You don't like and you do have to deal with it. Regardless of what if means to you, it means something else to the legal system. So that means that in some way or another that will affect how you can use the 9th. If you have to take illegal means, then you are dealing with it, illegally.
You disagree with the way the Constitution has been interpreted, which is your right, but you can't just stand around asserting a right that doesn't exist without that interpretation affecting you.
If I truly felt that this was a fundamental right I would get involved, but especially since there are other ways to accomplish that (like using the Due Process clause of the 5th and 14th, what's the point of using the 9th?) It's like how the Privileges and Immunities clause is basically unused today, but the due process clause has taken over, should I go out and fight for the use of the Privileges and Immunities clause when I could work through Due Process to accomplish my goals? Maybe on a principle level, but it really seems pointless to me.
And at the end of the day what would your argument be, that the 9th reserves all rights to the individual not enumerated? How would you define those rights?
I think my tone was in response to the invocation of fundamental rights that the post I responded to used when quoting the interviewer building his own HDTV. Not every right out there can be asserted as a fundamental right.
Precendent isn't the end all be all (thus Lawrence coming within, what 17 years of Bowers?) But without more guidance it's hard to determine what's a fundamental right, and what's a privilege other than historical basis or state consensus. And people shouldn't just blindly invoke a claim to fundamental rights either.
Also it's interesting to note that two of those cases you refer to are still good law.
Just because it says something in the Constitution doesn't mean that the Courts (or all the branches for that matter) haven't interpreted it and it's that interpretation that we must follow. The Constitution also says that states can't interfere with the obligation of contracts, but that was almost immediately construed against the plain meaning of the words.
So like it or not, you have to deal with the way the Constitution is interpreted today, not just what is says.
I'm not too sure, and I'm not a lawyer (yet) but I can't remember many cases involving claims of fundamental rights that rely on the 9th Amendment. To say that a fundamental right is being violated claims are made to the 5th or 14th, and then analysis is done to see if that right is either contained in the Constitution or historically retained by the people (or if there's a consensus as to the need for that right among the states). I could be misreading your point, but at least as far as Constitutional analysis goes I would think the 9th just means that not all of the rights are enumerated (which is why I stated that they've been pretty much enumerated and the Court is very wary of adding to fundamental rights that are to be protected) but if you want to claim that your rights are being abridged you have to see if those rights are enumerated or are fundamental (under one of a few tests) and as far as I can recall there is no fundamental right to making your own TV's.
The above post about the right to property is another issue, and another place where it's unclear what the standard of defining what the right being asserted is, you could say it's property or you could say it's something narrower, and the Supreme Court isn't quite clear as to what standard they use.
Again I'm not a lawyer, but am in training so I could be completely off base here.
This country was founded on the idea that people have certain inalienable rights, but they have been pretty much enumerated by the Constitution and cases that interpret it. There's no inalienable right to building your own TV in there, the fundamental rights involve things like representation in government, and more recently privacy regarding reproductive issues. And yes those rights are protected for the minority against the majority, but I'm not quite sure how that applies here.
I remember seeing some news story about this guy who's competing with another lady for the most number of Amazon reviews. He basically sits around and reviews tons of stuff that he has himself, and he does buy a good amount as well. I don't think there was any implication of anyone sponsoring him since all his reviews were fairly random. I think it's basically a case of one of those people who collect things obsessively, in this case it's reviews. In any case I usually do trust reviews from product specific websites (like a digital camera site), not something as varied as Amazon.
From the article The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
I'm sorry but if you cross police lines and pose a security risk you most definitely should go to jail. I don't think it unreasonable. As for imprisoning reporters who don't reveal their sources I can see both sides of the issue, but obstructing justice should have a penalty.
At work we use IM as our primary means of communication. Since people come onto projects using their own favorite client, most of us end up using Trillian. Beats having 3 clients up at once which don't talk to each other.
If this water vapor gets sent into the environment and this is done on a large scale, will this have adverse affects on the climate? If not for the movement of water from point A to B, then for the amount of water vapor being released. On a small scale it probably wouldn't matter, but if say cars run on this stuff and don't do a condensation first then a lot more water will end up in the air than before (talking on the scale of current day fossil fuel emmissions), what would the consequences of that be?
Yes Pepsi is a monopoly, however it's a monopoly because it created and copywrote the Pepsi product. This registration service did not invent.pro so it's an artificial monopoly of the government's devising.
They have the right to charge it and consumers have the right to choose another name, but it seems like there should be competitive spaces within this namespace to allow the marketplace to decide.
Sorry but I don't think a statement like "America is pro free trade... In short, tough shit" really tells the story. America isn't just about free trade it's should be about the prosperity of its peoples.
That's why things exist like tariffs and subsidies. Do you want all the American farmers to go under because we can get really cheap x from country y? Is that in the best interest of America? Maybe but the number of industries which the US protects goes beyond produce.
Perhaps protecting IT workers so that those skills are cultivated and retained within our country would be useful. Perhaps not, but I'm sorry America is not based solely on free trade, it's based on the interests of its citizens.
While the article sees an upswing in the nearish future, I see a shift of a lot of technology jobs being farmed out to overseas operations.
What this means for IT professionals in the US I don't know. But when you have US employees earning $63K yearly and foreign IT workers earning 10$ an hour to do the same work... things don't look so good.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't like and you do have to deal with it. Regardless of what if means to you, it means something else to the legal system. So that means that in some way or another that will affect how you can use the 9th. If you have to take illegal means, then you are dealing with it, illegally.
You disagree with the way the Constitution has been interpreted, which is your right, but you can't just stand around asserting a right that doesn't exist without that interpretation affecting you.
If I truly felt that this was a fundamental right I would get involved, but especially since there are other ways to accomplish that (like using the Due Process clause of the 5th and 14th, what's the point of using the 9th?) It's like how the Privileges and Immunities clause is basically unused today, but the due process clause has taken over, should I go out and fight for the use of the Privileges and Immunities clause when I could work through Due Process to accomplish my goals? Maybe on a principle level, but it really seems pointless to me.
And at the end of the day what would your argument be, that the 9th reserves all rights to the individual not enumerated? How would you define those rights?
I think my tone was in response to the invocation of fundamental rights that the post I responded to used when quoting the interviewer building his own HDTV. Not every right out there can be asserted as a fundamental right.
Precendent isn't the end all be all (thus Lawrence coming within, what 17 years of Bowers?) But without more guidance it's hard to determine what's a fundamental right, and what's a privilege other than historical basis or state consensus. And people shouldn't just blindly invoke a claim to fundamental rights either.
Also it's interesting to note that two of those cases you refer to are still good law.
Just because it says something in the Constitution doesn't mean that the Courts (or all the branches for that matter) haven't interpreted it and it's that interpretation that we must follow. The Constitution also says that states can't interfere with the obligation of contracts, but that was almost immediately construed against the plain meaning of the words.
So like it or not, you have to deal with the way the Constitution is interpreted today, not just what is says.
I'm not too sure, and I'm not a lawyer (yet) but I can't remember many cases involving claims of fundamental rights that rely on the 9th Amendment. To say that a fundamental right is being violated claims are made to the 5th or 14th, and then analysis is done to see if that right is either contained in the Constitution or historically retained by the people (or if there's a consensus as to the need for that right among the states). I could be misreading your point, but at least as far as Constitutional analysis goes I would think the 9th just means that not all of the rights are enumerated (which is why I stated that they've been pretty much enumerated and the Court is very wary of adding to fundamental rights that are to be protected) but if you want to claim that your rights are being abridged you have to see if those rights are enumerated or are fundamental (under one of a few tests) and as far as I can recall there is no fundamental right to making your own TV's.
The above post about the right to property is another issue, and another place where it's unclear what the standard of defining what the right being asserted is, you could say it's property or you could say it's something narrower, and the Supreme Court isn't quite clear as to what standard they use.
Again I'm not a lawyer, but am in training so I could be completely off base here.
This country was founded on the idea that people have certain inalienable rights, but they have been pretty much enumerated by the Constitution and cases that interpret it. There's no inalienable right to building your own TV in there, the fundamental rights involve things like representation in government, and more recently privacy regarding reproductive issues. And yes those rights are protected for the minority against the majority, but I'm not quite sure how that applies here.
I remember seeing some news story about this guy who's competing with another lady for the most number of Amazon reviews. He basically sits around and reviews tons of stuff that he has himself, and he does buy a good amount as well. I don't think there was any implication of anyone sponsoring him since all his reviews were fairly random. I think it's basically a case of one of those people who collect things obsessively, in this case it's reviews. In any case I usually do trust reviews from product specific websites (like a digital camera site), not something as varied as Amazon.
From the article The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
I'm sorry but if you cross police lines and pose a security risk you most definitely should go to jail. I don't think it unreasonable. As for imprisoning reporters who don't reveal their sources I can see both sides of the issue, but obstructing justice should have a penalty.
At work we use IM as our primary means of communication. Since people come onto projects using their own favorite client, most of us end up using Trillian. Beats having 3 clients up at once which don't talk to each other.
Insert mandatory joke involving jackets and hell freezing over.
He's obviously saying his math degree wasn't from MIT.
If this water vapor gets sent into the environment and this is done on a large scale, will this have adverse affects on the climate? If not for the movement of water from point A to B, then for the amount of water vapor being released. On a small scale it probably wouldn't matter, but if say cars run on this stuff and don't do a condensation first then a lot more water will end up in the air than before (talking on the scale of current day fossil fuel emmissions), what would the consequences of that be?
Yes Pepsi is a monopoly, however it's a monopoly because it created and copywrote the Pepsi product. This registration service did not invent .pro so it's an artificial monopoly of the government's devising.
They have the right to charge it and consumers have the right to choose another name, but it seems like there should be competitive spaces within this namespace to allow the marketplace to decide.
Sorry but I don't think a statement like "America is pro free trade... In short, tough shit" really tells the story. America isn't just about free trade it's should be about the prosperity of its peoples.
That's why things exist like tariffs and subsidies. Do you want all the American farmers to go under because we can get really cheap x from country y? Is that in the best interest of America? Maybe but the number of industries which the US protects goes beyond produce.
Perhaps protecting IT workers so that those skills are cultivated and retained within our country would be useful. Perhaps not, but I'm sorry America is not based solely on free trade, it's based on the interests of its citizens.
While the article sees an upswing in the nearish future, I see a shift of a lot of technology jobs being farmed out to overseas operations. What this means for IT professionals in the US I don't know. But when you have US employees earning $63K yearly and foreign IT workers earning 10$ an hour to do the same work... things don't look so good.