Precisely. This clause gives the Supreme Court power to *judge cases*. The End. It does NOT give them power to nullify laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Or to nullify State laws duly passed in accordance with their local constitution. Such a power, if it exists, was never given to the Court.
"If the Marubyr v. Madison opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete Act of Suicide. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, this opinion has given to the Supreme Court alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation..... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
>>>And, for the record, the Supreme Court CAN interpret the constitution as they like.
False.
"There is not a word in the Constitution which has given power to decide on the constitutionality of a law to the Supreme Court, more than to the Executive or Legislative branches..... The ultimate arbiter is the people and states of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. " --Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father
>>>Does your electrical company increase your rates or move to a higher tier if you run appliances all day long?
Yes. Although they actually move me to a *lower* tier (from 11 to 9 cents/KWhr) the more I use. Ditto my phone company and cellphone company. That's true for most Americans, although they may not realize it. You get discounts for using higher quantities.
The internet provider, and the cable that supplies TV, should be separate companies. Otherwise if they are the same (like Comcast) they will limit the internet Data Cap to encourage people to also pay for CATV.
Doesn't matter. The right to spend money is still protected (amendments 9 and 10), although it's possible your Member State has limits upon that right.
>>>Explain to me where the First Amendment says it only applies to "people"?
It's in amendment 9 which states the Constitution includes an enumeration of rights *for the People*. Not corporations or buildings or trees or rocks. The US Government has chosen to extend certain *privileges* to these things, but that's not the same as rights, because privileges may be revoked or limited (such as corporate speech is limited).
>>>"Abridging the freedom of speech" is in no way the same as "regulating speech".
I can lay my hand on no part of the US Constitution which gave Congress, the President, or the Justices power to regulate/restrict speech. Therefore the 9th and 10th amendments apply (such a right/power is reserved to the States or People).
Slight correction:. The *US* government may not imprison protesters, but the State governments certainly can, per whatever their local constitutions say.
This clause gives the Supreme Court power to *judge cases*.
The End. It does NOT give them power to nullify laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Or to nullify State laws duly passed in according with their local constitution. Such a power, if it exists, only lies with the States (10th amendment) or the Congress (repeal a law they previously passed).
>>>And, for the record, the Supreme Court CAN interpret the constitution as they like.
False. "There is not a word in the Constitution which has given power to decide on the constitutionality of a law to the Supreme Court, more than to the Executive or Legislative branches..... The ultimate arbiter is the people and states of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. " --Thomas Jefferson
And: ""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 is 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 erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson
Let's examine this list shall we? "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or the press". So the US government has no authority to limit what we say or publish. States may or may not be able to limit speech, depending on their constitutions, but we're mainly focused on the National government for this topic.
>>> Obscenity
You are free to say any obscenity you wish. The only exception is on broadcast TV or radio, but you're free to say it online, on cable, in books, in person, and so on.
>>> Fighting words >>> Incitement to imminent lawless action >>> True threats >>> Blackmail
The Supreme Court made several rulings in the volatile 60s and 70s that fighting words ARE protected speech, because "sometimes in the volatile arena of protest, people say things in anger [such as death threats] but without intent to act." They then concluded only the ACT is prosecutable, or if a clear-and-present threat exists (such as a gun), but otherwise the words are protected. i.e. If you are unarmed you can say anything you want.
>>> Defamation (includes libel, slander)
That's not illegal at the US level... only the state level... therefore not relevant to the UK-US topic.
>>> Child pornography
Child porn is not illegal; the Sex Act is illegal, because it's statutory rape, and the image is connected to that. Also child nudity is protected speech, which is why nudist websites are allowed to exist online. Many assume a photo of a nude child is a crime but it's perfectly legal.
>>> Perjury
That's because you swore an oath not to lie. If you do not swear the oath, you are free to perjure all you wish.
>>>SCOTA has direct and pertinent domain over deciding what free speech is, and what it is not.
False. "There is not a word in the Constitution which has given power to decide on the constitutionality of a law to the Supreme Court, more than to the Executive or Legislative branches..... The ultimate arbiter is the people and states of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. " --Thomas Jefferson
As for the actual law, it does not allow for exceptions. It simply says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." The State Legislatures may limit free speech (depending on their local laws) but not the US legislature.
I can not lay my hand on any part of the constitution which gives the US Government power to overrule the First Amendment. Can you? On the contrary the constitution reserves that power to the 50 Member States, whenever they meet in convention to amend/modify the supreme law. So whatever the US Court decides is irrelevant. Free Speech may not be curtailed for adults.
I don't really see a future for pure electrics. It makes more sense to power cars from ethanol, biodiesel, and/or hydrogen, all of which are solar-powered fuels. They provide long range 400-1000 miles, fast recharge (less than 10 minutes at the station), and use the existing infrastructure with very little modification needed.
The EV1 and Rav4 EV were rated as no cleaner than a Prius or Civic HX by greenercars.org, and about 8 percentage points lower than my Honda Insight or Civic CNG.
The reason is because while the electric motor is simple and efficient, the electric to battery to electric conversion process is extremely inefficient. Back in 2000 the US government performed a GREET study, and found the two cleanest and most efficient technologies were a Diesel Engine (#2) and a Diesel-electric hybrid (#1). The pure electric car was a distant 6th place behind Gasoline and Natural Gas combustion engines.
Strawman argument. MY IQ's well above the "moron" level of 70.
>>>who will defend corporations at any cost, aren't you?
False. I hate corporations almost as much as I hate government. .
>>>Have you ever considered seeing a psychiatrist?
Sometimes but I'm pretty good as solving my own problems, even when I'm depressed or times are bad.
>>>Electricity costs derived from data usage are negligible
No they are not. Servers generate a lot of heat, due to the high electricity usage of moving that data around. It is not negligible, but quite significant, and also a key reason why Google and others are moving their Internet Servers to cool places like Buffalo or Toronto.
>>>you moron.
Strawman argument again. Please talk to ME, not your imaginary scarecrow. Thanks.
I looked at the share and see IE is still outnumbering Firefox by almost 2 times but somehow the submitter translated that to "Firefox is close to be surpassing IE in europe". Uh... no. If this was a NASCAR race, firefox would be 2 laps behind and still trying to catch up. Not close.
I suspect more people have seen A Christmas Carol than Star Trek 2.
BTW ever read part 2 of that story? Ebenezer Scrooge ends-up bankrupt because he goes from a spend-thrift to a careless spender (kinda like some americans today). Perhaps Ebenezer suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder? Unfortunately Bob Cratchet loses his job when Mr. Scrooge loses his bank and business.
The moral is the same moral as Henry David Thoreau wrote-about in his novels: Moderation is the best course.
>>>Utilitarianism negates free will, property rights and individuality when misapplied
Well said.
Also most people forget the SECOND half of the saying: "You were wrong Mr. Spock. We decided that the needs of the ONE outweigh the needs of the many. That is why we risked our lives to save you." - Captain Kirk. The American Confederation and later United States Constitution was founded on that principle. The individual matters.
>>>14/0.5mbps, 22kbps sustained -- since 60GB monthly is just that.
This isn't really a useful metric because few consumers run their computers 24 hours a day. Just saying "14/0.5 Mbps with 60 GB cap" is enough information. However I would also add the average throughput since many services like "Comcast Burst" drop to 5 Mbit/s after the first minute of a download. So for example:
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely. This clause gives the Supreme Court power to *judge cases*. The End. It does NOT give them power to nullify laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Or to nullify State laws duly passed in accordance with their local constitution. Such a power, if it exists, was never given to the Court.
"If the Marubyr v. Madison opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete Act of Suicide. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, this opinion has given to the Supreme Court alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation..... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
>>>And, for the record, the Supreme Court CAN interpret the constitution as they like.
False.
"There is not a word in the Constitution which has given power to decide on the constitutionality of a law to the Supreme Court, more than to the Executive or Legislative branches..... The ultimate arbiter is the people and states of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. " --Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father
>>>$1.50 per Gb!
So if you're paying $40 for 36 GB, that's $1.11. Yep they are ripping your off by raising their rates.
>>>Does your electrical company increase your rates or move to a higher tier if you run appliances all day long?
Yes. Although they actually move me to a *lower* tier (from 11 to 9 cents/KWhr) the more I use. Ditto my phone company and cellphone company. That's true for most Americans, although they may not realize it. You get discounts for using higher quantities.
The internet provider, and the cable that supplies TV, should be separate companies.
Otherwise if they are the same (like Comcast) they will limit the internet Data Cap to encourage people to also pay for CATV.
Doesn't matter. The right to spend money is still protected (amendments 9 and 10), although it's possible your Member State has limits upon that right.
>>>Explain to me where the First Amendment says it only applies to "people"?
It's in amendment 9 which states the Constitution includes an enumeration of rights *for the People*. Not corporations or buildings or trees or rocks. The US Government has chosen to extend certain *privileges* to these things, but that's not the same as rights, because privileges may be revoked or limited (such as corporate speech is limited).
>>>"Abridging the freedom of speech" is in no way the same as "regulating speech".
I can lay my hand on no part of the US Constitution which gave Congress, the President, or the Justices power to regulate/restrict speech. Therefore the 9th and 10th amendments apply (such a right/power is reserved to the States or People).
Slight correction:. The *US* government may not imprison protesters, but the State governments certainly can, per whatever their local constitutions say.
This clause gives the Supreme Court power to *judge cases*.
The End. It does NOT give them power to nullify laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Or to nullify State laws duly passed in according with their local constitution. Such a power, if it exists, only lies with the States (10th amendment) or the Congress (repeal a law they previously passed).
>>>And, for the record, the Supreme Court CAN interpret the constitution as they like.
False. "There is not a word in the Constitution which has given power to decide on the constitutionality of a law to the Supreme Court, more than to the Executive or Legislative branches..... The ultimate arbiter is the people and states of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. " --Thomas Jefferson
And: ""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 is 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 erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson
Let's examine this list shall we? "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or the press". So the US government has no authority to limit what we say or publish. States may or may not be able to limit speech, depending on their constitutions, but we're mainly focused on the National government for this topic.
>>> Obscenity
You are free to say any obscenity you wish. The only exception is on broadcast TV or radio, but you're free to say it online, on cable, in books, in person, and so on.
>>> Fighting words
>>> Incitement to imminent lawless action
>>> True threats
>>> Blackmail
The Supreme Court made several rulings in the volatile 60s and 70s that fighting words ARE protected speech, because "sometimes in the volatile arena of protest, people say things in anger [such as death threats] but without intent to act." They then concluded only the ACT is prosecutable, or if a clear-and-present threat exists (such as a gun), but otherwise the words are protected. i.e. If you are unarmed you can say anything you want.
>>> Defamation (includes libel, slander)
That's not illegal at the US level... only the state level... therefore not relevant to the UK-US topic.
>>> Child pornography
Child porn is not illegal; the Sex Act is illegal, because it's statutory rape, and the image is connected to that. Also child nudity is protected speech, which is why nudist websites are allowed to exist online. Many assume a photo of a nude child is a crime but it's perfectly legal.
>>> Perjury
That's because you swore an oath not to lie. If you do not swear the oath, you are free to perjure all you wish.
>>>SCOTA has direct and pertinent domain over deciding what free speech is, and what it is not.
False. "There is not a word in the Constitution which has given power to decide on the constitutionality of a law to the Supreme Court, more than to the Executive or Legislative branches..... The ultimate arbiter is the people and states of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. " --Thomas Jefferson
As for the actual law, it does not allow for exceptions. It simply says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." The State Legislatures may limit free speech (depending on their local laws) but not the US legislature.
>>>you never said anything
Yes I did. See my previous reference to ACEEE.org and greenercars.org which examined all those problems.
>>>Yes, because 85% efficiency is just so damn low. So much lower than the 35% you'll get, at best, from any sort of ICE engine in a car. Oh wait.
You forgot the 60% loss froom coal or CNG to electricity in the central power plant. BTW volkswagen claims 45% efficiency with its diesel ICEs
My opinion is irrelevant.
I can not lay my hand on any part of the constitution which gives the US Government power to overrule the First Amendment. Can you? On the contrary the constitution reserves that power to the 50 Member States, whenever they meet in convention to amend/modify the supreme law. So whatever the US Court decides is irrelevant. Free Speech may not be curtailed for adults.
>>>all electric cars
I don't really see a future for pure electrics. It makes more sense to power cars from ethanol, biodiesel, and/or hydrogen, all of which are solar-powered fuels. They provide long range 400-1000 miles, fast recharge (less than 10 minutes at the station), and use the existing infrastructure with very little modification needed.
The EV1 and Rav4 EV were rated as no cleaner than a Prius or Civic HX by greenercars.org, and about 8 percentage points lower than my Honda Insight or Civic CNG.
The reason is because while the electric motor is simple and efficient, the electric to battery to electric conversion process is extremely inefficient. Back in 2000 the US government performed a GREET study, and found the two cleanest and most efficient technologies were a Diesel Engine (#2) and a Diesel-electric hybrid (#1). The pure electric car was a distant 6th place behind Gasoline and Natural Gas combustion engines.
>>>You're a moron...
Strawman argument. MY IQ's well above the "moron" level of 70.
>>>who will defend corporations at any cost, aren't you?
False. I hate corporations almost as much as I hate government.
.
>>>Have you ever considered seeing a psychiatrist?
Sometimes but I'm pretty good as solving my own problems, even when I'm depressed or times are bad.
>>>Electricity costs derived from data usage are negligible
No they are not. Servers generate a lot of heat, due to the high electricity usage of moving that data around. It is not negligible, but quite significant, and also a key reason why Google and others are moving their Internet Servers to cool places like Buffalo or Toronto.
>>>you moron.
Strawman argument again. Please talk to ME, not your imaginary scarecrow. Thanks.
Ooops. I was looking at this "Europe: IE's defenses are down... Firefox with 31.24% and IE with 49.22%," but that's the world numbers.
Yeah the summary is painfully pathetic.
I looked at the share and see IE is still outnumbering Firefox by almost 2 times but somehow the submitter translated that to "Firefox is close to be surpassing IE in europe". Uh... no. If this was a NASCAR race, firefox would be 2 laps behind and still trying to catch up. Not close.
I suspect more people have seen A Christmas Carol than Star Trek 2.
BTW ever read part 2 of that story? Ebenezer Scrooge ends-up bankrupt because he goes from a spend-thrift to a careless spender (kinda like some americans today). Perhaps Ebenezer suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder? Unfortunately Bob Cratchet loses his job when Mr. Scrooge loses his bank and business.
The moral is the same moral as Henry David Thoreau wrote-about in his novels: Moderation is the best course.
>>>Utilitarianism negates free will, property rights and individuality when misapplied
Well said.
Also most people forget the SECOND half of the saying: "You were wrong Mr. Spock. We decided that the needs of the ONE outweigh the needs of the many. That is why we risked our lives to save you." - Captain Kirk. The American Confederation and later United States Constitution was founded on that principle. The individual matters.
>>>14/0.5mbps, 22kbps sustained -- since 60GB monthly is just that.
This isn't really a useful metric because few consumers run their computers 24 hours a day. Just saying "14/0.5 Mbps with 60 GB cap" is enough information. However I would also add the average throughput since many services like "Comcast Burst" drop to 5 Mbit/s after the first minute of a download. So for example:
Comcast ISP: 14/2 Mbps peak. 5 Mbit/s typical. 250 GB cap
Verizon DSL: 7/2 Mps peak. 7 Mbit/s typical. No cap.
You're right. Bits use-up electricity which needs to be conserved.