"Somewhere in time (1930s?), Congress began to expand its realm and the Courts acquiessed."
As tempting as it is for those espousing conservative political views to blame the New Deal, it actually stems from 1913. Unfunded mandates are nothing more than a natural consequence of removing the state legislatures' ability to say "no."
This is not to say that the states themselves have not been complicit in this (after all, they only object to expansion of federal powers when it's politically expedient), but blaming politicians rather than the system they now use to gain power is treating the symptoms rather than the disease.
"What is needed is a concerted challenge in SCOTUS to return Congress to its legitimate role of legislating within its enumerated powers, and spending within those powers."
What you propose is a reactive solution, requiring constant challenges from outside agents against the federal government in federal courts against particular legislative acts. Of course, it's more politically expedient than a proactive course.
"So, they can legislate all the social programs, etc. you want. Local officials locally responsible."
You presume that the states don't want federal control over such social programs. Contentious political issues can end a political career, and a federal legislator with exponentially larger constituencies can take more political risks on such issues than a state legislator, for whom a few votes can make or break an election. State legislatures and officers only challenge Congress when it is politically expedient for them, and wouldn't stick their necks out to jealously guard their constitutional powers if it means siding with terrorists or pedophiles.
And besides, in the specific case of social programs, while the constitutional methods of federal control may be questionable or odious, the benefits and overall cost savings through the economies of scale should be obvious. Even if what you or I propose were to come about, there is certainly no guarantee that the various programs you seem to be against would be ceased rather than reformed through more legitimate means.
"States have successfully legislated uniform reforms (Uniform Commercial Code, for example); but this is not absolute uniformity."
The political risk of enacting the Uniform Commercial Code was negligible at its worst. Disaffected civil libertarians can more easily make their influence felt in state legislative elections, making it more difficult for the states to make such legislation than it would be for federal politicians. Politics that need not be legitimately founded in constitutional concerns can and do get in the way of what is truly "necessary and proper" and there is no guarantee that such concerted, independent efforts could bring about just and effective government. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about the Constitution to begin with, as the Articles of Confederation would have sufficed.
Famously grammar-deficient Slashdot puts up an article referring to "attorneys general" rather than "attorney generals?" Human sacrifice! Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!
"You have a point however, unless I'm mistaken, a Church is private property"
If this were in the United States, I'd agree with you and probably side with the Church, but the Church of England has historically been the officially sanctioned religion of the United Kingdom, and as such there's an argument to be made that the structure is, if only in a sense, public property.
"Plenty of awesome Famicom games we're missing out on right now."
It also just came out 7 months ago and they're only releasing a handful of games every week. There are still plenty of awesome games that were translated.
Forget the large cartridges, the HDD would allow downloading of classic CD-ROM based games, such as TurboGrafx CD, Sega CD, or (dare I say it) Sega Saturn. Who cares if S-E is going to be a bitch about Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games when we could get our Ys and Lunar fixes? And Saturn VC support would have a lot of potential for bringing over all those games that were previously never released outside of Japan.
S-E has already established that they'd rather sell you $40 re-re-re-re-remakes rather than $5 downloads. FFIV is currently being remade for the DS; expect it to get remade at least one more time beyond that before the SNES ROM shows up on the VC.
"Latinamerica declared itself a zone free of nuclear weapons many decades ago,"
They also don't have their own nuclear weapons. Britain and France do.
"My point is that Europe, being equally or even more important strategically could also decide to go neutral on the issue of nuclear weapons."
Even if they were to go neutral in US vs. Russia matters, Russia is still on their doorstep and they still have Europe vs. Russia matters to deal with, along with their own nuclear weapons.
Would it still be so easy for the Spanish-speaking Americas to bow out of the conflict if we were talking about Brazil instead of Russia?
"really what chose do the other countries of the world have"
They could imitate the French or the Swiss and arm themselves to the teeth and not allow foreign military meddling from either side, instead of relying on one or the other to provide a measure of national defense tax-free.
"after all.. america is the ONLY nation currently with FOREIGN militray bases of any significance.."
Because we're the only ones willing to pay for it. Any other member of the former G-7 has the money to do it, but saving money on national defense keeps the voters fat and happy back home.
"under the specter of "ur either fur us.. or agin us""
No, under the specter of "Or you'll have to take care of your own problems." It's so much easier to make problems in the Balkans a "NATO" issue rather than an "EU" one.
And really, with examples like the Poles and the Czechs, there's also the specter of "Or the Russians will come back, just like they've been doing for the past four centuries or so." They're looking for someone to counter the Russians in international affairs for their own protection, and for obvious historical reasons they're not all that willing to trust nuclear Britain or France or non-nuclear Germany to do it.
Like it or not, the United States is about as close to a disinterested third party in European politics as you're going to get, which is why so many European powers, east and west, are so keen on keeping the US and its troops involved in European affairs.
"and just as in the past.. all started by the robber barons of america and it's allies of the day "
Nice way to avoid the phrase "Jewish bankers" there.
"I don't appreciate power plays over my head when the EU has more than enough economic might to not have to deal with this crap coming from the USA trying to install weapons in Europe and the Russians reacting to it."
Part of this "economic might" of Europe comes from not having to pay for your own defense beyond a token military. The price of having others pay for your military defense is to put up with those others deciding matters of military defense for you.
If you really want to see both the Americans and the Russians leave Europe alone, take a stand and enlist in your national military (assuming your country doesn't practice universal conscription).
Does this mean we'll start to see greater adoption of rifles using the "Open Bullet Format" 5.56 NATO round rather than the odd 7.62 caliber that pretty much only the AK uses?
Vista has driver issues that aren't present in XP MCE. Half of my dual-tuning Hauppauge PVR-500 stops working upon installation of Vista, at least until I remove Vista's bundled drivers and install the XP drivers that came with the card instead.
Of course, the major problem introduced by Vista compared to XP MCE for me is that, upon detecting that I'm using component video, Vista assumes I'm using an HDTV and "fixes" the resolution for me during the installation process, making it virtually impossible to complete until I crawl around behind my rig and connect my computer to my television with s-video instead.
The problem is that laws like that are more intended to protect the crown rather than the guy who wears it. An attack on the crown is an attack on those who wield power in the name of it. History is riddled with examples of people with titles from "vizier" to "prime minister" to anything in between who wield power in the name of another and rabidly protect the power and prestige of the throne far more than its occupant, in the name of holding on to their own power.
"The station called for the assassination of Chavez. No wonder its license wasn't renewed. I wonder how long a US network would last if they tried the corresponding thing here."
I believe ABC is still broadcasting the 700 Club, which also called for the assassination of Chavez. >.>
"The only way they're going to get more of that is if the third party games actually sell. Maybe third parties don't care as much because of the extremely low development costs."
But we already have at least one third-party that doesn't want their old games competing with their frequent and pricey re-releases.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like there are going to be a few more wholly unrelated firings that Alberto Gonzales will naturally have nothing to do with coming up!
AT&T Announces Plans to Filter All Mention of Illegal Wiretapping.
"Somewhere in time (1930s?), Congress began to expand its realm and the Courts acquiessed."
As tempting as it is for those espousing conservative political views to blame the New Deal, it actually stems from 1913. Unfunded mandates are nothing more than a natural consequence of removing the state legislatures' ability to say "no."
This is not to say that the states themselves have not been complicit in this (after all, they only object to expansion of federal powers when it's politically expedient), but blaming politicians rather than the system they now use to gain power is treating the symptoms rather than the disease.
"What is needed is a concerted challenge in SCOTUS to return Congress to its legitimate role of legislating within its enumerated powers, and spending within those powers."
What you propose is a reactive solution, requiring constant challenges from outside agents against the federal government in federal courts against particular legislative acts. Of course, it's more politically expedient than a proactive course.
"So, they can legislate all the social programs, etc. you want. Local officials locally responsible."
You presume that the states don't want federal control over such social programs. Contentious political issues can end a political career, and a federal legislator with exponentially larger constituencies can take more political risks on such issues than a state legislator, for whom a few votes can make or break an election. State legislatures and officers only challenge Congress when it is politically expedient for them, and wouldn't stick their necks out to jealously guard their constitutional powers if it means siding with terrorists or pedophiles.
And besides, in the specific case of social programs, while the constitutional methods of federal control may be questionable or odious, the benefits and overall cost savings through the economies of scale should be obvious. Even if what you or I propose were to come about, there is certainly no guarantee that the various programs you seem to be against would be ceased rather than reformed through more legitimate means.
"States have successfully legislated uniform reforms (Uniform Commercial Code, for example); but this is not absolute uniformity."
The political risk of enacting the Uniform Commercial Code was negligible at its worst. Disaffected civil libertarians can more easily make their influence felt in state legislative elections, making it more difficult for the states to make such legislation than it would be for federal politicians. Politics that need not be legitimately founded in constitutional concerns can and do get in the way of what is truly "necessary and proper" and there is no guarantee that such concerted, independent efforts could bring about just and effective government. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about the Constitution to begin with, as the Articles of Confederation would have sufficed.
Finally, someone who can answer the question "How much of the internet is pr0n?"
Famously grammar-deficient Slashdot puts up an article referring to "attorneys general" rather than "attorney generals?" Human sacrifice! Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!
"You have a point however, unless I'm mistaken, a Church is private property"
If this were in the United States, I'd agree with you and probably side with the Church, but the Church of England has historically been the officially sanctioned religion of the United Kingdom, and as such there's an argument to be made that the structure is, if only in a sense, public property.
Except that, in Nintendo's case, "Stockholder's" name is Yamauchi.
"Here's an idea. How about suing them and forcing them to stop?"
Four words:
State secrets
Sovereign immunity
"He was being asked about an entirely consensual (by all accounts) sexual act, to try to establish that he was a harasser?"
Between an employer and employee? Considering this was about harassment in the workplace, it seems relevant to me, but in any case...
"Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky was utterly irrelevant to the case at hand,"
That's something for the judge to decide, not the witness/defendant.
Even the DS has rumble.
"They aren't doing that with any of the other platforms"
ORLY?
"Plenty of awesome Famicom games we're missing out on right now."
It also just came out 7 months ago and they're only releasing a handful of games every week. There are still plenty of awesome games that were translated.
Forget the large cartridges, the HDD would allow downloading of classic CD-ROM based games, such as TurboGrafx CD, Sega CD, or (dare I say it) Sega Saturn. Who cares if S-E is going to be a bitch about Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest games when we could get our Ys and Lunar fixes? And Saturn VC support would have a lot of potential for bringing over all those games that were previously never released outside of Japan.
"early final fantasy games...dragonquest anyone?"
S-E has already established that they'd rather sell you $40 re-re-re-re-remakes rather than $5 downloads. FFIV is currently being remade for the DS; expect it to get remade at least one more time beyond that before the SNES ROM shows up on the VC.
"Latinamerica declared itself a zone free of nuclear weapons many decades ago,"
They also don't have their own nuclear weapons. Britain and France do.
"My point is that Europe, being equally or even more important strategically could also decide to go neutral on the issue of nuclear weapons."
Even if they were to go neutral in US vs. Russia matters, Russia is still on their doorstep and they still have Europe vs. Russia matters to deal with, along with their own nuclear weapons.
Would it still be so easy for the Spanish-speaking Americas to bow out of the conflict if we were talking about Brazil instead of Russia?
"Great title .. "Putin Threatens US""
.. america is the ONLY nation currently with FOREIGN militray bases of any significance .."
.. or agin us""
.. all started by the robber barons of america and it's allies of the day "
You missed four words there.
"really what chose do the other countries of the world have"
They could imitate the French or the Swiss and arm themselves to the teeth and not allow foreign military meddling from either side, instead of relying on one or the other to provide a measure of national defense tax-free.
"after all
Because we're the only ones willing to pay for it. Any other member of the former G-7 has the money to do it, but saving money on national defense keeps the voters fat and happy back home.
"under the specter of "ur either fur us
No, under the specter of "Or you'll have to take care of your own problems." It's so much easier to make problems in the Balkans a "NATO" issue rather than an "EU" one.
And really, with examples like the Poles and the Czechs, there's also the specter of "Or the Russians will come back, just like they've been doing for the past four centuries or so." They're looking for someone to counter the Russians in international affairs for their own protection, and for obvious historical reasons they're not all that willing to trust nuclear Britain or France or non-nuclear Germany to do it.
Like it or not, the United States is about as close to a disinterested third party in European politics as you're going to get, which is why so many European powers, east and west, are so keen on keeping the US and its troops involved in European affairs.
"and just as in the past
Nice way to avoid the phrase "Jewish bankers" there.
"I don't appreciate power plays over my head when the EU has more than enough economic might to not have to deal with this crap coming from the USA trying to install weapons in Europe and the Russians reacting to it."
Part of this "economic might" of Europe comes from not having to pay for your own defense beyond a token military. The price of having others pay for your military defense is to put up with those others deciding matters of military defense for you.
If you really want to see both the Americans and the Russians leave Europe alone, take a stand and enlist in your national military (assuming your country doesn't practice universal conscription).
Does this mean we'll start to see greater adoption of rifles using the "Open Bullet Format" 5.56 NATO round rather than the odd 7.62 caliber that pretty much only the AK uses?
Ammunition wants to be free!
Vista has driver issues that aren't present in XP MCE. Half of my dual-tuning Hauppauge PVR-500 stops working upon installation of Vista, at least until I remove Vista's bundled drivers and install the XP drivers that came with the card instead.
Of course, the major problem introduced by Vista compared to XP MCE for me is that, upon detecting that I'm using component video, Vista assumes I'm using an HDTV and "fixes" the resolution for me during the installation process, making it virtually impossible to complete until I crawl around behind my rig and connect my computer to my television with s-video instead.
But that takes the fun out of shouting "No whammy no whammy no whammy... STOP!" when you feverishly pound your hand on it.
That's what you get for trusting people older than 30.
RENEW!
The problem is that laws like that are more intended to protect the crown rather than the guy who wears it. An attack on the crown is an attack on those who wield power in the name of it. History is riddled with examples of people with titles from "vizier" to "prime minister" to anything in between who wield power in the name of another and rabidly protect the power and prestige of the throne far more than its occupant, in the name of holding on to their own power.
"The station called for the assassination of Chavez. No wonder its license wasn't renewed. I wonder how long a US network would last if they tried the corresponding thing here."
I believe ABC is still broadcasting the 700 Club, which also called for the assassination of Chavez. >.>
"The only way they're going to get more of that is if the third party games actually sell. Maybe third parties don't care as much because of the extremely low development costs."
But we already have at least one third-party that doesn't want their old games competing with their frequent and pricey re-releases.
"Interestingly enough, this sort of thing makes "regular" people the victim of what celebrities have had to endure increasingly for a long time."
But without the paycheck.
The person I'm trying to stalk doesn't live anywhere near one of these street view photo spots. ; ;