I find the majority of comments on/. to be about the way things "should" be instead of the way things are. And depending upon one's point of view, the "should" will change drastically according to situation and application. That is the base we tend to get away from here. We want the "wild west" while demanding that someone remove the bandits for us.
The ACLU and the NRA and most of the "political leaders" we suffer today do not view the U.S. Constitution as a definition and limitation on federal powers. They promote it instead as the SOURCE of the people's priveleges and immunities, as well as the champion of their government-granted "freedoms". The special interest groups rally around this concept very profitably, and use it to "democratically" enforce their ideas of how things "should" be on the rest of society.
The feds have no authority to regulate on this subject, and we should loudly tell them so.
Before we get too far off base, remember that the first amendment to the federal constitution does not give the Citizens the right of free speech, it instead restricts the federal government from abridging their freedom of speech. A small point the ACLU and many of the "constitutionalists" seem to overlook.
You are half right. And that is why your Constitutional quotes are not working.
What you should be seeing is the simpler fact that the power to meddle in the communications of the people is first not given to the federal government in their charter, and second prohibited to the federal government by the specific terms of the first amendment to their charter. They can't do it, period.
Where most "patriots" get off track is in assuming that these documents "give" the citizen these freedoms. It doesn't. They already had them inherently.
But if you set up a contractual basis, thru the 14th amendment, for some government-created entities (you, if you accept their contract) to have a government-granted privilege they may or may not have inherently had, then you do have the situation as you stated above.
And you, contractee, will be subject to regulation , licensing, and taxation on that privilege. See the difference?
The United States government is specifically prohibited from asking this sort of question in its founding charter. I'm sure the individual states are precluded by their constitutions as well.
So, who is asking for us to justify our communications? Red China? Iraq? The NWO? Are we somehow compelled to respond?
I think we could agree on most things, but in this case I disagree.
What most U.S. citizens do not realize is that the state codes operate thru contract. The building codes are private law, just like they appear to be. Mr. Veeck had no right to copy, paste, and publish a copyrighted, privately owned document.
Y'know, instead of pissing and moaning about how things SHOULD be, how about reading the facts in the decision of the court to understand why this guy is wrong? 99% of the comments in this thread are way off-topic when viewed with an elemental understanding of the law.
I have news for you. Network Solutions isn't waiting for domains to expire before they put a hold on them!
I tried transferring my domain to a new registrar BEFORE the expiration date -- in fact it still hasn't expired -- I just got word that there is a unexplained "hold" on it, and the registration can not be transferred!
I've seen enough. It's time to form an unruly mob!
'Why would a platform flying slow circles way above the weather, over your city be useful?' someone asked.
Low-cost wireless networking, for one thing. And all of the things that are now handled at tremendous expense by geosynchronous satellites, for another.
Slashdot Mirror
Useful information!
I just crack myself up!
Good observation! Now, will you tackle the misconception of "democracy" (1945 - ) and the misconception of the "U.S. citizen" (1865 -)?
Score: 1. Too late to be relevant.
I agree with you as far as the "subjects" of the signatories are concerned. This also leaves a humongus area for us to potentially disagree.
The ACLU and the NRA and most of the "political leaders" we suffer today do not view the U.S. Constitution as a definition and limitation on federal powers. They promote it instead as the SOURCE of the people's priveleges and immunities, as well as the champion of their government-granted "freedoms". The special interest groups rally around this concept very profitably, and use it to "democratically" enforce their ideas of how things "should" be on the rest of society.
The feds have no authority to regulate on this subject, and we should loudly tell them so.
Score:0 Let's bury this one.
Want a good look at how the court will rule? Follow this link: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment annotated.
What you should be seeing is the simpler fact that the power to meddle in the communications of the people is first not given to the federal government in their charter, and second prohibited to the federal government by the specific terms of the first amendment to their charter. They can't do it, period.
Where most "patriots" get off track is in assuming that these documents "give" the citizen these freedoms. It doesn't. They already had them inherently.
But if you set up a contractual basis, thru the 14th amendment, for some government-created entities (you, if you accept their contract) to have a government-granted privilege they may or may not have inherently had, then you do have the situation as you stated above.
And you, contractee, will be subject to regulation , licensing, and taxation on that privilege. See the difference?
Score:1 Let's bury this one.
So, who is asking for us to justify our communications? Red China? Iraq? The NWO? Are we somehow compelled to respond?
Ask the simple questions first!
Score:0 The facts don't count if they come in later than 30 minutes of publication.
What most U.S. citizens do not realize is that the state codes operate thru contract. The building codes are private law, just like they appear to be. Mr. Veeck had no right to copy, paste, and publish a copyrighted, privately owned document.
Score:0 Let's bury this one.
Read the decision of the 5th circuit court http://regionalweb.texoma.net/CR/ then make your comments.
Heck, I might even agree with some of your conclusions. But you will have to understand what issues the court based its ruling on first.
Score:0 Somehow I will have to live with it
Hey, if you can somehow get rid of the gangsta rap, that's all right with me!
I tried transferring my domain to a new registrar BEFORE the expiration date -- in fact it still hasn't expired -- I just got word that there is a unexplained "hold" on it, and the registration can not be transferred!
I've seen enough. It's time to form an unruly mob!
When you press them for an answer about their lousy service, altavista/mail.com will send a form email that basically says "live with it".
And we need someone to head the program. Someone really popular and smart. Someone universally recognized. I nominate Bill Gates.
Sum things sint in plane tekst arnt readibble, evin withuot incripshun. Yer artikkel for exampil.
Low-cost wireless networking, for one thing. And all of the things that are now handled at tremendous expense by geosynchronous satellites, for another.