No, FDR told the Supreme Court Chief Justice of the time that if they opposed him on any of his New Deal bills he would appoint enough justices to get a majority to uphold what he wanted. He threatened to stack the court. He wasn't asking for a bill to increase it's size. He was using the fact that there is NO set size and the fact that the Senate was ready to rubberstamp anything he did, to force the court one way or another to go along as well.
He was in fact threatening to stack the court.
There are no laws regarding the court size, even today. As I said before, it's been as small as five, but has been sitting at nine for some time. Nobody has nominated beyond nine, but that's only by tradition and not by any law.
I said the same thing, but even with replaceable batteries it was showing it's age in performance as apps keep bloating and demanding more space and more RAM.
Upgraded to an LG last year and haven't looked back. It has user replaceable battery, and an audio jack, a much faster processor, far more RAM and storage. And I escaped the Samsung Touchwiz crapola as well.
So your answer to the benefits of a smartphone is to carry additional devices, have no access to a FORECAST of the weather, and or carry yet another device, with anther data service plan on top of it.
You sir are what is called a Luddite and an idiot. Multiple less capable devices to replace a smart phone. The idea is to get more capabilities not less. And to put it in a single device, not have to carry multiple devices.
You can get a fully capable smartphone for far less than $1000. Last year I went on Ebay and bought an LGV20 from a reputable dealer for $200. It was a refurbished model. I made the purchase about a month before the V30 came out so it was still top of the line for LG. Activation by my carrier cost me nothing, it replaced my 4 year old Galaxy S4. Service plan stayed the same as it has been, unlimited data via sprint. $50 a month, plus taxes and fees. I don't like talking to people on the phone so I get far more use out of it for text and email communications than I do from phone calls. So while cost is a little higher than the flip phone, It's far less than 11k every two years.
Yes, The constitution says there is a Supreme Court. It does not specify the size, it has been as small as five justices, to my knowledge it has not been larger than the current nine. But there is nothing anywhere that states what the size should be. Only that the President nominates Justices and the Senate Confirms. Thus the President could nominate as many as he wants.
The only limiting factor is will the Senate confirm. As the Senate was solidly behind FDR his threat to stack the court was seen as unstoppable so the Court capitulated and did not overturn his actions, many of which where considerably unconstitutional, Such as the internment of US citizens of Japanese Ancestry for the duration of the war.
The real question is could a size limit be imposed by standard legislation, or would it take an amendment for it to be constitutional to limit the court to just nine Justices.
Context. FDR was able to threaten to stack the court because there is no set number of justices that must compose the Court. And Congress has never acted to prevent another attempt to stack it. Trump could come out tomorrow and announce that he is going to increase the size of the court and nominate four more justices. The Senate can vote to not confirm, but he can keep nominating.
Just lawsuits for false advertising, and illegal bait and switch practices. Posting the prices brings other laws and rules already existing into play. Hospital posts that they charge $10,000 for an appendectomy, if they charge more they darn well better be able to justify in court why the purchase price did not match the advertised cost. It's not perfect, there will still be room for abuse, but far better to have at least an idea of the cost and a set price to challenge if they do charge more is a big improvement over the current mess.
The fact is the best intelligence is that gathered by trained, experienced agents on the ground. An AI can't go into villages in Afghanistan that have no power and cultivate relationships of trust that result in the production of useful intelligence. The AI can't run agents even in technological countries where often the safest method of transferring information out is via old school mechanical or photo-optical means.
If it's a matter of life and death are you really going to trust that the nation you are spying on hasn't penetrated the security of the networking tools you at using. Or do you pass information via microfiche in a dead-drop. The AI can't pick up the dead-drop placed in the middle of a park.
As I said in my subject line. In the 90's the Clinton Administration thought satellites could do everything and substantially down-sized the Humint capabilities (human agents that talk to humans) of the intelligence community. This meant after 9/11 we were actually scrambling to come up with sufficient resources (agents) to do the jobs needed.
This official is an idiot, and hopefully there are others in place who remember the mistakes of the 90's and ignore him. Yes AI can most likely improve the analysis of all the information we can collect. But it still takes humans to collect the most reliable intelligence.
And what are the pirates going to do when they pull along side a freighter off the coast of Somalia, and there is no crew to take hostage or even intimidate? They climb aboard and find the human operated controls are disabled when away from ports where a human pilot might be required.
Pirates won't have much luck pirating a ship with no ability to fear their puny guns. Similarly it will be very difficult to carjack an automated car with no steering wheel.
The Casino's have donation machines in their lobbies. Thousands of them. Just insert your donation and push the button(or pull the lever on some older machines), on rare occasions you might actually get your donation back.
What? You don't want your fridge texting you when the milk starts to sour, or your toaster updating you to how many Pop-tarts your kids ate for breakfast this morning ("76 pop tarts seems a little excessive for three children boss, should I cut them off or let their teachers enjoy their sugar psychosis?")
Your lightbulbs could post to Facebook whenever you turn them on letting all your "friends" know when you are home from work in the evening. Your stove will share when dinner is done cooking so they know not to call for half an hour (except the advertisers will hack this info and use it to know when to call).
Not charged does not equal innocent. Oh it does in the eyes of the Law but not in reality. Let's take the Email server.
For that alone she should have been charged with 100+ counts of negligent mishandling of classified information. I would posit that intentional mishandling would be more appropriate but at a minimum she should have faced charges for negligence. When Dir Comey had his press conference in July of 2012 (just days after the infamous Arizona Tarmac meeting between his Boss Lynch and Bill Clinton) he described what the FBI investigators had found.
He detailed over 100 email conversations that contained information that was classified at the time it was put into those emails. Then he tried to waive it off saying it was mere negligence and nobody would prosecute.
Except that one of the crimes outlined in the Espionage Act is Negligent mishandling of Classified information: Which is allowing classified information to be exposed to possible access by non-authorized persons through negligence. It's a Felony charge with up to 5 years in prison per instance. When handling the classified information of this country you don't get to be negligent. Saying oops I didn't mean to leave that classified document unsecure on my desk is not an acceptable answer.
He detailed 100+ email conversations that did just that. And even if every single instance was purely accidental inclusion it's still a Federal Felony. And contrary to Comey's claim yes people do get prosecuted and convicted of that crime. Usually for a single instance conviction is very unlikely. But for an extensive pattern of such negligence, yes people do get prosecuted and convicted for far less than what he waived away.
I don't really want to see an old woman go to jail for such, but she needs to face the charges. If she can beat the charges outright, or plea it down to a public apology fine. But she needs to face the charges. Yet due to the corrupt political machine she and her husband head, the fix was in and she got off scot free.
This is my professional opinion after a 20 year career in Army CounterIntelligence, investigating and recommending people for prosecution for just such crimes. Just as the FBI should have done in her case.
I've been rather pleased with what President Trump has accomplished, yes his twitter account needs to be shut down. But he wasn't my choice for the GOP nominee. But anyone else who ran would have been a better option than she was. Even openly socialist Bernie was a far better option. I didn't vote for Trump. I voted against Hillary.
Pit maneuver, or just ramming are used to prevent accidents. Police use their cars to intentionally crash into fleeing vehicles to stop them. Usually they resort to this technique to avoid accidents that would involve innocents.
She was never got further in than an open courtyard accessible to the public. They went with lover's quarrel because surely a female can't just go on a shooting rampage unless it's over a broken heart.
No they are not. You can't take a sample casing and expect it to match one from a few hundred rounds later from a different manufacturer. Especially if the cartridges were carried loose allowing them to scratch each other randomly. So a sample casing collected at manufacture or time of sale will not long match it's scratches and nicks to those made by the gun. And micro-stamping has never been made to work.
The other method of matching a gun, bullet rifling is done with a seized or found weapon to match it back to the rifling on a bullet. Not the other way around. Again common use can introduce new scratches over time (miss-using a cleaning rod for example) that will change the profile sufficiently to cause doubt as to the match.
Please stop relying on the movies and CSI TV shows for your firearm education.
They actually do. When Australia imposed their ban and confiscation in 1997, the suicide by firearm rate dropped substantially (like to virtually nil) But the overall Suicide rate didn't drop. In fact it spiked dramatically the following year (I haven't seen a reason for that) but if you ignore that it returned to the long term average rate.
Their suicide rate didn't drop significantly until 2003 after they legally redefined the criteria for calling a death a suicide, moving many suicides to be classified as accidents instead.
Guns don't cause suicides, take away the guns and the suicides still happen. The firearm is a method to the end, if a particular method is not available, those seeking to end this life just find another method to use.
Well your opinion is not based in fact. The Gun industry has it's own lobby, the NSSF. The NRA is the millions of American Citizens who are members. Yes they get some money from the industry, mostly in the form of advertising in their publications.
But they speak for the people. The industry doesn't need the NRA. Also the NRA is global leader in real firearm training and firearm safety training. Go to any gun range and ask the Range Safeties who they are certified by. NRA. Ask the most instructors who certified them: NRA. Look at most youth organizations that have shooting activities, who's firearms safety and handling rules do they follow: the NRA.
No organization does more for firearm safety than the NRA. Nobody comes anywhere close.
"Guns so happen to kill people." That vast majority never kill anyone. None of mine have. None of the guns owned by my family have killed anyone. Many Deer and rabbits and various game birds yes, no people. They have also poked holes in many paper targets, but never a person. The vast majority of gun owners can and will say the exact same thing.
AR-15: "Then what is it, exactly? You go hunting with that thing?" Yes, deer, varmints, wild hogs and many other game species are hunted with AR's. Best of all they are fun to plink with. Oh and thanks to modern advances like the collapsible stock, everyone in my family from my 8 year old on up can adjust the gun quickly so it fits them comfortably for easier more accurate shooting.
To get a divers license you have to prove so many hours of practice, and pass a written and practical test. No certification of having attended drivers Ed is required in most states.
Persian woman wearing a headscarf in sunny CA? That's a pretty strong indicator. Most non-muslim women ditch the scarves as soon as they get out of middle eastern nations where they are mandated regardless of ones faith.
This event does not qualify as a mass shooting. It is a rampage shooting. A mass shooting has 4 or more fatalities (other than the shooter). So stick to the event at hand, gun violence.
Walking corn plants can be herded to new fields from time to time allowing the moisture and nutrient content of the soil to be scientifically replenished between field occupations without so much being wasted when splashed on the more stationary plants of today where so much evaporates off the leaves and stalks rather than getting into the soil for the roots to drink.
They also reduce the number of combines a Farmer needs, instead of needing five or six to harvest a farm working one field at a time. This will allow one to be set in a stationary position at the end of a harvest funnel, and the Corn is herded from all the fields of the farm into the combine. The combine of course is co-located with the Silo and dumps the harvested corn directly into the Silo eliminating the need for trucks to catch the harvested corn and haul it from the fields to the Silos. It will take some work training dogs to herd corn effectively as the current herding breeds tend to ignore plants looking for cows or sheep to herd.
Seriously you are really missing what an incredible idea walking corn would be.
At least until it learns how to make rudimentary tools and weapons.
Not that I necessarily agree with his claims or at least how he describes them. But as President if he has concern over the growing monopoly level power and influence a company has and is creating, it is his obligation to speak out and even possibly direct anti-trust proceedings to begin. Amazon and a few other companies want to be and do everything and they are leveraging their size, taking losses in some branches to drive out competition.
Again, his wording makes it hard to agree with. But with the way amazon is trying to push it's reach further and further, there is a basis for his comments. It's not tortious interference if the Justice dept starts looking into anti-trust issues.
He has to abide by UK laws in how his business operates in the UK. But he still has no obligation to go before Parliament. He is a US Citizen, not a British subject. Parliament can tax or fine FB and even shut it down in the UK (and face the outrage of the people for blocking their FB feeds). It cannot compel a citizen from another country to testify before it. If the actions of his company are criminal acts they can indict him, and then try to extradite him to the UK to face those charges. But that would be to face charges in criminal court, not testify before Parliament.
He will testify before the US Congress, as is proper. The UK Parliament can go fly a kite.
If they can come up with an extraditable criminal charge then ok. But this was a request to testify, not face criminal charges. Additionally, as a US Citizen he is not subject to Parliament or it's whims so that charge is not one that we would extradite for. Thus as he is subject to Congressional Subpoena's (and contempt of Congress) he is testifying there.
You cannot hold a citizen of another nation with no allegiance to your government in contempt of requests or demands of that government.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can actually reason with an asshole and even get one to occasionally agree that he/she is wrong and is just being an asshole to be an asshole.
There is no reasoning with an SWJ, nor are they capable of admitting when they are wrong.
I'll take the asshole every day of the week.
No, FDR told the Supreme Court Chief Justice of the time that if they opposed him on any of his New Deal bills he would appoint enough justices to get a majority to uphold what he wanted. He threatened to stack the court. He wasn't asking for a bill to increase it's size. He was using the fact that there is NO set size and the fact that the Senate was ready to rubberstamp anything he did, to force the court one way or another to go along as well.
He was in fact threatening to stack the court.
There are no laws regarding the court size, even today. As I said before, it's been as small as five, but has been sitting at nine for some time. Nobody has nominated beyond nine, but that's only by tradition and not by any law.
I said the same thing, but even with replaceable batteries it was showing it's age in performance as apps keep bloating and demanding more space and more RAM.
Upgraded to an LG last year and haven't looked back. It has user replaceable battery, and an audio jack, a much faster processor, far more RAM and storage. And I escaped the Samsung Touchwiz crapola as well.
So your answer to the benefits of a smartphone is to carry additional devices, have no access to a FORECAST of the weather, and or carry yet another device, with anther data service plan on top of it.
You sir are what is called a Luddite and an idiot. Multiple less capable devices to replace a smart phone. The idea is to get more capabilities not less. And to put it in a single device, not have to carry multiple devices.
You can get a fully capable smartphone for far less than $1000. Last year I went on Ebay and bought an LGV20 from a reputable dealer for $200. It was a refurbished model. I made the purchase about a month before the V30 came out so it was still top of the line for LG. Activation by my carrier cost me nothing, it replaced my 4 year old Galaxy S4. Service plan stayed the same as it has been, unlimited data via sprint. $50 a month, plus taxes and fees. I don't like talking to people on the phone so I get far more use out of it for text and email communications than I do from phone calls. So while cost is a little higher than the flip phone, It's far less than 11k every two years.
Yes, The constitution says there is a Supreme Court. It does not specify the size, it has been as small as five justices, to my knowledge it has not been larger than the current nine. But there is nothing anywhere that states what the size should be. Only that the President nominates Justices and the Senate Confirms. Thus the President could nominate as many as he wants.
The only limiting factor is will the Senate confirm. As the Senate was solidly behind FDR his threat to stack the court was seen as unstoppable so the Court capitulated and did not overturn his actions, many of which where considerably unconstitutional, Such as the internment of US citizens of Japanese Ancestry for the duration of the war.
The real question is could a size limit be imposed by standard legislation, or would it take an amendment for it to be constitutional to limit the court to just nine Justices.
Context. FDR was able to threaten to stack the court because there is no set number of justices that must compose the Court. And Congress has never acted to prevent another attempt to stack it. Trump could come out tomorrow and announce that he is going to increase the size of the court and nominate four more justices. The Senate can vote to not confirm, but he can keep nominating.
Just lawsuits for false advertising, and illegal bait and switch practices. Posting the prices brings other laws and rules already existing into play. Hospital posts that they charge $10,000 for an appendectomy, if they charge more they darn well better be able to justify in court why the purchase price did not match the advertised cost. It's not perfect, there will still be room for abuse, but far better to have at least an idea of the cost and a set price to challenge if they do charge more is a big improvement over the current mess.
The fact is the best intelligence is that gathered by trained, experienced agents on the ground. An AI can't go into villages in Afghanistan that have no power and cultivate relationships of trust that result in the production of useful intelligence. The AI can't run agents even in technological countries where often the safest method of transferring information out is via old school mechanical or photo-optical means.
If it's a matter of life and death are you really going to trust that the nation you are spying on hasn't penetrated the security of the networking tools you at using. Or do you pass information via microfiche in a dead-drop. The AI can't pick up the dead-drop placed in the middle of a park.
As I said in my subject line. In the 90's the Clinton Administration thought satellites could do everything and substantially down-sized the Humint capabilities (human agents that talk to humans) of the intelligence community. This meant after 9/11 we were actually scrambling to come up with sufficient resources (agents) to do the jobs needed.
This official is an idiot, and hopefully there are others in place who remember the mistakes of the 90's and ignore him. Yes AI can most likely improve the analysis of all the information we can collect. But it still takes humans to collect the most reliable intelligence.
And what are the pirates going to do when they pull along side a freighter off the coast of Somalia, and there is no crew to take hostage or even intimidate? They climb aboard and find the human operated controls are disabled when away from ports where a human pilot might be required.
Pirates won't have much luck pirating a ship with no ability to fear their puny guns. Similarly it will be very difficult to carjack an automated car with no steering wheel.
The Casino's have donation machines in their lobbies. Thousands of them. Just insert your donation and push the button(or pull the lever on some older machines), on rare occasions you might actually get your donation back.
What? You don't want your fridge texting you when the milk starts to sour, or your toaster updating you to how many Pop-tarts your kids ate for breakfast this morning ("76 pop tarts seems a little excessive for three children boss, should I cut them off or let their teachers enjoy their sugar psychosis?")
Your lightbulbs could post to Facebook whenever you turn them on letting all your "friends" know when you are home from work in the evening. Your stove will share when dinner is done cooking so they know not to call for half an hour (except the advertisers will hack this info and use it to know when to call).
Not charged does not equal innocent. Oh it does in the eyes of the Law but not in reality. Let's take the Email server.
For that alone she should have been charged with 100+ counts of negligent mishandling of classified information. I would posit that intentional mishandling would be more appropriate but at a minimum she should have faced charges for negligence. When Dir Comey had his press conference in July of 2012 (just days after the infamous Arizona Tarmac meeting between his Boss Lynch and Bill Clinton) he described what the FBI investigators had found.
He detailed over 100 email conversations that contained information that was classified at the time it was put into those emails. Then he tried to waive it off saying it was mere negligence and nobody would prosecute.
Except that one of the crimes outlined in the Espionage Act is Negligent mishandling of Classified information: Which is allowing classified information to be exposed to possible access by non-authorized persons through negligence. It's a Felony charge with up to 5 years in prison per instance. When handling the classified information of this country you don't get to be negligent. Saying oops I didn't mean to leave that classified document unsecure on my desk is not an acceptable answer.
He detailed 100+ email conversations that did just that. And even if every single instance was purely accidental inclusion it's still a Federal Felony. And contrary to Comey's claim yes people do get prosecuted and convicted of that crime. Usually for a single instance conviction is very unlikely. But for an extensive pattern of such negligence, yes people do get prosecuted and convicted for far less than what he waived away.
I don't really want to see an old woman go to jail for such, but she needs to face the charges. If she can beat the charges outright, or plea it down to a public apology fine. But she needs to face the charges. Yet due to the corrupt political machine she and her husband head, the fix was in and she got off scot free.
This is my professional opinion after a 20 year career in Army CounterIntelligence, investigating and recommending people for prosecution for just such crimes. Just as the FBI should have done in her case.
I've been rather pleased with what President Trump has accomplished, yes his twitter account needs to be shut down. But he wasn't my choice for the GOP nominee. But anyone else who ran would have been a better option than she was. Even openly socialist Bernie was a far better option. I didn't vote for Trump. I voted against Hillary.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/london-murder-rate-higher-new-york-city-first-time-surging-knife-gun-crime/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/01/south-london-stabbing-death-brings-capitals-tally-to-31-this-year
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/teenage-girls-killed-as-london-murder-rate-outstrips-new-york-for-first-time/news-story/e36a80d11985b3d72d0f9f00887f3c69
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5566689/London-murder-rate-overtakes-New-York-time-including-11-killings-just-16-days.html
All those and several more articles found on first page of search results. All these articles published in the last few days.
Pit maneuver, or just ramming are used to prevent accidents. Police use their cars to intentionally crash into fleeing vehicles to stop them. Usually they resort to this technique to avoid accidents that would involve innocents.
She was never got further in than an open courtyard accessible to the public. They went with lover's quarrel because surely a female can't just go on a shooting rampage unless it's over a broken heart.
No they are not. You can't take a sample casing and expect it to match one from a few hundred rounds later from a different manufacturer. Especially if the cartridges were carried loose allowing them to scratch each other randomly. So a sample casing collected at manufacture or time of sale will not long match it's scratches and nicks to those made by the gun. And micro-stamping has never been made to work.
The other method of matching a gun, bullet rifling is done with a seized or found weapon to match it back to the rifling on a bullet. Not the other way around. Again common use can introduce new scratches over time (miss-using a cleaning rod for example) that will change the profile sufficiently to cause doubt as to the match.
Please stop relying on the movies and CSI TV shows for your firearm education.
They actually do. When Australia imposed their ban and confiscation in 1997, the suicide by firearm rate dropped substantially (like to virtually nil) But the overall Suicide rate didn't drop. In fact it spiked dramatically the following year (I haven't seen a reason for that) but if you ignore that it returned to the long term average rate.
Their suicide rate didn't drop significantly until 2003 after they legally redefined the criteria for calling a death a suicide, moving many suicides to be classified as accidents instead.
Guns don't cause suicides, take away the guns and the suicides still happen. The firearm is a method to the end, if a particular method is not available, those seeking to end this life just find another method to use.
Well your opinion is not based in fact. The Gun industry has it's own lobby, the NSSF. The NRA is the millions of American Citizens who are members. Yes they get some money from the industry, mostly in the form of advertising in their publications.
But they speak for the people. The industry doesn't need the NRA. Also the NRA is global leader in real firearm training and firearm safety training. Go to any gun range and ask the Range Safeties who they are certified by. NRA. Ask the most instructors who certified them: NRA. Look at most youth organizations that have shooting activities, who's firearms safety and handling rules do they follow: the NRA.
No organization does more for firearm safety than the NRA. Nobody comes anywhere close.
"Guns so happen to kill people."
That vast majority never kill anyone. None of mine have. None of the guns owned by my family have killed anyone. Many Deer and rabbits and various game birds yes, no people. They have also poked holes in many paper targets, but never a person. The vast majority of gun owners can and will say the exact same thing.
AR-15:
"Then what is it, exactly? You go hunting with that thing?"
Yes, deer, varmints, wild hogs and many other game species are hunted with AR's. Best of all they are fun to plink with. Oh and thanks to modern advances like the collapsible stock, everyone in my family from my 8 year old on up can adjust the gun quickly so it fits them comfortably for easier more accurate shooting.
To get a divers license you have to prove so many hours of practice, and pass a written and practical test. No certification of having attended drivers Ed is required in most states.
Persian woman wearing a headscarf in sunny CA? That's a pretty strong indicator. Most non-muslim women ditch the scarves as soon as they get out of middle eastern nations where they are mandated regardless of ones faith.
This event does not qualify as a mass shooting. It is a rampage shooting. A mass shooting has 4 or more fatalities (other than the shooter). So stick to the event at hand, gun violence.
Walking corn plants can be herded to new fields from time to time allowing the moisture and nutrient content of the soil to be scientifically replenished between field occupations without so much being wasted when splashed on the more stationary plants of today where so much evaporates off the leaves and stalks rather than getting into the soil for the roots to drink.
They also reduce the number of combines a Farmer needs, instead of needing five or six to harvest a farm working one field at a time. This will allow one to be set in a stationary position at the end of a harvest funnel, and the Corn is herded from all the fields of the farm into the combine. The combine of course is co-located with the Silo and dumps the harvested corn directly into the Silo eliminating the need for trucks to catch the harvested corn and haul it from the fields to the Silos. It will take some work training dogs to herd corn effectively as the current herding breeds tend to ignore plants looking for cows or sheep to herd.
Seriously you are really missing what an incredible idea walking corn would be.
At least until it learns how to make rudimentary tools and weapons.
Not that I necessarily agree with his claims or at least how he describes them. But as President if he has concern over the growing monopoly level power and influence a company has and is creating, it is his obligation to speak out and even possibly direct anti-trust proceedings to begin. Amazon and a few other companies want to be and do everything and they are leveraging their size, taking losses in some branches to drive out competition.
Again, his wording makes it hard to agree with. But with the way amazon is trying to push it's reach further and further, there is a basis for his comments. It's not tortious interference if the Justice dept starts looking into anti-trust issues.
He has to abide by UK laws in how his business operates in the UK. But he still has no obligation to go before Parliament. He is a US Citizen, not a British subject. Parliament can tax or fine FB and even shut it down in the UK (and face the outrage of the people for blocking their FB feeds). It cannot compel a citizen from another country to testify before it. If the actions of his company are criminal acts they can indict him, and then try to extradite him to the UK to face those charges. But that would be to face charges in criminal court, not testify before Parliament.
He will testify before the US Congress, as is proper. The UK Parliament can go fly a kite.
If they can come up with an extraditable criminal charge then ok. But this was a request to testify, not face criminal charges. Additionally, as a US Citizen he is not subject to Parliament or it's whims so that charge is not one that we would extradite for. Thus as he is subject to Congressional Subpoena's (and contempt of Congress) he is testifying there.
You cannot hold a citizen of another nation with no allegiance to your government in contempt of requests or demands of that government.