Re:Why is the war still raging?
on
"Traffic"
·
· Score: 1
It's cost is certainly prohibitive as compared to other alternatives - as well as to it's former cost when there was a strong viable market in hemp goods. Should that market once again arise (and that requires much more production capability than exists today) prices will again fall to competitive levels.
The United States Constitution, Article II, section 2, paragraph 2 reads as follows:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Looks pretty clear to me. Also clear is that the Constitution places no limits on what a treaty can dictate, which essentially allows treaties to superceed the Constitution. I really don't think this was the intention of the founders.
Here is some commentary found on the senate web site:
''In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, con-sequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract--when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.'' 265 To the same effect, but more accurate, is Justice Miller's language for the Court a half century later, in the Head Money Cases: ''A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforce-ment of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the govern-ments which are parties of it. . . . But a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and which are capa-ble of enforcement as between private parties in the courts of the country.'' 266
263 Cf. Art. I, 5, cl. 1; see also Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276, 283-284 (1919). 264 For instance, see S. CRANDALL, TREATIES, THEIR MAKING AND ENFORCEMENT (Washington: 2d ed. 1916), 53; CRS Study, op. cit., n. 264, 109-120. 265 Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. (27 U.S.) 253, 314 (1829). See THE FEDERALIST, No. 75 (J. Cooke ed., 1961), 504-505. 266 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884). For treaty provisions operative as ''law of the land'' (self-executing), see S. CRANDALL, op. cit., n. 264, 36-42, 49-62, 151, 153-163, 179, 238-239, 286, 321, 338, 345-346. For treaty provisions of an ''executory'' character, see id., 162-163, 232, 236, 238, 493, 497, 532, 570, 589. See also CRS Study, op. cit., n. 262, 41-68; RESTATEMENT, FOREIGN RELATIONS, op. cit., n. 262, 111-115.
"Led by artists, and for artists, AAP receives funding from a variety of sources in the entertainment and technology communities. Corporate supporters include the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, the Recording Industry Association of America, and Reciprocal, Inc, Cognicity, myplay, inc., PlayJ, Supertracks and The Walt Disney Company."
Since you are such a chucklehead, I'll just quote it here:
Sexual Rights We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity. We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles.
Are you incapable or reading? The word adult in there clearly spells out the intended purpose. It does not state that children may be used or abused by adults and any attempt to read it that way is quite dishonest.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe... People like you?
It's cost is certainly prohibitive as compared to other alternatives - as well as to it's former cost when there was a strong viable market in hemp goods. Should that market once again arise (and that requires much more production capability than exists today) prices will again fall to competitive levels.
Here's hoping that happens soon!
What are the odds of an ATI employee getting in on this? :)
:(
Probably pretty low.
You couldn't find it? It took me all of three tries. Look on mynapster (via napigator) - file size 5,394,560.
Which is all well and good unless you are one of those eggs.
The United States Constitution, Article II, section 2, paragraph 2 reads as follows:
i tution/con005.pdf
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Looks pretty clear to me. Also clear is that the Constitution places no limits on what a treaty can dictate, which essentially allows treaties to superceed the Constitution. I really don't think this was the intention of the founders.
Here is some commentary found on the senate web site:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/const
''In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, con-sequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract--when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.'' 265 To the same effect, but more accurate, is Justice Miller's language for the Court a half century later, in the Head Money Cases: ''A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforce-ment of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the govern-ments which are parties of it. . . . But a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and which are capa-ble of enforcement as between private parties in the courts of the country.'' 266
263 Cf. Art. I, 5, cl. 1; see also Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276, 283-284 (1919).
264 For instance, see S. CRANDALL, TREATIES, THEIR MAKING AND ENFORCEMENT (Washington: 2d ed. 1916), 53; CRS Study, op. cit., n. 264, 109-120.
265 Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. (27 U.S.) 253, 314 (1829). See THE FEDERALIST, No. 75 (J. Cooke ed., 1961), 504-505.
266 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884). For treaty provisions operative as ''law of the land''
(self-executing), see S. CRANDALL, op. cit., n. 264, 36-42, 49-62, 151, 153-163, 179, 238-239, 286, 321, 338, 345-346. For treaty provisions of an ''executory'' character, see id., 162-163, 232, 236, 238, 493, 497, 532, 570, 589. See also CRS Study, op. cit., n. 262, 41-68; RESTATEMENT, FOREIGN RELATIONS, op. cit., n. 262, 111-115.
"Led by artists, and for artists, AAP receives funding from a variety of sources in the entertainment and technology communities.
Corporate supporters include the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, the Recording Industry Association of America, and Reciprocal, Inc, Cognicity, myplay, inc., PlayJ, Supertracks and The Walt Disney Company."
RIAA again. Is anyone surprised?
sony.com domain registered 07-Jul-1989.
Why would you steal something if purchasing it was cheap and easy?
By purchasing it you support the songs creator, thus encouraging further creations from that artist.
Enlightened self-interest will do far more than any law or decree from the RIAA.
There is no line item veto. It was declared unconstitutional by the supremes.