Some people would say, "Yes banning all guns IS a good idea." They've forgotten that banning beer did not work in the 1920s, nor has banning the plant marijuana/hemp worked in the present day.
Anyway with governments like China censoring the internet, clearly there's a need for tools to get around it.
>>>....and that's why judges don't have despotic power.
The 9 Judges on the U.S. Supreme Court have despotic power. They arbitrarily decide what laws stand, and what laws do not, and they have over the last ~110 years ruled more-and-more laws to be constitutional, thereby giving their pals in the Congress practically unlimited power to control the citizens' private lives.
If you don't believe me, name something that Congress can not control, or at least regulate. Even our refrigerators are controlled by how much power they can use. Now I happen to think that's a good idea, but I cannot find the part of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to control appliances' energy usage.
The proper procedure would be to amend the Constitution and give Congress the power, rather than allow them to usurp the power illegally.
>>>Please explain how mandatory health insurance is "clearly unconstitutional", because all of the lawyers I speak to (which are many) have somehow managed to miss that argument. >>>
And here's Judge Napolitano's opinion. He repeats in almost every show that he considers mandatory *anything* to be unconstitutional, unless specifically granted by the Constitution's list of power. http://www.freedomwatchonfox.com/
And then there's the Constitution itself, which makes clear mandatory health insurance, if it even exists as a power of the government, belongs to the STATES not Washington D.C. See Amendment 10.
>>>two-thirds is already required for amendments to the constitution
No. It's three-fourths in the United States. Put another way, that means it only takes one-fourth to BLOCK an amendment. That's what prevented the Equal Rights Amendment from passing - over 1/4 of the states rejected it.
So therefore it makes sense that if Congress passes a law that the States find unconstitutional, then it should only require 1/4th to block it and say "This isn't allowed - it violates our national contract". (I changed it from 1/4 to 1/2 due to objections from others that 1/4 was too small.)
.
>>> so the question is do you want to restore the power of the constitution or serve your own needs?
Both.
My needs, and those of the People in general, are served best by having a government that is restrained by the Constitution. In essence the Constitution shackles the government and the politicians thereof. Without these shackles the government has no limit upon its power, and the politicians can become oligarchs.
It's not just a feeling. Congress passed the TARP Bailout Bill even though the majority of the people opposed it. The phone lines in Washington DC were overloaded by constituents saying "vote no" but the representatives ignored those calls and passed it anyway.
Congress is no longer democratic. Nor representative of the People. Congress is now despotic and has been since 2002 (when they passed the onerous Patriot Act).
Nobody ever said laws are fair, although fairness is the goal. During the 1790s many Americans were imprisoned for violating the Alien and Sedition Acts (printing articles opposed to John Adams or the proto-Progressive Federalists). Some Americans, including Ben Franklin's own cousin, died in prison until the Democrats took control and repealed the act in 1803.
In theory the Right of Free Speech and Free Press never should have allowed that to happen, but at the time nobody was willing to stop the U.S. Government from this oppression, so people were jailed simply for printing anti-Federalist opinions.
This is where the idea of State Nullification was born - the States would refuse to enforce laws that violated the Constitution, including the Sedition and Fugitive Slave Acts. It was never turned into a formal law, but I think it's time it revived. If 25 States declare a law "unconstitutional" then that law should be null. The majority have spoken and their will should be done, not ignored.
The closest example I can think of is the Playboy cases of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. When Playboy Magazine was still a new phenomenon, some States blocked the magazine from being sold in stores. So Playboy sent the magazine by mail to subscribers, but these States would block the magazine's entrance, send the issues back to the Playboy headquarters, and fine the citizen that tried to buy it. Playboy was not subject to fine.
I would expect the internet case to be governed by the same deal. If a Florida citizen visits playboy.com, the person who gets in trouble would be the citizen for importing contraband, not Playboy (because it isn't a Florida company).
>>>I don't recognise your notion of a "EU Government" and I live here.
Then you are in denial. And I think during the next few years, you will see this "non-government" bail-out Greece and other in-trouble States. Much like what the U.S. government is doing with California, or did with New York (1970s). The EU "non-government" even has its own Constitution. It failed, but the Lisbon Treaty serves the same legal purpose.
If it looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, then it's a duck.
>>>The very reason we HAVE a SCOTUS is to protect the individuals from majority abuse.
But the SCOTUS is part of the U.S. Government. It often acts like a rubberstamp for the Congress and the Executive branches, and when it doesn't rubberstamp, then the president sometimes threatens the court (see FDR and the Court-packing Scandal).
The U.S. Government should not be self-policing itself. That's why it's necessary to have an independent party, i.e. the States, be granted the ability to nullify unconstitutional laws. They created the Constitution - they ought to have at least some power to enforce it and nullify unconstitutional laws - just like any other binding contract.
>>>It;s a $750-950 penalty, not a $2500 fine, check your facts
It's hard to "check the facts" when the health bill keeps mutating every week. It originally started as a $2500 penalty (same as Massachusetts has) for not having health insurance. If it's dropped in the meantime, then I apologize for not keeping up, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way. Congress could rise it back to $2500 again.
Also telling me that it's 750-950 penalty doesn't make it any more Constitutional. It's a grab for power by the U.S. Government to control citizen's purchasing decisions. Assuming the law passes, then that penalty should be nullified as a non-granted power.
>>>This has been upheld numerous times in federal court regarding drivers insurance, home insurance, and more.
At the STATE level, not the national level. The States can do many things that the U.S. Government can not do, according to the Constitution's Tenth Amendment (the most important according to the Democratic Party's founder). Also I've never heard of mandatory home insurance? That's new to me, and I suspect there's more to it. Such as, "If you accept mortgage money from the bank, or the government of Florida, then you must buy home insurance."
Plus driving insurance is *voluntary* not mandatory, because you do not have to drive. My Amish neighbors don't pay drivers insurance, and they don't get fined for not having it. It's not a universal mandate like this proposed 950 dollar health fine.
>>>That's essentially what California has right now wrt taxes, and it's bankrupting them.
I hear this a lot, and you know what? It's bull. California has the highest taxrate in the entire continent. In fact it's almost double any other state.
It's problem is not an inability to raise taxes higher - it's problem is an inability to lower spending to eliminate the deficit. The California legislators are like teenagers with a credit card who have no self-control.
>>>For instance, since so many corporations incorporate in Delaware, the corporate laws of that state, along with their state-issued charter, are what grant those corporations "personhood". >>>
Right but it was U.S. Law that extended it from just Delaware to the entire union. If that law did not exist or was struck-down, then the corporation would only exist as a "person" inside Delaware not the other States.
Those other States would be free to treat the corporation as a thing, and not entitled to rights. Which I'm sure is what places like California would do, if they weren't tied down by the U.S. law.
I don't see any difference between oppression and tyranny. Tyrants oppress the people. Oppression is a symptom of a tyrant or tyrants at the top. Same difference.
>>>Why can't there be any position in between "nothing is filtered or blocked" and "everything mildly objectionable to anyone is blocked?"
Because I don't want anything blocked. Because it I want to see two donkeys have sex over my computer screen (ick), then I should be allowed to do so. Why should any person tell me I cannot do that? Why should any person be able to limit my freedom when my action is harming noone? Answer: They shouldn't.
As for viruses, those can be considered destruction of property (your computer is unusable or damaged), and there are already numerous laws that exist to protect people who have been wronged in that manner.
The People (us - the ultimate authority from which all power derives) | State Constitution (written by the people or people's representatives) | The Member States (governments) | Constitution or Lisbon Treaty (created by the States) | The Union Government (US or EU)
The federal laws are at the bottom of the stack, and while they apply universally, they are null-and-void if they violate the Constitution. This is the same as how EU law applies universally, unless it violates the Lisbon Treaty.
Local Member State laws only apply within that state, not to the other states. If the UK passes a law mandating a 50 kilometer speed limit, said law only applies to the UK, not France or Germany or Poland who are free to continue driving fast. The same is true in the American system.
>>>And if you had any economic sense at all you would realize that a non-discrimination clause for health insurance providers IMPLIES mandatory health insurance for the populous. >>>
(1) First off, laws are meant to be read by what they SAY, not what they imply, and with the original intent of the authors kept in mind. And while the 16th(?) Amendment has been interpreted broadly, at best it says everyone should have ACCESS to purchase health insurance. It does not say it's mandatory.
(2) It also does NOT say that I am allowed to take money from my neighbors' wallets to pay my insurance bill. That's theft of my neighbor's money/property and also theft of their labor.
(3) Neither does it say that I should be fined $2500 per year because I decided I would rather pay my doctor bills directly, without insurance. What's next? I get fined because I decided to buy a normal car instead of a Prius or other hybrid? - I can not lay my hand on a single part of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to fine citizens for Not buying health insurance, or a prius, or any other product. That's called tyranny (control of the leaders over the commoners), not liberty.
But then I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I've come to learn that Progressives don't want liberty. They want to have tyranny, so they can run our lives like petit-dictators.
>>> If one-half of the states, through their Senate representatives
Incorrect. State governments don't have representatives at the U.S. level. Senators represent the People, not the State governments, and that leaves the people's local governments without power. At this point we might as well eliminate the State Governments as worthless.
MORE IMPORTANTLY: I think it's plain as day that the Constitution no longer has any power - it's just a piece of paper that nobody in the Senate or House pays any attention to. The U.S. Government is running this nation with practically no check upon its power, which is why it's able to control every facet of our lives (even inside our own private rooms).
This amendment's MAIN purpose is to stop them in their tracks (by declaring certain U.S. laws unconstitutional) and restore the Constitution to the Supreme Law where it belongs. As the title says, "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" in the Bill of Rights. Protect the people from an over-reaching Washington DC.
Oh:
And before you mention the Supreme Court - it is part of the U.S. Government. It is part of the problem. To have the U.S. Government pass a bill, then sign it into a law, then rubberstamp it "constitutional" is as illogical as letting Microsoft's Board of Directors decide whether or not it violated antitrust legislation. NO organization should self-police itself.
>>>The people vote for their congress just like they vote for their state legislatures
Yes but the power is diluted. A Senator at the U.S. level represents millions of people, and your voice gets drowned in the crowd. I know my Senator doesn't hear me - I send letters but his responses don't match what I wrote. For example I said, "Cut funding for PBS," and his response was, "Thank you. I agree with you that we should increase funds for PBS." What?!?!? You might as well not open your mouth.
You have FAR more direct democracy at the State level, where your representative only serves a few thousand, and will hear you when you speak. At the State level you have power. At the national level you have virtually none.
Also I think the history of the last 100 years shows that Congress has become a tyranny. Is there any facet of our lives they don't control. Remember learning about "checks and balances" in high school? Well things are out of balance (Washington DC controls practically everything), and it's time to put a "check" on Congress' power via this amendment. Restore the balance and break the tyranny.
>>>The poster child for "States' Rights" is legalized discrimination against "blacks".
Yes. A sad piece of our history, but remember that it was the *United States Congress* and U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Executive that enforced the separate-but-equal law. If this Amendment had existed circa 1900, that U.S. law could have been declared "unconstitutional" by 25 States. Then the States would have been free to treat blacks however they wanted. Some (the south) would have kept them separate-but-equal, however others (the Northern, Great Lakes, and progressive Pacific states) would have treated them as equals.
That is what happened with the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1840s, when northern states like Maine and Massachusetts declared the law "nullified", refused to return former slaves, and gave refuge to black citizens seeking freedom.
Anyway... you inadvertently provided a perfect example of why centralized "one size fits all" control is a bad thing (the U.S. forced the entire nation to be segregated), and why we are better off to put most of the power at the State level (more-direct democracy).
>>>would previously have been covered by obscenity law, due to net nanny's filters being imperfect?
Oh puleeze
It's not going to kill you if you see a nude body, or two people having sex. If Net Nanny fails in one rare case and let's you see toplessbeachinbrazil.com, big deal. The alternative where the government blocks these sites, even from people who want to see them, is far far far worse. It's tyranny.
>>>if they are selling *to* Floridians, and shipping there, then they can still be subject to the laws.
No. We already have cases like this, and the person doing the selling is not subject to Florida law. However the person buying the item IS liable and if he gets caught, Florida will block the object at the border, impound the item, and arrest the purchaser.
Yeah the Fairness Doctrine would kill AM Radio. Most stations play nonstep Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly all day long, because they are the top four shows. They pay the bills and keep the station's worker employed. - If AM was forced to pick-up "equal time" programming (i.e. liberal programs like Rachel Maddow), then the AM Stations would go backrupt. Just like Air America went bankrupt.
But Net Neutrality is about stopping censorship by Comcast, Cox, and other monopolies. It's a good thing.
I see your point, and I agree with your perspective, because I hate corporations almost as much as I hate government. But I don't agree with your conclusion. Here's why:
This Amendment would allow the States to overturn the Commerce Clause-related legislation. For example, Congress now has the power to control how much corn, potatoes, and wheat a citizen may grow. Congress can also control what classes are taught in your local school. Whether or not your kid can carry a gun. How much water your toilet can flush, and so on. This Amendment would allow these numerous, ridiculous, and tyrannical laws to be nullified as unconstitutional.
This Amendment would also allow the U.S. law(s) which grant corporations "personhood" to be declared unconstitutional.
The only obstacle is getting 25 States to agree and declare "unconstitutional", which would be a difficult task indeed, but still a LOT better than our current system where the control lies in the hands of 5 Old Men on a non-elected, non-democratic court. This amendment puts power back in the hands of the People, via their directly-elected State representatives.
No. I originally had "one-fourth", and changed it because of objection. I don't want to change it again. - Also, getting one-half of the States to agree on anything is already very difficult. Getting two-thirds would be impossible.
The purpose of the amendment is to stop the U.S. Congress (or EU Parliament) in its tracks. It has turned into a Tyrannical body that controls every facet of our lives, and this amendment would take back that control and restore it where it belongs (at the local, direct-democracy level). The amendment would also restore the Constitution as the Supreme Law of Land, instead of an ignored piece of paper.
And finally, one-half is a majority. If one-half of the States, acting on behalf of us, the People, declare a law unconstitutional then that's how it should be. It's the will of the majority.
Congress is always welcome to rewrite the struck-down law and pass it a second time (which is what typically happens), so that it does not violate the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people would say, "Yes banning all guns IS a good idea." They've forgotten that banning beer did not work in the 1920s, nor has banning the plant marijuana/hemp worked in the present day.
Anyway with governments like China censoring the internet, clearly there's a need for tools to get around it.
>>>....and that's why judges don't have despotic power.
The 9 Judges on the U.S. Supreme Court have despotic power. They arbitrarily decide what laws stand, and what laws do not, and they have over the last ~110 years ruled more-and-more laws to be constitutional, thereby giving their pals in the Congress practically unlimited power to control the citizens' private lives.
If you don't believe me, name something that Congress can not control, or at least regulate. Even our refrigerators are controlled by how much power they can use. Now I happen to think that's a good idea, but I cannot find the part of the Constitution which gives Congress the power to control appliances' energy usage.
The proper procedure would be to amend the Constitution and give Congress the power, rather than allow them to usurp the power illegally.
>>>Please explain how mandatory health insurance is "clearly unconstitutional", because all of the lawyers I speak to (which are many) have somehow managed to miss that argument.
>>>
Google has many lawyers who says its uncosntitutional: http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=mandatory+health+insurance+is+unconstitutional
And here's Judge Napolitano's opinion. He repeats in almost every show that he considers mandatory *anything* to be unconstitutional, unless specifically granted by the Constitution's list of power. http://www.freedomwatchonfox.com/
And then there's the Constitution itself, which makes clear mandatory health insurance, if it even exists as a power of the government, belongs to the STATES not Washington D.C. See Amendment 10.
>>>two-thirds is already required for amendments to the constitution
No. It's three-fourths in the United States. Put another way, that means it only takes one-fourth to BLOCK an amendment. That's what prevented the Equal Rights Amendment from passing - over 1/4 of the states rejected it.
So therefore it makes sense that if Congress passes a law that the States find unconstitutional, then it should only require 1/4th to block it and say "This isn't allowed - it violates our national contract". (I changed it from 1/4 to 1/2 due to objections from others that 1/4 was too small.)
.
>>> so the question is do you want to restore the power of the constitution or serve your own needs?
Both.
My needs, and those of the People in general, are served best by having a government that is restrained by the Constitution. In essence the Constitution shackles the government and the politicians thereof. Without these shackles the government has no limit upon its power, and the politicians can become oligarchs.
>>>People may feel like congress ignores them,
It's not just a feeling. Congress passed the TARP Bailout Bill even though the majority of the people opposed it. The phone lines in Washington DC were overloaded by constituents saying "vote no" but the representatives ignored those calls and passed it anyway.
Congress is no longer democratic. Nor representative of the People. Congress is now despotic and has been since 2002 (when they passed the onerous Patriot Act).
Nobody ever said laws are fair, although fairness is the goal. During the 1790s many Americans were imprisoned for violating the Alien and Sedition Acts (printing articles opposed to John Adams or the proto-Progressive Federalists). Some Americans, including Ben Franklin's own cousin, died in prison until the Democrats took control and repealed the act in 1803.
In theory the Right of Free Speech and Free Press never should have allowed that to happen, but at the time nobody was willing to stop the U.S. Government from this oppression, so people were jailed simply for printing anti-Federalist opinions.
This is where the idea of State Nullification was born - the States would refuse to enforce laws that violated the Constitution, including the Sedition and Fugitive Slave Acts. It was never turned into a formal law, but I think it's time it revived. If 25 States declare a law "unconstitutional" then that law should be null. The majority have spoken and their will should be done, not ignored.
>>>In the Internet case, it's not so clear.
The closest example I can think of is the Playboy cases of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. When Playboy Magazine was still a new phenomenon, some States blocked the magazine from being sold in stores. So Playboy sent the magazine by mail to subscribers, but these States would block the magazine's entrance, send the issues back to the Playboy headquarters, and fine the citizen that tried to buy it. Playboy was not subject to fine.
I would expect the internet case to be governed by the same deal. If a Florida citizen visits playboy.com, the person who gets in trouble would be the citizen for importing contraband, not Playboy (because it isn't a Florida company).
>>>I don't recognise your notion of a "EU Government" and I live here.
Then you are in denial. And I think during the next few years, you will see this "non-government" bail-out Greece and other in-trouble States. Much like what the U.S. government is doing with California, or did with New York (1970s). The EU "non-government" even has its own Constitution. It failed, but the Lisbon Treaty serves the same legal purpose.
If it looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, then it's a duck.
>>>The very reason we HAVE a SCOTUS is to protect the individuals from majority abuse.
But the SCOTUS is part of the U.S. Government. It often acts like a rubberstamp for the Congress and the Executive branches, and when it doesn't rubberstamp, then the president sometimes threatens the court (see FDR and the Court-packing Scandal).
The U.S. Government should not be self-policing itself. That's why it's necessary to have an independent party, i.e. the States, be granted the ability to nullify unconstitutional laws. They created the Constitution - they ought to have at least some power to enforce it and nullify unconstitutional laws - just like any other binding contract.
>>>It;s a $750-950 penalty, not a $2500 fine, check your facts
It's hard to "check the facts" when the health bill keeps mutating every week. It originally started as a $2500 penalty (same as Massachusetts has) for not having health insurance. If it's dropped in the meantime, then I apologize for not keeping up, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way. Congress could rise it back to $2500 again.
Also telling me that it's 750-950 penalty doesn't make it any more Constitutional. It's a grab for power by the U.S. Government to control citizen's purchasing decisions. Assuming the law passes, then that penalty should be nullified as a non-granted power.
>>>This has been upheld numerous times in federal court regarding drivers insurance, home insurance, and more.
At the STATE level, not the national level. The States can do many things that the U.S. Government can not do, according to the Constitution's Tenth Amendment (the most important according to the Democratic Party's founder). Also I've never heard of mandatory home insurance? That's new to me, and I suspect there's more to it. Such as, "If you accept mortgage money from the bank, or the government of Florida, then you must buy home insurance."
Plus driving insurance is *voluntary* not mandatory, because you do not have to drive. My Amish neighbors don't pay drivers insurance, and they don't get fined for not having it. It's not a universal mandate like this proposed 950 dollar health fine.
One could also argue the Constitution's author (James Madison) eliminated the phrase "perpetual union" as a very bad idea.
Oh well. The European Union has the right of secession. I don't see why the American Union should be any different.
>>>That's essentially what California has right now wrt taxes, and it's bankrupting them.
I hear this a lot, and you know what? It's bull. California has the highest taxrate in the entire continent. In fact it's almost double any other state.
It's problem is not an inability to raise taxes higher - it's problem is an inability to lower spending to eliminate the deficit. The California legislators are like teenagers with a credit card who have no self-control.
>>>For instance, since so many corporations incorporate in Delaware, the corporate laws of that state, along with their state-issued charter, are what grant those corporations "personhood".
>>>
Right but it was U.S. Law that extended it from just Delaware to the entire union. If that law did not exist or was struck-down, then the corporation would only exist as a "person" inside Delaware not the other States.
Those other States would be free to treat the corporation as a thing, and not entitled to rights. Which I'm sure is what places like California would do, if they weren't tied down by the U.S. law.
I don't see any difference between oppression and tyranny. Tyrants oppress the people. Oppression is a symptom of a tyrant or tyrants at the top. Same difference.
>>>Why can't there be any position in between "nothing is filtered or blocked" and "everything mildly objectionable to anyone is blocked?"
Because I don't want anything blocked. Because it I want to see two donkeys have sex over my computer screen (ick), then I should be allowed to do so. Why should any person tell me I cannot do that? Why should any person be able to limit my freedom when my action is harming noone? Answer: They shouldn't.
As for viruses, those can be considered destruction of property (your computer is unusable or damaged), and there are already numerous laws that exist to protect people who have been wronged in that manner.
It's basically the same as the EU system:
The People (us - the ultimate authority from which all power derives)
|
State Constitution (written by the people or people's representatives)
|
The Member States (governments)
|
Constitution or Lisbon Treaty (created by the States)
|
The Union Government (US or EU)
The federal laws are at the bottom of the stack, and while they apply universally, they are null-and-void if they violate the Constitution. This is the same as how EU law applies universally, unless it violates the Lisbon Treaty.
Local Member State laws only apply within that state, not to the other states. If the UK passes a law mandating a 50 kilometer speed limit, said law only applies to the UK, not France or Germany or Poland who are free to continue driving fast. The same is true in the American system.
>>>And if you had any economic sense at all you would realize that a non-discrimination clause for health insurance providers IMPLIES mandatory health insurance for the populous.
>>>
(1) First off, laws are meant to be read by what they SAY, not what they imply, and with the original intent of the authors kept in mind. And while the 16th(?) Amendment has been interpreted broadly, at best it says everyone should have ACCESS to purchase health insurance. It does not say it's mandatory.
(2) It also does NOT say that I am allowed to take money from my neighbors' wallets to pay my insurance bill. That's theft of my neighbor's money/property and also theft of their labor.
(3) Neither does it say that I should be fined $2500 per year because I decided I would rather pay my doctor bills directly, without insurance. What's next? I get fined because I decided to buy a normal car instead of a Prius or other hybrid? - I can not lay my hand on a single part of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to fine citizens for Not buying health insurance, or a prius, or any other product. That's called tyranny (control of the leaders over the commoners), not liberty.
But then I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I've come to learn that Progressives don't want liberty. They want to have tyranny, so they can run our lives like petit-dictators.
>>> If one-half of the states, through their Senate representatives
Incorrect. State governments don't have representatives at the U.S. level. Senators represent the People, not the State governments, and that leaves the people's local governments without power. At this point we might as well eliminate the State Governments as worthless.
MORE IMPORTANTLY: I think it's plain as day that the Constitution no longer has any power - it's just a piece of paper that nobody in the Senate or House pays any attention to. The U.S. Government is running this nation with practically no check upon its power, which is why it's able to control every facet of our lives (even inside our own private rooms).
This amendment's MAIN purpose is to stop them in their tracks (by declaring certain U.S. laws unconstitutional) and restore the Constitution to the Supreme Law where it belongs. As the title says, "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" in the Bill of Rights. Protect the people from an over-reaching Washington DC.
Oh:
And before you mention the Supreme Court - it is part of the U.S. Government. It is part of the problem. To have the U.S. Government pass a bill, then sign it into a law, then rubberstamp it "constitutional" is as illogical as letting Microsoft's Board of Directors decide whether or not it violated antitrust legislation. NO organization should self-police itself.
>>>The people vote for their congress just like they vote for their state legislatures
Yes but the power is diluted. A Senator at the U.S. level represents millions of people, and your voice gets drowned in the crowd. I know my Senator doesn't hear me - I send letters but his responses don't match what I wrote. For example I said, "Cut funding for PBS," and his response was, "Thank you. I agree with you that we should increase funds for PBS." What?!?!? You might as well not open your mouth.
You have FAR more direct democracy at the State level, where your representative only serves a few thousand, and will hear you when you speak. At the State level you have power. At the national level you have virtually none.
Also I think the history of the last 100 years shows that Congress has become a tyranny. Is there any facet of our lives they don't control. Remember learning about "checks and balances" in high school? Well things are out of balance (Washington DC controls practically everything), and it's time to put a "check" on Congress' power via this amendment. Restore the balance and break the tyranny.
>>>The poster child for "States' Rights" is legalized discrimination against "blacks".
Yes. A sad piece of our history, but remember that it was the *United States Congress* and U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Executive that enforced the separate-but-equal law. If this Amendment had existed circa 1900, that U.S. law could have been declared "unconstitutional" by 25 States. Then the States would have been free to treat blacks however they wanted. Some (the south) would have kept them separate-but-equal, however others (the Northern, Great Lakes, and progressive Pacific states) would have treated them as equals.
That is what happened with the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1840s, when northern states like Maine and Massachusetts declared the law "nullified", refused to return former slaves, and gave refuge to black citizens seeking freedom.
Anyway... you inadvertently provided a perfect example of why centralized "one size fits all" control is a bad thing (the U.S. forced the entire nation to be segregated), and why we are better off to put most of the power at the State level (more-direct democracy).
>>>would previously have been covered by obscenity law, due to net nanny's filters being imperfect?
Oh puleeze
It's not going to kill you if you see a nude body, or two people having sex. If Net Nanny fails in one rare case and let's you see toplessbeachinbrazil.com, big deal. The alternative where the government blocks these sites, even from people who want to see them, is far far far worse. It's tyranny.
>>>if they are selling *to* Floridians, and shipping there, then they can still be subject to the laws.
No. We already have cases like this, and the person doing the selling is not subject to Florida law. However the person buying the item IS liable and if he gets caught, Florida will block the object at the border, impound the item, and arrest the purchaser.
Yeah the Fairness Doctrine would kill AM Radio. Most stations play nonstep Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly all day long, because they are the top four shows. They pay the bills and keep the station's worker employed. - If AM was forced to pick-up "equal time" programming (i.e. liberal programs like Rachel Maddow), then the AM Stations would go backrupt. Just like Air America went bankrupt.
But Net Neutrality is about stopping censorship by Comcast, Cox, and other monopolies. It's a good thing.
I see your point, and I agree with your perspective, because I hate corporations almost as much as I hate government. But I don't agree with your conclusion. Here's why:
This Amendment would allow the States to overturn the Commerce Clause-related legislation. For example, Congress now has the power to control how much corn, potatoes, and wheat a citizen may grow. Congress can also control what classes are taught in your local school. Whether or not your kid can carry a gun. How much water your toilet can flush, and so on. This Amendment would allow these numerous, ridiculous, and tyrannical laws to be nullified as unconstitutional.
This Amendment would also allow the U.S. law(s) which grant corporations "personhood" to be declared unconstitutional.
The only obstacle is getting 25 States to agree and declare "unconstitutional", which would be a difficult task indeed, but still a LOT better than our current system where the control lies in the hands of 5 Old Men on a non-elected, non-democratic court. This amendment puts power back in the hands of the People, via their directly-elected State representatives.
And if I were European, I'd sue you both, because if you read the Lisbon Treaty, there's apparently no limit to the European Union's legal reach.
You Americans are infringing upon EU law. ;-)
No. I originally had "one-fourth", and changed it because of objection. I don't want to change it again. - Also, getting one-half of the States to agree on anything is already very difficult. Getting two-thirds would be impossible.
The purpose of the amendment is to stop the U.S. Congress (or EU Parliament) in its tracks. It has turned into a Tyrannical body that controls every facet of our lives, and this amendment would take back that control and restore it where it belongs (at the local, direct-democracy level). The amendment would also restore the Constitution as the Supreme Law of Land, instead of an ignored piece of paper.
And finally, one-half is a majority. If one-half of the States, acting on behalf of us, the People, declare a law unconstitutional then that's how it should be. It's the will of the majority.
Congress is always welcome to rewrite the struck-down law and pass it a second time (which is what typically happens), so that it does not violate the Constitution.