It's not only possible, the idea's been around for over a decade. Take a look here. If you remove that vertical polarizer, the display looks white. I remember hearing back around 2000 or so about vendors who would peel the polarizing film of of your laptop display for you.
And what happens when the courts utterly fail in doing their job?
That's the question that the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions addressed. When the federal government oversteps its authority, it's the duty of the states to defend their people from an overreaching federal government, as happened when the Vermont militia stopped the US Army from entering Vermont to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
The constitution is the entirety of the legal basis for the American federal government's existence, and it is binding upon our government no matter where in the world it its operating. Torture is a crime, under the eighth amendment ban of cruel and unusual punishments, and imprisoning anyone without trial is a violation of the government's obligations under the fifth amendment. If the government is going to claim that these are legal actions "because there's a war on", then there's the little problem that no war has been declared by the US congress since 1941.
Well, that's a rather royalist opinion on your part, I must say, and one with which Madison and Jefferson disagreed. (cf. the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.) The supreme court said it was fine and dandy for FDR to steal all the gold in the country and imprison innocent people for their race, but that didn't make it legal. It only meant that the government would pretend it was legal.
The constitution is written in English, not sanskrit. It's not the court's job to tell us what it says, it's their job to enforce it, and they've done a piss poor job of that for a very long time.
it can in fact be banned without a constitutional amendment, thanks to the Controlled Substances Act, or any other number of similar control structures.
The controlled substances act is unconstitutional. If there was any such power in the commerce clause, the 18th amendment would never have been necessary to ban alcohol.
I'm glad to see he changed his mind on such a basic issue as due process of law. I think he'd make a fine secretary of commerce in a Ron Paul administration.
Ron Paul's position on evolution is that it happens, and that it's not the whole story. He makes this clear in his book, Liberty Defined:
The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one’s view about God and the universe.
In a nutshell, it's the same position that the Anglican church reached in the decade or so after Darwin published the Origins of Species.
Yes, the supreme court frequently fails to uphold its duty. What's your point?
It took a constitutional amendment to ban one drug (alcohol), and that amendment has been repealed. There is no remaining authority for the war on drugs at the federal level. If states want to do it, then their state constitutions determine whether they have that authority.
The phrase "general welfare" appears in the preamble, where it's a statement of intentions, not a grant of power, and again in article 1, section 8, where it is a limit on the federal power to tax, requiring all expenditures to be for the general welfare, not for the benefit of any region or group over another. It is not a blanket authorization to do anything and everything that the legislature thinks might be a good idea.
An unconstitutional federal agency puts an honest businessman out of work. If you've had enough of this shit, as well as the rest of the collateral damage from the War On Drugs like the routine violation of the first, fourth, and fifth amendments, by a militarized police force, vote for Ron Paul.
The federal government fully supported slavery for about eighty years. It was federal troops who fought John Brown at Harper's Ferry, and it was the US Army, intent on enforcing the fugitive slave act, that was met at the border of Vermont by the militia, who told them to leave or there would be bloodshed.
> Which it makes it completely useless to make decisions.
The decision is whether to exterminate the termites or let them continue to do the damage. Debasing the currency has the same predictable effects every time a government does it, and that's why we have a clause in the constitution that forbids it.
The Austrian school doesn't presume to say when these collapses will happen, only that they must. It's like watching termites attacking a house. You know it's going to fall eventually, but whether it takes a year or five years depends on far too many factors to predict.
Slashdot Mirror
If the courts said FDR could order the exchange of gold to currency, then it's not theft.
Taking someone's property without their consent is theft. It's one of the things we create governments to protect ourselves against.
-jcr
If you shop around, you can find bricks for less than a dollar each. Quadrocopters are getting cheaper all the time, but they're not that cheap yet.
-jcr
It's not only possible, the idea's been around for over a decade. Take a look here. If you remove that vertical polarizer, the display looks white. I remember hearing back around 2000 or so about vendors who would peel the polarizing film of of your laptop display for you.
-jcr
And what happens when the courts utterly fail in doing their job?
That's the question that the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions addressed. When the federal government oversteps its authority, it's the duty of the states to defend their people from an overreaching federal government, as happened when the Vermont militia stopped the US Army from entering Vermont to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
-jcr
It would still be a cruel punishment, and in any event punishing anyone without a trial is a crime.
-jcr
There is no authority at the federal level to ban marijuana. A state or locality can do so.
-jcr
The constitution is the entirety of the legal basis for the American federal government's existence, and it is binding upon our government no matter where in the world it its operating. Torture is a crime, under the eighth amendment ban of cruel and unusual punishments, and imprisoning anyone without trial is a violation of the government's obligations under the fifth amendment. If the government is going to claim that these are legal actions "because there's a war on", then there's the little problem that no war has been declared by the US congress since 1941.
-jcr
Only the supreme court justices opinions matter.
Well, that's a rather royalist opinion on your part, I must say, and one with which Madison and Jefferson disagreed. (cf. the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.) The supreme court said it was fine and dandy for FDR to steal all the gold in the country and imprison innocent people for their race, but that didn't make it legal. It only meant that the government would pretend it was legal.
The constitution is written in English, not sanskrit. It's not the court's job to tell us what it says, it's their job to enforce it, and they've done a piss poor job of that for a very long time.
-jcr
it can in fact be banned without a constitutional amendment, thanks to the Controlled Substances Act, or any other number of similar control structures.
The controlled substances act is unconstitutional. If there was any such power in the commerce clause, the 18th amendment would never have been necessary to ban alcohol.
-jcr
his devotees stack straw polls
We call it "showing up and voting". If his opponents' supporters can't even be bothered to do likewise, whose fault is that?
-jcr
I'm glad to see he changed his mind on such a basic issue as due process of law. I think he'd make a fine secretary of commerce in a Ron Paul administration.
-jcr
Ron Paul's position on evolution is that it happens, and that it's not the whole story. He makes this clear in his book, Liberty Defined:
The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one’s view about God and the universe.
In a nutshell, it's the same position that the Anglican church reached in the decade or so after Darwin published the Origins of Species.
-jcr
Here you go.
US Constitution, Amendment twenty-one, section one:
-jcr
Gary Johnson disqualified himself when he said he'd continue to violate the constitution by keeping prisoners in gitmo without trial.
-jcr
Yes, the supreme court frequently fails to uphold its duty. What's your point?
It took a constitutional amendment to ban one drug (alcohol), and that amendment has been repealed. There is no remaining authority for the war on drugs at the federal level. If states want to do it, then their state constitutions determine whether they have that authority.
-jcr
General welfare clause.
Oh, for crying out loud. Not that again.
The phrase "general welfare" appears in the preamble, where it's a statement of intentions, not a grant of power, and again in article 1, section 8, where it is a limit on the federal power to tax, requiring all expenditures to be for the general welfare, not for the benefit of any region or group over another. It is not a blanket authorization to do anything and everything that the legislature thinks might be a good idea.
-jcr
No, the problem is the prohibition mindset.
-jcr
An unconstitutional federal agency puts an honest businessman out of work. If you've had enough of this shit, as well as the rest of the collateral damage from the War On Drugs like the routine violation of the first, fourth, and fifth amendments, by a militarized police force, vote for Ron Paul.
-jcr
That place sure doesn't sound like anywhere I'd want to work, let alone keep any money in their stock.
-jcr
The federal government fully supported slavery for about eighty years. It was federal troops who fought John Brown at Harper's Ferry, and it was the US Army, intent on enforcing the fugitive slave act, that was met at the border of Vermont by the militia, who told them to leave or there would be bloodshed.
-jcr
Child abuse is a state matter, last I heard. Why do federal prosecutors have anything to say about it?
-jcr
They can do everything my retail bank used to do, my debit card works in the VISA system, and they refund ATM fees.
-jcr
Well, the problems we currently face are mostly caused by US policies of the last 10 years
You're not going back nearly far enough. Try 1913.
-jcr
> Which it makes it completely useless to make decisions.
The decision is whether to exterminate the termites or let them continue to do the damage. Debasing the currency has the same predictable effects every time a government does it, and that's why we have a clause in the constitution that forbids it.
-jcr
the even larger one looming next year
The Austrian school doesn't presume to say when these collapses will happen, only that they must. It's like watching termites attacking a house. You know it's going to fall eventually, but whether it takes a year or five years depends on far too many factors to predict.
-jcr