I love how everyone assumes people critical of Emperor Obama's behaviour will somehow give Republicans a pass. Both parties are amazingly corrupt, and career politicians grab power whenever they can. That's not news.
The thing is, he didn't make a valid argument on constitutionality by citing either the Commerce Clause or Tenth Amendment. He simply created a set of criteria for when to enforce out of whole cloth, probably with violations included that violate the equal protection clause. That's where the problem arises.
The constitutionally required oath of office requires the president to faithfully execute those responsibilities, including the enforcing of laws written by congress. This does not meet that requirement.
The difference between 1917 and the present drug law is that our current policies are only allowed due to the complete abandonment of the intent as written in the language of the 1700s of the Commerce Clause. Federal blanket prohibitions and restrictions on intrastate matters is entirely outside the intended scope of power given by the constitution.
Choosing not to enforce would be one thing. Especially if citing either violation of the 10th amendment or inappropriate application of the commerce clause. However, that's not the case, and with Obama believing he's in a position to throw out conditions for the subject as an executive rather than a legislator, it's not looking like prosecutorial discretion to me. It looks more like legislation in the guise of executive action.
It's not really that ironic. Obama has done everything in his power to ensure that the federal government decreases its moral position and increases the difficulty for anyone to improve their position in life.
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Unfortunately, Article Six does have certain implied authority given in that respect, but when the constitution was written, this sort of treaty wasn't what they had in mind as far as I can tell.
As the Supreme Court ruled in 1957, "No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." So thankfully, armed with that ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that while the federal government does have the authority to enter into treaties, that the federal government cannot invent for itself powers by entering into treaties.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court also seems content to pretend the Commerce Clause is a legitimate avenue for total federal domination.
You're being quite short-sighted here, assuming that such a system would be restricted to cars. Why would we not expect the same system to be useful for helicopters and aircraft?
It is a law, it's just not a constitutional law. I agree with your reasoning other than that. Laws are laws, even unconstitutional ones. And I think Obama should be refusing to enforce this, but only on 10th Amendment grounds and/or the reason of it violating the commerce clause as intended by the framers.
He hasn't taken a 10th Amendment approach though. If he did, he wouldn't be trying to make his lack of enforcement conditional. A 10th Amendment approach wouldn't put him in a position to do so.
Well we agree on the prohibition issue. But Obama is placing conditions on his refusal to enforce as well, which is definitely beyond the scope of his authority and demonstrates he is not doing this out of recognition of constitutional limitations.
Obama doesn't seem to understand the restrictions on executive power.
Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.
Be that as it may, if you were spending only half the day in the office, you wouldn't go home and spend the rest on your own computer trolling Slashdot.
I don't think you understood my post. I'm saying make a quality autonomous motion system independent of our modern roads, and then build a system to allow vehicles to deal with modern traffic rules and realities on top of that so when the present condition differs from what we have today, it doesn't become a matter of re-inventing the wheel.
I'm not saying throw out every bit of the present transportation system right away. I'm just saying that we don't need to entrench them as the entire basis of how the autonomous vehicles work. Over time, it may prove quite practical to make significant changes to the way such things work, and that even first-generation (in the wild) autonomous vehicles will need to be able to adapt to those systems readily so they don't hold back future innovation.
Yes. Which is why you build the natural system and then build those considerations as a restriction package on top of it. There is no reason to build a system that is dependent on the status quo, all that does is impede future improvements.
Lately I've been ever-decreasing in my sympathy for the concept of a "job" or even "full time employment". Both kind of seem like scams at this point. Surely there has to be a better way to make a living than to spend 40 hours a week "working" to get what some recent studies have indicated are more like 15 hours of actual work per week, averaging three hours per workday.
Of course, there are plenty of job-destroying policies out there. It's not just the technologies. I'm not convinced we're any better off than we were as a society before all these technologies.
I'm trying really hard to find a way to side with the humans on this one but I'm failing. I simply cannot figure out how to justify opposing this, particularly in reference to jobs like over-the-road trucking and basic shuttle-vehicle jobs such as buses and cabs. I can only imagine how much this would alleviate trafic in cities, cars with no ego behind the wheel, and how many meth-addled over-the-road truckers won't be behind the wheel (and honestly most should probably be replaced with improved freight rail anyway, regardless of robots, but there's no reason this system couldn't include the trucks jumping on rail cars since there's no need to take breaks or plan night stops at that point).
I think the fact that you just said that disqualifies you. You can't even be mildly competent to hold their job. Plus, you can't be honest enough to admit such a thing.
This kind of system needs to be based on natural and fluid situations. Trying to base them on as-presently-constituted traffic laws is a mistake no matter how you slice it. The paradigm has different advantages and shortcomings than manual driving. Build a good anti-collision system, and then as needed, add the other layers on top instead of building a base upon assumptions based on law.
You either get brilliant or you get mildly capable. Smart people know they don't want to work in that environment. Brilliant people will take the job knowing they can use it to some kind of end. Mildly capable people handle requests and not much more, but are just happy to have a stable job in their field.
In the common definition, yes, but legally it is not necessarily true.
Whether they are a taxi service or a de-facto taxi service doesn't really matter to me, it's all semantics. To me, the fact that there is a market for their service and their competition is the real subject of interest.
I think it's more likely that we need to fix broken laws concerning running a taxi service than that we need to figure out how to better enforce what is presently on the books.
Slashdot Mirror
People really need to stop pretending that fascism is anything but despotism with a good marketing department.
I love how everyone assumes people critical of Emperor Obama's behaviour will somehow give Republicans a pass. Both parties are amazingly corrupt, and career politicians grab power whenever they can. That's not news.
The thing is, he didn't make a valid argument on constitutionality by citing either the Commerce Clause or Tenth Amendment. He simply created a set of criteria for when to enforce out of whole cloth, probably with violations included that violate the equal protection clause. That's where the problem arises.
The constitutionally required oath of office requires the president to faithfully execute those responsibilities, including the enforcing of laws written by congress. This does not meet that requirement.
The difference between 1917 and the present drug law is that our current policies are only allowed due to the complete abandonment of the intent as written in the language of the 1700s of the Commerce Clause. Federal blanket prohibitions and restrictions on intrastate matters is entirely outside the intended scope of power given by the constitution.
Yes, and the new policies clearly do not mesh with the equal protection clause.
Choosing not to enforce would be one thing. Especially if citing either violation of the 10th amendment or inappropriate application of the commerce clause. However, that's not the case, and with Obama believing he's in a position to throw out conditions for the subject as an executive rather than a legislator, it's not looking like prosecutorial discretion to me. It looks more like legislation in the guise of executive action.
It's not really that ironic. Obama has done everything in his power to ensure that the federal government decreases its moral position and increases the difficulty for anyone to improve their position in life.
Unfortunately, Article Six does have certain implied authority given in that respect, but when the constitution was written, this sort of treaty wasn't what they had in mind as far as I can tell.
As the Supreme Court ruled in 1957, "No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." So thankfully, armed with that ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that while the federal government does have the authority to enter into treaties, that the federal government cannot invent for itself powers by entering into treaties.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court also seems content to pretend the Commerce Clause is a legitimate avenue for total federal domination.
You're being quite short-sighted here, assuming that such a system would be restricted to cars. Why would we not expect the same system to be useful for helicopters and aircraft?
It is a law, it's just not a constitutional law. I agree with your reasoning other than that. Laws are laws, even unconstitutional ones. And I think Obama should be refusing to enforce this, but only on 10th Amendment grounds and/or the reason of it violating the commerce clause as intended by the framers.
He hasn't taken a 10th Amendment approach though. If he did, he wouldn't be trying to make his lack of enforcement conditional. A 10th Amendment approach wouldn't put him in a position to do so.
Well we agree on the prohibition issue. But Obama is placing conditions on his refusal to enforce as well, which is definitely beyond the scope of his authority and demonstrates he is not doing this out of recognition of constitutional limitations.
Why are you assuming I side with Bush on this matter? Obama and Bush are basically the same person with different rhetoric on most subjects.
Obama doesn't seem to understand the restrictions on executive power.
Hell, I'm pro-legalization, but Obama's position does not constitutionally allow him to pick and choose which laws he will and will not enforce. Not that it's ever stopped him.
Be that as it may, if you were spending only half the day in the office, you wouldn't go home and spend the rest on your own computer trolling Slashdot.
I don't think you understood my post. I'm saying make a quality autonomous motion system independent of our modern roads, and then build a system to allow vehicles to deal with modern traffic rules and realities on top of that so when the present condition differs from what we have today, it doesn't become a matter of re-inventing the wheel.
I'm not saying throw out every bit of the present transportation system right away. I'm just saying that we don't need to entrench them as the entire basis of how the autonomous vehicles work. Over time, it may prove quite practical to make significant changes to the way such things work, and that even first-generation (in the wild) autonomous vehicles will need to be able to adapt to those systems readily so they don't hold back future innovation.
Indeed. People treat marketplaces as if everything were static, and that's clearly not true.
Yes. Which is why you build the natural system and then build those considerations as a restriction package on top of it. There is no reason to build a system that is dependent on the status quo, all that does is impede future improvements.
Lately I've been ever-decreasing in my sympathy for the concept of a "job" or even "full time employment". Both kind of seem like scams at this point. Surely there has to be a better way to make a living than to spend 40 hours a week "working" to get what some recent studies have indicated are more like 15 hours of actual work per week, averaging three hours per workday.
Of course, there are plenty of job-destroying policies out there. It's not just the technologies. I'm not convinced we're any better off than we were as a society before all these technologies.
I'm trying really hard to find a way to side with the humans on this one but I'm failing. I simply cannot figure out how to justify opposing this, particularly in reference to jobs like over-the-road trucking and basic shuttle-vehicle jobs such as buses and cabs. I can only imagine how much this would alleviate trafic in cities, cars with no ego behind the wheel, and how many meth-addled over-the-road truckers won't be behind the wheel (and honestly most should probably be replaced with improved freight rail anyway, regardless of robots, but there's no reason this system couldn't include the trucks jumping on rail cars since there's no need to take breaks or plan night stops at that point).
I think the fact that you just said that disqualifies you. You can't even be mildly competent to hold their job. Plus, you can't be honest enough to admit such a thing.
This kind of system needs to be based on natural and fluid situations. Trying to base them on as-presently-constituted traffic laws is a mistake no matter how you slice it. The paradigm has different advantages and shortcomings than manual driving. Build a good anti-collision system, and then as needed, add the other layers on top instead of building a base upon assumptions based on law.
You either get brilliant or you get mildly capable. Smart people know they don't want to work in that environment. Brilliant people will take the job knowing they can use it to some kind of end. Mildly capable people handle requests and not much more, but are just happy to have a stable job in their field.
In the common definition, yes, but legally it is not necessarily true.
Whether they are a taxi service or a de-facto taxi service doesn't really matter to me, it's all semantics. To me, the fact that there is a market for their service and their competition is the real subject of interest.
I think it's more likely that we need to fix broken laws concerning running a taxi service than that we need to figure out how to better enforce what is presently on the books.