Speaking of fascist policies, did you know that when FDR started illegally imprisoning Americans for the non-crime of having Japanese ancestry, the camps they were held in were called concentration camps? The propagandists came up with the term "internment" camps once details of the holocaust started to leak out.
If this is the worst one you've ever heard of, then you're not very familiar with the history of the court. Look up a few of their previous failures, like Wickard v. Filburn, Kelo v. New Haven, and Gonzales v. Raich.
I like the idea of the repeal amendment, which would void any federal statute if two thirds of the states' legislatures voted to repeal it. I forget who it was who proposed that one.
Another thing I'd like to see, is an amendment to prohibit any compensation to congressmen and their staffs from federal funds, but rather make them dependent on the funding their respective states are willing to provide. It seems to me very dangerous to let anyone decide on their own salary if it's coming from the public purse.
How is it that the interstate commerce clause gives the government the right to outlaw marijuana?
It doesn't. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment was repealed. There is no remaining constitutional authority for the federal government to tell you what you can put into your own body.
The War on Drugs is just as unconstitutional as every undeclared war since the Korean war.
The clause in question does NOT really criminalize failure to get insurance, it simply requires those that fail to buy a insurance to pay the government cash.
Congratulations, citizen! You have achieved a masters degree in doubletalk.
I'm getting a lot of mod points these days, but regrettably I have none at the moment.
Your point about the commerce clause is correct. If it meant that the federal government has the power to intervene in anything that is bought or sold, or not bought or sold, across state lines or even entirely on one's own property, than the rest of the constitution would be moot.
I'd say it's about time we struck the commerce clause altogether, and replaced it with a simple prohibition of interstate tariffs or trade barriers.
The dot com boom, and Jonathon Schwartz. When the dotcom bubble broke, Sun was suddenly in the position of having to compete with an enormous inventory of used SPARC servers coming on the market. They didn't cut their overhead enough to deal with the double-whammy of reduced sales and competition from much cheaper intel-based servers. Add to that, a CEO who was tragically out of his depth, and the result was inevitable. The one thing I can give Sun's management credit for is selling the rotting carcass to Oracle for at least double what it was worth.
>The libertarians want the criminals punished, but don't want courts, police, jails, or the like
Only the anarchists. Most libertarians have no issue with government operating a criminal justice system. What we object to are things like embargoes and undeclared wars.
One of the wonderful things about the internet, is that it's restoring some of the accountability that we once had when living in small communities where most people knew each other. For a pretty long time, if an unscrupulous vendor screwed you over, your only options were either to sue them (expensive) or hope that your local government would punish them for you or your local TV "consumer beat" reporter would find your story interesting enough to give it some air time.
Today though, it's amazingly easy to check out anyone you're considering doing business with by looking them up on the net. The guy in this story will most likely be out of business, and soon.
Apparently you don't know many libertarians. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to make threats with impunity. Libertarians want criminals punished just like anyone else does.
They ship tens of millions of devices with accelerometers and gyros. If they just ran a tool to log those readings without turning on the display or anything else but the CPU and the sensors, they could probably get several days' worth of data per unit, enough to cover the time from leaving the factory to arriving at the customer's address.
I've never had a package lost or damaged by Fedex, Emery, or DHL. I wouldn't trust UPS with anything of any value whatsoever. The postal service has usually delivered my packages with only minor damage.
2 wars going on right now, 1 of them illegal according to UN,
They're both illegal under the United States constitution, because the congress shirked their duty and allowed the president to put American troops in harm's way without a declaration of war.
The only measure which has successfully prevented a terrorist attack since the '01 hijackings is the increased vigilance and response of the flying public.
Exactly. The perps have given up on attempting to hijack aircraft, the last two attacks (shoe bomber and underpants bomber) only tried to destroy the plane. The cockpit doors have been reinforced.
I'm convinced that the whole purpose of the TSA is one big Milgram experiment to find out just how far we can be pushed before we resist. I'm rather disappointed that it got this far.
It might interest you to know that the Jim Crow laws were enacted by the state legislatures to prohibit businesses from offering integrated accommodations. The railroads, in particular, didn't want the hassle of maintaining separate cars, for example.
I would think your first, reasonable response would be to do a good deal of physical harm to your 'attacker'.
I concur, of course. What this bill does though, is put the TSA goons back in exactly the same set of rules that pertain to everyone else. So, if someone grabs your balls, retaliating physically would be justified, uniform or no uniform.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of fascist policies, did you know that when FDR started illegally imprisoning Americans for the non-crime of having Japanese ancestry, the camps they were held in were called concentration camps? The propagandists came up with the term "internment" camps once details of the holocaust started to leak out.
-jcr
Oops. Those Connecticut towns hash to the same bucket for me.
-jcr
If this is the worst one you've ever heard of, then you're not very familiar with the history of the court. Look up a few of their previous failures, like Wickard v. Filburn, Kelo v. New Haven, and Gonzales v. Raich.
-jcr
I like the idea of the repeal amendment, which would void any federal statute if two thirds of the states' legislatures voted to repeal it. I forget who it was who proposed that one.
Another thing I'd like to see, is an amendment to prohibit any compensation to congressmen and their staffs from federal funds, but rather make them dependent on the funding their respective states are willing to provide. It seems to me very dangerous to let anyone decide on their own salary if it's coming from the public purse.
-jcr
How is it that the interstate commerce clause gives the government the right to outlaw marijuana?
It doesn't. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment was repealed. There is no remaining constitutional authority for the federal government to tell you what you can put into your own body.
The War on Drugs is just as unconstitutional as every undeclared war since the Korean war.
-jcr
The clause in question does NOT really criminalize failure to get insurance, it simply requires those that fail to buy a insurance to pay the government cash.
Congratulations, citizen! You have achieved a masters degree in doubletalk.
-jcr
I'm getting a lot of mod points these days, but regrettably I have none at the moment.
Your point about the commerce clause is correct. If it meant that the federal government has the power to intervene in anything that is bought or sold, or not bought or sold, across state lines or even entirely on one's own property, than the rest of the constitution would be moot.
I'd say it's about time we struck the commerce clause altogether, and replaced it with a simple prohibition of interstate tariffs or trade barriers.
-jcr
Are you staying with Oracle on those new Red Hat hosts, or moving to Postgres?
-jcr
The dot com boom, and Jonathon Schwartz. When the dotcom bubble broke, Sun was suddenly in the position of having to compete with an enormous inventory of used SPARC servers coming on the market. They didn't cut their overhead enough to deal with the double-whammy of reduced sales and competition from much cheaper intel-based servers. Add to that, a CEO who was tragically out of his depth, and the result was inevitable. The one thing I can give Sun's management credit for is selling the rotting carcass to Oracle for at least double what it was worth.
-jcr
The first review I see at that link says that the app doesn't show any nudity.
-jcr
I don't see how it can be anti-competitive, if Apple's got a consistent policy that applies to all publishers.
-jcr
>The libertarians want the criminals punished, but don't want courts, police, jails, or the like
Only the anarchists. Most libertarians have no issue with government operating a criminal justice system. What we object to are things like embargoes and undeclared wars.
-jcr
One of the wonderful things about the internet, is that it's restoring some of the accountability that we once had when living in small communities where most people knew each other. For a pretty long time, if an unscrupulous vendor screwed you over, your only options were either to sue them (expensive) or hope that your local government would punish them for you or your local TV "consumer beat" reporter would find your story interesting enough to give it some air time.
Today though, it's amazingly easy to check out anyone you're considering doing business with by looking them up on the net. The guy in this story will most likely be out of business, and soon.
-jcr
Apparently you don't know many libertarians. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to make threats with impunity. Libertarians want criminals punished just like anyone else does.
-jcr
Are pre-meds known for mathematical incompetence or something? I've never had to deal with them.
-jcr
blatant character assassination
Yes, absolutely.
should be beneath an international political body.
If only...
-jcr
That won't quite do it, unfortunately. The entire military budget isn't even half of what our government spends.
-jcr
They ship tens of millions of devices with accelerometers and gyros. If they just ran a tool to log those readings without turning on the display or anything else but the CPU and the sensors, they could probably get several days' worth of data per unit, enough to cover the time from leaving the factory to arriving at the customer's address.
-jcr
I've never had a package lost or damaged by Fedex, Emery, or DHL. I wouldn't trust UPS with anything of any value whatsoever. The postal service has usually delivered my packages with only minor damage.
-jcr
2 wars going on right now, 1 of them illegal according to UN,
They're both illegal under the United States constitution, because the congress shirked their duty and allowed the president to put American troops in harm's way without a declaration of war.
-jcr
I could kill a human with a sharpened pencil, or a rolled up magazine.
Do you have a price list posted on your web site?
-jcr
The only measure which has successfully prevented a terrorist attack since the '01 hijackings is the increased vigilance and response of the flying public.
Exactly. The perps have given up on attempting to hijack aircraft, the last two attacks (shoe bomber and underpants bomber) only tried to destroy the plane. The cockpit doors have been reinforced.
I'm convinced that the whole purpose of the TSA is one big Milgram experiment to find out just how far we can be pushed before we resist. I'm rather disappointed that it got this far.
-jcr
It might interest you to know that the Jim Crow laws were enacted by the state legislatures to prohibit businesses from offering integrated accommodations. The railroads, in particular, didn't want the hassle of maintaining separate cars, for example.
-jcr
I would think your first, reasonable response would be to do a good deal of physical harm to your 'attacker'.
I concur, of course. What this bill does though, is put the TSA goons back in exactly the same set of rules that pertain to everyone else. So, if someone grabs your balls, retaliating physically would be justified, uniform or no uniform.
-jcr
There were plenty of Republicans who despised him at the time. Wage and price controls? WTF?
-jcr