Hmmm. This requirement that you need a license/ID to "travel the net" is roughly equivalent to saying I need a license to walk down the sidewalk. "Papiere bitte." "I don't have any papers." "Papiere schnell!" "I told you I don't have any papers. Hey! Let go!" And then you get arrested for walking without ID.
You shouldn't need "permission" to travel freely either IRL or online.
Something like this happened on my Alma Mater. My old professor invited me to come visit for a student presentation day, which I did, and then I had dinner with some of the students, and watched a little MTV in the *public* lounge. Suddenly a security guard came-up and demanded my ID. I said it's in my car. Then she tried to escort me to the security office, and I refused. I told her I'll just leave and did so, even though she tried to stop me (I run faster).
To say I was angry is an understatement. Can you imagine the same thing happening everywhere you go in real life, or on the net???
Oh:
And yes the president of the college got an angry phonecall. I told him that he won't be getting any more donations from me. If my presence as a graduate is not welcome, then neither is my money.
I recall when Abraham Lincoln did that in Maryland, effectively creating martial law. A citizen sued the president, and the Supreme Court determined that Lincoln had committed an unconstitutional act, since the power belongs to Congress not the executive.
I don't see how amendments 13, 14, or 15 change the basic principle that James Madison included when he wrote the Constitution:
"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars." (Federalist 41). He further clarifies: "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, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
And finally if you're still confused, just read the Supreme Law for yourself, which makes clear most powers belong to the State governments, not Congress: "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 constitution... needs to be read as a living, evolving, document
No actually it's just a law. Talk about it being "living" is an "absurdity" to borrow from Madison. It's a piece of paper that is written in plain English to define what powers belong to the U.S. and what powers are reserved to the States. Basically a contract that separates power (federalism). For example - Congress wants to fine citizens ~$2000 for not having insurance, similar to what Massachusetts already does with its own citizens. I can not lay my hand on any part of this Constitution which gives Congress power to "fine" citizens for Not buying a product.
QED that power "to fine the people" is not given to Congress - its reserved to the 50 State Legislatures.
>>>Wait. So are you saying that if the several state governments had this sort of control, that would be amenable?
No but petitioning my government in Sacramento is a hell of a lot easier than traveling 2500 miles to D.C. The power is better when it's only a few miles from the citizens' homes, and therefore directly accountable.
>>>These would be unenumerated. It is an agonizingly slow process
Not really. Congress has proposed fining Americans who do not have health insurance (me) similar to how Massachusetts State fines $1500 to its citizens. Problem: I can not locate anywhere in the Constitution where Congress was given authority to "fine" the people for Not buying a product. QED per the 10th amendment, Congress doesn't have that power - it's reserved to the States.
There see? That was easy.
Now we just need to persuade the Supremes to reach the same conclusion. We'll remind them what the Author of the Constitution James Madison said - "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." (Federalist 41) He further clarifies: "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, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
And: "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."
I don't have insurance. I only pay ~$200 per year on doctor visits. I think it's clear to anyone who can add 2+2 that my choice is cheaper than paying the $5000/year healthcare insurance.
And if something really tragic happens (unlikely), then I just pay the bill the same way I paid the bill for my $30,000 SUV. If I can afford the metal toy, I can certainly afford the $8000 bill for a pacemaker (what my dad paid), or other surgery.
- Many people checked "I'm not insured" on the Census mail-in poll, but in reality they are insured - by Medicaid or SCHIP or SSI. About 6%.
What we have here is a *minor* problem with about 3% of Americans who desire but cannot get coverage. Therefore what we need is a *minor* solution such as extending Medicaid to encompass these people, NOT a wholesale government monopoly takeover for the other 97% of Americans.
And yes I know you dispute my stat listed in my signature. I don't care. Take it up with Time Magazine - it's their survey, not mine. The fact is that over 80% of Americans (a constitutional majority) are perfectly happy with what they've got and probably don't want change. Why do you want to ignore their opinion - do you not believe in democracy?
Or do you only use the "D word" when it's convenient, and ignore it otherwise. (Like Grandma Pelosi who called us "unAmerican" because we dared to speak up at townmeetings.)
>>>People like you just piss me off. You read some right wing horse shit and go around spouting i
How are you any better? You are simply repeating the Obama and Democratic talking points ("50 million people uninsured") without ever bothering to examine if this number is the truth, or merely propaganda. Well I've done the research and here's the deal:
- The 50 million number comes a Census *mailin survey* which is completely unscientific and therefore invalid. The Congressional Budget Office says that any point-in-time 7% of Americans *temporarily* uninsured. In other words, between jobs. But they are not completely uninsured because they are protected by government unemployment benefits and COBRA.
- About 10% of the American population consists of people like me - we are wealthy enough to buy insurance, but we voluntarily choose NOT to buy insurance. There are a number of reasons for this. Mine is that I think insurance is a scam and it's cheaper for me to simply pay my ~$200 a year doctor visit.
- About 3% are not citizens, so even under Obamacare, they still would not be covered. And then there's the many people that checked "I'm not insured" on the Census mail-in poll, but in reality they are insured - by Medicaid or SCHIP or SSI. About 20%.
BOTTOM LINE- There are only 8 million U.S. citizens who *want* insurance but are not covered by private or government plans. 8. That's it.
You make it sound like Ron Paul's doing nothing of note. The fact is that Mr. Paul has consistently tried to STOP this rollercoaster before it reached this point, warning Congress that deficit spending is eventually going to seal our doom, but he just gets ignored.
No not the people. Don't blame the people who, like us, are largely powerless.
It was the religious leaders who, much like today's religious Shah in Iran, had the same power as a government to grab a man off the street, declare him guilty, and then hand him over to the Romans for punishment.
>>>all the crap from the first 6 years came home to roost...... we'd ALREADY spent our way to 5 TRILLION in Debt unnecessarily
You make it sound like Bush created that debt by himself. When Clinton walked-out the door there was already 3 trillion, so let's spread the blame equally between the D's and R's.
.
>>>So please take your revisionist history and just shove it, k?
Check the facts - the Federal Reserve IS a private entity. Not even Congress or the Budget Office is allowed to audit them. Why? Because the Fed is not part of the government.
>>>If the government was to regulate the Internet (above what they do presently), then the 9th or 10th ammendments won't come into play. State-level control of the Internet isn't an idea even worthy of laughing at. It's got to be controlled on the national level, if it's to be controlled at all. >>>
That's not how it works for the phone system, which is very similar to the internet (connections of wires for transferring communications over many miles). The phone system is controlled by the U.S. FCC but *only* if the company in question is interstate. If the company exists wholly and completely within a state (say, California) then the U.S. has no authority to regulate that company. Only the CA legislature has jurisdiction per the Communications Act of 1934.
The same principles apply to ISPs. Congress may exert power over lines that cross borders, but they have no authority to interfere with intrastate companies like "Mom's ISP of Ohio". That job falls to the Ohio government.
THAT'S the relevance of the 9th and 10th amendments.
>>>However the slimy hordes of "patriots" who cheered for extrajudicial surveillance, rendition, and torture; but are now screaming about secession because obama threatens their internet make me sick. >>>
What makes me sick is that you believe that ridiculous statement. *This* patriot was and is against all of it. Bush/Obama - it matters not because they both seem to be cut from the same cloth (power to the president; less liberty for citizens).
Q: Can the the province of Gaul secede from the Roman Empire? A: No the Roman Senate and Emperor determined they cannot, but they did it anyway circa 460 A.D.
Q: Can the American colonies secede from the British Empire? A: No the British Parliament determined they cannot, but they did it anyway.
Q: Can members states like the UK secede from the European Union? A: The EU probably would say no, but the outcome depends if the UK has a bigger army or not.
POINT:
Secession is not a matter of law, but a matter of force. He who has the most force determines the outcome. If the Southern states had been better organized and won, the U.S. Supreme Court could have issued all the verdicts they wanted, but it would not have changed anything. I recall at one point the U.S. Supremes said it was illegal to deport the Indians living in Alabama to Oklahoma, due to existing U.S. treaties, but the sitting president said, "They made their ruling; now let's see them enforce it," and he did it anyway. In cases like this force rules, not men in robes.
>>>they want to change their pages to artificially inflate their page rank
You beat me to it, and said what I was thinking. I would also add - Isn't "Google does not disclose the criteria for ranking results" generally a good thing??? That means NOBODY can game the system, so it's an equal opportunity for all publishers. And even if somebody does get a high ranking, it's only temporary because Google is constantly changing their methodology.
Only in Italy would somebody think it's okay to cheat. ("Yes I looked at the teacher's answer key - I was just using it as a study guide.") I suspect this kind of thinking goes all the way back to the Roman Empire.
They are the same party, they meet inside the White House with Obama, and they coordinate with one another to craft bills. They are as much a part of the administration as the vice-president. Perhaps moreso.
That's one solution. Another solution rather than act like rambo and kill a bunch of innocent Koreans..... is to take a measured response, realize the amount of counterfeit dollars is less than 1/100th of a percent, and then accept the fact that it's not really that bad. Nor are all problems solvable.
Besides what Korea is doing is no worse than what the non-government *private* Federal Reserve has been doing - printing bonds, giving these pieces of paper to companies, and then buying them back with dollars. In essence printing money. THAT'S going to cause far more harm (via devaluation of your savings by ~10% per year) than a few counterfeit notes.
I can not lay my hand on any part of the U.S. Constitution that allows a president or congress to declare martial law.
Nor should such a power ever exist. Time-and-time again the phrase "declared martial law" has prefaced the eventual takeover by dictators from the present-day, all the way back to the when Julius Caesar took-over Rome. The Declaration of War should be sufficient to indicate a state-of-heightened alertness. We don't need jackbooted thugs suspending the Constitution, and then quartering themselves in our homes, or other abuses of the citizens.
Just ask a japanese-American citizen circa 1944 how they felt.
>>>Or another need might be..........to make it easier for a Julius Caesar-type president to stage a coup and turn our Republic into a Dictatorship literally overnight. When you give such emergency powers to one man, you must remember there will eventually emerge a future man who will abuse the power for his own ends. History has shown us this time-and-time again. It is wiser to give the president less power not more.
And also to disperse the power over as many people as possible, like the 535 Congressmen, and the 50 state legislatures, so no one person ever holds too much.
Ya know, Representative Ron Paul has a bill in Congress right now, which I do not recall the title, but it's basically the "Audit the Federal Reserve" bill to find-out where the 2+ trillion dollars went.
Even though it has the signatures of 3/4 of the House, Nancy Pelosi and the other Democratic leadership refuses to let it onto the floor for an aye or nay vote.
THAT'S our administration in action. They are protecting their corporate donators (the Fed, the Banks, et cetera) from audit, but finding ways to hassle the citizens. I feel like experiencing Bush Part 2.
Alternator? No no. We're not discussing cars here. They use AC-to-DC converters, and the power load on this device would be essentially the same regardless of what battery type you used (1000mAh LiIon, 1000mAh NiMH, or 1000mAh NiCd).
>>>The media in this country are vast corporations, more often than not owned by even vaster corporations,
Yeah but the reporters and managers are almost-all registered Democrats. So the bias leans toward their own personal views which support more and more government programs. Never once will you hear a CNN or MSNBC report about making government smaller .
>>>Why do conservative Americans fear giving the state the 'power' to provide decent healthcare, but embrace giving the state the power to indefinitely detain and torture people who are accused of no crime? >>>
Strawman argument. I'm conservative and I fear BOTH things. I said from 9/11 onwards that fighting a war on terrorism was a mistake. I said that passing the Patriot Act was an even bigger mistake, but when you have a tyrant like Bush/Cheney in charge, the tyrant doesn't hear your objections. He believes the cause is just, he s right, the world is wrong, and ignore all the naysayers.
And now we have another man in office who is like a Second Bush. Different policies yes, but still the same personality type - "If you're not with us then you're against us," to quote his predecessor. Just once I'd like to have a president who doesn't seek to ignore the Constitution .
>>>Situation A: you're paying through the nose to a profiteering private health insurance... Situation B...your government, >>>
C: Pay for it yourself, the same way you paid for that $30,000 Lexus or SUV. This is the option I and about 20 million other Americans use (mostly professionals 40 and under). Now maybe you think we're foolish, but this IS a free country and we should be free to be "fools" if that's what we want. That's the whole reason the 1776 revolution happened - to gain individual liberty to run your own life.
That said I do think there should be a safety net (for the 3% that want but cannot get private or government coverage), but it should *only* be for the poor, and leave the rest of us alone to continue with what we have now.
>>>I wonder if the price saved is worth the lawsuits?
Well Ford performed this analysis in the 70s when they had a rash of exploding Pintos, and their accountants determined "yes" it's cheaper to pay-off the families of dead drivers than to spend the million-or-so on reengineering and fixing the problem. Besides the Pinto would eventually be phased-out anyway and replaced with a new 80s model, so the problem would solve itself, therefore just keep paying-off the victims to be silent (sound familiar?).
I suspect today's accountants are saying the same thing - "The money saved by shipping cheap goods from China or India is cheaper than the money paid-out to people with burned hands." Of course this is why we have a government - to protect our individual rights from those persons who would do us harm.
Not true. LiIon batteries are extremely difficult to recharge and are in fact the most-complex battery ever made for home use. But the reason companies put-up with them is because they can hold the same amount of charge as a NiCad or NiMH battery, but in 1/4 or 1/2 the space, respectively. Obviously saving space is important for phones and laptops.
Now contrast that with hybrid cars which almost-universally use the NiMH battery. Since space is no great concern, but safety is, they use the more-stable battery. NiMH also has the advantage of surviving the ~20 years that cars typically last, and also being environmentally neutral.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. This requirement that you need a license/ID to "travel the net" is roughly equivalent to saying I need a license to walk down the sidewalk. "Papiere bitte." "I don't have any papers." "Papiere schnell!" "I told you I don't have any papers. Hey! Let go!" And then you get arrested for walking without ID.
You shouldn't need "permission" to travel freely either IRL or online.
Something like this happened on my Alma Mater. My old professor invited me to come visit for a student presentation day, which I did, and then I had dinner with some of the students, and watched a little MTV in the *public* lounge. Suddenly a security guard came-up and demanded my ID. I said it's in my car. Then she tried to escort me to the security office, and I refused. I told her I'll just leave and did so, even though she tried to stop me (I run faster).
To say I was angry is an understatement. Can you imagine the same thing happening everywhere you go in real life, or on the net???
Oh:
And yes the president of the college got an angry phonecall. I told him that he won't be getting any more donations from me. If my presence as a graduate is not welcome, then neither is my money.
I recall when Abraham Lincoln did that in Maryland, effectively creating martial law. A citizen sued the president, and the Supreme Court determined that Lincoln had committed an unconstitutional act, since the power belongs to Congress not the executive.
Lincoln ignored the Court.
I don't see how amendments 13, 14, or 15 change the basic principle that James Madison included when he wrote the Constitution:
"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars." (Federalist 41). He further clarifies: "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, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
And finally if you're still confused, just read the Supreme Law for yourself, which makes clear most powers belong to the State governments, not Congress: "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 constitution... needs to be read as a living, evolving, document
No actually it's just a law. Talk about it being "living" is an "absurdity" to borrow from Madison. It's a piece of paper that is written in plain English to define what powers belong to the U.S. and what powers are reserved to the States. Basically a contract that separates power (federalism). For example - Congress wants to fine citizens ~$2000 for not having insurance, similar to what Massachusetts already does with its own citizens. I can not lay my hand on any part of this Constitution which gives Congress power to "fine" citizens for Not buying a product.
QED that power "to fine the people" is not given to Congress - its reserved to the 50 State Legislatures.
>>>Wait. So are you saying that if the several state governments had this sort of control, that would be amenable?
No but petitioning my government in Sacramento is a hell of a lot easier than traveling 2500 miles to D.C. The power is better when it's only a few miles from the citizens' homes, and therefore directly accountable.
>>>These would be unenumerated. It is an agonizingly slow process
Not really. Congress has proposed fining Americans who do not have health insurance (me) similar to how Massachusetts State fines $1500 to its citizens. Problem: I can not locate anywhere in the Constitution where Congress was given authority to "fine" the people for Not buying a product. QED per the 10th amendment, Congress doesn't have that power - it's reserved to the States.
There see? That was easy.
Now we just need to persuade the Supremes to reach the same conclusion. We'll remind them what the Author of the Constitution James Madison said - "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity." (Federalist 41) He further clarifies: "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, subject to particular exceptions." (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)
And: "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."
I don't have insurance. I only pay ~$200 per year on doctor visits. I think it's clear to anyone who can add 2+2 that my choice is cheaper than paying the $5000/year healthcare insurance.
And if something really tragic happens (unlikely), then I just pay the bill the same way I paid the bill for my $30,000 SUV. If I can afford the metal toy, I can certainly afford the $8000 bill for a pacemaker (what my dad paid), or other surgery.
[edit]
Correction:
- Many people checked "I'm not insured" on the Census mail-in poll, but in reality they are insured - by Medicaid or SCHIP or SSI. About 6%.
What we have here is a *minor* problem with about 3% of Americans who desire but cannot get coverage. Therefore what we need is a *minor* solution such as extending Medicaid to encompass these people, NOT a wholesale government monopoly takeover for the other 97% of Americans.
And yes I know you dispute my stat listed in my signature. I don't care. Take it up with Time Magazine - it's their survey, not mine. The fact is that over 80% of Americans (a constitutional majority) are perfectly happy with what they've got and probably don't want change. Why do you want to ignore their opinion - do you not believe in democracy?
Or do you only use the "D word" when it's convenient, and ignore it otherwise. (Like Grandma Pelosi who called us "unAmerican" because we dared to speak up at townmeetings.)
>>>People like you just piss me off. You read some right wing horse shit and go around spouting i
How are you any better? You are simply repeating the Obama and Democratic talking points ("50 million people uninsured") without ever bothering to examine if this number is the truth, or merely propaganda. Well I've done the research and here's the deal:
- The 50 million number comes a Census *mailin survey* which is completely unscientific and therefore invalid. The Congressional Budget Office says that any point-in-time 7% of Americans *temporarily* uninsured. In other words, between jobs. But they are not completely uninsured because they are protected by government unemployment benefits and COBRA.
- About 10% of the American population consists of people like me - we are wealthy enough to buy insurance, but we voluntarily choose NOT to buy insurance. There are a number of reasons for this. Mine is that I think insurance is a scam and it's cheaper for me to simply pay my ~$200 a year doctor visit.
- About 3% are not citizens, so even under Obamacare, they still would not be covered. And then there's the many people that checked "I'm not insured" on the Census mail-in poll, but in reality they are insured - by Medicaid or SCHIP or SSI. About 20%.
BOTTOM LINE- There are only 8 million U.S. citizens who *want* insurance but are not covered by private or government plans.
8.
That's it.
You make it sound like Ron Paul's doing nothing of note. The fact is that Mr. Paul has consistently tried to STOP this rollercoaster before it reached this point, warning Congress that deficit spending is eventually going to seal our doom, but he just gets ignored.
No not the people. Don't blame the people who, like us, are largely powerless.
It was the religious leaders who, much like today's religious Shah in Iran, had the same power as a government to grab a man off the street, declare him guilty, and then hand him over to the Romans for punishment.
>>>all the crap from the first 6 years came home to roost...... we'd ALREADY spent our way to 5 TRILLION in Debt unnecessarily
You make it sound like Bush created that debt by himself.
When Clinton walked-out the door there was already 3 trillion,
so let's spread the blame equally between the D's and R's.
.
>>>So please take your revisionist history and just shove it, k?
You first
Check the facts - the Federal Reserve IS a private entity. Not even Congress or the Budget Office is allowed to audit them. Why? Because the Fed is not part of the government.
>>>If the government was to regulate the Internet (above what they do presently), then the 9th or 10th ammendments won't come into play. State-level control of the Internet isn't an idea even worthy of laughing at. It's got to be controlled on the national level, if it's to be controlled at all.
>>>
That's not how it works for the phone system, which is very similar to the internet (connections of wires for transferring communications over many miles). The phone system is controlled by the U.S. FCC but *only* if the company in question is interstate. If the company exists wholly and completely within a state (say, California) then the U.S. has no authority to regulate that company. Only the CA legislature has jurisdiction per the Communications Act of 1934.
The same principles apply to ISPs. Congress may exert power over lines that cross borders, but they have no authority to interfere with intrastate companies like "Mom's ISP of Ohio". That job falls to the Ohio government.
THAT'S the relevance of the 9th and 10th amendments.
>>>However the slimy hordes of "patriots" who cheered for extrajudicial surveillance, rendition, and torture; but are now screaming about secession because obama threatens their internet make me sick.
>>>
What makes me sick is that you believe that ridiculous statement. *This* patriot was and is against all of it. Bush/Obama - it matters not because they both seem to be cut from the same cloth (power to the president; less liberty for citizens).
Q: Can the the province of Gaul secede from the Roman Empire?
A: No the Roman Senate and Emperor determined they cannot, but they did it anyway circa 460 A.D.
Q: Can the American colonies secede from the British Empire?
A: No the British Parliament determined they cannot, but they did it anyway.
Q: Can members states like the UK secede from the European Union?
A: The EU probably would say no, but the outcome depends if the UK has a bigger army or not.
POINT:
Secession is not a matter of law, but a matter of force. He who has the most force determines the outcome. If the Southern states had been better organized and won, the U.S. Supreme Court could have issued all the verdicts they wanted, but it would not have changed anything. I recall at one point the U.S. Supremes said it was illegal to deport the Indians living in Alabama to Oklahoma, due to existing U.S. treaties, but the sitting president said, "They made their ruling; now let's see them enforce it," and he did it anyway. In cases like this force rules, not men in robes.
>>>they want to change their pages to artificially inflate their page rank
You beat me to it, and said what I was thinking. I would also add - Isn't "Google does not disclose the criteria for ranking results" generally a good thing??? That means NOBODY can game the system, so it's an equal opportunity for all publishers. And even if somebody does get a high ranking, it's only temporary because Google is constantly changing their methodology.
Only in Italy would somebody think it's okay to cheat. ("Yes I looked at the teacher's answer key - I was just using it as a study guide.") I suspect this kind of thinking goes all the way back to the Roman Empire.
minor nit:
They are the same party, they meet inside the White House with Obama, and they coordinate with one another to craft bills. They are as much a part of the administration as the vice-president. Perhaps moreso.
That's one solution. Another solution rather than act like rambo and kill a bunch of innocent Koreans..... is to take a measured response, realize the amount of counterfeit dollars is less than 1/100th of a percent, and then accept the fact that it's not really that bad. Nor are all problems solvable.
Besides what Korea is doing is no worse than what the non-government *private* Federal Reserve has been doing - printing bonds, giving these pieces of paper to companies, and then buying them back with dollars. In essence printing money. THAT'S going to cause far more harm (via devaluation of your savings by ~10% per year) than a few counterfeit notes.
I can not lay my hand on any part of the U.S. Constitution that allows a president or congress to declare martial law.
Nor should such a power ever exist. Time-and-time again the phrase "declared martial law" has prefaced the eventual takeover by dictators from the present-day, all the way back to the when Julius Caesar took-over Rome. The Declaration of War should be sufficient to indicate a state-of-heightened alertness. We don't need jackbooted thugs suspending the Constitution, and then quartering themselves in our homes, or other abuses of the citizens.
Just ask a japanese-American citizen circa 1944 how they felt.
>>>Or another need might be..... .....to make it easier for a Julius Caesar-type president to stage a coup and turn our Republic into a Dictatorship literally overnight. When you give such emergency powers to one man, you must remember there will eventually emerge a future man who will abuse the power for his own ends. History has shown us this time-and-time again. It is wiser to give the president less power not more.
And also to disperse the power over as many people as possible, like the 535 Congressmen, and the 50 state legislatures, so no one person ever holds too much.
Ya know, Representative Ron Paul has a bill in Congress right now, which I do not recall the title, but it's basically the "Audit the Federal Reserve" bill to find-out where the 2+ trillion dollars went.
Even though it has the signatures of 3/4 of the House, Nancy Pelosi and the other Democratic leadership refuses to let it onto the floor for an aye or nay vote.
THAT'S our administration in action. They are protecting their corporate donators (the Fed, the Banks, et cetera) from audit, but finding ways to hassle the citizens. I feel like experiencing Bush Part 2.
The 9th and 10th Amendments will suffice. We just need to surround the Supreme Court and force the judges to read them, rather than ignore them.
BTW is this the "change" you were looking for? ;-)
Alternator? No no. We're not discussing cars here. They use AC-to-DC converters, and the power load on this device would be essentially the same regardless of what battery type you used (1000mAh LiIon, 1000mAh NiMH, or 1000mAh NiCd).
>>>The media in this country are vast corporations, more often than not owned by even vaster corporations,
Yeah but the reporters and managers are almost-all registered Democrats. So the bias leans toward their own personal views which support more and more government programs. Never once will you hear a CNN or MSNBC report about making government smaller
.
>>>Why do conservative Americans fear giving the state the 'power' to provide decent healthcare, but embrace giving the state the power to indefinitely detain and torture people who are accused of no crime?
>>>
Strawman argument. I'm conservative and I fear BOTH things. I said from 9/11 onwards that fighting a war on terrorism was a mistake. I said that passing the Patriot Act was an even bigger mistake, but when you have a tyrant like Bush/Cheney in charge, the tyrant doesn't hear your objections. He believes the cause is just, he s right, the world is wrong, and ignore all the naysayers.
And now we have another man in office who is like a Second Bush. Different policies yes, but still the same personality type - "If you're not with us then you're against us," to quote his predecessor. Just once I'd like to have a president who doesn't seek to ignore the Constitution
.
>>>Situation A: you're paying through the nose to a profiteering private health insurance... Situation B...your government,
>>>
C: Pay for it yourself, the same way you paid for that $30,000 Lexus or SUV. This is the option I and about 20 million other Americans use (mostly professionals 40 and under). Now maybe you think we're foolish, but this IS a free country and we should be free to be "fools" if that's what we want. That's the whole reason the 1776 revolution happened - to gain individual liberty to run your own life.
That said I do think there should be a safety net (for the 3% that want but cannot get private or government coverage), but it should *only* be for the poor, and leave the rest of us alone to continue with what we have now.
>>>I wonder if the price saved is worth the lawsuits?
Well Ford performed this analysis in the 70s when they had a rash of exploding Pintos, and their accountants determined "yes" it's cheaper to pay-off the families of dead drivers than to spend the million-or-so on reengineering and fixing the problem. Besides the Pinto would eventually be phased-out anyway and replaced with a new 80s model, so the problem would solve itself, therefore just keep paying-off the victims to be silent (sound familiar?).
I suspect today's accountants are saying the same thing - "The money saved by shipping cheap goods from China or India is cheaper than the money paid-out to people with burned hands." Of course this is why we have a government - to protect our individual rights from those persons who would do us harm.
>>>they are easily rechargable.
Not true. LiIon batteries are extremely difficult to recharge and are in fact the most-complex battery ever made for home use. But the reason companies put-up with them is because they can hold the same amount of charge as a NiCad or NiMH battery, but in 1/4 or 1/2 the space, respectively. Obviously saving space is important for phones and laptops.
Now contrast that with hybrid cars which almost-universally use the NiMH battery. Since space is no great concern, but safety is, they use the more-stable battery. NiMH also has the advantage of surviving the ~20 years that cars typically last, and also being environmentally neutral.