The story does mention the court ruled the use of a Stingray without a warrant is unconstitutional, so someone is doing their job.
Personally, I prefer to give money to the EFF rather than the ACLU since the ACLU advocates for racial discrimination, but everyone has their own opinions.
I find it very offensive that the ACLU says my daughter has to be given extra points in order to compete, because black people like her are too stupid to do well by their own talents and effort. That's a particularly nasty type of racism, in my view. I also think they are wrong to say that I should be denied admission in favor of someone less qualified because I happen to havevpale skin. That part bothers me much less than their patronizing attitude toward my wife and daughter, though, their belief that my wife and daughter can't manage without special favors and protection from snotty white people.
That's an interesting point. There is a strong general presumption that anyone is allowed to RECIEVE anything transmitted over the airwaves. One good reason for that is that it's quite common to receive things on accident- a lot of night time "static" is in fact someone's communications.
HOWEVER, wireless phones have a two-way handshake with the tower. After receiving from the phone, the Stingray sends back "this is tower HJFG-7484. What are your parameters ", or something like that. By connecting with your phone and falsely claiming to be a phone-company tower, the Stingray os actively performing as a pen register. In fact, the Stingray probably sends to the phone "I have a call for you " in order to cause it to reveal it's current location. It would then send a disconnect before the phone started ringing audibly. That's all active snooping.
A different device would be one which only LISTENED to genuine communications between the phone and tower, decrypted the call metadata, and recorded it. Different laws would apply.
There is a very clear federal law making this a crime, so they absolutely could be charged, if a federal prosecutor chose to do so.
U.S. Code , Title 18 , Part II , Chapter 206. Â 3122 a) says that state and local law enforcement must get a court order before using a device which records which numbers are called.
Using such a device (called a pen register) without a court order is punishable by one year in jail.
I don't know if any charges have ever been brought under that paragraph, but they very easily could be. The law is pretty clear.
Under federal (U.S. Code â Title 18 â Part II â Chapter 206 â Â 3122 a), state and local law enforcement must get a court order before using a device which records which numbers are called.
Using such a device (called a pen register) without a court order is punishable by one year in jail.
So it's not necessarily unconstitutional, but it's absolutely illegal, by the plain text of chapter 206.
I'm not sure why you think there would be something to gain from throwing away a perfectly good DMX controller, just to redesign a new one to run inside a Pi, which is already busy doing other things. Then keep doing that every time you want a different UI or function. I've got a real nice DMX controller, why exactly should I build a new one inside of every different computer I want to use DMX with, rather than simply connecting a controller that already works well? Or maybe you didn't get the point that the DMX controller is a separate thing from whichever computer happens to be using it at the moment.
> if its simple enough for an arduino, but you need the OS / USB / ethernet of the Pi, just skip the arduino and use a Pi by itself.
Which is the same as saying:
> if one part simple enough for a microcontroller, but you need the OS / USB / ethernet of a computer, just skip the microcontroller and use a PC by itself.
Which means no add-in cards or USB peripherals, ever. After all, your Core i5 COULD be used to bit-bang ethernet. Therefore it should, right - no use case for an ethernet controller.
As another example, the Pi can connect directly to a wifi chip, so it would be stupid use a separate wifi module like the wipi, right? You'd never do that, because you COULD skip module and integrate everything onto one board.
If you take the cover off of your computer, you'll see a buttload of microcontrollers. The CPU _COULD_ do all of those functions, just like the RPi could be a bunch of different things simultaneously. Everyone (but you, apparently) thinks it makes sense to have sound cards, RS-485 cards, SAS cards, an network cards as separate, interchangeable items, which can be used with different CPUs.
> connecting two micro controllers together is going to be trouble whenever one is significantly faster than the other.
The Pi is a Linux computer. Sometimes, it makes sense to connect peripherals or add-in cards to a computer. For example, a RS-485 card, or more specialized, a DMX controller.
An Arduino makes a good DMX controller. If you want to run DMX under Linux, it makes sense to connect a DMX controller (Arduino) to your Linux system (Pi). It's not about pin count, it's about building and connecting components that each do something. Just like you'd use PCI to connect a board (with a micro) to a PC running Linux or Windows.
You forget that when someone spends, someone else receives. When the Uber driver gets $100, he can then buy things from someone else, or even bring on a couple of friends to help drive people around.
If the driver recieves 1/10th as much, that's worse for pretty much everyone. It look leave $100 sitting unspent in a bank account, rather than having the rider give it to the driver, who gives it to the carpenter, who gives it to his helper, who gives it to the dance intructor, who pays his rent with it.
All in all, the average is that when someone spends $1 more, it's passed along about 7 1/2 times. So someone spending $100 means that people get paid about $750 before it's "used up" paying for natural resources.
If "normal people" means people who buy a computer at Best Buy and aren't sure what OS it runs, they don't care about the Raspberry Pi.
GPIO means general purpose input/output - pins that you can turn on and off, or read, in order to connect motors, servos, lights, sensors, etc.
I2C is how chips such as microcontrollers communicate. It's kind of like a lower-level USB. You'd use it to connect your Raspberry Pi to an Arduino, Picaxe, LCD display, or some advanced sensors like GPS modules, or perhaps a cell phone module.
Most people don't have a separate firewall applicance separating the internet vs their local network. The router is the point of separation and it has full access to the local network. Because it's part of my local network, I want control over it.
The ISP can do what they want with packets out in the internet side of things, but that's okay because I already consider the internet to be a potentially hostile environment.
It sounds like the problems they are having could have been avoided with a few well-labeled icons on the desktop.
If you expect people to hunt through a menu and find Chrome, some will have trouble. I've found that more often than not, of you give people a a few clear options, such as desktop icons for "Internet" and "Documents", most people can handle that. MOST of the time when people have trouble using a system, the UI can be improved to make it much more intuitive.
The current proposal involves a short self-assessment questionnaire and an automated script which checks a few things. The current (very early) draft of possible criteria is here:
Major items include a big tracker (with responses to security bugs), source control, and peer review. These are all standard best practices which improve software quality.
If you have a one-person project and can't get someone else to review your commits, that's okay. You can keep doing what you're doing. However, your software also can't be expected to be as reliable and secure as something like Moodle, in which AT LEAST three people review all changes. Therefore Moodle would be able to use the badge and you wouldn't, until you got another person to look at your changes. Having some criteria for the badge actually makes it more useful for small projects because you can choose to use libraries which are badged and have some indication that they're somewhat reliable and secure.
The one pair of proposed criteria that isn't already done by most projects is use of a static analysis tool and a dynamic analysis tool. There are free , open source tools available and using them does reduce bugs and improve performance . Using them would be a change for many developers, but probably in the long term it'll save you more time than it costs.
I accidentally wrote that approximately 6.6% of illegal immigrants vote. That's not quite correct. Studies indicate that about 6.6% of NON-CITIZENS vote. The word "illegal" shouldn't be in that sentence.
You mentioned the 15th amendment, which says "THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
The 19th repeats the fact "TTHE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
You also mentioned the 26th amendment, which similarly refers explicitly to "the right of citizens of the United States... to vote". The full text of is:
The RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, who are eighteen years of age or older, TO VOTE shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
So there are two parts to that. A) Federal citizens have the right to vote and B) States shall not deny that right based on gender, age, race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
> > There is no Federal "right to vote"
The plain text of the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments all clearly state there is. They all say "THE right of citizens to vote". They then forbid the states from infringing on that right, whether that infringement be based on age, gender, race, etc. Much like the right of free speech can be curtailed by laws regarding defamation, the Constitution does allow states to regulate voting based on felony convictions and the like. It's very clear, though, it states three times, that there is a right of US citizens to vote. Then it puts limits on the states as to how they may and may not regulate the exercise of that right.
> Aside: I don't recall Obama advocating for voting rights for non-citizens, has he done so?
His administration is currently doing so, with one example being a current case before the Supreme Court. This is but one example, but I'll give you info about this example to start.
After his administration began issuing social security numbers to illegal immigrants, states had no effective method of checking voter registrations regarding citizenship, and studies indicate that roughly 6.6% of illegals vote. Some states, therefore, first asked the Obama administration to make the citizenship field of the federal SSN database available so they could cross-check and find likely invalid voters, registrations that should be double-checked because they are listed as non-citizens. The Obama administration refused to make the data available to states. The states then passed laws to use something other than SSN to as a citizenship check (since not only non-citizens, but also illegals, have SSNs now, just confirming an SSN exists becomes worthless.) The Obama administration interceded, and is now arguing that states may not request any form of proof of citizenship.
Knowing that a significant number of non-citizens vote (mostly for Democrats), there is but one reason to allow state voter registration systems to query the validity of an SSN but disallow the result to show the citizenship field - that is to deny the states the ability to follow the Constitution and protect the "right of citizens to vote". The illegal votes of non-citizens counterbalance the legitimate votes of citizens, and that's the only reason for the Obama administration to insist on hiding the citizenship field from the states.
>> Since Rashid isn't a US citizen, it's questionable what >> Consititutional rights he has in the US
> It's not questionable at all actually. He has all the rights granted by his humanity. Constitutional rights apply to everyone
You're saying foreign visitors have exactly the same rights granted to citizens by the US Constitution? Such as the right to vote, for example. So in your understanding, anyone visiting here from another country is entitled to vote in our elections? Well hello, Mr. Obama.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you again, Mr. President, and affirmed so as recently as 2003 (Demore v Kim). Citizenship does have meaning - if you're a citizen of France, you have certain rights (and responsibilities) in France, if you're a US citizen, you have certain rights and responsibilities in the US. (See ex the draft - a responsibility to put your life on the line for your country - YOUR country).
Another obvious example is that visitors can be tossed out of the country. Citizens cannot. Much like the difference between a roommate who lives with you (and is responsible for half the bills) vs a visitor in your home - who doesn't have to pay the bills, and doesn't have the right to mess around with your thermostat.
On the other hand, they've also held that _some_ natural rights do apply to visitors, often citing the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. As the founders said, all people are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR wit certain inalienable rights. Those are human rights, as you said. Then, separately, there are the rights of citizens of each state and of the United States.
When I said "read something", I didn't think you'd need to read your own post to know what you just said. Quoting your post:
>> Voting for the same candidate twice, in two different states, is frowned upon. > frowned upon, but 100% legal.
You're digging yourself deeper and deeper. Want to appear smart? Here's what a smart person in your position would say: Interesting learn something new every day.
Claiming you're right and the federal code is wrong, or claiming you didn't say what you just said, does NOT make you seem smarter. In fact, it does quite the opposite. People truly are not impressed by those who doggedly insist that they're right, that's not being smart. Being smart is asking intelligent questions and learning something.
If only it were that easy. Rashid did 10 years in federal prison for conspiracy to hijack a plane. When he got out, Rashid spent a few years in the middle east before coming back to the US and leading "death to America" rallys and hanging out with Richard Reid. Do you want your family on a plane with Rashid?
Since Rashid isn't a US citizen, it's questionable what Consititutional rights he has in the US - by law we should simply kick him out, and the local sheriff would to to, but the feds have been told not to deport people without more recent felony convictions.
'fraid not. You can CHOOSE to consider your "home" state to be your permanent residence, or you can decide that you moved to the new state. Voting in both, double voting for Congress, President, or any federal election is a felony - no exceptions.
I gave you the code section, so you could read it. You're a creative guy, smart in a way. If you spent half as much time reading or learning as you do thinking up creative ideas to believe, you'd know a lot of things. I bet you'd be pretty good at reading and learning things. As it is, you "know" a lot of things, but you "know" whatever idea you thought of first - most of what you know is wrong because you just thought it up, rather than finding out what's correct.
>> Voting for the same candidate twice, in two different states, is frowned upon.
> frowned upon, but 100% legal.
No, it's felony. Punishable by five years in prison.
42 U.S.C. 1973
(e) Voting more than once (1) Whoever votes more than once in an election referred to in paragraph (2) shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
It's also a state felony in most states.
I don't know why you KEEP making stuff up and posting it. Haven't you noticed the pattern by now - when you do that, I post a citation showing that you've pulled your "facts" from thin air. This has been going on for how many years now?
Or did you actually believe a DNC staffer who told you it would be okay? Some of those Democratic National Committee reps who were registering people to vote in multiple states went to prison, because facilitating vote fraud is a felony under 42 U.S.C. 1973(i).
> The instructions for performing maintainence of my heat pump assume foundational HVAC knowledge, too.... > But for some reason, computer/network gear, despite being many times more complex pieces of machinery, carry this expectation that a retard like your mom who can't even understand/remember/figure out clicking File and then Open should be able to fully understand them.
The expectation is that mom can adjust the thermostat, without needing to know the differences between various types of refrigerants. Similarly, the goal is that she should be able to look at pictures of the grandkids without configuring ipv6.
Because consumer routers are directly connected to the internet, with no firewall between the router and the net, regular updates are required these days. Mom should be able to use YouTube, and do so safely she needs regular updates on the router.
Nerds like you and I can turn off those updates, install open-wrt, or whatever we want. Just like you CAN install a hotrod intake manifold, but doing so shouldn't be required in order to drive.
The VAST majority of the people on the big list aren't in the US, and aren't worth tracking down and arresting them in whatever country they're in. When some guy in Iran says he wants to kill Americans, it's much more reasonable to add him to the "not welcome" list than to invade Iran and get him.
Of the ones in the US, many WILL be detained if they show up at an airport and show ID, letting authorities know where they are.
There may be a few who are more interesting, for which the proper response isn't entirely clear. Especially for the few US citizens, what it the appropriate response when someone keeps saying they want to blow up a plane? You can't put them in prison for life - wanting to blow up a plane isn't even illegal in the US. However, I don't want that guy on the plane with me. It's truly a difficult situation.
> if they are so dangerous why haven't they been arrested.
Which "they", which list? And what makes you think they've never been arrested?
The VAST majority of the people on the big list aren't in the US, and aren't worth tracking down and arresting them in whatever country they're in. When some guy in Iran says he wants to kill Americans, it's much more reasonable to add him to the "not welcome" list than to invade Iran and get him.
Of the ones in the US, many WILL be detained if they show up at an airport and show ID, letting authorities know where they are.
There may be a few who are more interesting, for which the proper response isn't entirely clear. Especially for the few US citizens, what it the appropriate response when someone says they want to blow up a plane? You can't put them in prison for life - wanting to blow up a plane isn't even illegal in the US. However, I don't want that guy on the plane with me. It's truly a difficult situation.
There is an interesting proposal for this problem, and the related quandry of handling terrorism suspects who probably have knowledge of upcoming attacks, sleeper cells, communications channels used by terrorists, etc. Many people would say that getting information from Osama bin Laden would have been important enough that if required, it would have been okay to punch HIM in the gut. Or pour water on his face. On the other hand, as a POLICY matter, you don't want waterboarding to be used on a regular basis. How's this for a weird idea. Each year, the NSA can choose five people who shouldn't be flying, and can take one person to Guantanamo. I don't want to know what they do with that one person in Guantanamo, but they better choose carefully because they only get ONE person. Better make sure you take the one guy who really needs to be at Guantanamo. That's one idea.
There are two very different lists which are both commonly referred to as a "No Fly" list, and they are very different. The article doesn't make it clear that the author knows the the difference, much less make it explicit which list the case is about.
There are tens of thousands of people on the "no fly" list which is really a "no border crossing" list. These people aren't allowd to fly into the United States and federal authorities will be notified if they try to leave the country. Personally, I'm okay with not inviting in people who publicly proclaim the ir intent to harm us, chanting "death to America". Because some random guy from Syria has no right to enter the US, I don't mind disinviting the ones who proclaim their desire to kill Americans.
There is another list of a few hundred people who aren't allowed to fly WITHIN the US. THAT raises much more interesting questions. That could easily be abused. However, it seems reasonable that in a population of 320 million, there would be a few hundred who truly are dangerous, for whom there is enough evidence that _I_ wouldn't want to be on a plane with them. As long as there are only a few hundred people on that list, that indicates officials are being careful about who they add to the list. While there are due process questlns, the practical, pragmatic effect seems to be that only the shadiest of shady characters have been put on the actual "not allowed to fly within the US" list. So far, anyway.
> But the 'voter id laws' of states like Texas > a) don't let you vote at all,
O Rlly? Prett sure I voted.
>b) make it illegal to use state funded college ID or an out-of-state Driver License to prove your identity even if you happen to be a College Student living in Texas for 9 months of the year
Yes, if you've lived in Texas for nine months, and want to vote in Texas elections (claiming the benefits of Texas residency) you should get a Texas ID. You can instead choose to vote by mail in your home state. Voting for the same candidate twice, in two different states, is frowned upon.
> c) make it very difficult to prove your ID and COSTLY in both time and energy.
Dropping your ballot in the mailbox is SO difficult and expensive. The mailbox is all the way outside! Damn you libs are lazy MFs. (No ID required for voting by mail.)
If you choose to vote in-person, it's convenient that you ALREADY needed to have yoir birth certificate handy to register for school, because yes you will need it if you want to stop by the DMV to get your FREE voter ID (only needed if you don't have a DL, other state ID and want to vote in pereon).
Slashdot Mirror
The story does mention the court ruled the use of a Stingray without a warrant is unconstitutional, so someone is doing their job.
Personally, I prefer to give money to the EFF rather than the ACLU since the ACLU advocates for racial discrimination, but everyone has their own opinions.
I find it very offensive that the ACLU says my daughter has to be given extra points in order to compete, because black people like her are too stupid to do well by their own talents and effort. That's a particularly nasty type of racism, in my view. I also think they are wrong to say that I should be denied admission in favor of someone less qualified because I happen to havevpale skin. That part bothers me much less than their patronizing attitude toward my wife and daughter, though, their belief that my wife and daughter can't manage without special favors and protection from snotty white people.
That's an interesting point. There is a strong general presumption that anyone is allowed to RECIEVE anything transmitted over the airwaves. One good reason for that is that it's quite common to receive things on accident- a lot of night time "static" is in fact someone's communications.
HOWEVER, wireless phones have a two-way handshake with the tower. After receiving from the phone, the Stingray sends back "this is tower HJFG-7484. What are your parameters ", or something like that. By connecting with your phone and falsely claiming to be a phone-company tower, the Stingray os actively performing as a pen register. In fact, the Stingray probably sends to the phone "I have a call for you " in order to cause it to reveal it's current location. It would then send a disconnect before the phone started ringing audibly. That's all active snooping.
A different device would be one which only LISTENED to genuine communications between the phone and tower, decrypted the call metadata, and recorded it. Different laws would apply.
There is a very clear federal law making this a crime, so they absolutely could be charged, if a federal prosecutor chose to do so.
U.S. Code , Title 18 , Part II , Chapter 206. Â 3122 a) says that state and local law enforcement must get a court order before using a device which records which numbers are called.
Using such a device (called a pen register) without a court order is punishable by one year in jail.
I don't know if any charges have ever been brought under that paragraph, but they very easily could be. The law is pretty clear.
Under federal (U.S. Code â Title 18 â Part II â Chapter 206 â Â 3122 a), state and local law enforcement must get a court order before using a device which records which numbers are called.
Using such a device (called a pen register) without a court order is punishable by one year in jail.
So it's not necessarily unconstitutional, but it's absolutely illegal, by the plain text of chapter 206.
I'm not sure why you think there would be something to gain from throwing away a perfectly good DMX controller, just to redesign a new one to run inside a Pi, which is already busy doing other things. Then keep doing that every time you want a different UI or function. I've got a real nice DMX controller, why exactly should I build a new one inside of every different computer I want to use DMX with, rather than simply connecting a controller that already works well? Or maybe you didn't get the point that the DMX controller is a separate thing from whichever computer happens to be using it at the moment.
> if its simple enough for an arduino, but you need the OS / USB / ethernet of the Pi, just skip the arduino and use a Pi by itself.
Which is the same as saying:
> if one part simple enough for a microcontroller, but you need the OS / USB / ethernet of a computer, just skip the microcontroller and use a PC by itself.
Which means no add-in cards or USB peripherals, ever. After all, your Core i5 COULD be used to bit-bang ethernet. Therefore it should, right - no use case for an ethernet controller.
As another example, the Pi can connect directly to a wifi chip, so it would be stupid use a separate wifi module like the wipi, right? You'd never do that, because you COULD skip module and integrate everything onto one board.
If you take the cover off of your computer, you'll see a buttload of microcontrollers. The CPU _COULD_ do all of those functions, just like the RPi could be a bunch of different things simultaneously. Everyone (but you, apparently) thinks it makes sense to have sound cards, RS-485 cards, SAS cards, an network cards as separate, interchangeable items, which can be used with different CPUs.
> connecting two micro controllers together is going to be trouble whenever one is significantly faster than the other.
The Pi is a Linux computer. Sometimes, it makes sense to connect peripherals or add-in cards to a computer. For example, a RS-485 card, or more specialized, a DMX controller.
An Arduino makes a good DMX controller. If you want to run DMX under Linux, it makes sense to connect a DMX controller (Arduino) to your Linux system (Pi). It's not about pin count, it's about building and connecting components that each do something. Just like you'd use PCI to connect a board (with a micro) to a PC running Linux or Windows.
You forget that when someone spends, someone else receives.
When the Uber driver gets $100, he can then buy things from someone else, or even bring on a couple of friends to help drive people around.
If the driver recieves 1/10th as much, that's worse for pretty much everyone. It look leave $100 sitting unspent in a bank account, rather than having the rider give it to the driver, who gives it to the carpenter, who gives it to his helper, who gives it to the dance intructor, who pays his rent with it.
All in all, the average is that when someone spends $1 more, it's passed along about 7 1/2 times. So someone spending $100 means that people get paid about $750 before it's "used up" paying for natural resources.
If "normal people" means people who buy a computer at Best Buy and aren't sure what OS it runs, they don't care about the Raspberry Pi.
GPIO means general purpose input/output - pins that you can turn on and off, or read, in order to connect motors, servos, lights, sensors, etc.
I2C is how chips such as microcontrollers communicate. It's kind of like a lower-level USB. You'd use it to connect your Raspberry Pi to an Arduino, Picaxe, LCD display, or some advanced sensors like GPS modules, or perhaps a cell phone module.
Most people don't have a separate firewall applicance separating the internet vs their local network. The router is the point of separation and it has full access to the local network. Because it's part of my local network, I want control over it.
The ISP can do what they want with packets out in the internet side of things, but that's okay because I already consider the internet to be a potentially hostile environment.
"Something like Moodle where AT LEAST three people review any change".
Yeah, Moodle is my pet project; I'm at least three people.
It sounds like the problems they are having could have been avoided with a few well-labeled icons on the desktop.
If you expect people to hunt through a menu and find Chrome, some will have trouble. I've found that more often than not, of you give people a a few clear options, such as desktop icons for "Internet" and "Documents", most people can handle that. MOST of the time when people have trouble using a system, the UI can be improved to make it much more intuitive.
The current proposal involves a short self-assessment questionnaire and an automated script which checks a few things. The current (very early) draft of possible criteria is here:
https://github.com/linuxfounda...
Major items include a big tracker (with responses to security bugs), source control, and peer review. These are all standard best practices which improve software quality.
If you have a one-person project and can't get someone else to review your commits, that's okay. You can keep doing what you're doing. However, your software also can't be expected to be as reliable and secure as something like Moodle, in which AT LEAST three people review all changes. Therefore Moodle would be able to use the badge and you wouldn't, until you got another person to look at your changes. Having some criteria for the badge actually makes it more useful for small projects because you can choose to use libraries which are badged and have some indication that they're somewhat reliable and secure.
The one pair of proposed criteria that isn't already done by most projects is use of a static analysis tool and a dynamic analysis tool. There are free , open source tools available and using them does reduce bugs and improve performance . Using them would be a change for many developers, but probably in the long term it'll save you more time than it costs.
I accidentally wrote that approximately 6.6% of illegal immigrants vote. That's not quite correct. Studies indicate that about 6.6% of NON-CITIZENS vote. The word "illegal" shouldn't be in that sentence.
You mentioned the 15th amendment, which says "THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
The 19th repeats the fact "TTHE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
You also mentioned the 26th amendment, which similarly refers explicitly to "the right of citizens of the United States ... to vote". The full text of is:
The RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, who are eighteen years of age or older, TO VOTE shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
So there are two parts to that. A) Federal citizens have the right to vote and B) States shall not deny that right based on gender, age, race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
> > There is no Federal "right to vote"
The plain text of the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments all clearly state there is. They all say "THE right of citizens to vote". They then forbid the states from infringing on that right, whether that infringement be based on age, gender, race, etc. Much like the right of free speech can be curtailed by laws regarding defamation, the Constitution does allow states to regulate voting based on felony convictions and the like. It's very clear, though, it states three times, that there is a right of US citizens to vote. Then it puts limits on the states as to how they may and may not regulate the exercise of that right.
> Aside: I don't recall Obama advocating for voting rights for non-citizens, has he done so?
His administration is currently doing so, with one example being a current case before the Supreme Court. This is but one example, but I'll give you info about this example to start.
After his administration began issuing social security numbers to illegal immigrants, states had no effective method of checking voter registrations regarding citizenship, and studies indicate that roughly 6.6% of illegals vote. Some states, therefore, first asked the Obama administration to make the citizenship field of the federal SSN database available so they could cross-check and find likely invalid voters, registrations that should be double-checked because they are listed as non-citizens. The Obama administration refused to make the data available to states. The states then passed laws to use something other than SSN to as a citizenship check (since not only non-citizens, but also illegals, have SSNs now, just confirming an SSN exists becomes worthless.) The Obama administration interceded, and is now arguing that states may not request any form of proof of citizenship.
Knowing that a significant number of non-citizens vote (mostly for Democrats), there is but one reason to allow state voter registration systems to query the validity of an SSN but disallow the result to show the citizenship field - that is to deny the states the ability to follow the Constitution and protect the "right of citizens to vote". The illegal votes of non-citizens counterbalance the legitimate votes of citizens, and that's the only reason for the Obama administration to insist on hiding the citizenship field from the states.
>> Since Rashid isn't a US citizen, it's questionable what
>> Consititutional rights he has in the US
> It's not questionable at all actually. He has all the rights granted by his humanity. Constitutional rights apply to everyone
You're saying foreign visitors have exactly the same rights granted to citizens by the US Constitution? Such as the right to vote, for example. So in your understanding, anyone visiting here from another country is entitled to vote in our elections? Well hello, Mr. Obama.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you again, Mr. President, and affirmed so as recently as 2003 (Demore v Kim). Citizenship does have meaning - if you're a citizen of France, you have certain rights (and responsibilities) in France, if you're a US citizen, you have certain rights and responsibilities in the US. (See ex the draft - a responsibility to put your life on the line for your country - YOUR country).
Another obvious example is that visitors can be tossed out of the country. Citizens cannot. Much like the difference between a roommate who lives with you (and is responsible for half the bills) vs a visitor in your home - who doesn't have to pay the bills, and doesn't have the right to mess around with your thermostat.
On the other hand, they've also held that _some_ natural rights do apply to visitors, often citing the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. As the founders said, all people are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR wit certain inalienable rights. Those are human rights, as you said. Then, separately, there are the rights of citizens of each state and of the United States.
Sometimes, drawing the lines can be a bit tricky.
When I said "read something", I didn't think you'd need to read your own post to know what you just said. Quoting your post:
>> Voting for the same candidate twice, in two different states, is frowned upon.
> frowned upon, but 100% legal.
You're digging yourself deeper and deeper. Want to appear smart? Here's what a smart person in your position would say:
Interesting learn something new every day.
Claiming you're right and the federal code is wrong, or claiming you didn't say what you just said, does NOT make you seem smarter. In fact, it does quite the opposite. People truly are not impressed by those who doggedly insist that they're right, that's not being smart. Being smart is asking intelligent questions and learning something.
If only it were that easy. Rashid did 10 years in federal prison for conspiracy to hijack a plane. When he got out, Rashid spent a few years in the middle east before coming back to the US and leading "death to America" rallys and hanging out with Richard Reid. Do you want your family on a plane with Rashid?
Since Rashid isn't a US citizen, it's questionable what Consititutional rights he has in the US - by law we should simply kick him out, and the local sheriff would to to, but the feds have been told not to deport people without more recent felony convictions.
I would never post comments on a web site.
'fraid not. You can CHOOSE to consider your "home" state to be your permanent residence, or you can decide that you moved to the new state. Voting in both, double voting for Congress, President, or any federal election is a felony - no exceptions.
I gave you the code section, so you could read it. You're a creative guy, smart in a way. If you spent half as much time reading or learning as you do thinking up creative ideas to believe, you'd know a lot of things. I bet you'd be pretty good at reading and learning things. As it is, you "know" a lot of things, but you "know" whatever idea you thought of first - most of what you know is wrong because you just thought it up, rather than finding out what's correct.
>> Voting for the same candidate twice, in two different states, is frowned upon.
> frowned upon, but 100% legal.
No, it's felony. Punishable by five years in prison.
42 U.S.C. 1973
(e) Voting more than once
(1) Whoever votes more than once in an election referred to in paragraph (2) shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
It's also a state felony in most states.
I don't know why you KEEP making stuff up and posting it. Haven't you noticed the pattern by now - when you do that, I post a citation showing that you've pulled your "facts" from thin air. This has been going on for how many years now?
Or did you actually believe a DNC staffer who told you it would be okay? Some of those Democratic National Committee reps who were registering people to vote in multiple states went to prison, because facilitating vote fraud is a felony under 42 U.S.C. 1973(i).
> The instructions for performing maintainence of my heat pump assume foundational HVAC knowledge, too. ...
> But for some reason, computer/network gear, despite being many times more complex pieces of machinery, carry this expectation that a retard like your mom who can't even understand/remember/figure out clicking File and then Open should be able to fully understand them.
The expectation is that mom can adjust the thermostat, without needing to know the differences between various types of refrigerants. Similarly, the goal is that she should be able to look at pictures of the grandkids without configuring ipv6.
Because consumer routers are directly connected to the internet, with no firewall between the router and the net, regular updates are required these days. Mom should be able to use YouTube, and do so safely she needs regular updates on the router.
Nerds like you and I can turn off those updates, install open-wrt, or whatever we want. Just like you CAN install a hotrod intake manifold, but doing so shouldn't be required in order to drive.
Which "they", which list?
The VAST majority of the people on the big list aren't in the US, and aren't worth tracking down and arresting them in whatever country they're in. When some guy in Iran says he wants to kill Americans, it's much more reasonable to add him to the "not welcome" list than to invade Iran and get him.
Of the ones in the US, many WILL be detained if they show up at an airport and show ID, letting authorities know where they are.
There may be a few who are more interesting, for which the proper response isn't entirely clear. Especially for the few US citizens, what it the appropriate response when someone keeps saying they want to blow up a plane? You can't put them in prison for life - wanting to blow up a plane isn't even illegal in the US. However, I don't want that guy on the plane with me. It's truly a difficult situation.
> if they are so dangerous why haven't they been arrested.
Which "they", which list? And what makes you think they've never been arrested?
The VAST majority of the people on the big list aren't in the US, and aren't worth tracking down and arresting them in whatever country they're in. When some guy in Iran says he wants to kill Americans, it's much more reasonable to add him to the "not welcome" list than to invade Iran and get him.
Of the ones in the US, many WILL be detained if they show up at an airport and show ID, letting authorities know where they are.
There may be a few who are more interesting, for which the proper response isn't entirely clear. Especially for the few US citizens, what it the appropriate response when someone says they want to blow up a plane? You can't put them in prison for life - wanting to blow up a plane isn't even illegal in the US. However, I don't want that guy on the plane with me. It's truly a difficult situation.
There is an interesting proposal for this problem, and the related quandry of handling terrorism suspects who probably have knowledge of upcoming attacks, sleeper cells, communications channels used by terrorists, etc. Many people would say that getting information from Osama bin Laden would have been important enough that if required, it would have been okay to punch HIM in the gut. Or pour water on his face. On the other hand, as a POLICY matter, you don't want waterboarding to be used on a regular basis. How's this for a weird idea. Each year, the NSA can choose five people who shouldn't be flying, and can take one person to Guantanamo. I don't want to know what they do with that one person in Guantanamo, but they better choose carefully because they only get ONE person. Better make sure you take the one guy who really needs to be at Guantanamo. That's one idea.
There are two very different lists which are both commonly referred to as a "No Fly" list, and they are very different. The article doesn't make it clear that the author knows the the difference, much less make it explicit which list the case is about.
There are tens of thousands of people on the "no fly" list which is really a "no border crossing" list. These people aren't allowd to fly into the United States and federal authorities will be notified if they try to leave the country. Personally, I'm okay with not inviting in people who publicly proclaim the ir intent to harm us, chanting "death to America". Because some random guy from Syria has no right to enter the US, I don't mind disinviting the ones who proclaim their desire to kill Americans.
There is another list of a few hundred people who aren't allowed to fly WITHIN the US. THAT raises much more interesting questions. That could easily be abused. However, it seems reasonable that in a population of 320 million, there would be a few hundred who truly are dangerous, for whom there is enough evidence that _I_ wouldn't want to be on a plane with them. As long as there are only a few hundred people on that list, that indicates officials are being careful about who they add to the list. While there are due process questlns, the practical, pragmatic effect seems to be that only the shadiest of shady characters have been put on the actual "not allowed to fly within the US" list. So far, anyway.
> But the 'voter id laws' of states like Texas
> a) don't let you vote at all,
O Rlly? Prett sure I voted.
>b) make it illegal to use state funded college ID or an out-of-state Driver License to prove your identity even if you happen to be a College Student living in Texas for 9 months of the year
Yes, if you've lived in Texas for nine months, and want to vote in Texas elections (claiming the benefits of Texas residency) you should get a Texas ID. You can instead choose to vote by mail in your home state. Voting for the same candidate twice, in two different states, is frowned upon.
> c) make it very difficult to prove your ID and COSTLY in both time and energy.
Dropping your ballot in the mailbox is SO difficult and expensive. The mailbox is all the way outside! Damn you libs are lazy MFs. (No ID required for voting by mail.)
If you choose to vote in-person, it's convenient that you ALREADY needed to have yoir birth certificate handy to register for school, because yes you will need it if you want to stop by the DMV to get your FREE voter ID (only needed if you don't have a DL, other state ID and want to vote in pereon).