"How was the perp able to withdraw money from a frozen account?"
Didn't you read the article? He went to the Dominican Republic. In case you didn't know, that's quite a warm place. He probably took the account down there and set it on the sand in the sun until the darn thing melted. Quite inventive as most flee to Canada, where its too damn cold for an account to thaw in any reasonable time.
"The main difference here is that in the US sentences are added up upon one another..."
No, in the US, sentences can either be stacked or concurrent, depending on the gravity of the offense. The rest of your rant is equally confused, although I am aware of inmates with life sentences committing murder in prison and not facing any penalty steeper than the one they already have because of no death penalty.
You're "well-known precedent" is likewise misguided because ours is a Common Law/Jury system; quite unlike the Civil/Continental system. You're comparing appels to limes. In the old days, murder only carried a death sentence (no life sentences), and there were many "capital offenses." Juries had a habit of acquitting a defendant of murder because they thought the penalty was too harsh in some cases (allowing one to get away with murder), hence the development of degrees of offense (e.g. Murder in the first degree, murder in the second, geeking out in the third). Now, only murder and treason are really capital, SCOTUS having gotten rid of death penalty in rapes back in the early-70s.
And, it is overgeneralizing to say escalation happens because of "nothing to lose." It totally ignores the general deterrence of punishment and argues the reverse is true despite experience of our history.
You're being illogical. You cite to total funds to the Dems by chamber then draw a conclusion on Harry Ried. You're saying because only 4 percent of total donations was from Hollywood, then Ried only received 4 percent from Hollywood.
Senators do not receive the same amount from all "donors." What if all 2 million from Hollywood went to him? Or, more likely, the 2 million was targeted the Senators with control over the appropriate committees, with a little extra targeting the majority leadership to ensure proper floor support when it counts.
This does not account for side deals which benefit a member of Congress without qualifying as a direct bribe.
*Conservative* actors/esses in Hollywood: Fred Thompson, Ronald Reagan, who else? I can name perhaps a dozen liberal actors and actresses for every conservative actor you name. Fact is most prominent actors are liberal. Reagan was essentially run out of Hollywood after his stand against Communism in the 40s.
You've engaged in the logical fallacy that asserts that because a few of a population are a thing, then all must be. It's like saying all Mexicans carry knives, or all African Americans are criminals---patently absurd.
"The 14th amendment extends the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) to the states; that is, the states must make law according to the dictates of the bill of rights, just as the federal government must. So laws abridging freedom of speech cannot be legitimately created at the state level, either."
First, that is a hack created by SCOTUS to enforce itself on the states. Second, the Second Amendment has not yet been "constructed" to apply to the states. This is why states have been able to ban/control private ownership of firearms (although when it comes to 'keep and bear arms,' it could also mean butcher's knives). Third, the 10th amendment says powers not given to Congress, nor denied the states, are powers of the state or the people. How do you "construct" that to apply to states?!
As a hack, I mean the Equal Protection clause has been used to impose all sorts of odd rules on states. It does not say that those amendments are extended. It says "put a law on the book and apply it to everybody equally." So, if public education K-12 applies to any citizen of a state, then it does not matter what color the citizen is.
More importantly, enforcement authority for the 14th Amendment rests in Congress, not SCOTUS: "Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." That means that every ruling of SCOTUS linked to the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional unless supported by a statute (e.g. the Equal Rights law).
Why? Because the Constitution is a document that gives limited power to the Federal Government---only enough to do the job in the areas in which the government is granted that authority. This means that Congress can't command troops, the President can't declare war, and SCOTUS can't coin money. Because the 14th Amendment adds a new enumerated power to Congress, it denies that power to the President and SCOTUS. Each branch is supposed to jealously defend it's turf---which Congress does not do involving SCOTUS because it can get away with making unpopular decisions and serve as Congress' scapegoat.
Just because this perspective is not honored by our legal system does not mean it's wrong.
"Free speech is too important. It needs to be protected and the Supreme Court isn't doing an adequate job (see the McCain-Feingold decision)."
You are wrong, Sir. The Constitution should not be defended by only one branch of government, but by all *four*. There are three active branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The inactive branch is the People. We are the authority by which Congress enacts laws, the authority by which the President enforces those laws, and the authority by which SCOTUS interprets the laws.
Running to SCOTUS every time something unconstitutional happens is a hack. It has allowed the American People to become complacent with their obligation to ensure effective government. It has allowed Congress to enact laws that are sloppy and lets the judicial branch take the heat when something unpopular happens (SCOTUS said it, so it must be Constitutional). I hate to tell you this, but just because SCOTUS said it, does not make it Constitutional---look at the "Life of Mickey Mouse+90year" rule for copyright. SCOTUS is the non-political branch, so resorting to them is resorting to an anti-democratic solution.
What is required is for the American people to focus on the real issue in this country: of rampant bad governance. We're split into left-and-right factions and so don't notice how we're getting screwed. We need to supplant all the bozos---establish term limits with a requirement that a Congressman cannot serve as a lobbyist for as many years as he served in Congress. Maximum time served is 12 years.
"The customer drives this business, not the seller. They(the seller) are simply a response. Talk about passing the buck!"
The solution is simple. The Chinese handled problems with the opium trade by killing the addicts. This drove down demand considerably. Perhaps a similar campaign can be waged on email users. I guarantee if all email recipients were killed, there would be a substantial reduction in successful spammers.
"There is a reason that contract law is basically a profession in and of itself."
Because some idiots think that contracts are written documents, are easily mutable, or always contestable. These are idiot clients that end up paying contracts lawyers to pull their arse out of the fire.
The essence of a contract is an agreement between two parties where both sides give something of value. Sometimes, the contract must be written, but the don't always have to be.
As for contestable, not really. This is a question of economics. One of my law professors explained a neat trick he puts into employment contracts where there is a non-compete agreement. Without getting into details, part of the employee's salary is the value given for agreeing not to challenge the non-compete. The non-compete is extreme such that it would not be enforceable. However, the contract also says that if the non-compete is invalidated by the court, then the value given to the employee must be returned. That return of value is easily enforceable.
There was one employee (an executive) who decided to challenge the non-compete agreement. The lawyer for the employee sent a letter informing my professor (a practicing attorney) that he was going to file a suit. The professor responded that if suit were filed, his client (the company) would stipulate (i.e., admit) that the non-compete was invalid. He also told the lawyer to re-read the contract. Upon re-reading the contract, the lawyer discovered that his client would have to repay 2 years of salary upon invalidation. The non-compete was for a year, meaning that it cost more to win than lose. The result was the executive had to quit working for a year---the new company would not buy out his contract. In contract law, there are many pyrrhic victories.
Contract law it a career field because it is extremely intricate, in part because language itself is ambiguous and people tend to argue about the gray areas. Contracts are about enforcing trust. As long as people are untrustworthy, contracts will remain.
"It was probably necessary to make a clear distinction at that early point that when you bought the record, you did not buy the copyright to the recorded sound."
Note the EULA did not apply to copyright, but to the patent on the Victrola player and record. The issue was the medium, not the content.
"What's even worse, is the EULA on an actual victrola."
That's because the issue involves patent, not copyright. Major difference. More importantly, and something missed by the web site, is that such EULAs expire with the patent. Thus, his rant about whether he is subject to the EULA is moot. The Victrola was a lump of metal and wood, not software. The recording was on (something), not (nothing), and that something was patented.
I see this as fundamentally irrelevant to the issue of software licenses and patents because this is real stuff, not virtual stuff.
To all who claim this is a violation of Free Speech: Free Speech is about being able to complain about your government without finding yourself in prison. It is not about your ability to say whatever-the-hell you want to say.
Amendments are remedial in nature: they are enacted to correct a flaw in the law. When looking to understand an amendment, look to the original law, the abuses, and how the amendment would remedy that abuse.
Look at the context of the First Amendment. The issue was about troops being used to silence opposition to the British Government, not about whether you could run around topless.
Regardless, I have sought ala carte selection since the 1980s, when I was a teenager. It wasn't because I thought MTV was indecent. I wanted ala carte because I only watch a half-dozen channels and don't like subsidizing channels that wouldn't otherwise survive. Forcing a pack of channels is inherently anti-democratic and anti-libertarian. It allows a fat corporation to shove more channels into the lineup and receive a greater share of your monthly fee. Packaged deals are the payola of the cable industry.
I presently don't get to watch the History Channel and others I would like to watch precisely because I would be forced to give money to other channels (and by extension corporations) that I don't want my money going to.
Roger Waters once complained about having 13 channels of shit to chose from. Now, there are 130. I only want 6; let me pick. That is the essence of freedom.
"As tempting as it is for those espousing conservative political views to blame the New Deal, it actually stems from 1913. Unfunded mandates are nothing more than a natural consequence of removing the state legislatures' ability to say 'no.'"
Citing the 17th Amendment does nothing to my assertion that the Court began serious abdication of authority in checking Congress in the 1930s. The confrontation between FDR and the Court (such as the Court packing plan that failed) and his ability to outlast them and appoint legislation-friendly justices directly precipitated the abdication I refer to. What the 17th did was allow lobby interests to directly bribe 100 Senators rather than the 100s of state legislators. And, while you're blaming conservative political views on my perspective, an extremely progressive law professor of mine openly admited that the New Deal was another "re-writing of the Constitution." While a harbinger of future excesses, distancing the Senate from the legislature does nothing to my argument about the Court failing to check Congress.
"What you propose is a reactive solution, requiring constant challenges from outside agents against the federal government in federal courts against particular legislative acts. Of course, it's more politically expedient than a proactive course."
So, while attacking a solution, you fail to provide a counter. The solution must be reactive as the condition already exists. A proactive course would have been to prevent the incursion before it occurred. Perhaps by proactive you suggest that Congress itself govern itself. This is a laudable ambition, but ambitious men in Congress are too focused on maintaining power than of returning it to the People, or the states respectively. What should be ironic to you is that one, whom you claim espouses conservative views, would prefer to legislate through the Court; a tactic more commonly used by those with progressive views. A Conservative point-of-view would prefer Congress act sua sponte, or perhaps agitate for a new amendment to curb Congress.
"You presume that the states don't want federal control over such social programs."
You assume I presume. My whole point was that there should be local accountability for social programs. Our government, perhaps more now than before, has become one of passing the buck. Each power point blames another for the state of things and the People are lethargic.
Economic benefits of federalizing social programs is beside the point. Congress lacks legitimate Constitutional authority to legislate social programs. State legislatures inherited absolute legislative authority from Parliament, not Congress. States are given absolute legislative control with caveats (e.g. no war declaration or money coining). Congress is only given legislative control of a few areas where a bunch of men in wigs thought minimally necessary to keep the states together and function as a group. And, I submit to you that a uniform code for social programs would convey many of the same benefits.
I cite the UCC as but one of several uniform codes. There are others which have met with lessor success. Even the UCC is handled with variation among the states. Granted, there was minimal political cost by the premise that banks across the U.S. should agree to follow roughly the same rules. That's just sound (interstate) business. Others, such as the Model Penal Code, have met with less apparent success.
I'm not saying that a uniform code is without political consequences. You're comments seemingly fail to grasp my core points. First, Congress has usurped its authority and none have checked it. Second, that political consequences should be felt at the local level. You're explaining _why_ Congress has gotten away with it. I do not address the obvious reality of motive.
I would respond by saying that your comments underscore the anti-democratic nature of social legislation passed by Congress. If these programs were asserted at the local level, it may well have been political suicide
Unfunded mandates is the natural effect of Congress' abuse of its Spending Power. Once upon a time, Congress' power to spend was limited to spending necessary to fund its other enumerated powers. Somewhere in time (1930s?), Congress began to expand its realm and the Courts acquiessed.
Now, it is generally believed that Congress can legislate anything provided it allocates funding first (barring some Amendment violation). So, for a while Congress started funding all sorts of crazy things so it could enact laws beyond its enumerated reach. Eventually, Congress' ability to legislate overreached its ability to fund. Thus, Unfunded Mandates.
What is needed is a concerted challenge in SCOTUS to return Congress to its legitimate role of legislating within its enumerated powers, and spending within those powers.
The net effect is lower federal taxes.
State legislatures, conversely, have no enumerated power limitations (in the U.S. Const. anyway). So, they can legislate all the social programs, etc. you want. Local officials locally responsible.
Perhaps Congress could legitimately advocate for certain policies (e.g. Real ID), but it could not use money or the scent of money to enforce it. States have successfully legislated uniform reforms (Uniform Commercial Code, for example); but this is not absolute uniformity. The proper answer is State actions to make things uniform, not Congress imposing beyond its legitimate reach.
Doesn't anybody remember that the first cyborgs had plastic/rubber skin? We could identify them very quickly. The T-1000s were the first to have living tissue over the robotic endoskeleton.
"We used wordperfect in school, now that i have left school i find that noone uses wordperfect in the workplace."
WP is commonly used in U.S. law firms. In fact, the electronic docket system, managed by the U.S. Courts system, accepts electronic delivery of PDF or WordPerfect---not MS Word.
The argument for using MS Word at work is that of conformity. Because everybody else uses it, we must use it for compatibility. However, most of the time I see Word used where RDF formats (or plaintext) would suffice.
I started on some long-forgotten word processor back in '86. In the 90s, I used WP, until my employer started using MS Word. The law firm I clerked at used WP, and my prior exposure to WP helped me properly integrate. Now, I'm back with an organization that lives in Word. At home, I use Tex.
So, while the business world appears to be homogeneous, it is not totally. So, exposure to WP is a strength, not a weakness.
"...since I have no Congressional representation.... I'd *love* to be active in government, but by Constitutional interpretation I can't. This is a case where the big evil corporations *literally* have more governmental influence than me."
Where's my clue-by-four when I need it. You have much more representation in government than a single rancher in Wyoming because you reside in the seat of government. There is a reason why the federal district was denied representation by those who had just earned the right to representation via Revolutionary War. You already have enough influence.
More importantly, you live in a roughly-square patch of land that's not terribly large. Perhaps you should move out of it to Maryland, where you'll have all the representation you need.
"Here's the original text that was going to be inserted directly into the Constitution and formed the basis of the Second Amendment. The intent of the writers is pretty clear."
Yes, but what you fail to notice is that the intent of the writers is irrelevant. First, the draft you cite was not the final, approved draft. You would have to look into the intent of those who _ratified_ the amendment, as they obviously approved the present Second Amendment. As far as the Constitution proper is concerned, there were over 1600 people involved in the process. To follow the "what was their intent" line imposes seeking those 1600 people or failing to achieve "intent."
Fortunately, we have a unifying principle courtesy of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and Blackstone. That is, authors on both sides of the debate were of the impression that the Constitution (and by extension, its amendments) would be interpreted under the contemporary rules of statutory construction. As these Papers are considered the summary of opinion of both factions, this should be authoritative. Blackstone's Commentaries discusses these rules in sufficient detail. Unfortunately for some, those rules were wholely objective in nature; "screw what they were thinking, what did they _say_." Justice Thomas is more in line with this approach.
Under this approach, amendments are remedial laws; laws that correct a flaw in the law. This means we look at the law before amendment, the abuse under that law, and then interpret that amendment only as broadly as necessary to correct the abuse. (This is damning for the Amendment XIV as it was enacted only to ensure blacks were not subject to a different set of laws than the whites---but I think Section 5 is most compelling (Congress has sole power to enforce Amendment XIV, not SCOTUS).) The abuse corrected by Amendment II is that the Federal government under the unAmended Constitution had the power to disarm the people, who held absolute authority over the Constitution ("We the People...ordain and establish this Constitution...."). The right to keep arms was not limited to hunting or crime prevention, but to curb the abuses of government. Of course, States had that right absent an amendment in the state constitution; but as SCOTUS has upheld the Anti-Federalist fear of extending equity to law, Amend XIV could be (but curiously is the only of the original Bill of Rights) used to extend Amend II to the states.
I digress. My point is, you're citing a draft as being an authoritative reference as to the intent of an amendment. If I had a draft that said "all new tires should be slashed," but the later final version was "all new tires should be stashed;" would you say the draft was authoritative? If you wrote a check for 10000 USD, but later added a period, does that mean I should be allowed to ignore the final value of the check and deprive you of 9900.00 USD?
The problem with looking to draft versions of legislation is it allows people to change the meaning of the law based on which draft they chose. This sin has been applied too many times by courts to attain a different outcome than one mandated by statute.
My favorite abuse is when a bill was argued in Congress to ensure that minorities were fairly considered during employment decisions (i.e., no discrimination based on race). The minority thought that the language of the bill could be construed to mandate quotas, and the majority assured them that it _would not_ allow quotas. Within 3 years, SCOTUS had considered the law and construed that quotas were mandated, and cited the minority challenge that the bill so mandated. It's my favorite because those who voted for the law claimed the language did not mandate. If SCOTUS took intent seriously, they would not cite the minority opinion, but those who drafted and enacted the legislation. The truth is the language was ambiguous, so the Court should have said "no quota" and allowed Congress to remedy the error.
As for a patent law being unconstitutional, the answer is yes and n
Slashdot Mirror
"How was the perp able to withdraw money from a frozen account?"
Didn't you read the article? He went to the Dominican Republic. In case you didn't know, that's quite a warm place. He probably took the account down there and set it on the sand in the sun until the darn thing melted. Quite inventive as most flee to Canada, where its too damn cold for an account to thaw in any reasonable time.
"The main difference here is that in the US sentences are added up upon one another..."
No, in the US, sentences can either be stacked or concurrent, depending on the gravity of the offense. The rest of your rant is equally confused, although I am aware of inmates with life sentences committing murder in prison and not facing any penalty steeper than the one they already have because of no death penalty.
You're "well-known precedent" is likewise misguided because ours is a Common Law/Jury system; quite unlike the Civil/Continental system. You're comparing appels to limes. In the old days, murder only carried a death sentence (no life sentences), and there were many "capital offenses." Juries had a habit of acquitting a defendant of murder because they thought the penalty was too harsh in some cases (allowing one to get away with murder), hence the development of degrees of offense (e.g. Murder in the first degree, murder in the second, geeking out in the third). Now, only murder and treason are really capital, SCOTUS having gotten rid of death penalty in rapes back in the early-70s.
And, it is overgeneralizing to say escalation happens because of "nothing to lose." It totally ignores the general deterrence of punishment and argues the reverse is true despite experience of our history.
You're being illogical. You cite to total funds to the Dems by chamber then draw a conclusion on Harry Ried. You're saying because only 4 percent of total donations was from Hollywood, then Ried only received 4 percent from Hollywood.
Senators do not receive the same amount from all "donors." What if all 2 million from Hollywood went to him? Or, more likely, the 2 million was targeted the Senators with control over the appropriate committees, with a little extra targeting the majority leadership to ensure proper floor support when it counts.
This does not account for side deals which benefit a member of Congress without qualifying as a direct bribe.
*Conservative* actors/esses in Hollywood: Fred Thompson, Ronald Reagan, who else? I can name perhaps a dozen liberal actors and actresses for every conservative actor you name. Fact is most prominent actors are liberal. Reagan was essentially run out of Hollywood after his stand against Communism in the 40s.
You've engaged in the logical fallacy that asserts that because a few of a population are a thing, then all must be. It's like saying all Mexicans carry knives, or all African Americans are criminals---patently absurd.
"The 14th amendment extends the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) to the states; that is, the states must make law according to the dictates of the bill of rights, just as the federal government must. So laws abridging freedom of speech cannot be legitimately created at the state level, either."
First, that is a hack created by SCOTUS to enforce itself on the states. Second, the Second Amendment has not yet been "constructed" to apply to the states. This is why states have been able to ban/control private ownership of firearms (although when it comes to 'keep and bear arms,' it could also mean butcher's knives). Third, the 10th amendment says powers not given to Congress, nor denied the states, are powers of the state or the people. How do you "construct" that to apply to states?!
As a hack, I mean the Equal Protection clause has been used to impose all sorts of odd rules on states. It does not say that those amendments are extended. It says "put a law on the book and apply it to everybody equally." So, if public education K-12 applies to any citizen of a state, then it does not matter what color the citizen is.
More importantly, enforcement authority for the 14th Amendment rests in Congress, not SCOTUS: "Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." That means that every ruling of SCOTUS linked to the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional unless supported by a statute (e.g. the Equal Rights law).
Why? Because the Constitution is a document that gives limited power to the Federal Government---only enough to do the job in the areas in which the government is granted that authority. This means that Congress can't command troops, the President can't declare war, and SCOTUS can't coin money. Because the 14th Amendment adds a new enumerated power to Congress, it denies that power to the President and SCOTUS. Each branch is supposed to jealously defend it's turf---which Congress does not do involving SCOTUS because it can get away with making unpopular decisions and serve as Congress' scapegoat.
Just because this perspective is not honored by our legal system does not mean it's wrong.
"Free speech is too important. It needs to be protected and the Supreme Court isn't doing an adequate job (see the McCain-Feingold decision)."
You are wrong, Sir. The Constitution should not be defended by only one branch of government, but by all *four*. There are three active branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The inactive branch is the People. We are the authority by which Congress enacts laws, the authority by which the President enforces those laws, and the authority by which SCOTUS interprets the laws.
Running to SCOTUS every time something unconstitutional happens is a hack. It has allowed the American People to become complacent with their obligation to ensure effective government. It has allowed Congress to enact laws that are sloppy and lets the judicial branch take the heat when something unpopular happens (SCOTUS said it, so it must be Constitutional). I hate to tell you this, but just because SCOTUS said it, does not make it Constitutional---look at the "Life of Mickey Mouse+90year" rule for copyright. SCOTUS is the non-political branch, so resorting to them is resorting to an anti-democratic solution.
What is required is for the American people to focus on the real issue in this country: of rampant bad governance. We're split into left-and-right factions and so don't notice how we're getting screwed. We need to supplant all the bozos---establish term limits with a requirement that a Congressman cannot serve as a lobbyist for as many years as he served in Congress. Maximum time served is 12 years.
"The customer drives this business, not the seller. They(the seller) are simply a response. Talk about passing the buck!"
The solution is simple. The Chinese handled problems with the opium trade by killing the addicts. This drove down demand considerably. Perhaps a similar campaign can be waged on email users. I guarantee if all email recipients were killed, there would be a substantial reduction in successful spammers.
I remember a few years back some guy had some way of using a laser to play the needle; is this the same thing improved?
Too bad that's not an original idea. I posted something similar to /. several years ago.
Just remember, the House is controlled by one party right now. That party created HR811. So, those who voted them in, you gets what you paid for.
"...he's going to reinvent Emacs..."
Don't be absurd. Emacs is already the finest operating system in the world. He's quite obviously not going to suggest creating a new OS.
"Anything that has a hydrocarbon base will be affected by our process..."
So, we can also recycle humans, or any organic compound?
"There is a reason that contract law is basically a profession in and of itself."
Because some idiots think that contracts are written documents, are easily mutable, or always contestable. These are idiot clients that end up paying contracts lawyers to pull their arse out of the fire.
The essence of a contract is an agreement between two parties where both sides give something of value. Sometimes, the contract must be written, but the don't always have to be.
As for contestable, not really. This is a question of economics. One of my law professors explained a neat trick he puts into employment contracts where there is a non-compete agreement. Without getting into details, part of the employee's salary is the value given for agreeing not to challenge the non-compete. The non-compete is extreme such that it would not be enforceable. However, the contract also says that if the non-compete is invalidated by the court, then the value given to the employee must be returned. That return of value is easily enforceable.
There was one employee (an executive) who decided to challenge the non-compete agreement. The lawyer for the employee sent a letter informing my professor (a practicing attorney) that he was going to file a suit. The professor responded that if suit were filed, his client (the company) would stipulate (i.e., admit) that the non-compete was invalid. He also told the lawyer to re-read the contract. Upon re-reading the contract, the lawyer discovered that his client would have to repay 2 years of salary upon invalidation. The non-compete was for a year, meaning that it cost more to win than lose. The result was the executive had to quit working for a year---the new company would not buy out his contract. In contract law, there are many pyrrhic victories.
Contract law it a career field because it is extremely intricate, in part because language itself is ambiguous and people tend to argue about the gray areas. Contracts are about enforcing trust. As long as people are untrustworthy, contracts will remain.
"It was probably necessary to make a clear distinction at that early point that when you bought the record, you did not buy the copyright to the recorded sound."
Note the EULA did not apply to copyright, but to the patent on the Victrola player and record. The issue was the medium, not the content.
"What's even worse, is the EULA on an actual victrola."
That's because the issue involves patent, not copyright. Major difference. More importantly, and something missed by the web site, is that such EULAs expire with the patent. Thus, his rant about whether he is subject to the EULA is moot. The Victrola was a lump of metal and wood, not software. The recording was on (something), not (nothing), and that something was patented.
I see this as fundamentally irrelevant to the issue of software licenses and patents because this is real stuff, not virtual stuff.
To all who claim this is a violation of Free Speech: Free Speech is about being able to complain about your government without finding yourself in prison. It is not about your ability to say whatever-the-hell you want to say.
Amendments are remedial in nature: they are enacted to correct a flaw in the law. When looking to understand an amendment, look to the original law, the abuses, and how the amendment would remedy that abuse.
Look at the context of the First Amendment. The issue was about troops being used to silence opposition to the British Government, not about whether you could run around topless.
Regardless, I have sought ala carte selection since the 1980s, when I was a teenager. It wasn't because I thought MTV was indecent. I wanted ala carte because I only watch a half-dozen channels and don't like subsidizing channels that wouldn't otherwise survive. Forcing a pack of channels is inherently anti-democratic and anti-libertarian. It allows a fat corporation to shove more channels into the lineup and receive a greater share of your monthly fee. Packaged deals are the payola of the cable industry.
I presently don't get to watch the History Channel and others I would like to watch precisely because I would be forced to give money to other channels (and by extension corporations) that I don't want my money going to.
Roger Waters once complained about having 13 channels of shit to chose from. Now, there are 130. I only want 6; let me pick. That is the essence of freedom.
"As tempting as it is for those espousing conservative political views to blame the New Deal, it actually stems from 1913. Unfunded mandates are nothing more than a natural consequence of removing the state legislatures' ability to say 'no.'"
Citing the 17th Amendment does nothing to my assertion that the Court began serious abdication of authority in checking Congress in the 1930s. The confrontation between FDR and the Court (such as the Court packing plan that failed) and his ability to outlast them and appoint legislation-friendly justices directly precipitated the abdication I refer to. What the 17th did was allow lobby interests to directly bribe 100 Senators rather than the 100s of state legislators. And, while you're blaming conservative political views on my perspective, an extremely progressive law professor of mine openly admited that the New Deal was another "re-writing of the Constitution." While a harbinger of future excesses, distancing the Senate from the legislature does nothing to my argument about the Court failing to check Congress.
"What you propose is a reactive solution, requiring constant challenges from outside agents against the federal government in federal courts against particular legislative acts. Of course, it's more politically expedient than a proactive course."
So, while attacking a solution, you fail to provide a counter. The solution must be reactive as the condition already exists. A proactive course would have been to prevent the incursion before it occurred. Perhaps by proactive you suggest that Congress itself govern itself. This is a laudable ambition, but ambitious men in Congress are too focused on maintaining power than of returning it to the People, or the states respectively. What should be ironic to you is that one, whom you claim espouses conservative views, would prefer to legislate through the Court; a tactic more commonly used by those with progressive views. A Conservative point-of-view would prefer Congress act sua sponte, or perhaps agitate for a new amendment to curb Congress.
"You presume that the states don't want federal control over such social programs."
You assume I presume. My whole point was that there should be local accountability for social programs. Our government, perhaps more now than before, has become one of passing the buck. Each power point blames another for the state of things and the People are lethargic.
Economic benefits of federalizing social programs is beside the point. Congress lacks legitimate Constitutional authority to legislate social programs. State legislatures inherited absolute legislative authority from Parliament, not Congress. States are given absolute legislative control with caveats (e.g. no war declaration or money coining). Congress is only given legislative control of a few areas where a bunch of men in wigs thought minimally necessary to keep the states together and function as a group. And, I submit to you that a uniform code for social programs would convey many of the same benefits.
I cite the UCC as but one of several uniform codes. There are others which have met with lessor success. Even the UCC is handled with variation among the states. Granted, there was minimal political cost by the premise that banks across the U.S. should agree to follow roughly the same rules. That's just sound (interstate) business. Others, such as the Model Penal Code, have met with less apparent success.
I'm not saying that a uniform code is without political consequences. You're comments seemingly fail to grasp my core points. First, Congress has usurped its authority and none have checked it. Second, that political consequences should be felt at the local level. You're explaining _why_ Congress has gotten away with it. I do not address the obvious reality of motive.
I would respond by saying that your comments underscore the anti-democratic nature of social legislation passed by Congress. If these programs were asserted at the local level, it may well have been political suicide
"Unfunded mandates"
Unfunded mandates is the natural effect of Congress' abuse of its Spending Power. Once upon a time, Congress' power to spend was limited to spending necessary to fund its other enumerated powers. Somewhere in time (1930s?), Congress began to expand its realm and the Courts acquiessed.
Now, it is generally believed that Congress can legislate anything provided it allocates funding first (barring some Amendment violation). So, for a while Congress started funding all sorts of crazy things so it could enact laws beyond its enumerated reach. Eventually, Congress' ability to legislate overreached its ability to fund. Thus, Unfunded Mandates.
What is needed is a concerted challenge in SCOTUS to return Congress to its legitimate role of legislating within its enumerated powers, and spending within those powers.
The net effect is lower federal taxes.
State legislatures, conversely, have no enumerated power limitations (in the U.S. Const. anyway). So, they can legislate all the social programs, etc. you want. Local officials locally responsible.
Perhaps Congress could legitimately advocate for certain policies (e.g. Real ID), but it could not use money or the scent of money to enforce it. States have successfully legislated uniform reforms (Uniform Commercial Code, for example); but this is not absolute uniformity. The proper answer is State actions to make things uniform, not Congress imposing beyond its legitimate reach.
"I find the idea of public funded science research heart warming. No need for the government or the science establishment to get involved."
Public funded means the government funded it. Private funding means private citizens funded it. Or, did you intend for the confusion?
Doesn't anybody remember that the first cyborgs had plastic/rubber skin? We could identify them very quickly. The T-1000s were the first to have living tissue over the robotic endoskeleton.
On step closer to Skynet.
"We used wordperfect in school, now that i have left school i find that noone uses wordperfect in the workplace."
WP is commonly used in U.S. law firms. In fact, the electronic docket system, managed by the U.S. Courts system, accepts electronic delivery of PDF or WordPerfect---not MS Word.
The argument for using MS Word at work is that of conformity. Because everybody else uses it, we must use it for compatibility. However, most of the time I see Word used where RDF formats (or plaintext) would suffice.
I started on some long-forgotten word processor back in '86. In the 90s, I used WP, until my employer started using MS Word. The law firm I clerked at used WP, and my prior exposure to WP helped me properly integrate. Now, I'm back with an organization that lives in Word. At home, I use Tex.
So, while the business world appears to be homogeneous, it is not totally. So, exposure to WP is a strength, not a weakness.
IMHO, Landsat 6 has the best resolution of any of its siblings; thanks to its ultra-low orbit.
"...since I have no Congressional representation.... I'd *love* to be active in government, but by Constitutional interpretation I can't. This is a case where the big evil corporations *literally* have more governmental influence than me."
Where's my clue-by-four when I need it. You have much more representation in government than a single rancher in Wyoming because you reside in the seat of government. There is a reason why the federal district was denied representation by those who had just earned the right to representation via Revolutionary War. You already have enough influence.
More importantly, you live in a roughly-square patch of land that's not terribly large. Perhaps you should move out of it to Maryland, where you'll have all the representation you need.
"Here's the original text that was going to be inserted directly into the Constitution and formed the basis of the Second Amendment. The intent of the writers is pretty clear."
Yes, but what you fail to notice is that the intent of the writers is irrelevant. First, the draft you cite was not the final, approved draft. You would have to look into the intent of those who _ratified_ the amendment, as they obviously approved the present Second Amendment. As far as the Constitution proper is concerned, there were over 1600 people involved in the process. To follow the "what was their intent" line imposes seeking those 1600 people or failing to achieve "intent."
Fortunately, we have a unifying principle courtesy of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and Blackstone. That is, authors on both sides of the debate were of the impression that the Constitution (and by extension, its amendments) would be interpreted under the contemporary rules of statutory construction. As these Papers are considered the summary of opinion of both factions, this should be authoritative. Blackstone's Commentaries discusses these rules in sufficient detail. Unfortunately for some, those rules were wholely objective in nature; "screw what they were thinking, what did they _say_." Justice Thomas is more in line with this approach.
Under this approach, amendments are remedial laws; laws that correct a flaw in the law. This means we look at the law before amendment, the abuse under that law, and then interpret that amendment only as broadly as necessary to correct the abuse. (This is damning for the Amendment XIV as it was enacted only to ensure blacks were not subject to a different set of laws than the whites---but I think Section 5 is most compelling (Congress has sole power to enforce Amendment XIV, not SCOTUS).) The abuse corrected by Amendment II is that the Federal government under the unAmended Constitution had the power to disarm the people, who held absolute authority over the Constitution ("We the People...ordain and establish this Constitution...."). The right to keep arms was not limited to hunting or crime prevention, but to curb the abuses of government. Of course, States had that right absent an amendment in the state constitution; but as SCOTUS has upheld the Anti-Federalist fear of extending equity to law, Amend XIV could be (but curiously is the only of the original Bill of Rights) used to extend Amend II to the states.
I digress. My point is, you're citing a draft as being an authoritative reference as to the intent of an amendment. If I had a draft that said "all new tires should be slashed," but the later final version was "all new tires should be stashed;" would you say the draft was authoritative? If you wrote a check for 10000 USD, but later added a period, does that mean I should be allowed to ignore the final value of the check and deprive you of 9900.00 USD?
The problem with looking to draft versions of legislation is it allows people to change the meaning of the law based on which draft they chose. This sin has been applied too many times by courts to attain a different outcome than one mandated by statute.
My favorite abuse is when a bill was argued in Congress to ensure that minorities were fairly considered during employment decisions (i.e., no discrimination based on race). The minority thought that the language of the bill could be construed to mandate quotas, and the majority assured them that it _would not_ allow quotas. Within 3 years, SCOTUS had considered the law and construed that quotas were mandated, and cited the minority challenge that the bill so mandated. It's my favorite because those who voted for the law claimed the language did not mandate. If SCOTUS took intent seriously, they would not cite the minority opinion, but those who drafted and enacted the legislation. The truth is the language was ambiguous, so the Court should have said "no quota" and allowed Congress to remedy the error.
As for a patent law being unconstitutional, the answer is yes and n
"Disclaimer: IANALBIHTBL (IANAL But I Have Taken Business Law)"
Translation: I have never driven a car before, but I saw a high-speed chase in a movie once. How hard can it be?
There is defamation in the corporate world. That's all the standing needed. However, challenging a patent can be done by anybody . . .