It's definitely true that Scalia deviates from the meaning of the commerce clause, but you're unfairly attributing "commerce clause is terrible" to him, since he's never said anything of the sort. With the exception of Thomas, none of the Justices, conservative or liberal, have been willing to take on the commerce clause in any meaningful way. Even the "conservative" Justices read the commerce clause very broadly, and haggle with the liberals over very minor details.
For a real Constitutional take on the commerce clause you have to look to Thomas...
The majority's treatment of the substantial effects test is rootless, because it is not tethered to either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate interstate commerce, not activities that substantially affect interstate commerce-any more than Congress may regulate activities that do not fall within, but that affect, the subjects of its other Article I powers. Lopez, supra, at 589 (Thomas, J., concurring). Whatever additional latitude the Necessary and Proper Clause affords, supra, at 9--10, the question is whether Congress' legislation is essential to the regulation of interstate commerce itself-not whether the legislation extends only to economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Supra, at 4; ante, at 5 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).
[...]
The substantial effects test is easily manipulated for another reason. This Court has never held that Congress can regulate noneconomic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. Morrison, 529 U.S., at 613 ("[T]hus far in our Nation's history our cases have upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity only where that activity is economic in nature" (emphasis added)); Lopez, supra, at 560. To evade even that modest restriction on federal power, the majority defines economic activity in the broadest possible terms as the " 'the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.' "7 Ante, at 23 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966) (hereinafter Webster's 3d). This carves out a vast swath of activities that are subject to federal regulation. See ante, at 8--9 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).
Moreover, even a Court interested more in the modern than the original understanding of the Constitution ought to resolve cases based on the meaning of words that are actually in the document. Congress is authorized to regulate "Commerce," and respondents' conduct does not qualify under any definition of that term.8 The majority's opinion only illustrates the steady drift away from the text of the Commerce Clause. There is an inexorable expansion from " 'commerce,' " ante, at 1, to "commercial" and "economic" activity, ante, at 20, and finally to all "production, distribution, and consumption" of goods or services for which there is an "established... interstate market," ante, at 23. Federal power expands, but never contracts, with each new locution. The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it.
The flaw in your reasoning is that the USPS is a public entity, an arm of the government. There are also lots of strict laws governing how the mail may be handled, etc. The only people with the "keys" are government employees, or citizens willing to risk becomming someone's bitch in a federal prison.
E-mail on the other hand is practically unregulated, and if someone from your ISP wants to read your e-mail, well, there's nothing stopping them. You've essentially made your e-mail available to an unknown number of people, who can legally read it or copy it at any time they wish, completely without your knowledge.
But the truth is that court rulings on this are all over the place. The entire idea of an "expectation of privacy" that "society" (read: 5 elderly Supreme Court Justices) finds to be reasonable as a Constitutional doctrine is complete and utter bunk. Not only does it subject a supposedly non-political branch of government to extreme political influence, corrputing the fairness of individual cases, but it leaves the average man wondering whether he can rely on any court precedent established by a previous court. Look at the absurd results the policized Supreme Court has reached:
The commerce clause: the federal government has the power "to regulate Commerce . ..among the several States." This means the federal government can... tell you that you can't grow wheat on your own farm for your own personal use. In fact, it means the government can do anything it wants so long as it can connect it to "interstate commerce." For example, you want to chew gum? Well, the gum is made in another state. What if you make your own gum? Well, the federally-regulated gum manufacturers' business might be hurt if too many people made their own. So, no gum for you.
"Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" - This means you can't display the 10 commandments in a courthouse.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - This means... nothing.
This sounds like a pretty simple 4th amendment issue, phrased as:
Is it a "search" as to you under the 4th amendment if the government reads your e-mail off the server it's stored on?
If it is a 4th amendment search, the government needs a search warrant or some "reasonable" excuse to make the search legal. If it's a search and it's not "reasonable," it's a Constitutional violation, and the evidence would have to be excluded under the judge-made "exclusionary rule." But there's the "as to you" part, as well. The courts won't let you assert someone else's 4th amendment rights; if they illegally kick in Joe's door down the street and find a bundle of dope with your name, address, and social security number printed on it, the government can't use it against Joe, but well, you're shit out of luck. Usually.
Once upon a time the courts had a fairly elaborate "standing" analysis, but ever since 60s when the 4th amendment stopped meaning what it says and started applying to "a socially reasonable expectation of privacy," the analysis is a little more complicated. Going back to the example above: would you have an expectation of privacy that society would find reasonable in keeping your drugs in Joe's house? The courts would say no-- first of all, it's dope; and second, you handed it over to a third person; for all you know, Joe could take your dope and run it straight to the police.
But the Courts have made it more complicated. If you're spending the night at Joe's house, then you, as an overnight guest, have a "socially reasonable" expectation of privacy. But if you're just there for a drug deal, you don't. The question in this case boils down to: do you have an expectation of privacy, that society considers reasonable, in your e-mail when it's stored on a public server?
There's really two ways you can go about answering this question: the first is what I guess you'd call an analyticial analysis: by storing your e-mail on a server, how easy is it for someone, anyone else to read it? How often does that happen? The second would be a values analysis: what do people use e-mail for? How private is it? How important is it to keep the government from reading your e-mail? Etc.
But you'll have to make up your own minds as to this question. I think the "reasonable expectation of privacy" analysis is bunk, and that the 4th amendment was never intended to protect mail or e-mail. But then I'm something of a strict constructionist myself.
Maybe Kerry was actually talking about himself. After all, he got worse grades at Yale than Bush did, went to a less prestigeous professional school, then ended up voting for the war in Iraq (before he voted against it, that is).
Oh, wait, right -- hypocrite, yeah. Maybe Kerry really was talking about Bush.
Allen clearly says "mah cah cah" in the video. Over the course of about a week it went from being spelled "macaca," to being connected to the word macaca ("mah-cack-uh," a genus of monkeys) to macaque ("mah-cack," a monkey) to being "a common racial epithet in France."
Except I don't see the connection between "mah cah cah" and "mah-cack." Am I the only one? Are we supposed to believe that Allen knew an obscure racial insult but didn't know how to pronounce it?
You need to distinguish the initial recoil of the bullet being propelled down the barrel from the sharp recoil of the gas behind it escaping. Since the bullet has already left the barrel when you feel the secondary recoil, and the initial recoil is very minor, a light grip usually won't affect the accuracy of the shot.
It's people like you who think they can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to follow who are the reason we all should be afraid of the federal government. You don't mind ignoring the 2nd amendment or abandoning the entire idea of limited government with enumerated powers when you're arguing for more socialism and more government income redistribution, but the second you're afraid the government might be spying on your communist party meetings you start talking about violent revolution.
I'd say that as part of the problem, rather than the solution, you probably shouldn't be armed; but your type are no more dangerous armed than otherwise.
A maxim is that guarantees of freedom in the Constitution are to be read broadly. So read the document: "the right of the people to keep and bear armsshall not be infringed."
Do you really object to restrictions on felons and mentally ill people obtaining firearms . . . ?
Are felons and the "mentally ill" (whatever that means) who are not in custodial care people, under the Constitution? Yes, they are.
"[S]mall arms" includes a lot of things other than hunting rifles and handguns suitable for self-defense. It includes everything short of mortars and howitzers. Do you really think that sales of AK-47s, Browning Automatic Rifles, flame throwers, and rocket propelled grenades should be unregulated?
Are those arms? Yes, they are. You admit as much. But mortars and howitzers are in fact arms as well.
Does prohibiting people from obtaining, keeping, and carrying arms constitute an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms? Yes, it does.
Hey, this is the early '70s, when "muscle cars" were going extinct for a lot of reasons. Anyway, a "j bridge-ported" 13B can do 300+ horsepower, while a "peripheral ported" [this requires buying new rotor housings from Mazda] can make 350+ HP. For this reason rotaries were banned from all sorts of racing classes in the early '70s.
The RX-2 is a beloved classic and very desireable today. Really, "bad fuel economy and emissions" -- who cares? They were quick stock, and you could port the 1.1l or 1.3l engine yourself to the point where it would make more power than v8's of the day. As far as being reliable, they were no worse than any other early 70's car.
You're full of shit. Saying "we have evidence that ____" is not the same as "we have incontrovertable proof of." Mr. Powell says, at the beginning:
The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources and some are those of other countries. Some are the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to.
To say that his claims are lies is to say that he did not genuinely believe in the reliability of his sources. You can't even prove that he didn't have good reason to believe them.
The Bush Administration did not claim that it had "incontrovertable proof" of the weapon's existance. I'd ask you to produce a quote to support that statement, but I know that you can't.
And also, what part of "last chance" (as Pres. Clinton threatened) don't you understand? After so many "last chances," someone had to say that enough was enough and that was President Bush. I commend him for it.
Can't be detained without a warrant, which requires, you guessed it, probable cause. A person held as a material witness has a right to counsel and his being held must be approved by a judge in a hearing.
Do you even understand the concept of "acting in good faith"? For instance, the "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule for tainted evidence says that evidence collected on an invalid search warrant executed by police officers in good faith is admissible in court (see US v. Leon for this one).
It's well-documented that there was good reason to believe that Iraq had WMD before the invasion; the fact that none has yet been found doesn't prove that the leadership acted in bad faith. See President Clinton's speech concerning Operation Desert Fox launched against Iraq in Dec. 1998.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
...
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
...
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
-- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16 1998.
Four years passed with no weapons inspections. That's forty-eight months.
Most successful investigations do begin with a crime, but many also begin with the investigation of suspicious activity.
You misunderstand what a 10% false positive rate constitutes. It doesn't mean that 10% of everyone who goes through the system is labeled falsely, it means that 10% of those tagged are done so incorrectly. This is probably a small fraction of a percent at the absolute highest.
Anyway, government research isn't a complete loss; today's "porks" are often tomorrow's computers, polymers, and guided missiles.
a) An automated system with a success rate barely better than flipping a coin is sufficent cause to arrest someone and force them to undergo a trial or investigation
Obviously, all investigations begin somewhere and proceed from there based on what evidence may be acquired.
b) A "terrorist face" database would contain "exception data" to indicate people that're commonly misidentified as terrorists. Somehow this would both not reduce the security of the system but also prevent the detainment of people who happen to look like the terrorists.
If false positives really were a problem, why couldn't it?
c) There exists a class of unforgable documents that are never incorrect or issued incorrectly that can be used to 100% identify someone who trips a false positive.
Just because a system isn't theoretically perfect doesn't mean it can't be effective in practice. Forging documents isn't easy, it isn't foolproof and since they would obviously require verification it would be nearly impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
It's definitely true that Scalia deviates from the meaning of the commerce clause, but you're unfairly attributing "commerce clause is terrible" to him, since he's never said anything of the sort. With the exception of Thomas, none of the Justices, conservative or liberal, have been willing to take on the commerce clause in any meaningful way. Even the "conservative" Justices read the commerce clause very broadly, and haggle with the liberals over very minor details.
... interstate market," ante, at 23. Federal power expands, but never contracts, with each new locution. The majority is not interpreting the Commerce Clause, but rewriting it.
For a real Constitutional take on the commerce clause you have to look to Thomas...
The majority's treatment of the substantial effects test is rootless, because it is not tethered to either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate interstate commerce, not activities that substantially affect interstate commerce-any more than Congress may regulate activities that do not fall within, but that affect, the subjects of its other Article I powers. Lopez, supra, at 589 (Thomas, J., concurring). Whatever additional latitude the Necessary and Proper Clause affords, supra, at 9--10, the question is whether Congress' legislation is essential to the regulation of interstate commerce itself-not whether the legislation extends only to economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Supra, at 4; ante, at 5 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).
[...]
The substantial effects test is easily manipulated for another reason. This Court has never held that Congress can regulate noneconomic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. Morrison, 529 U.S., at 613 ("[T]hus far in our Nation's history our cases have upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity only where that activity is economic in nature" (emphasis added)); Lopez, supra, at 560. To evade even that modest restriction on federal power, the majority defines economic activity in the broadest possible terms as the " 'the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.' "7 Ante, at 23 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966) (hereinafter Webster's 3d). This carves out a vast swath of activities that are subject to federal regulation. See ante, at 8--9 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).
Moreover, even a Court interested more in the modern than the original understanding of the Constitution ought to resolve cases based on the meaning of words that are actually in the document. Congress is authorized to regulate "Commerce," and respondents' conduct does not qualify under any definition of that term.8 The majority's opinion only illustrates the steady drift away from the text of the Commerce Clause. There is an inexorable expansion from " 'commerce,' " ante, at 1, to "commercial" and "economic" activity, ante, at 20, and finally to all "production, distribution, and consumption" of goods or services for which there is an "established
(emphasis added)
The flaw in your reasoning is that the USPS is a public entity, an arm of the government. There are also lots of strict laws governing how the mail may be handled, etc. The only people with the "keys" are government employees, or citizens willing to risk becomming someone's bitch in a federal prison.
.among the several States." This means the federal government can... tell you that you can't grow wheat on your own farm for your own personal use. In fact, it means the government can do anything it wants so long as it can connect it to "interstate commerce." For example, you want to chew gum? Well, the gum is made in another state. What if you make your own gum? Well, the federally-regulated gum manufacturers' business might be hurt if too many people made their own. So, no gum for you.
E-mail on the other hand is practically unregulated, and if someone from your ISP wants to read your e-mail, well, there's nothing stopping them. You've essentially made your e-mail available to an unknown number of people, who can legally read it or copy it at any time they wish, completely without your knowledge.
But the truth is that court rulings on this are all over the place. The entire idea of an "expectation of privacy" that "society" (read: 5 elderly Supreme Court Justices) finds to be reasonable as a Constitutional doctrine is complete and utter bunk. Not only does it subject a supposedly non-political branch of government to extreme political influence, corrputing the fairness of individual cases, but it leaves the average man wondering whether he can rely on any court precedent established by a previous court. Look at the absurd results the policized Supreme Court has reached:
The commerce clause: the federal government has the power "to regulate Commerce . .
"Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion" - This means you can't display the 10 commandments in a courthouse.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - This means... nothing.
This sounds like a pretty simple 4th amendment issue, phrased as:
Is it a "search" as to you under the 4th amendment if the government reads your e-mail off the server it's stored on?
If it is a 4th amendment search, the government needs a search warrant or some "reasonable" excuse to make the search legal. If it's a search and it's not "reasonable," it's a Constitutional violation, and the evidence would have to be excluded under the judge-made "exclusionary rule." But there's the "as to you" part, as well. The courts won't let you assert someone else's 4th amendment rights; if they illegally kick in Joe's door down the street and find a bundle of dope with your name, address, and social security number printed on it, the government can't use it against Joe, but well, you're shit out of luck. Usually.
Once upon a time the courts had a fairly elaborate "standing" analysis, but ever since 60s when the 4th amendment stopped meaning what it says and started applying to "a socially reasonable expectation of privacy," the analysis is a little more complicated. Going back to the example above: would you have an expectation of privacy that society would find reasonable in keeping your drugs in Joe's house? The courts would say no-- first of all, it's dope; and second, you handed it over to a third person; for all you know, Joe could take your dope and run it straight to the police.
But the Courts have made it more complicated. If you're spending the night at Joe's house, then you, as an overnight guest, have a "socially reasonable" expectation of privacy. But if you're just there for a drug deal, you don't. The question in this case boils down to: do you have an expectation of privacy, that society considers reasonable, in your e-mail when it's stored on a public server?
There's really two ways you can go about answering this question: the first is what I guess you'd call an analyticial analysis: by storing your e-mail on a server, how easy is it for someone, anyone else to read it? How often does that happen? The second would be a values analysis: what do people use e-mail for? How private is it? How important is it to keep the government from reading your e-mail? Etc.
But you'll have to make up your own minds as to this question. I think the "reasonable expectation of privacy" analysis is bunk, and that the 4th amendment was never intended to protect mail or e-mail. But then I'm something of a strict constructionist myself.
So..what -- he heard his mother say "mah-cack," and turned that into "mah-cah-cah"? Give me a break.
Maybe Kerry was actually talking about himself. After all, he got worse grades at Yale than Bush did, went to a less prestigeous professional school, then ended up voting for the war in Iraq (before he voted against it, that is).
Oh, wait, right -- hypocrite, yeah. Maybe Kerry really was talking about Bush.
Allen clearly says "mah cah cah" in the video. Over the course of about a week it went from being spelled "macaca," to being connected to the word macaca ("mah-cack-uh," a genus of monkeys) to macaque ("mah-cack," a monkey) to being "a common racial epithet in France."
Except I don't see the connection between "mah cah cah" and "mah-cack." Am I the only one? Are we supposed to believe that Allen knew an obscure racial insult but didn't know how to pronounce it?
You need to distinguish the initial recoil of the bullet being propelled down the barrel from the sharp recoil of the gas behind it escaping. Since the bullet has already left the barrel when you feel the secondary recoil, and the initial recoil is very minor, a light grip usually won't affect the accuracy of the shot.
It's people like you who think they can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to follow who are the reason we all should be afraid of the federal government. You don't mind ignoring the 2nd amendment or abandoning the entire idea of limited government with enumerated powers when you're arguing for more socialism and more government income redistribution, but the second you're afraid the government might be spying on your communist party meetings you start talking about violent revolution.
I'd say that as part of the problem, rather than the solution, you probably shouldn't be armed; but your type are no more dangerous armed than otherwise.
A maxim is that guarantees of freedom in the Constitution are to be read broadly. So read the document: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Do you really object to restrictions on felons and mentally ill people obtaining firearms . . . ?
Are felons and the "mentally ill" (whatever that means) who are not in custodial care people, under the Constitution? Yes, they are.
"[S]mall arms" includes a lot of things other than hunting rifles and handguns suitable for self-defense. It includes everything short of mortars and howitzers. Do you really think that sales of AK-47s, Browning Automatic Rifles, flame throwers, and rocket propelled grenades should be unregulated?
Are those arms? Yes, they are. You admit as much. But mortars and howitzers are in fact arms as well.
Does prohibiting people from obtaining, keeping, and carrying arms constitute an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms? Yes, it does.
So there you have it.
"Mr Kerry, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?"
Sheesh. These questions are so stacked that no one will ever take this community seriously.
Hey, this is the early '70s, when "muscle cars" were going extinct for a lot of reasons. Anyway, a "j bridge-ported" 13B can do 300+ horsepower, while a "peripheral ported" [this requires buying new rotor housings from Mazda] can make 350+ HP. For this reason rotaries were banned from all sorts of racing classes in the early '70s.
The RX-2 is a beloved classic and very desireable today. Really, "bad fuel economy and emissions" -- who cares? They were quick stock, and you could port the 1.1l or 1.3l engine yourself to the point where it would make more power than v8's of the day.
As far as being reliable, they were no worse than any other early 70's car.
Of course we have more people in jail than Stalin had... he killed all of his enemies, remember?
The RIAA can't file and prosecute hundreds of thousands of lawsuits, but it sure as hell can send hundreds of thousands of threatening letters.
One speech. I won't debate the merits of the claim, but it was hardly the only piece of evidence considered.
But far too obvious. Try again, loser.
To say that his claims are lies is to say that he did not genuinely believe in the reliability of his sources. You can't even prove that he didn't have good reason to believe them.
The Bush Administration did not claim that it had "incontrovertable proof" of the weapon's existance. I'd ask you to produce a quote to support that statement, but I know that you can't.
And also, what part of "last chance" (as Pres. Clinton threatened) don't you understand? After so many "last chances," someone had to say that enough was enough and that was President Bush. I commend him for it.
a spade a spade. It saves time.
Can't be detained without a warrant, which requires, you guessed it, probable cause. A person held as a material witness has a right to counsel and his being held must be approved by a judge in a hearing.
They made a decision that you don't agree with for political reasons so you'll discount them entirely. Idiot.
It's well-documented that there was good reason to believe that Iraq had WMD before the invasion; the fact that none has yet been found doesn't prove that the leadership acted in bad faith. See President Clinton's speech concerning Operation Desert Fox launched against Iraq in Dec. 1998. -- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16 1998.
Four years passed with no weapons inspections. That's forty-eight months.
Most successful investigations do begin with a crime, but many also begin with the investigation of suspicious activity.
You misunderstand what a 10% false positive rate constitutes. It doesn't mean that 10% of everyone who goes through the system is labeled falsely, it means that 10% of those tagged are done so incorrectly. This is probably a small fraction of a percent at the absolute highest.
Anyway, government research isn't a complete loss; today's "porks" are often tomorrow's computers, polymers, and guided missiles.
[nt]
Obviously, all investigations begin somewhere and proceed from there based on what evidence may be acquired.
If false positives really were a problem, why couldn't it?
Just because a system isn't theoretically perfect doesn't mean it can't be effective in practice. Forging documents isn't easy, it isn't foolproof and since they would obviously require verification it would be nearly impossible.