Explain which part of that you think is being infringed.
* She isn't testifying in court, so she is not a witness against herself * Any life, liberty, or property of which she is deprived is explicitly by due process of law * Her property is not being taken for public use
I think the problem might be that you don't understand your rights. You should read up! Your rights are very important, and you should understand them.
If the court believes it must remove comments which 'mock gods worshiped in India,' then wouldn't they also have to remove comments which 'mock gods NOT worshiped in India'?
If it is offensive to you, for me to say that your gods are silly myths; why shan't it be offensive to me, for you to say that they are real? I mean, let's be honest, at least I'm right.
"if growing and NOT SELLING WHEAT [wikipedia.org] can be construed as commerce, then breathing also can be."
Here's why I object to it:
"Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who admitted producing wheat in excess of the amount permitted."
What you said is wrong. He was "growing and selling wheat" which is quite different from "growing and NOT SELLING WHEAT".
Even if he had been "growing and NOT SELLING WHEAT", however, the SC's decision would still be right. And no matter how the SC decided that case, it still wouldn't amount to your claim that breathing is interstate commerce -- that is nonsense. To equate those things is untenable. But, you can prove to me that it is not nonsense, by getting any judge in the land to agree with you.
I'll up my bet to ten thousand, if you'll give me one-to-ten-thousand odds. Good luck with your little legal theory there. Let me know -- you'll only lose one dollar, after embarrassing yourself in court.
Also, again, the guy was selling wheat. It's a weak basis for your argument. But even if you came up with a better basis, that still wouldn't matter, because in the end you would have to argue either that the enforcement was unconstitutional (which is wasn't) or that it was Bad in some way, which I'm willing to hear out, but I think it's a hard case to make.
I accept your apology, as I do from anyone who switches from arguing the merits, to arguing by ad hominem. Cheerio! I'm quite pleased to have bested you.
By the way, you should look up and read about Wickard v Filburn, to which you link, because your stated understanding of the case is about 97% wrong. If you say something like "if growing and NOT SELLING WHEAT... can be construed as commerce" again, you will embarrass yourself, and show again that you don't know what you are talking about. Everything you need to know is right there in the wiki article you linked to, so you won't have to go very far to learn what you need to learn. You yourself provided the cite which proves you wrong.
In that case, a man was in fact growing and selling wheat, and then keeping some for himself. To misconstrue that as "growing and not selling wheat" is, to put it plainly, a lie.
That's called deferring to the legislature, which represents the will of the people. Yes, courts should and rightly do usually defer to the will of the people. Only sometimes do they step in and say that the will of the people should be subverted for the benefit of a minority.
The credibility of the source is relevant, and you should care about it. How can you tell whether it is accurate and relevant, if you are reading it on an untrustworthy site? If you get your news from a source which is not a source of news, then you aren't getting the news. If you get your news from a source of ideological spin, then your news isn't news, it's ideological spin.
This particular article and this particular source, I won't comment on, but your thesis is very wrong, and very dangerous -- dangerously common.
That sound you hear is 310 million pairs of American eyes rolling in your direction. Not selling wheat is not tenably similar to holding your breath. If you can sell that theory to a judge, I'll pay you a thousand dollars.
The Commerce Clause is a big broad power. Deal with it. It makes your life better, and if you are really so beefed, then start a campaign to repeal it.
The Necessary and Proper clause is also big and broad. You can add that to your campaign.
No, the Supreme Court always had the power to refuse to enforce laws which are contrary to the Constitution (which is what it means to "strike down" a law -- it's still a statute on the books, but courts won't enforce it, which makes the statute "not law"). They merely waited until Marbury to assert that prerogative.
I mean, seriously, if the SCUSA didn't do it, then who would? If the SCUSA didn't decide the constitutionality of statutes, then what would they do?
I disagree. The courts are rightly giving primary deference to the basic function of democracy: voting. If people vote for certain representatives, then for the most part, the people should get what they vote for. Only in extreme circumstances should the courts overturn the will of the people, as expressed through the will of the elected legislators. That is why courts are historically very conservative and defer to statutes, but also don't shy away from overturning laws when they have to. And of course overturning laws is mostly done at the very high levels of the courts, with lower courts mostly applying statutes as written.
This is as it should be. Complain first to your representative.
First of all, the clause has been interpreted broadly to the betterment of the country so it's hard to complain about it. Similarly, we read broadly that the "freedom of speech" actually means the "freedom of expression". That's another good example of how broad reading of the Constitution has benefited Americans.
And anyway, at least the clause has been interpreted according to the actual meaning of its plain text. Yes, all commerce is pretty much interstate, that is true, so, okay, the Constitution does in fact give the Feds the prerogative to regulate pretty much all commerce. As you point out, that is in fact what it says.
We could always change the Constitution if we feel like the balance is bad.
Tor isn't a food or drug, so the FDA wouldn't have anything to say about it, but another federal agency might, for good and Constitutionally sound reasons.
1.) True. All commerce is, in fact, interstate, and international. 2.) Useful. States, according to the evidence of history, totally suck at regulating commerce, whereas the feds are better at it.
There you go! You asked a question, and received an answer. I assume you are not the kind of person who asks questions assuming that you are just so clever that you can pose a rhetorical question with no possible answer which will serve to undo the legitimacy of your ideological opposition.
No, it is not conspicuous. Stop saying that, because it isn't even remotely true. People stand withing touching distance of strangers every single day, with no exceptions. Ever stand in an elevator? On a subway? In an airplane? In line at a bank? Ever go to a grocery store? Ever walk past someone on the street?
This story is not news, because UK is not a free country. The United States has a constitution (a real one) with protections for liberties (real liberties). The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's pretty good; its enforcement isn't perfect; but it's pretty good.
UK, on the other hand, does not have a constitution, despite their claims to have an "unwritten" one. Yeah, uh, unwritten constitutions, like God and unicorns, can't be proven to exist. And here you are, putting people in jail for learning, which is literally not figuratively thought-crime.
Also, UK is a theocratic monarchy, so it's not even a democracy, and so it's frankly surprising when Britons have any freedom at all.
Are you totally sure about that? I don't personally know, myself, but are you really claiming that you know copyright law better than the judge who made this decision?
Slashdot Mirror
Explain which part of that you think is being infringed.
* She isn't testifying in court, so she is not a witness against herself
* Any life, liberty, or property of which she is deprived is explicitly by due process of law
* Her property is not being taken for public use
I think the problem might be that you don't understand your rights. You should read up! Your rights are very important, and you should understand them.
What I mean is, for every God worshiped, that God is also not worshiped. I thought that was clear, so I apologize for the confusion.
If the court believes it must remove comments which 'mock gods worshiped in India,' then wouldn't they also have to remove comments which 'mock gods NOT worshiped in India'?
If it is offensive to you, for me to say that your gods are silly myths; why shan't it be offensive to me, for you to say that they are real? I mean, let's be honest, at least I'm right.
Here's what you said that I object to:
"if growing and NOT SELLING WHEAT [wikipedia.org] can be construed as commerce, then breathing also can be."
Here's why I object to it:
"Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who admitted producing wheat in excess of the amount permitted."
What you said is wrong. He was "growing and selling wheat" which is quite different from "growing and NOT SELLING WHEAT".
Even if he had been "growing and NOT SELLING WHEAT", however, the SC's decision would still be right. And no matter how the SC decided that case, it still wouldn't amount to your claim that breathing is interstate commerce -- that is nonsense. To equate those things is untenable. But, you can prove to me that it is not nonsense, by getting any judge in the land to agree with you.
I'll up my bet to ten thousand, if you'll give me one-to-ten-thousand odds. Good luck with your little legal theory there. Let me know -- you'll only lose one dollar, after embarrassing yourself in court.
Also, again, the guy was selling wheat. It's a weak basis for your argument. But even if you came up with a better basis, that still wouldn't matter, because in the end you would have to argue either that the enforcement was unconstitutional (which is wasn't) or that it was Bad in some way, which I'm willing to hear out, but I think it's a hard case to make.
I accept your apology, as I do from anyone who switches from arguing the merits, to arguing by ad hominem. Cheerio! I'm quite pleased to have bested you.
By the way, you should look up and read about Wickard v Filburn, to which you link, because your stated understanding of the case is about 97% wrong. If you say something like "if growing and NOT SELLING WHEAT... can be construed as commerce" again, you will embarrass yourself, and show again that you don't know what you are talking about. Everything you need to know is right there in the wiki article you linked to, so you won't have to go very far to learn what you need to learn. You yourself provided the cite which proves you wrong.
In that case, a man was in fact growing and selling wheat, and then keeping some for himself. To misconstrue that as "growing and not selling wheat" is, to put it plainly, a lie.
"Whatever the government wants is cool with us".
That's called deferring to the legislature, which represents the will of the people. Yes, courts should and rightly do usually defer to the will of the people. Only sometimes do they step in and say that the will of the people should be subverted for the benefit of a minority.
The credibility of the source is relevant, and you should care about it. How can you tell whether it is accurate and relevant, if you are reading it on an untrustworthy site? If you get your news from a source which is not a source of news, then you aren't getting the news. If you get your news from a source of ideological spin, then your news isn't news, it's ideological spin.
This particular article and this particular source, I won't comment on, but your thesis is very wrong, and very dangerous -- dangerously common.
That sound you hear is 310 million pairs of American eyes rolling in your direction. Not selling wheat is not tenably similar to holding your breath. If you can sell that theory to a judge, I'll pay you a thousand dollars.
The Commerce Clause is a big broad power. Deal with it. It makes your life better, and if you are really so beefed, then start a campaign to repeal it.
The Necessary and Proper clause is also big and broad. You can add that to your campaign.
Oh, shit, I was so with you until you said "loose any credibility". Damn, bro, now it is you who has loost any credibility.
No, the Supreme Court always had the power to refuse to enforce laws which are contrary to the Constitution (which is what it means to "strike down" a law -- it's still a statute on the books, but courts won't enforce it, which makes the statute "not law"). They merely waited until Marbury to assert that prerogative.
I mean, seriously, if the SCUSA didn't do it, then who would? If the SCUSA didn't decide the constitutionality of statutes, then what would they do?
I disagree. The courts are rightly giving primary deference to the basic function of democracy: voting. If people vote for certain representatives, then for the most part, the people should get what they vote for. Only in extreme circumstances should the courts overturn the will of the people, as expressed through the will of the elected legislators. That is why courts are historically very conservative and defer to statutes, but also don't shy away from overturning laws when they have to. And of course overturning laws is mostly done at the very high levels of the courts, with lower courts mostly applying statutes as written.
This is as it should be. Complain first to your representative.
whose
Breathing air isn't commerce. But if you buy a car and pollute the air with carbon monoxide from gasoline you bought, that is commerce.
If you start buying air, that will be commerce.
Anyway, you attempted to use a straw man, but in fact you simply made the argument for your opponents. So, you failed and should try again.
/shrug
First of all, the clause has been interpreted broadly to the betterment of the country so it's hard to complain about it. Similarly, we read broadly that the "freedom of speech" actually means the "freedom of expression". That's another good example of how broad reading of the Constitution has benefited Americans.
And anyway, at least the clause has been interpreted according to the actual meaning of its plain text. Yes, all commerce is pretty much interstate, that is true, so, okay, the Constitution does in fact give the Feds the prerogative to regulate pretty much all commerce. As you point out, that is in fact what it says.
We could always change the Constitution if we feel like the balance is bad.
Hmmm. No. Ask a criminal prosecutor to explain drug laws to you, apparently you have some deep misconceptions.
Tor isn't a food or drug, so the FDA wouldn't have anything to say about it, but another federal agency might, for good and Constitutionally sound reasons.
"Can they use Interstate Commerce to keep me from going to work?"
This comparison is absurd and inapplicable. Nevertheless, the answer is yes.
Sure, because it is
1.) True. All commerce is, in fact, interstate, and international.
2.) Useful. States, according to the evidence of history, totally suck at regulating commerce, whereas the feds are better at it.
There you go! You asked a question, and received an answer. I assume you are not the kind of person who asks questions assuming that you are just so clever that you can pose a rhetorical question with no possible answer which will serve to undo the legitimacy of your ideological opposition.
+1, Elementary Composition
No, it is not conspicuous. Stop saying that, because it isn't even remotely true. People stand withing touching distance of strangers every single day, with no exceptions. Ever stand in an elevator? On a subway? In an airplane? In line at a bank? Ever go to a grocery store? Ever walk past someone on the street?
You mis-spelled "clever jokester".
This story is not news, because UK is not a free country. The United States has a constitution (a real one) with protections for liberties (real liberties). The Constitution isn't perfect, but it's pretty good; its enforcement isn't perfect; but it's pretty good.
UK, on the other hand, does not have a constitution, despite their claims to have an "unwritten" one. Yeah, uh, unwritten constitutions, like God and unicorns, can't be proven to exist. And here you are, putting people in jail for learning, which is literally not figuratively thought-crime.
Also, UK is a theocratic monarchy, so it's not even a democracy, and so it's frankly surprising when Britons have any freedom at all.
the copyright monopoly only covers direct copies
Are you totally sure about that? I don't personally know, myself, but are you really claiming that you know copyright law better than the judge who made this decision?
What about it?
(serious question)