Here's the longer answer that addresses your uninformed objection.
Article I, Section 9 is specifically identified as limitations on the legislative branch, and in particular for any legislation concerning Habeus Corpus it chooses to enact. It is not explicitly forbidden to the other branches; the Constitution only states Congress can only make laws about suspending H.C. subject to that limitation. Also note that H.C. is only a privilege, not a Right.
Lincoln implemented his suspension under the limitations described in Article I, Section 9, clause 2, so had Congress passed it as a law, there could be no valid objection.
The real question is Did Lincoln have the authority to do it? There is no definitive answer found solely within the Constitution, but scholars point to implied authority under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. Lincoln's actions came under criticism of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney as he objected to it, so it was obviously controversial at the time and should have been.
But no matter, since the Habeas Corpus Act 1863 rendered any dispute moot. Congress clearly had the authority to do it
Therefore, one could conclude that the President may act unilaterally if he believes the actions fall under his implied authority. This is the OP's actual objection, I assume. Congress can validate his action by explicitly passing a law in support or by doing nothing. Congress can invalidate any action by passing a law undermining or prohibiting it. If these actions are abused, Congress has the ability to impeach the President. The people have the ability to vote for a different Presidential candidate in the next election. That's pretty much all that can be done unless you want to advocate the overthrow of the government. Good luck with that, Skippy.~
Congress has generally shown no such leadership in this matter, preferring to do nothing. Don't blame me if Congress lacks leadership; vote for somebody different next time.
If you believe in Democracy, then you implicitly endorse secret police. If you believe in anything else, then you explicitly endorse those same powers out in the open.
Citation needed so we can better understand this apparent crazy talk.
The only difference is how much we are willing to delude ourselves. We call ourselves Free, but we haven't been so since September 24, 1862.
Nice semi-cryptic pseudo-conspiracy-like reference.
September 24, 1862 is the date President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the American Civil War, a time of rebellion (certainly as defined from his perspective). It was only suspended for those considered to be in rebellion.
Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Nothing unconstitutional or illegal with what Lincoln did no matter how much you dislike it. At least he did it out in the open.
I would argue that until there are no others who wish to control us, no one will never be "Free". That won't occur until there is only one person left on Earth. Until then, your point is moot.
I hate how people who should know better assume that everybody runs the same Linux distro that they do and fail to write HOWTO instructions intended for a wide audience in a generic manner.
but the original explorer.exe shell it mimics has fewer bells and whistles, so that's a more user-friendly and better designed UI experience.
GNOME 3.0 might be better, though. I join all GNOME-istas in hoping so! (And hoping for an eventual fix for the Save File dialog -- it's a tough problem.)
As a licensed amateur radio operator, I've seen this phenomenon for decades.
30 years ago, a friend salvaged a 40-foot tall antenna tower, obtained the required permits to install it and did so, but he had to wait to save enough money to purchase an actual multi-band antenna to place on it. In the meantime, his neighbor hauled him into small claims court, saying this "huge antenna" was interfering with TV reception by making his television "say" things like "breaker one nine, good buddy" (ie, it was CB'ers, not ham radio operators, causing the interference). I helped my friend prepare his defense and as a result, the judge almost got all the word "dumbass" out before he stopped himself and dismissed the suit. The crotchety neighbor dismissed all our evidence and stated until his dying day that there was a conspiracy to deprive him of his rights and drive him crazy (like he needed help).
So giving attention to it only makes rationale people more aware. The crazy remain morons until they die.
Chances are, if someone is in my past, there is a damned good reason for it. I don't just lose contact with people that I care about like you apparently do.
Sad for you.
Good friendships will usually survive the years, but many people relocate frequently and you just lose touch.
I've run into a number of people from my past and it was nice/sad/funny seeing how their lives turned out. Some exchanges were just an update, a few restored the connection.
It has to to with "developmental appropriateness", a well-established educational concept that is ignored by the list-of-things-you-must-know-in-grade-X school of thought.
In essence, when the kid is developmentally ready to learn math (their brains grow to become wired for it), they'll learn it quickly, but until then, you're wasting everybody's time forcing them to learn math.
The Sudbury school model follows this and they have plenty of students proceed to college and beyond.
"... the nation's political leaders should recognize how their policies have undermined public faith in government..."
They know.
They don't care.
Especially when their jobs are threatened by a war, terrorist act, economic disaster or election and they have the power to get away with it.
Look at the bad, anti-social, rights-violating behavior of the police which undermines public faith in them, yet they continue to behave in bad ways BECAUSE THEY CAN.
There's not much you have a right to complain about when it's free...
That implies that the software has no value and that your involvement in it has no value. Neither is true.
If somebody offers me something to use, it stands to reason that they want to know if I enjoy using it (or don't) and may even appreciate some suggestion from me.
I don't have the right to demand any change however and that's where I believe all these misunderstandings occur. Both users and devs overestimate their own value and underestimate the value of the other party, then hilarity ensues.
I keep wondering whether to switch from Ubuntu to some other distribution. But on the one hand, I'm still struggling to get my family to accept Linux at all, and on the other, I don't get the impression that the other distributions are that much better.
Try Mandriva. Good default choices. Devs that appreciate feedback and help. Wide range of packages and hardware support. Good set of admin tools. Finally, decent themes and graphics.
Every time a user chooses what distro to use, they vote.
Don't like the way a distribution does things? Use a different one.
You should file bug reports first because that's how you provide direct feedback.Sometimes the user learns as well and becomes a better member of the community. But if the maintainers get their collective assess on their "not a bug" shoulders, vote with your feet.
Make an effort to make it better, but don't make yourself crazy over it.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the longer answer that addresses your uninformed objection.
Article I, Section 9 is specifically identified as limitations on the legislative branch, and in particular for any legislation concerning Habeus Corpus it chooses to enact. It is not explicitly forbidden to the other branches; the Constitution only states Congress can only make laws about suspending H.C. subject to that limitation. Also note that H.C. is only a privilege, not a Right.
Lincoln implemented his suspension under the limitations described in Article I, Section 9, clause 2, so had Congress passed it as a law, there could be no valid objection.
The real question is Did Lincoln have the authority to do it? There is no definitive answer found solely within the Constitution, but scholars point to implied authority under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. Lincoln's actions came under criticism of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney as he objected to it, so it was obviously controversial at the time and should have been.
But no matter, since the Habeas Corpus Act 1863 rendered any dispute moot. Congress clearly had the authority to do it
Therefore, one could conclude that the President may act unilaterally if he believes the actions fall under his implied authority. This is the OP's actual objection, I assume. Congress can validate his action by explicitly passing a law in support or by doing nothing. Congress can invalidate any action by passing a law undermining or prohibiting it. If these actions are abused, Congress has the ability to impeach the President. The people have the ability to vote for a different Presidential candidate in the next election. That's pretty much all that can be done unless you want to advocate the overthrow of the government. Good luck with that, Skippy.~
Congress has generally shown no such leadership in this matter, preferring to do nothing. Don't blame me if Congress lacks leadership; vote for somebody different next time.
Make younger drivers cart the old folks around and then get off their lawn.
If you believe in Democracy, then you implicitly endorse secret police.
If you believe in anything else, then you explicitly endorse those same powers out in the open.
Citation needed so we can better understand this apparent crazy talk.
The only difference is how much we are willing to delude ourselves. We call ourselves Free, but we haven't been so since September 24, 1862.
Nice semi-cryptic pseudo-conspiracy-like reference.
September 24, 1862 is the date President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the American Civil War, a time of rebellion (certainly as defined from his perspective). It was only suspended for those considered to be in rebellion.
Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Nothing unconstitutional or illegal with what Lincoln did no matter how much you dislike it. At least he did it out in the open.
I would argue that until there are no others who wish to control us, no one will never be "Free". That won't occur until there is only one person left on Earth. Until then, your point is moot.
Employer who violated an employees privacy:
"Loving Care"
"Loving care", indeed.
I agree however, she was a stupid cunt for using a company computer to send letters to her lawyer about her complaints about the company.
I don't know that your crass characterization of the woman really says anything about her, but it speaks volumes about you.
I hate how people who should know better assume that everybody runs the same Linux distro that they do and fail to write HOWTO instructions intended for a wide audience in a generic manner.
At http://maximumhoyt.blogspot.com/2010/04/quake2-in-browser-in-mandriva-2010.html there are Mandriva-ized abbreviated instructions which are useful if you use Mandriva (or a Mandriva derivative) and want to try this out as well.
But I do have an error and Quake2 won't display (I get an Aw, Snap! in Chrome), so any feedback will be appreciated.
Finally the French get something right besides sex and food.
but the original explorer.exe shell it mimics has fewer bells and whistles, so that's a more user-friendly and better designed UI experience.
GNOME 3.0 might be better, though. I join all GNOME-istas in hoping so! (And hoping for an eventual fix for the Save File dialog -- it's a tough problem.)
As a licensed amateur radio operator, I've seen this phenomenon for decades.
30 years ago, a friend salvaged a 40-foot tall antenna tower, obtained the required permits to install it and did so, but he had to wait to save enough money to purchase an actual multi-band antenna to place on it. In the meantime, his neighbor hauled him into small claims court, saying this "huge antenna" was interfering with TV reception by making his television "say" things like "breaker one nine, good buddy" (ie, it was CB'ers, not ham radio operators, causing the interference). I helped my friend prepare his defense and as a result, the judge almost got all the word "dumbass" out before he stopped himself and dismissed the suit. The crotchety neighbor dismissed all our evidence and stated until his dying day that there was a conspiracy to deprive him of his rights and drive him crazy (like he needed help).
So giving attention to it only makes rationale people more aware. The crazy remain morons until they die.
What kind of lame recursive acronym is "deduplication"?
I'm flummoxed in any attempt to decipher it.
"Obama won the election and represents the will of the people. He can do what he wants. That's democracy."
The USA is a constitutional republic. It has never been a democracy.
The US Constitution defines and limits the powers of each branch of the government (legislative, judicial and administrative).
The person who made the quoted statement is simply wrong and sadly ignorant of the facts.
Do your homework.
When you find a really good video card that does 3D well in Linux without proprietary drivers, please let us know.
Only we won't be holding our breath.
Why are these Windows malware problems constantly cropping up?
If only there were a less malware-prone OS to use . . .
As usual, the "popular" kids ruin it for the rest.
And now you can get social diseases from social networking sites.
http://www.socuteurl.com/twitterbun
Chances are, if someone is in my past, there is a damned good reason for it. I don't just lose contact with people that I care about like you apparently do.
Sad for you.
Good friendships will usually survive the years, but many people relocate frequently and you just lose touch.
I've run into a number of people from my past and it was nice/sad/funny seeing how their lives turned out. Some exchanges were just an update, a few restored the connection.
As always, it's the InterTubes: YMMV.
And facebook become unusable and utter crap.
You're assuming this has not already happened.
You would be wrong.
It has to to with "developmental appropriateness", a well-established educational concept that is ignored by the list-of-things-you-must-know-in-grade-X school of thought.
In essence, when the kid is developmentally ready to learn math (their brains grow to become wired for it), they'll learn it quickly, but until then, you're wasting everybody's time forcing them to learn math.
The Sudbury school model follows this and they have plenty of students proceed to college and beyond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school
"... the nation's political leaders should recognize how their policies have undermined public faith in government ..."
They know.
They don't care.
Especially when their jobs are threatened by a war, terrorist act, economic disaster or election and they have the power to get away with it.
Look at the bad, anti-social, rights-violating behavior of the police which undermines public faith in them, yet they continue to behave in bad ways BECAUSE THEY CAN.
The sky in Miguel de Icaza's world just turned blue!
http://www.simonprice.org/tomb.html
This is the first graphics/text adventure game I played on the PC. You can download it at no charge from the author at the above link.
Review at http://www.socuteurl.com/pandafairyflop
I also liked "Time to Die" aka "Borrowed Time" a hard-boiled detective adventure at http://www.socuteurl.com/pineapplemonkey
That also links to a great site for old games.
Then I got Doom and Carmageddon and those types of games have been my preference ever since (plus Postal2, COD, MOH).
a major distro based on a text browser!
Shirley, you don't mean that ...
There's not much you have a right to complain about when it's free...
That implies that the software has no value and that your involvement in it has no value. Neither is true.
If somebody offers me something to use, it stands to reason that they want to know if I enjoy using it (or don't) and may even appreciate some suggestion from me.
I don't have the right to demand any change however and that's where I believe all these misunderstandings occur. Both users and devs overestimate their own value and underestimate the value of the other party, then hilarity ensues.
I keep wondering whether to switch from Ubuntu to some other distribution. But on the one hand, I'm still struggling to get my family to accept Linux at all, and on the other, I don't get the impression that the other distributions are that much better.
Try Mandriva. Good default choices. Devs that appreciate feedback and help. Wide range of packages and hardware support. Good set of admin tools. Finally, decent themes and graphics.
Every time a user chooses what distro to use, they vote.
Don't like the way a distribution does things? Use a different one.
You should file bug reports first because that's how you provide direct feedback.Sometimes the user learns as well and becomes a better member of the community. But if the maintainers get their collective assess on their "not a bug" shoulders, vote with your feet.
Make an effort to make it better, but don't make yourself crazy over it.