Parent cites sex offender registries as being acceptable under the ex post facto clause, the legal reasoning being that registration isn't actually a punishment. I see his sex offender registry and raise him the Lautenberg Amendment, which says that certain misdemeanors disqualify the offender from firearm ownership, and applied retroactively. Court challenges to said abomination of law were unsuccessful.
(Amusing aside: the Lautenberg Amendment effectively mandates the discharge of military and police personnel, as it doesn't contain an exception for them in the performance of their official duties. The Chicago PD--always desperate to forbid private citizens from having guns--has squealed like a stuck pig about the law, arguing that beating their spouses shouldn't disqualify them from having guns. And yes, I can provide citations.)
Yet another way in which this may turn out to be unconstitutional:
The theory behind this is undoubtedly to give the state access to records to see whether the offender is reoffending.
This is a violation of the Fifth Amendment--specifically, it is mandating that the person provide evidence of his guilt.
The legal theory isn't even novel. In Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), the Supreme Court held that requiring a convicted felon to register his short-barreled shotgun was unconstitutional, as it was illegal for him to possess the firearm in the first place. Requiring him to register therefore required him to confess to a crime. (Note that this is also why gun registration doesn't work: it only applies to the law-abiding, because the Court says it can't apply to criminals.) In the language of the Court:
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851
The same principle would likely apply here: if the State tried to prosecute an offender using evidence gleaned from a mandatory disclosure, the precedent in Haynes would render it inadmissible, and probably render the charge of not disclosing the information unconstitutional.
Every now and again, the Supreme Court hits one out of the park.
[snip] We're told that his plane was running out of gas, which is a little bit odd for a highly experienced pilot like Connell
Not even remotely odd. Fuel starvation is probably the single most common cause of "unplanned landings." And I use the term "starvation" because...
when the plane went down, there was an explosion, a fireball that actually charred and pocked some of the house fronts in the neighborhood
"Starvation" means "not getting gas to the engine." It doesn't mean "out of gas," just that no fuel is being delivered. Frequently, starvation occurs when the pilot fails to switch from an empty fuel tank to a full tank.
The Piper Saratoga Mr. Connell was flying would have a tank in each wing, but would be fed from one or the other at any given time. Run one tank dry, and he'd have to manually switch to the other. If he were distracted (say, by the engine stopping), he might not have realized that he had fuel in the other tank.
According to the FAA registry, Michael Louis Connell held a Private Pilot--Airplane Single-Engine Land certificate with an Instrument Airplane rating. He was required to wear corrective lenses to exercise the privileges of his pilot certificate.
I don't have a weather report for the Akron-Canton airport at the time of the crash, but I don't think it matters. I'm willing to bet that the NTSB reports that the fuel selector valve was set to an empty tank. Just poor fuel management.
I'm sick of this "Kids in the 1950s were smarter than today" rubbish. I know that these old accidemics studied back then and want to feel smart but making kids feel dumb today is wrong and they should feel ashamaned.
Let me break it down for them and you: - Kids in the 1950s did not study what we study today - Kids today did not study what kids studied back in the 1950s
I know this is a shocking revolation but still true. If possible I would love to see what would happen if you sat a 1950s kid down in front of a 2008 exam, my guess is the results would be similar.
The only school subject which might be the same between the 1950s and today is Maths. But even then there is less focus on doing long calculations on the page and more using a calculator.
You can claim that doing them on the calculator is dumbing people down but I think voluntarily spending five minutes and likely introducing errors already makes you fairly dumb given an alternative.
"Kids today did not study what kids studied back in the 1950s" Correct. Many of them studied spelling.
When the times required it amendments have been made to the US constitution, do you really think that (a constitutional amendment) is the only way to include healthcare in the list of things the federal government has the right to promote as part of the general welfare?
As a matter of fact, yes. That's why we have an amendment process. You say so yourself: "[w]hen the times required it amendments have been made." If the times now require it, follow the process?
Or do you think your attempt would fail to garner the necessary support, so you just don't want to be bound by those pesky "rules?"
The transponder doesn't report position (well, save for altitude), it merely replies to the radar's interrogation to return a code. Conveniently, it also makes radar more functional at longer distance, but range and bearing are still determined by timing and angle of the antenna, respectively.
"Third-world countries" is probably a stretch, but less-wealthy countries are more likely to have diesel boats than nuclear boats. Diesel boats, when running on batteries (as they do when submerged) are quieter than nukes.
Anybody else out there think it's a little odd to be using the term "Standard Time" for a period that covers only 4 months of the year now?
I've been saying the same thing for a year. I propose that, since DST has become the standard, it be renamed to Standard Time. Since we won't be saving for the other four months, I suggest that time be called Daylight Wasting Time.
Under Bush we all got "Stimulus checks" redistribution of wealth, we "nationalized banks", we "nationalized insurance companies", we "nationalized brokerage houses", and we gave trillions in welfare to Iraq...
And now you're worried about socialism?
Welcome to last year.
No, no, you've got it all wrong. Socialism is when you nationalize successful industries!
An off the rails presidency and party received a swift rebuke to restore the core values enshrined in the constitution.
Yes...values like gun control, a national police force, federal assistance for private home purchases, punitive taxes on entities that do too well ("windfall profits tax"), and dictating the terms under which private parties may contract with each other for a variety of goods and services.
Tell me, where did you get all of those out of Article I, Section 8?
I'm not suggesting that Bush (or McCain) was anything close to the Constitution--far from it--but suggesting that Obama's policies somehow resemble the Constitution is, well, horsesqueeze.
Obama has already added a stipulation that you cannot simply get a rebate if you do not have a paycheck. This will be for payroll taxes only.
Payroll taxes are, functionally, a premium paid for future services, rather like insurances.
Since we'll be refunding their premium, does that mean that they won't get the services they're not paying for? I thought not. That's income redistribution.
Actually, Viagra was developed as a result of heart research. Ever notice that the ads say "don't take Viagra if you're taking nitrates for blood pressure?"
Now, it's definitely being used for sex, not cardiac therapy, but the development was for much more noble aims. Further, money (profit) earned by sales of Viagra helps to fund future research into other drugs.
As you say, investors would be foolish not to take advantage of the market for sex; the benefit goes beyond shareholders' pocketbooks, though.
What Obama can (and wants to) do is raise corporate taxes. Doing that could make all the foreign corps who have put up headquarters here leave and push some of our national companies to other countries. You're right that protectionism won't work, mainly because the base premise for wanting it is false to begin with.
You hit the nail squarely on the head. The reason companies are reincorporating outside the US is because the US taxes companies on profits earned in other countries, even when those profits have already been taxed by those countries.
For example, you mentioned Mercedes. Daimler pays corporate income taxes in Germany on profit from operations in Germany. They pay taxes in the US on profit from US operations.
An American company, on the other hand, pays US tax on profit from US operations, foreign tax on profit from foreign operations, and US tax on profit from foreign operations. We are the only developed nation in the world with this double taxation, and it's driving large transnational corporations to move their headquarters to offshore tax havens to avoid the massive tax bills that result from our laws. Moving offshore doesn't absolve them from paying taxes on profits realized in the US, it just puts them on a level playing field with their foreign-based competition.
In other words, government greed has driven the engines of commerce straight into somebody else's boat. Raise your hand if you're surprised.
Slashdot Mirror
Parent cites sex offender registries as being acceptable under the ex post facto clause, the legal reasoning being that registration isn't actually a punishment. I see his sex offender registry and raise him the Lautenberg Amendment, which says that certain misdemeanors disqualify the offender from firearm ownership, and applied retroactively. Court challenges to said abomination of law were unsuccessful.
(Amusing aside: the Lautenberg Amendment effectively mandates the discharge of military and police personnel, as it doesn't contain an exception for them in the performance of their official duties. The Chicago PD--always desperate to forbid private citizens from having guns--has squealed like a stuck pig about the law, arguing that beating their spouses shouldn't disqualify them from having guns. And yes, I can provide citations.)
Yet another way in which this may turn out to be unconstitutional:
The theory behind this is undoubtedly to give the state access to records to see whether the offender is reoffending.
This is a violation of the Fifth Amendment--specifically, it is mandating that the person provide evidence of his guilt.
The legal theory isn't even novel. In Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), the Supreme Court held that requiring a convicted felon to register his short-barreled shotgun was unconstitutional, as it was illegal for him to possess the firearm in the first place. Requiring him to register therefore required him to confess to a crime. (Note that this is also why gun registration doesn't work: it only applies to the law-abiding, because the Court says it can't apply to criminals.) In the language of the Court:
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851
The same principle would likely apply here: if the State tried to prosecute an offender using evidence gleaned from a mandatory disclosure, the precedent in Haynes would render it inadmissible, and probably render the charge of not disclosing the information unconstitutional.
Every now and again, the Supreme Court hits one out of the park.
This clown is a flight instructor. Go read a couple of accident reports; fuel mismanagement is a common recurring theme.
[snip] We're told that his plane was running out of gas, which is a little bit odd for a highly experienced pilot like Connell
Not even remotely odd. Fuel starvation is probably the single most common cause of "unplanned landings." And I use the term "starvation" because...
when the plane went down, there was an explosion, a fireball that actually charred and pocked some of the house fronts in the neighborhood
"Starvation" means "not getting gas to the engine." It doesn't mean "out of gas," just that no fuel is being delivered. Frequently, starvation occurs when the pilot fails to switch from an empty fuel tank to a full tank.
The Piper Saratoga Mr. Connell was flying would have a tank in each wing, but would be fed from one or the other at any given time. Run one tank dry, and he'd have to manually switch to the other. If he were distracted (say, by the engine stopping), he might not have realized that he had fuel in the other tank.
According to the FAA registry, Michael Louis Connell held a Private Pilot--Airplane Single-Engine Land certificate with an Instrument Airplane rating. He was required to wear corrective lenses to exercise the privileges of his pilot certificate.
I don't have a weather report for the Akron-Canton airport at the time of the crash, but I don't think it matters. I'm willing to bet that the NTSB reports that the fuel selector valve was set to an empty tank. Just poor fuel management.
How about I make you pay for it in insurance premiums instead?
To Protect and Serve... who, exactly?
A revenue stream.
No, the commerce clause does not mean the government can stop you from growing your own corn on your own property for your own consumption.
I agree. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't, e.g. Wickard and Raich.
I'm sick of this "Kids in the 1950s were smarter than today" rubbish. I know that these old accidemics studied back then and want to feel smart but making kids feel dumb today is wrong and they should feel ashamaned.
Let me break it down for them and you:
- Kids in the 1950s did not study what we study today
- Kids today did not study what kids studied back in the 1950s
I know this is a shocking revolation but still true. If possible I would love to see what would happen if you sat a 1950s kid down in front of a 2008 exam, my guess is the results would be similar.
The only school subject which might be the same between the 1950s and today is Maths. But even then there is less focus on doing long calculations on the page and more using a calculator.
You can claim that doing them on the calculator is dumbing people down but I think voluntarily spending five minutes and likely introducing errors already makes you fairly dumb given an alternative.
"Kids today did not study what kids studied back in the 1950s"
Correct. Many of them studied spelling.
When the times required it amendments have been made to the US constitution, do you really think that (a constitutional amendment) is the only way to include healthcare in the list of things the federal government has the right to promote as part of the general welfare?
As a matter of fact, yes. That's why we have an amendment process. You say so yourself: "[w]hen the times required it amendments have been made." If the times now require it, follow the process?
Or do you think your attempt would fail to garner the necessary support, so you just don't want to be bound by those pesky "rules?"
The transponder doesn't report position (well, save for altitude), it merely replies to the radar's interrogation to return a code. Conveniently, it also makes radar more functional at longer distance, but range and bearing are still determined by timing and angle of the antenna, respectively.
Check out the Moaning Goat Meter at http://linuxmafia.com/mgm/index.html.
1938 War of the Worlds radio broadcast. Almost 50 years to the date.
Yeah...give or take twenty years.
Let me guess: you're from NASA, right?
"Third-world countries" is probably a stretch, but less-wealthy countries are more likely to have diesel boats than nuclear boats. Diesel boats, when running on batteries (as they do when submerged) are quieter than nukes.
Anybody else out there think it's a little odd to be using the term "Standard Time" for a period that covers only 4 months of the year now?
I've been saying the same thing for a year. I propose that, since DST has become the standard, it be renamed to Standard Time. Since we won't be saving for the other four months, I suggest that time be called Daylight Wasting Time.
if you don't know where your junk is by now....
Dude...check the username.
Manhattan. Completely uncolonized by humans.
Same reason we shoot prairie dogs.
Under Bush we all got "Stimulus checks" redistribution of wealth, we "nationalized banks", we "nationalized insurance companies", we "nationalized brokerage houses", and we gave trillions in welfare to Iraq...
And now you're worried about socialism?
Welcome to last year.
No, no, you've got it all wrong. Socialism is when you nationalize successful industries!
An off the rails presidency and party received a swift rebuke to restore the core values enshrined in the constitution.
Yes...values like gun control, a national police force, federal assistance for private home purchases, punitive taxes on entities that do too well ("windfall profits tax"), and dictating the terms under which private parties may contract with each other for a variety of goods and services.
Tell me, where did you get all of those out of Article I, Section 8?
I'm not suggesting that Bush (or McCain) was anything close to the Constitution--far from it--but suggesting that Obama's policies somehow resemble the Constitution is, well, horsesqueeze.
So your argument has gone from "it's not redistribution" to "it may be redistribution, but I like it."
And, for the record, when you stop taking money from somebody, no, that's not redistribution. It is, in fact, the antithesis of redistribution.
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts or definitions.
Obama has already added a stipulation that you cannot simply get a rebate if you do not have a paycheck. This will be for payroll taxes only.
Payroll taxes are, functionally, a premium paid for future services, rather like insurances.
Since we'll be refunding their premium, does that mean that they won't get the services they're not paying for? I thought not. That's income redistribution.
The summary is trying to make this about "un-witnessed searches," but this is about dishonest transport employees.
Close. It's about dishonest government employees. People with the power to arrest you (or have you arrested) if you insist upon watching the search.
What about those of us who don't have any third parties, due to our obscenely-restrictive ballot access laws?
Yeah, I'm an Okie.
Actually, Viagra was developed as a result of heart research. Ever notice that the ads say "don't take Viagra if you're taking nitrates for blood pressure?"
Now, it's definitely being used for sex, not cardiac therapy, but the development was for much more noble aims. Further, money (profit) earned by sales of Viagra helps to fund future research into other drugs.
As you say, investors would be foolish not to take advantage of the market for sex; the benefit goes beyond shareholders' pocketbooks, though.
What Obama can (and wants to) do is raise corporate taxes. Doing that could make all the foreign corps who have put up headquarters here leave and push some of our national companies to other countries. You're right that protectionism won't work, mainly because the base premise for wanting it is false to begin with.
You hit the nail squarely on the head. The reason companies are reincorporating outside the US is because the US taxes companies on profits earned in other countries, even when those profits have already been taxed by those countries.
For example, you mentioned Mercedes. Daimler pays corporate income taxes in Germany on profit from operations in Germany. They pay taxes in the US on profit from US operations.
An American company, on the other hand, pays US tax on profit from US operations, foreign tax on profit from foreign operations, and US tax on profit from foreign operations. We are the only developed nation in the world with this double taxation, and it's driving large transnational corporations to move their headquarters to offshore tax havens to avoid the massive tax bills that result from our laws. Moving offshore doesn't absolve them from paying taxes on profits realized in the US, it just puts them on a level playing field with their foreign-based competition.
In other words, government greed has driven the engines of commerce straight into somebody else's boat. Raise your hand if you're surprised.