How would you propose such an amendment? Congress would never propose a constitutional amendment that limits its own power, and the states would never call for a constitutional convention because of what happened last time we had a convention to "propose amendments" to our federal constitution.
With the current political climate, the only potential amendments to the federal constitution are ones that expand federal powers and/or limit the rights of the people.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Congress can still pull "mandatory chip implants is interstate commerce!" and overrule the Wisconsin law.
"Cloud Strife is the everynerd -- wrapped up in delusions of greatness when allowed to take things on his own carefully-selected terms until he sees the world for what it is and is forced to come to grips with the fact that he's actually completely pathetic."
Except he didn't have all that much control over those "carefully-selected terms." He envied Zack, sure, and he didn't dare tell anybody in his hometown that he ultimately failed in his goal, but after having his mind fucked with, Cloud honestly though he was Zack (or at least that he had really lived Zack's life). And the process that fucked up his mind also made him bad-ass enough to pull it off (even Barrett grudingly admitted that Cloud knew what he was doing). If it was a conscious effort to delude himself, Sephiroth wouldn't have been able to manipulate him; he'd know why it was Zack in the photograph.
"and your childhood crush will fall madly in love with you."
Or the story could be interpreted as "Your childhood crush won't notice you exist until you are both
The only guy left alive (at least from their hometown) and
A total bad-ass that kills things with a sword bigger than he is
It sounds like the author is picking and choosing where to be jaded for maximum effect.
"a promise to nerdlings that if you face down your demons, accept your failures and struggle to move beyond them,"
Except, in this case, his demon is this guy who's calling forth a meteor to destroy the world...
You see, everyone has their own personal El Guapo which they must face one day. For some, shyness may be their El Guapo. For others, a lack of education may be their El Guapo. For us, our El Guapo is a big, ugly guy who wants to kill us. But I believe that if the people of this town work together, that they can overcome their personal El Guapos, who in this case happens to be the actual El Guapo.
"By touching the mobile against the 'Flytag' logo at each of these locations, users can pay for services or receive information straight to their phone."
Cashless society for those that can afford cell phones!
"A slew of Chinese web portals have pledged to self-police even more, after signing on to a Beijing plan to 'clean up the internet'. Google and MSN have not joined the group."
Time for 50+ posts explaining to us how, if it's not a government doing it, it's not censorship.
"In an enormous number of cases, the difference between winning an election and losing it can come down to 1-2% of the voters."
"Enormous number?" Got a source?
Here in reality, most US elections are won by supermajorities of 80%+, a member of the House of Representatives is more likely to be indicted or die in office than to lose an election. It's called "gerrymandering."
"You have plenty of choice. A vote for a third candidate does not throw your vote away - even if that candidate is not elected, an increase in other party's showing sends a message to the incumbrents."
And what message is that? "The state legislatures have successfully gerrymandered dissenters into obscurity, leaving the incumbents to continue to ignore them completely?"
Except for statewide offices, our "elected leaders" are chosen not by the ballot box, but years prior in the state houses. American democracy is about the legislators picking their voters, not the other way around, and unless that changes, even a vote for a major party candidate is a waste of time.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient(.)
Just because he blustered his own party into supporting it doesn't mean that the presidency isn't a constitutionally-authorized bully pulpit.
"These people can get away with it as long as the voters blame everything that they do on Bush."
What do they care? Senators might have to worry once every six years or so, but the state legislatures ensure that incumbents don't lose in the House.
"The new bill is designed to give the Justice Department 'tools to combat IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales."
No, terrorism is 99.9% funded at the gas pump. For every fraction of a cent Osama might get from "IP crime" (assuming that he actually does), he gets a buck from your fill-up. Where are the laws limiting gasoline consumption to "fight terror" and "save the children?"
If Gonzales is going to make statements like this, he damned well better have the evidence to back this up. If he "knows" that "terrorists" are making money from it, then he should have an idea how much money is being made from it and how it is reflected in terror's budget overall.
"If it stops thousands of molestations, but enables 1, don't you think it's a bit better to have the law"
So it's all about the numbers? What if that one child is yours or a friend's? And what about the fact that you, a voter, would facilitate it by both supporting the law and helping to support the molester in office?
"Guess you miss the part where I said "REAL study""
In reality, those "real studies" don't happen. Power corrupts.
"The FCC regulates radio spectrum and the Internet, because both are Interstate services."
I'd rather have a local government trying to save me from unsecured WiFi than a national government trying to save me from stray boobies, thanks. Especially when I don't live in that local government's jurisdiction.
"It gives the federal government the right to regulate: "Interstate Commerce"."
Unless you set up your WAP at the state line, 802.11b/g/a seems pretty intrastate to me.
"Since radio waves don't respect state boundaries, courts have determined they are INTERSTATE in nature!!"
References?
Maybe back in the days of when everything was in the mediumwave or shortwave spectrums, but now all anybody ever does is tune in to UHF and VHF radio and television signals, which more often than not stay wholly within a single state.
The federal constitution doesn't simply say "The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce," there's an adjective in there for a reason.
Well, considering how the idea of moral rights with respect to artists gives the creators the power "to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work," leaving them to decide what is and is not "derogatory" (i. e. "If I didn't get my check, it's derogatory,") I'd say "yes."
"If the government was actually interested in curbing child pornography, they'd attack it at the source: Fucked up society."
You're forgetting that democratic governments tend to reflect the society in question. The only way things are going to change is if people decied to change themselves.
"Well what ARE you more concerned about? Your privacy, or the safety of America's children?"
And what happens when these new government tools are used by government officials to molest children? If the next Brian Doyle is able to use his power and influence in the federal government to use these records to determine who's really a fourteen year-old girl and who's state law enforcement, where will we be then?
"Then if it's enacted, a study after a trial period to determine how effective the new laws really have been, and how much they've been used against other cases."
And these studies won't be slanted towards keeping the laws on the books? As I recall, the Digital Milennium Copyright Act calls for frequent studies like what you're calling for, and yet the Library of Congress keeps saying it's A-OK.
"eBay is looking for partners to defend against the growing threat of Google."
They could perhaps try being creative for once. I haven't seen any new ideas from eBay beyond "Yeah, we can buy PayPal!" I'm personally sick of having to sift through offers of "information CDs" and "ZOMG just like the real thing only not!" to get to what I want, to the point where I think eBay could seriously use a personal blacklist feature for blocking search results from certain sellers.
If nothing else, they need to encourage sellers to use the Dutch Auction feature more instead of cluttering the system with 27 identical simultaneous auctions.
"won them the attentions of Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who, though normally an advocate of a state's right to its own resources, has made an exception for Massachusetts and helped pass an amendment designed to kill the project altogether."
No, Representative Young is an advocate of "Get Representative Young re-elected." Calls of federalism are only used to try to scuttle federal legislation you personally don't like, and conveniently forgotten when one state or another does something you personally don't agree with ("ZOMG! California's legallized marijuana! Interstate commerce!").
Seriously, Alaska wants Massachusetts to buy more oil. Duh!
Interpretation vs. letter of the law doesn't matter, since we're not talking about (or getting) what should happen, but rather what is happening. The vast majority of people in this country want one government to take care of everything, as federalism either is tainted by abuses or simply makes the voters' heads hurt. The state governments are also in favor of this centralization as not only does it make their job easier (and cushy), but they all have plans to run for federal office themselves one day and hope to use that power when they get there.
The federal constitution is little more than a political Swiss Army Knife that can be wrapped around almost anything with enough work, giving apparent legitimacy to anything, especially considering the way its authors are revered (First Amendment nothing, the state religion involves worshipping the "Founding Fathers" themselves, to the point of ignoring the documents they wrote). What Congress and their constituents want, they get.
You're forgetting the main hurdle: lugging around a USB keyboard (and mini-USB adapter). So long as they rely on multi-language servers and their auto-translate, the most you'll see is a proof-of-concept PSP FFXI client.
It's the role of everybody in the government not to violate them to begin with. The three branches of the federal government are arranged in such a way as to try to hold each other accountable, but single-party rule kinda throws that out the window.
The people are also supposed to protect their civil liberties through bills of rights, and state constitutions and the courts that interpret them tend to enact more rigorous protections of those rights than their federal counterparts, but, of course, that doesn't stop the federal government themselves.
In a republican government, it's ultimately up to the people themselves to protect their rights. Whether or not the federal government is truly republican, though, is debatable.
Slashdot Mirror
How would you propose such an amendment? Congress would never propose a constitutional amendment that limits its own power, and the states would never call for a constitutional convention because of what happened last time we had a convention to "propose amendments" to our federal constitution.
With the current political climate, the only potential amendments to the federal constitution are ones that expand federal powers and/or limit the rights of the people.
Except he didn't have all that much control over those "carefully-selected terms." He envied Zack, sure, and he didn't dare tell anybody in his hometown that he ultimately failed in his goal, but after having his mind fucked with, Cloud honestly though he was Zack (or at least that he had really lived Zack's life). And the process that fucked up his mind also made him bad-ass enough to pull it off (even Barrett grudingly admitted that Cloud knew what he was doing). If it was a conscious effort to delude himself, Sephiroth wouldn't have been able to manipulate him; he'd know why it was Zack in the photograph.
"and your childhood crush will fall madly in love with you."
Or the story could be interpreted as "Your childhood crush won't notice you exist until you are both
- The only guy left alive (at least from their hometown) and
- A total bad-ass that kills things with a sword bigger than he is
It sounds like the author is picking and choosing where to be jaded for maximum effect.Except, in this case, his demon is this guy who's calling forth a meteor to destroy the world...
"By touching the mobile against the 'Flytag' logo at each of these locations, users can pay for services or receive information straight to their phone."
Cashless society for those that can afford cell phones!
"A slew of Chinese web portals have pledged to self-police even more, after signing on to a Beijing plan to 'clean up the internet'. Google and MSN have not joined the group."
Time for 50+ posts explaining to us how, if it's not a government doing it, it's not censorship.
That job offer wasn't really from an exiled Nigerian president.
"In an enormous number of cases, the difference between winning an election and losing it can come down to 1-2% of the voters."
"Enormous number?" Got a source?
Here in reality, most US elections are won by supermajorities of 80%+, a member of the House of Representatives is more likely to be indicted or die in office than to lose an election. It's called "gerrymandering."
"You have plenty of choice. A vote for a third candidate does not throw your vote away - even if that candidate is not elected, an increase in other party's showing sends a message to the incumbrents."
And what message is that? "The state legislatures have successfully gerrymandered dissenters into obscurity, leaving the incumbents to continue to ignore them completely?"
Except for statewide offices, our "elected leaders" are chosen not by the ballot box, but years prior in the state houses. American democracy is about the legislators picking their voters, not the other way around, and unless that changes, even a vote for a major party candidate is a waste of time.
Emphasis mine:Just because he blustered his own party into supporting it doesn't mean that the presidency isn't a constitutionally-authorized bully pulpit.
"These people can get away with it as long as the voters blame everything that they do on Bush."
What do they care? Senators might have to worry once every six years or so, but the state legislatures ensure that incumbents don't lose in the House.
"The new bill is designed to give the Justice Department 'tools to combat IP crime' which which are used to 'quite frankly, fund terrorism activities,' according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales."
No, terrorism is 99.9% funded at the gas pump. For every fraction of a cent Osama might get from "IP crime" (assuming that he actually does), he gets a buck from your fill-up. Where are the laws limiting gasoline consumption to "fight terror" and "save the children?"
If Gonzales is going to make statements like this, he damned well better have the evidence to back this up. If he "knows" that "terrorists" are making money from it, then he should have an idea how much money is being made from it and how it is reflected in terror's budget overall.
"If it stops thousands of molestations, but enables 1, don't you think it's a bit better to have the law"
So it's all about the numbers? What if that one child is yours or a friend's? And what about the fact that you, a voter, would facilitate it by both supporting the law and helping to support the molester in office?
"Guess you miss the part where I said "REAL study""
In reality, those "real studies" don't happen. Power corrupts.
"I think we have another 5 years before our living rooms become transformed."
As in "2011" or as in "around the same time as viable fusion, flying cars, and Duke Nukem Forever on the Phantom?"
"The FCC regulates radio spectrum and the Internet, because both are Interstate services."
I'd rather have a local government trying to save me from unsecured WiFi than a national government trying to save me from stray boobies, thanks. Especially when I don't live in that local government's jurisdiction.
"It gives the federal government the right to regulate: "Interstate Commerce"."
Unless you set up your WAP at the state line, 802.11b/g/a seems pretty intrastate to me.
"Since radio waves don't respect state boundaries, courts have determined they are INTERSTATE in nature!!"
References?
Maybe back in the days of when everything was in the mediumwave or shortwave spectrums, but now all anybody ever does is tune in to UHF and VHF radio and television signals, which more often than not stay wholly within a single state.
The federal constitution doesn't simply say "The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce," there's an adjective in there for a reason.
Well, considering how the idea of moral rights with respect to artists gives the creators the power "to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work," leaving them to decide what is and is not "derogatory" (i. e. "If I didn't get my check, it's derogatory,") I'd say "yes."
"If the government was actually interested in curbing child pornography, they'd attack it at the source: Fucked up society."
You're forgetting that democratic governments tend to reflect the society in question. The only way things are going to change is if people decied to change themselves.
"Well what ARE you more concerned about? Your privacy, or the safety of America's children?"
And what happens when these new government tools are used by government officials to molest children? If the next Brian Doyle is able to use his power and influence in the federal government to use these records to determine who's really a fourteen year-old girl and who's state law enforcement, where will we be then?
"Then if it's enacted, a study after a trial period to determine how effective the new laws really have been, and how much they've been used against other cases."
And these studies won't be slanted towards keeping the laws on the books? As I recall, the Digital Milennium Copyright Act calls for frequent studies like what you're calling for, and yet the Library of Congress keeps saying it's A-OK.
You forgot the word "yet." Does the phrase "This website requires Macromedia Flash to run properly" mean anything to you?
"He's thinking of patents."
Actually, no, they aren't. US copyright laws are fucked up, but European copyright laws are fucked up in completely unique ways.
"eBay is looking for partners to defend against the growing threat of Google."
They could perhaps try being creative for once. I haven't seen any new ideas from eBay beyond "Yeah, we can buy PayPal!" I'm personally sick of having to sift through offers of "information CDs" and "ZOMG just like the real thing only not!" to get to what I want, to the point where I think eBay could seriously use a personal blacklist feature for blocking search results from certain sellers.
If nothing else, they need to encourage sellers to use the Dutch Auction feature more instead of cluttering the system with 27 identical simultaneous auctions.
"won them the attentions of Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who, though normally an advocate of a state's right to its own resources, has made an exception for Massachusetts and helped pass an amendment designed to kill the project altogether."
No, Representative Young is an advocate of "Get Representative Young re-elected." Calls of federalism are only used to try to scuttle federal legislation you personally don't like, and conveniently forgotten when one state or another does something you personally don't agree with ("ZOMG! California's legallized marijuana! Interstate commerce!").
Seriously, Alaska wants Massachusetts to buy more oil. Duh!
Interpretation vs. letter of the law doesn't matter, since we're not talking about (or getting) what should happen, but rather what is happening. The vast majority of people in this country want one government to take care of everything, as federalism either is tainted by abuses or simply makes the voters' heads hurt. The state governments are also in favor of this centralization as not only does it make their job easier (and cushy), but they all have plans to run for federal office themselves one day and hope to use that power when they get there.
The federal constitution is little more than a political Swiss Army Knife that can be wrapped around almost anything with enough work, giving apparent legitimacy to anything, especially considering the way its authors are revered (First Amendment nothing, the state religion involves worshipping the "Founding Fathers" themselves, to the point of ignoring the documents they wrote). What Congress and their constituents want, they get.
"So, then doing business with only ISPs within the same state solves THAT."
So naive.
You're forgetting the main hurdle: lugging around a USB keyboard (and mini-USB adapter). So long as they rely on multi-language servers and their auto-translate, the most you'll see is a proof-of-concept PSP FFXI client.
It's the role of everybody in the government not to violate them to begin with. The three branches of the federal government are arranged in such a way as to try to hold each other accountable, but single-party rule kinda throws that out the window.
The people are also supposed to protect their civil liberties through bills of rights, and state constitutions and the courts that interpret them tend to enact more rigorous protections of those rights than their federal counterparts, but, of course, that doesn't stop the federal government themselves.
In a republican government, it's ultimately up to the people themselves to protect their rights. Whether or not the federal government is truly republican, though, is debatable.