bear arms for the purpose of raising a national defense against invaders. (3) Or considering that if you own your own body (the argument used in favor of abortion), then naturally you have an equal right to protect it from harm by thieves/murderers/rapists. Your illogical thinking baffles me..... .
>we do have Democratic control of 2 out of 3 branches
Oh. Never mind. You're a Democrat. You don't believe in either the Supreme Law or natural rights. That's why you want to disarm everybody and leave them vulnerable to attack.
IMHO "the Supreme Court has made stupid decisions in the past, like making Segregation legal," is the biggest argument against why the Court should not be the final arbiter over what the U.S. Constitution says.
- "Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815.
- "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so..... their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
- "The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
I go even further than this Founding Father:
I think the State Legislatures, acting on behalf of the people, should be given the power to nullify acts of congress. i.e. If 25 States declare a U.S. Law unconstitutional, it has the same effect as if the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. It's nullified. State Legislatures tend to more democratic than the national legislature (which ignored the ~80% of Americans who did NOT want Pelosicare or TARP/bailout bills to pass). The State governments are the proper organ for nullification, not 9 old people who are unelected oligarchs.
>>>I would have really preferred that HCR worded it as a tax credit for carrying insurance rather than a fine for not
Agreed.
But what I REALLY prefer is to have *freedom* and liberty. That means I get to decide for myself how I want to spend, or not spend, my money as a liberated individual (i.e. no longer a feudal serf). I am pro-choice, whereas this Pelosicare bill is anti-choice: Do it or else.
I find it ironic that Democrats call themselves pro-choice, and yet exercise it so infrequently, taking away choice and replacing it with monopoly.
Yes and the U.S. government has authority over those packets as they cross state lines. However once they reach their destination (Comcast of Baltimore's central office), the authority ends. The jurisdiction now belongs to the Maryland government to regulate the LAN which services that city.
This is no different than how the EU operates. International packets are the responsibility of the EU government until it reaches its destination (example: comcast of london), then the jurisdiction passes to the UK Parliament.
>>>When a customer of Comcast of Baltimore accesses Amazon, how is that not sending a signal across state lines?
Because you don't access amazon directly. You first talk to Comcast, and then Comcast talks to amazon. So if Comcast wants to block amazon (or an objectionable site like goatse) they can. They are not required to pass the information down their local area network (that which serves Baltimore).
In fact my ISP Verizon does exactly that. I can no longer access rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.music, or any other usenet site. Verizon chose to stop supplying then to the local LAN.
The only government with the power to overrule Verizon's decision is Maryland's government (intrastate commerce), not the U.S. government. That's how federalism works, both here in the US and across the pond in the EU. It's separation of powers.
>>>Nope. Why? [Because your antenna broadcast crosses state lines.]
Fixed that for ya. When signals cross state lines, then the U.S. has jurisdiction. But since Comcast of Baltimore (for example) doesn't have any signals crossing state lines, and only serves Baltimore and the surrounding counties, it is not subject to the National government.
The jurisdiction belongs to the Maryland government. This is identical to how the European Union operates - the member state governments do the regulating of ISPs, not the central EU government. Likewise the central US government has no power over Baltimore Comcast.
>>>The problem is that you present your opinion as fact.
"written by commodore64_love". I think it's quite clear that every one of my posts is MY opinion. That you mistake it for fact seems illogical. - Also when it comes to laws, there's really not much room for debate. "Speed Limit 55" is pretty damn clear. Sure cops might bend the rules a little and let you go 65 before pulling you over, but the ticket clearly states "exceeded 55 by ten mph". That's the law.
OUR law says "regulate commerce among the states" not inside the states.
.
>>>That fact is wrong as long as the Supreme Court disagrees with you
"The Supreme Court offered their opinion, and I offered my opinion. I will follow my opinion of what the Constitution says." - President Andrew Jackson. Ultimately the Supreme court's opinion is merely that - opinion. In most cases after the Court nullifies a law, Congress merely turns around and passes it a second time.
And then of course there's State Nullification. After Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act in the 1800s, and the Supreme Court upheld it, the New England States and Pennsylvania refused to comply. They provided protection to any escaped slave who desired freedom, in direct opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court offers judgements on cases and *opinions* on Congressional law. Nothing more. States routinely ignore those opinions, such as passing Medical Marijuana laws in opposition to the court's ruling that marijuana is still banned.
Yeah that will go well. I'll spend a couple thousand dollars fighting Sony for the next ~8 years over a $300 console. And most likely - lose.
I prefer to not put myself through that hell. I prefer to take the easy route of going through my Credit card's protection program (if the item does not work, and customer has proof-of-return, the retailer's agreement REQUIRES a refund).
2 wrongs DO make a right. It's why we deprive thieves of their freedom and mass-murders of their lives. We commit the second wrong in order to bring justice to the 1st wronged party (the victim).
>>>you're not getting 'justice' against Sony, but against Walmart
Ya know..... it helps to read the WHOLE message. Quote: "The store would eventually return it [for refund] to Sony who would have to deal with the property THEY destroyed." So Walmart won't be stuck. Sony will be stuck.
"Apple Inc -- creator of the personal computer"
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
False.
A few PCs existed before Apple's brand. Off the top of my head - the Altair. And the number one best-selling computer of the 70s? The Tandy-Radio Shack 80 (TRS-80). It's sad how Apple and Microsoft have rewritten history to effectively erase other companies/inventors' achievements from our collective memories.
Wiccard v. Filburn turned Farmers into serfs, who were unable to grow any wheat except with the permission of the Lords..... oooops I mean the Congressional representatives.
In this specific case, the farmer grew approximately 20 acres of wheat to feed his cows, sheep, and chickens. i.e. For his own usage. The Master... I mean Congress told the serf he's only allowed to grow ~10 acres. Who here thinks this was the original intent of James Madison when he wrote the Constitution? When it was approved by the 13 founding States? To turn farmers into serfs like a feudal state?
Not I. .
>>>The problem is that you present your opinion as fact.
"written by commodore64_love". I think it's quite clear that every one of my posts is MY opinion. That you mistake it for fact seems illogical. - Also when it comes to laws, there's really not much room for debate. "Speed Limit 55" is pretty damn clear. Sure cops might bend the rules a little and let you go 65 before pulling you over, but the ticket clearly states "exceeded 55 by ten mph". That's the law.
OUR law says "regulate commerce among the states" not inside the states.
(1) I don't see how a case about WHEAT has any relevance to a case about modern computers that didn't even exist in ~1940.
(2) Wiccard v. Filburn has been effectively invalidated by several recent decisions. For example Congress attempted to ban guns within "school zones" on the basis that guns are part of interstate commerce. The Supreme Court nullified that law as it violated the separation of intrastate and interstate commerce. The 2000-era SCOTUS has also nullified a number of other laws on the basis of them being INTRAstate commerca and not within Congress' power.
(3) Let's ask James Madison, the man who authored the Constitution. He knows better than anybody what he meant when he scribed the words on the page: "With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs, was not contemplated by its creators."
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." President James Madison as he vetoed a bill.
"There is nothing more natural than to begin with a general statement and then qualify it with specifics. [In other words read the WHOLE sentence, not just the first clause.] If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." James Madison.
And if you still have doubt, just read the Constitution itself:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." "The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson
>>>I'm not 100% sure it's worth granting this kind of power to the FCC
FCC already has the power to regulate telephone companies. So mandating that the phone company provide DSL is not an addition grant of power - it's existing power that the FCC has had since the 1920s.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>>>the ability to do some terrible things without accountability should be reserved for the government. ;)
>>
>>You've never been on a date have you?
"How do you write women so well?" - receptionist. "I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability." - Jack Nicholson. - As Good As It Gets
>>>Parents have total power of attorney till the kid is eighteen
The world doesn't work like that anymore. I heard a story a few days where Parents lost custody of their kid because, "They were teaching the child that the government can not be trusted." You are no longer the ultimate master in your home - your kids are, and they are backed the Child Protective Services. You teach the wrong thing, and you will lose custody.
It's moving towards 1984 where parents were afraid to speak, for fear the kids would report them, and the CPS would arrest the mom and dad.
It looks like she's wearing a stiff helmet.
I'm a Republican.
And yet I agree that corporations (or any other group) should not be treated as individuals. If Microsoft Corporation wants to run an ad saying "Vote Obama in 2004", they should be forbidden from doing it. Corporations have no more rights than a rock or tree.
But Bill Gates or any other MS employee? That's just fine and dandy if they want to run a "Vote Obama" ad.
>>>Actually 10.6 will run in 384mb
Really? I'd like to see 10.6 running on either 384 or 512 MB. (I searched youtube and found nothing.) Also doesn't hacking your 384 megabyte Mac to run 10.6 violate Apple's Law... I mean, license? Like using a Hackintosh PC, if you get caught, you could get in serious trouble with Apple Corporation?
I've seen Win7 running on as little as 128 megabytes (without violating any license/restrictions). It can do single-tasking, but not much else. It operates about as well as XP on 128 MB.
.
>>>being able to install on one machine, and move the hard drive to another machine
Yeah I'm aware of this hack, to get OS 10.5 to operate on an older Mac that Apple forbids you from using (i.e. below 800 megahertz). I tried to use it on my old 600 megahertz Mac but it failed for some reason (shrug). I'm also aware that doing that violates Apple's 10.5 license.
Aside -
BTW I'm not anti-Apple. I've used Apples since circa 1986 to 2009; in fact the Quadra Mac was one of my favorite computers. I'm just anti-Apple zealotry. I'm tired of hearing people tell me if I'm not using Apple, I'm an "idiot".
I apologize for sounding arrogant.
I'm simply flabbergasted that someone (the previous poster) thinks the DC Gun Ban should still be in effect. The Supreme Law is clear - the people have a right to own weapons.
Commonsense is also clear - an unarmed city is a big target for criminals to steal, rape, whatever and not have to fear getting shot. It's like a whole city of defenseless sheep just waiting for the wolves to attack.
>>>>We have a system to do this already
Then why it it necessary for Congress to pass unconstitutional laws like "You must buy hospital insurance, or be fined"? They should simply amend the Constitution to make it legal.
The real answer is that Congress knows they can ram through unconstitutional laws and there's nothing to stop them. (That's right - not even the U.S. Court because the Congress frequently ignores them.) This is why we need to give power to the State Legislatures, the ones that originally created the Congress, to nullify unconstitutional laws.
Same applies to the EU. A majority of 13 Member States should have the power to nullify EU Acts that are unconstitutional (powers not granted to the EU by the Lisbon Treaty).
>>>If you remember correctly,
You don't. Segregation wasn't an invention of the State legislatures. It was an invention of the National legislature (congress) and sustained by the national court (SCOTUS), and thereby became the law of the whole continent. ALSO segregation was far, far worse in the north than the south. Many blacks of that time said they enjoyed more freedom in the south than they did in northern cities like Chicago or Philadelphia.
Also:
It was the national government that *forced* Utah to outlaw multiple-partner marriages. Now I don't personally believe in polygamy, but if that's what Utahans want, then that's what they want. It's THEIR state and their lifestyle, not mine. The Congress had no authority to overrule them, but did it anyway.
Almsot everything unjust has had its genesis in the national government, not the state government.
Hence the need for State Majority (25+) to nullify bad Congressional laws, since they are so frequent.
And once again, I get called a "racist" by somebody.
Yes I know you didn't use that word specifically, but you implied it. I joined the Tea Party protests in December 2008 (immediately after Bush signed that idiotic TARP bailout bill - I hate Bush). That does not mean I am not in favor of Jim Crow laws, since I don't give a damn if you're black, brown, white, or pink with purple poka-dots. I'm not racist.
- BTW which president was it that rounded-up Asian-Americans and threw them into concentration camps?
- Which president was it that arrested Suffragettes like Alice Paul, arrested reporters who published anti-war articles, and also belonged to the KKK?
(Hint: They were both Democrat.) Blindly loving any Democrat politician and hating a Republican politician (or viceversa) is foolish. As Judge Napolitino says frequently, "There is ONE party, the big government party, with two branches. One wants war and the other wants socialism - either way, BOTH want more control to run your life."
>>>Our government is a balance. Legislative/Executive/Judicial, State/Fed
Correct.
>>>If individual states could undo any law, where is the balance there?
Not correct. I did not say that. (Lately I'm starting to wonder if slashdotters lost their ability to read?) I said, quote, "If 25 States declare a U.S. Law unconstitutional....." THEN the law would be nullified. If an individual state declared it unconstitutional, or even 24 states, the U.S. law would still be in full effect.
Only after the 25th state declared the law unconstitutional would the U.S. law be nullified. An example where this would be useful? Making medical marijuana legal. Or making gay marriage legal. Currently both are banned by U.S. Law, but if 25 states declared these bans unconstitutional, then the U.S. law would be null.
>>>If SCOTUS can justify overturning the DC handgun ban without citing precedence or any case law
Say what? The SCOTUS cited this law: The Constitution. They also quoted a couple of the founders in their decision, including James Madison who wrote the constitution. No citations??? They used plenty of citations.
I also find it odd that you disagree with the Court's decision, considering (1) that DC crime has *dropped* since handguns became legal again. (2) Or considering that the law is clear - the people have the right to bear arms for the purpose of raising a national defense against invaders. (3) Or considering that if you own your own body (the argument used in favor of abortion), then naturally you have an equal right to protect it from harm by thieves/murderers/rapists. Your illogical thinking baffles me.....
.
>we do have Democratic control of 2 out of 3 branches
Oh. Never mind. You're a Democrat. You don't believe in either the Supreme Law or natural rights. That's why you want to disarm everybody and leave them vulnerable to attack.
IMHO "the Supreme Court has made stupid decisions in the past, like making Segregation legal," is the biggest argument against why the Court should not be the final arbiter over what the U.S. Constitution says.
- "Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815.
- "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so..... their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
- "The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
I go even further than this Founding Father:
I think the State Legislatures, acting on behalf of the people, should be given the power to nullify acts of congress. i.e. If 25 States declare a U.S. Law unconstitutional, it has the same effect as if the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. It's nullified. State Legislatures tend to more democratic than the national legislature (which ignored the ~80% of Americans who did NOT want Pelosicare or TARP/bailout bills to pass). The State governments are the proper organ for nullification, not 9 old people who are unelected oligarchs.
>>>I would have really preferred that HCR worded it as a tax credit for carrying insurance rather than a fine for not
Agreed.
But what I REALLY prefer is to have *freedom* and liberty. That means I get to decide for myself how I want to spend, or not spend, my money as a liberated individual (i.e. no longer a feudal serf). I am pro-choice, whereas this Pelosicare bill is anti-choice: Do it or else.
I find it ironic that Democrats call themselves pro-choice, and yet exercise it so infrequently, taking away choice and replacing it with monopoly.
>>>Almost all packets go to more than one state.
Yes and the U.S. government has authority over those packets as they cross state lines. However once they reach their destination (Comcast of Baltimore's central office), the authority ends. The jurisdiction now belongs to the Maryland government to regulate the LAN which services that city.
This is no different than how the EU operates. International packets are the responsibility of the EU government until it reaches its destination (example: comcast of london), then the jurisdiction passes to the UK Parliament.
That's federalism - separation of power.
>>>When a customer of Comcast of Baltimore accesses Amazon, how is that not sending a signal across state lines?
Because you don't access amazon directly. You first talk to Comcast, and then Comcast talks to amazon. So if Comcast wants to block amazon (or an objectionable site like goatse) they can. They are not required to pass the information down their local area network (that which serves Baltimore).
In fact my ISP Verizon does exactly that. I can no longer access rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.music, or any other usenet site. Verizon chose to stop supplying then to the local LAN.
The only government with the power to overrule Verizon's decision is Maryland's government (intrastate commerce), not the U.S. government. That's how federalism works, both here in the US and across the pond in the EU. It's separation of powers.
>>>Nope. Why? [Because your antenna broadcast crosses state lines.]
Fixed that for ya. When signals cross state lines, then the U.S. has jurisdiction. But since Comcast of Baltimore (for example) doesn't have any signals crossing state lines, and only serves Baltimore and the surrounding counties, it is not subject to the National government.
The jurisdiction belongs to the Maryland government. This is identical to how the European Union operates - the member state governments do the regulating of ISPs, not the central EU government. Likewise the central US government has no power over Baltimore Comcast.
>>>The problem is that you present your opinion as fact.
"written by commodore64_love". I think it's quite clear that every one of my posts is MY opinion. That you mistake it for fact seems illogical. - Also when it comes to laws, there's really not much room for debate. "Speed Limit 55" is pretty damn clear. Sure cops might bend the rules a little and let you go 65 before pulling you over, but the ticket clearly states "exceeded 55 by ten mph". That's the law.
OUR law says "regulate commerce among the states" not inside the states.
.
>>>That fact is wrong as long as the Supreme Court disagrees with you
"The Supreme Court offered their opinion, and I offered my opinion. I will follow my opinion of what the Constitution says." - President Andrew Jackson. Ultimately the Supreme court's opinion is merely that - opinion. In most cases after the Court nullifies a law, Congress merely turns around and passes it a second time.
And then of course there's State Nullification. After Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act in the 1800s, and the Supreme Court upheld it, the New England States and Pennsylvania refused to comply. They provided protection to any escaped slave who desired freedom, in direct opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court offers judgements on cases and *opinions* on Congressional law. Nothing more. States routinely ignore those opinions, such as passing Medical Marijuana laws in opposition to the court's ruling that marijuana is still banned.
>>>The business segment you refer to will be buying new pcs with win7 pro installed, which includes xp mode
Maybe. Maybe not. I have yet to work anywhere that embraced Vista as their standard OS. Businesses keep clinging to XP because they like it.
>>>Far better to sue.
Yeah that will go well. I'll spend a couple thousand dollars fighting Sony for the next ~8 years over a $300 console. And most likely - lose.
I prefer to not put myself through that hell. I prefer to take the easy route of going through my Credit card's protection program (if the item does not work, and customer has proof-of-return, the retailer's agreement REQUIRES a refund).
2 wrongs DO make a right. It's why we deprive thieves of their freedom and mass-murders of their lives. We commit the second wrong in order to bring justice to the 1st wronged party (the victim).
>>>you're not getting 'justice' against Sony, but against Walmart
Ya know..... it helps to read the WHOLE message. Quote: "The store would eventually return it [for refund] to Sony who would have to deal with the property THEY destroyed." So Walmart won't be stuck. Sony will be stuck.
False.
A few PCs existed before Apple's brand. Off the top of my head - the Altair. And the number one best-selling computer of the 70s? The Tandy-Radio Shack 80 (TRS-80). It's sad how Apple and Microsoft have rewritten history to effectively erase other companies/inventors' achievements from our collective memories.
Wiccard v. Filburn turned Farmers into serfs, who were unable to grow any wheat except with the permission of the Lords..... oooops I mean the Congressional representatives.
In this specific case, the farmer grew approximately 20 acres of wheat to feed his cows, sheep, and chickens. i.e. For his own usage. The Master... I mean Congress told the serf he's only allowed to grow ~10 acres. Who here thinks this was the original intent of James Madison when he wrote the Constitution? When it was approved by the 13 founding States? To turn farmers into serfs like a feudal state?
Not I.
.
>>>The problem is that you present your opinion as fact.
"written by commodore64_love". I think it's quite clear that every one of my posts is MY opinion. That you mistake it for fact seems illogical. - Also when it comes to laws, there's really not much room for debate. "Speed Limit 55" is pretty damn clear. Sure cops might bend the rules a little and let you go 65 before pulling you over, but the ticket clearly states "exceeded 55 by ten mph". That's the law.
OUR law says "regulate commerce among the states" not inside the states.
(1) I don't see how a case about WHEAT has any relevance to a case about modern computers that didn't even exist in ~1940.
(2) Wiccard v. Filburn has been effectively invalidated by several recent decisions. For example Congress attempted to ban guns within "school zones" on the basis that guns are part of interstate commerce. The Supreme Court nullified that law as it violated the separation of intrastate and interstate commerce. The 2000-era SCOTUS has also nullified a number of other laws on the basis of them being INTRAstate commerca and not within Congress' power.
(3) Let's ask James Madison, the man who authored the Constitution. He knows better than anybody what he meant when he scribed the words on the page: "With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs, was not contemplated by its creators."
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." President James Madison as he vetoed a bill.
"There is nothing more natural than to begin with a general statement and then qualify it with specifics. [In other words read the WHOLE sentence, not just the first clause.] If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." James Madison.
And if you still have doubt, just read the Constitution itself:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." "The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson
>>>I'm not 100% sure it's worth granting this kind of power to the FCC
FCC already has the power to regulate telephone companies. So mandating that the phone company provide DSL is not an addition grant of power - it's existing power that the FCC has had since the 1920s.