It still doesn't make sense. "Subject" can't be adequately defined. If I propose a bill that increases the gas tax and uses that money to fund research into clean energy alternatives, how many subjects have I broached? If I put stipulations in the taxes, perhaps exempting charities, does that add another subject? If I put restrictions on the type of research or reporting requirements at any place receiving the funding for such research, is that another subject?
Additionally, compromise isn't a bad thing. A bill that has two "subjects" isn't inherently bad. A bill can have two 'subjects' but only make sense in combination or only have enough support if implemented in combination. Those bills aren't inherently bad.
Finally, its still an Unconstitutional bill because it tries to restrict Congress's ability to pass (or discuss) legislation. At most it could be a rule and then, again, it would only apply to that session.
Good point. On the other hand, the lack of fjords suggests that they may have needed greater endurance than later navies since safe harbors may have been more scarce.
(a) No Bill or Joint Resolution shall embrace more than one subject at a time, and that shall be clearly and descriptively expressed in the Title.
(b) An Appropriations Bill shall not contain any general legislation or change of existing law provision, the subject of which is not germane to the subject matter of each such Appropriations Bill, provided however, that this section shall not be construed to prohibit any provision imposing limitations upon the expenditure of funds so appropriated.
Define "subject". Define "clearly and descriptively expressed." Define "germane to the subject matter."
SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT
(a) If the Title of an Act or Joint Resolution addresses two or more unrelated subjects, then the entire Act or Joint Resolution is void.
(b) If the Title of an Act or Joint Resolution addresses a single subject, but the Act contains one or more provisions concerning a subject that is not clearly and descriptively expressed in its Title, then only such provision or provisions concerning the subject not clearly and descriptively expressed in the Title shall be void. -ETC-
Sorry, this is Unconstitutional. No Congress can bind a future Congress or prohibit what laws it may or may not pass. The first time each new Congress meets, it must agree to the Rules of the Hosue or Senate (whichever is applicable). Anyone familiar with the rules of the Legislature should know this if for no other reason than the "nuclear option" debate on the filibuster that crops up every couple of years. Article I, Section 5
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceeding
One can no more say all bills must be one subject by legislation than a bill could be passed that said "No Law can be passed that recognizes gay marriage". By the rules of a House in a single Congress it could be done, but those rules are null and void the next time Congress reforms.
So its an unenforceable (overly vague), Unconstitutional bill. But other than that, its swell.
Besides, why would this be what puts you over the edge to use the Nazi flail? Torture, indefinite war, stripping habeas corpus, ignoring the need for warrants, indefinite imprisonment of US citizens if they're "enemy combatants" and massive corruption doesn't do it for you, but the idea that the government might record you CC purchases does?
I haven't seen any source that says this is Dodd's bill or Amendment. Dodd is the committee chairman, but everything I can find on the Congressional Record says Dodd/Shelby. Even the link's only source says Dodd/Shelby.
Anyone have any evidence that this amendment was Dodd's or whether this provision was even supported by him?
I've thought the same thing. However, look at it this way...
Can you think of a generalized rule to prevent it? How does one quantify whether two subjects are related or not? Especially considering a valid relationship is a compromise -say we combine issue X which is important to group A (and weakly opposed by B) and issue Y which is important to group B (and weakly opposed by group A).
Originally it was one rep per 30,000 people. Currently the reps represent over 20 times that number. I'd wager that we had the number of reps needed to provide 30K to 1 representation we'd have more parties.
We'd also have chaos.
200,000,000 Americans / 30,000 Americans/Rep = 6667 Reps. That's unworkable. If the House met 24 hours of the day, 365 days a year, each would get 80 minutes to speak on average minus all the procedural claptrap. Given there would be that many Reps, I think its fair to say it would be far less than that. It would also be 10x larger than the largest elected Legislature in the world.
If we're going to reform the government such that a Constitutional Amendment would be required, I'd much rather take a look at first-past the post voting than just increasing the number of Congressmembers.
Leahy is against the capitulation"compromise" (per an email on Kos) and he's chair of the Senate Judiciary committee. This has to get on the floor, and I believe it would be through his committee.
Accents used to be much more pronounced pre-radio/mass media. I know in Boston, individual streets had slight variations so that you could tell the neighborhood of a person by their accent. However, now that a large percentage of the words we hear are from movies/TV/radio our accents get washed out.
It doesn't necessarily need to be far more capable. If there's a chip that has function set X and then throws in DRM checks Y, you may actually be able to emulate that chip with a less powerful chip that can bypass DRM checks Y such that they always pass. Since most of the time its pretty difficult (and arguably impossible) to create a hardware DRM scheme that can't be software emulated when you don't control the OS, the chip would have to sacrifice a great deal of 'power' to create a scheme that was complex enough to cause a software solution to take a noticeable amount of resources. Throw the inefficiency of a supposedly "unique" scheme...
It seems you are unfamiliar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In fact, the reason earlier SCotUS decisions ruled against the Administration is because their treatment of prisoners of the military violated the UCMJ.
because anyone could come back with an equally long list of states Clinton won.
Obama won 33 states/territories, HRC won 20 if you include FL and MI. If you go by popular vote, its 32-21 (including FL). So no the list would not be equally long.
I think you're not thinking the probability through. Take your deck example (which actually is better in this context):
Yes there are 52! possible orderings. Each is unlikely (I think its fair to say (52!/47!)^-1 is a small probability) even though each variation is equally unlikely. If I deal myself a AKQJX of hearts, that is no more or less likely than 7h,9c,Ks,8c,2d.
Now if I'm dealt a Royal Flush in this manner, does that mean I cheated (God exists)? No, not necessarily. Even if I dealt out every card in suited descending order, that doesn't prove anything because the meaning we apply to the cards doesn't make it more or less likely than any other order.
What if we reshuffle (perfectly) and I am dealt the same Royal Flush in the same order. What are the odds of this? The same as above. The two incidents are independent.
Now what about the odds of me getting that Royal Flush, and then getting 7h,9c,Ks,8c,2d the second hand? The same as above.
What are the odds if we combine the two events? What the odds of me getting that Royal Flush twice in a row? P(x)^2. What are the odds of me getting a Royal Flush and then that rag hand? P(x)^2.
so there is no surprise when the deck winds up in one of these states.
This is exactly what I mean when I say its happenstance. Something had to happen and an improbable outcome does not mean anything in and of itself. That doesn't mean that particular outcome was not unlikely. The second time, the same thing is true - something has to happen but the particular thing that did happen can still be unlikely.
Obama won the nomination because he won every state that had a large black population, and they overwhelmingly voted for him, and then, he split the white vote with Hillary. So now, McCain is reaching out to those white voters and po'd women that probably won't for Obama.
Like Wisconsin, Montana, Vermont, Maine, Iowa, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Connecticut, North Dakota, Kansas, Colorado....
People that hate Bush 43 are going to have to choose: too stupid to tie his own shoes or the mastermind of the Iraq war for his oil buddies. I believe he is neither, but he can't be both.
False choice.
Bush intentionally lied the country into a war he intended to launch from before his 'election'. The motivation for this war included the enrichment of his political allies in the form of access to oil and government contracts, a legacy as a "War President" which was inspired by the bump his father got as part of the Gulf War as most of the most renowned Presidents have fought wars (Washington, Lincoln, FDR) and the political capitol he'd get from a successful war to implement the conservative social and economical changes he wanted by using the "political capital" he would later cite after his reelection.
The problem is, he is incompetent. His motives are bad AND he's bad at implementing them. There is nothing mutually exclusive about being an evil mediocre-mind, not even one who manages to gain power.
Bill Clinton was not convicted of perjury. He was cited for "civil contempt" which is substantially different than perjury and does not have an associated jail sentence option.
The US Attorney's Manual makes the difference between criminal contempt and civil contempt
Because different substantive and procedural rules apply to civil and criminal contempts, distinctions between the two forms of contempt are important. "Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense," Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201 (1968), and "criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not been afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such criminal proceedings." Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 632 (1988). These constitutional protections include the right (1) not to be subject to double jeopardy, see United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 695 (1993); In re Bradley, 318 U.S. 50 (1943); (2) to receive notice of the charges, (3) to receive assistance of counsel; (4) to receive summary process; (5) to present a defense, Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 515, 537 (1925); (6) not to self-incriminate oneself, and (7) to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 444 (1911). For serious criminal contempts involving imprisonment of more than six months, these protections include the right to a jury trial. Bloom, 391 U.S. at 199.
By contrast, civil contempt sanctions--which are designed to compel future compliance with a court order--are coercive and avoidable through obedience, and "thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required." International Union, UMWA v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2557 (1994).
Bill Clinton was not convicted because he never got a trial and the charge was non-criminal.
Clinton's actions were immoral in that he cheated on his wife, but those actions and the subsequent testimony did not meet the standard one would normally require for criminality (let alone "High Crimes and Misdemeanors").
Most of what people call chance is not chance. If two guys bump into each other, and one falls into traffic, his street pizzaness wasn't a result of any thing related to quantum mechanics, but simple mechanical physics and the seeming chaos of the extreme complexity of life. The result of flipping a coin can be determined by sufficiently thorough standard physics without ever involving quantum mechanics.
The existence or non-existence of Free Will. But then, that debate makes the evolution/Creationism debate look like a polite 1 minute conversation on whether to have Coke or Pepsi with lunch.
Thats actually an oversimplification of Occam's Razor (which by its own rules would make itself more true... wait...).
Occam's Razor isn't just about the simplest answer. Its the solution that requires the least assumptions. For instance, asserting the validity of evolution requires the assumption that the scientific method is valid and there hasn't been a massive breakdown in its application. Asserting the validity of Creationism requires an assumption that there is an all powerful diety that created the world. Non-evolution based Creationism requires either a deceptive all-powerful deity or the invalidity of the scientific method or a massive breakdown in its application and the existence of an all powerful deity.
Unfortunately, we can't agree on the number of assumptions required to back these fundamentals so...
Slashdot Mirror
It still doesn't make sense. "Subject" can't be adequately defined. If I propose a bill that increases the gas tax and uses that money to fund research into clean energy alternatives, how many subjects have I broached? If I put stipulations in the taxes, perhaps exempting charities, does that add another subject? If I put restrictions on the type of research or reporting requirements at any place receiving the funding for such research, is that another subject?
Additionally, compromise isn't a bad thing. A bill that has two "subjects" isn't inherently bad. A bill can have two 'subjects' but only make sense in combination or only have enough support if implemented in combination. Those bills aren't inherently bad.
Finally, its still an Unconstitutional bill because it tries to restrict Congress's ability to pass (or discuss) legislation. At most it could be a rule and then, again, it would only apply to that session.
No but they can be handed a monopoly (by another near monopoly).
He would remark, "Tastes like me"?
Good point. On the other hand, the lack of fjords suggests that they may have needed greater endurance than later navies since safe harbors may have been more scarce.
...were vicious with their domesticated parrots.
Define "subject".
Define "clearly and descriptively expressed."
Define "germane to the subject matter."
Sorry, this is Unconstitutional. No Congress can bind a future Congress or prohibit what laws it may or may not pass. The first time each new Congress meets, it must agree to the Rules of the Hosue or Senate (whichever is applicable). Anyone familiar with the rules of the Legislature should know this if for no other reason than the "nuclear option" debate on the filibuster that crops up every couple of years.
Article I, Section 5
One can no more say all bills must be one subject by legislation than a bill could be passed that said "No Law can be passed that recognizes gay marriage". By the rules of a House in a single Congress it could be done, but those rules are null and void the next time Congress reforms.
So its an unenforceable (overly vague), Unconstitutional bill. But other than that, its swell.
Auto fail (Godwin)
Besides, why would this be what puts you over the edge to use the Nazi flail? Torture, indefinite war, stripping habeas corpus, ignoring the need for warrants, indefinite imprisonment of US citizens if they're "enemy combatants" and massive corruption doesn't do it for you, but the idea that the government might record you CC purchases does?
The "riders" are voted on you know, right?
I haven't seen any source that says this is Dodd's bill or Amendment. Dodd is the committee chairman, but everything I can find on the Congressional Record says Dodd/Shelby. Even the link's only source says Dodd/Shelby.
Anyone have any evidence that this amendment was Dodd's or whether this provision was even supported by him?
I've thought the same thing. However, look at it this way...
Can you think of a generalized rule to prevent it? How does one quantify whether two subjects are related or not? Especially considering a valid relationship is a compromise -say we combine issue X which is important to group A (and weakly opposed by B) and issue Y which is important to group B (and weakly opposed by group A).
We'd also have chaos.
200,000,000 Americans / 30,000 Americans/Rep = 6667 Reps. That's unworkable. If the House met 24 hours of the day, 365 days a year, each would get 80 minutes to speak on average minus all the procedural claptrap. Given there would be that many Reps, I think its fair to say it would be far less than that. It would also be 10x larger than the largest elected Legislature in the world.
If we're going to reform the government such that a Constitutional Amendment would be required, I'd much rather take a look at first-past the post voting than just increasing the number of Congressmembers.
Leahy is against the capitulation"compromise" (per an email on Kos) and he's chair of the Senate Judiciary committee. This has to get on the floor, and I believe it would be through his committee.
Accents used to be much more pronounced pre-radio/mass media. I know in Boston, individual streets had slight variations so that you could tell the neighborhood of a person by their accent. However, now that a large percentage of the words we hear are from movies/TV/radio our accents get washed out.
It doesn't necessarily need to be far more capable. If there's a chip that has function set X and then throws in DRM checks Y, you may actually be able to emulate that chip with a less powerful chip that can bypass DRM checks Y such that they always pass. Since most of the time its pretty difficult (and arguably impossible) to create a hardware DRM scheme that can't be software emulated when you don't control the OS, the chip would have to sacrifice a great deal of 'power' to create a scheme that was complex enough to cause a software solution to take a noticeable amount of resources. Throw the inefficiency of a supposedly "unique" scheme...
This is obviously untrue. If it can be manufactured once, it can be again and it can almost certainly be emulated.
It seems you are unfamiliar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In fact, the reason earlier SCotUS decisions ruled against the Administration is because their treatment of prisoners of the military violated the UCMJ.
Obama won 33 states/territories, HRC won 20 if you include FL and MI. If you go by popular vote, its 32-21 (including FL). So no the list would not be equally long.
Yes there are 52! possible orderings. Each is unlikely (I think its fair to say (52!/47!)^-1 is a small probability) even though each variation is equally unlikely. If I deal myself a AKQJX of hearts, that is no more or less likely than 7h,9c,Ks,8c,2d.
Now if I'm dealt a Royal Flush in this manner, does that mean I cheated (God exists)? No, not necessarily. Even if I dealt out every card in suited descending order, that doesn't prove anything because the meaning we apply to the cards doesn't make it more or less likely than any other order.
What if we reshuffle (perfectly) and I am dealt the same Royal Flush in the same order. What are the odds of this? The same as above. The two incidents are independent.
Now what about the odds of me getting that Royal Flush, and then getting 7h,9c,Ks,8c,2d the second hand? The same as above.
What are the odds if we combine the two events? What the odds of me getting that Royal Flush twice in a row? P(x)^2. What are the odds of me getting a Royal Flush and then that rag hand? P(x)^2.
This is exactly what I mean when I say its happenstance. Something had to happen and an improbable outcome does not mean anything in and of itself. That doesn't mean that particular outcome was not unlikely. The second time, the same thing is true - something has to happen but the particular thing that did happen can still be unlikely.
Like Wisconsin, Montana, Vermont, Maine, Iowa, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Connecticut, North Dakota, Kansas, Colorado....
False choice.
Bush intentionally lied the country into a war he intended to launch from before his 'election'. The motivation for this war included the enrichment of his political allies in the form of access to oil and government contracts, a legacy as a "War President" which was inspired by the bump his father got as part of the Gulf War as most of the most renowned Presidents have fought wars (Washington, Lincoln, FDR) and the political capitol he'd get from a successful war to implement the conservative social and economical changes he wanted by using the "political capital" he would later cite after his reelection.
The problem is, he is incompetent. His motives are bad AND he's bad at implementing them. There is nothing mutually exclusive about being an evil mediocre-mind, not even one who manages to gain power.
The US Attorney's Manual makes the difference between criminal contempt and civil contempt
Bill Clinton was not convicted because he never got a trial and the charge was non-criminal.
Clinton's actions were immoral in that he cheated on his wife, but those actions and the subsequent testimony did not meet the standard one would normally require for criminality (let alone "High Crimes and Misdemeanors").
Most of what people call chance is not chance. If two guys bump into each other, and one falls into traffic, his street pizzaness wasn't a result of any thing related to quantum mechanics, but simple mechanical physics and the seeming chaos of the extreme complexity of life. The result of flipping a coin can be determined by sufficiently thorough standard physics without ever involving quantum mechanics.
The existence or non-existence of Free Will. But then, that debate makes the evolution/Creationism debate look like a polite 1 minute conversation on whether to have Coke or Pepsi with lunch.
Thats actually an oversimplification of Occam's Razor (which by its own rules would make itself more true... wait...).
Occam's Razor isn't just about the simplest answer. Its the solution that requires the least assumptions. For instance, asserting the validity of evolution requires the assumption that the scientific method is valid and there hasn't been a massive breakdown in its application. Asserting the validity of Creationism requires an assumption that there is an all powerful diety that created the world. Non-evolution based Creationism requires either a deceptive all-powerful deity or the invalidity of the scientific method or a massive breakdown in its application and the existence of an all powerful deity.
Unfortunately, we can't agree on the number of assumptions required to back these fundamentals so...