You could limit campaign contributions to a point where any particular organization's ability to contribute was not worth anything to the legislator.
So, how much a news article saying nice things about a politician worth? Or one saying bad things about his opponent?
Or were you planning on outlawing all mention of politics in the news? Seems to me that might violate the First Amendment.
And restricting campaign contributions to a small enough amount as to be meaningless, unless you happen to be a news organization with donates "in kind" in the form of favourable/unfavourable press coverage would be worse than what we have now.
Yes, look at the fuss kicked up over New Horizons and Curiosity... Oh, wait there wasn't any.
Probably because noone told them there were RTG's on those spacecraft. It's not like they glow from radiation, after all (and I suspect that many of the anti-nuke whackjobs really do believe that "nuclear" power plants/etc GLOW)....
Also, you suggest needing to go to zero, which is untrue, if something enters the corona it will be decelerated, the corona takes about 2 degrees of arc in the sky meaning an elliptical orbit will be just as good, which does not require zero orbital velocity.
Dropping something into the corona of the sun from LEO....
Okay, assume that that requires us to get down to ~3,000,000 km (about four times the radius of the sun).
orbital speed up at this end of the hohmann ellipse is ~5900 m/s.
If we assume our orbital speed in LEO is about 7100 m/s (corresponding to an escape speed of about 10 km/s), then a single burn of about 18800 m/s is required to reach the corona of the sun.
Note, for reference, that from the same LEO, solar escape speed requires ab out 8800 m/s deltaV.
No matter how you slice it, it's easier to just toss something out of the solar system than it is to toss it into the sun...
Something that few people seem to be aware of is the functional difference in the Constitution of the United States between State and Federal governments.
For the Federal government, unless it is specifically allowed, it is, in general, forbidden.
For State governments, unless it is specifically forbidden, it is, in general, allowed.
That's a fairly crucial difference.
It's also a difference that the Federal government has been doing its best to reverse for the last eight decades, with varying degrees of success.
You might want to pick better examples to make your point. Eminent domain for malls is pretty off.
A mall is a public place. In the case in question, just compensation was provided.
That said, note that the Supremes didn't say that the taking in question was good, right, or proper. Merely that it wasn't forbidden by the Constitution.
Note that the Constitution doesn't actually forbid very many things to the State goverrnments - it's mostly about forbidding things to the Federal government.
Also note that in response, many States "clarified" (such a nice word for "quickly changed") their laws on eminent domain so that it couldn't happen again.
Note that the phrase "so that it couldn't happen again" really means "so that it couldn't happen until we really need the tax revenue (or receive the appropriate bribes) again"....
While responsibility for the ship and the passengers remains on his shoulders of the captain I wonder if the idea of the captain going down with the ship has become a bit antiquated.
Noone expected the captain to "go down with his ship".
Some of us expected him to do his job, which includes being responsible for the safety of his passengers and crew.
Running screaming like a little girl for a lifeboat at the first sign of trouble isn't being responsible for anyone buy himself.
You almost had a point there until you got around to trolling with the "people who respect the constitution" part.
No, he's right on that bit too.
Most people look at the Constitution, pick out the bits they like, and then hate on anyone who disagrees with the parts they like.
This applies to both sides of the political spectrum, mind you.
But there are very few who will say "yep, the Supremes ruled that Constitutional (or not), and even though I don't like it, they're right"...mostly it's "I don't like guns, so any ruling in favor of the Second Amendment is WRONG!!!" or "I don't think that States should be able to exercise eminent domain on your property then give it to someone else to make a mall, so it's WRONG!!!!".
I mean, there's an incredibly obvious distinction to be made between me feeling that your post is sophomoric and inane, and me broadcasting the notion with a megaphone.
Yes, there is.
And BOTH are constitutionally protected in the USA.
Couldn't agree more. The Roberts court is making a mockery of the entire concept of justice. For them the first thing they check is the political angle to see if it helps any of their cocktail party friends. If it does, they tailor their judicial opinions accordingly.
I've got bad news for you.
In a case challenging the Constitutionality of a law, the ONLY thing they look at is whether the law is allowed by the Constitution. And that whole "Congress shall have the power..." thing pretty much says that, well, Congress (not the President, not the Courts) has the power to do Copyright Law to suit them.
Counter-hint: for all practical purposes the Commerce Clause trumps the 10th amendment.
Hmm, the Commerce clause gained its awesome power because a President threatened to add enough Supreme Court Justices to guarantee himself an absolute majority in the Court no matter what he proposed.
Then, having cowed the Supremes, he proceeded to spend the next 13 years doing unconstitutional things.
Including that neat little ruling that said that growing feed for your own livestock on your own land was something that the Feds had the power to restrict under the Commerce Clause....
Segue to the present. The Congress passes a law at the behest of the President. The States sue to overturn the law. The general public spends a lot of time shouting that the people who oppose the law are evil incarnate.
Note that I'm talking about a law making it a federal crime to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.
Seems the homeowners (among many others) who lived near schools objected to losing their Second Amendment Rights.
Long story short, the Supremes ruled that the Commerce Clause isn't actually universally applicable and can't be used to override the rest of the Constitution.
Hopefully, they'll remember that this year when the same thing comes up for Obamacare (no, the fact that I CAN buy something does NOT make it possible for the Feds to decree that I MUST buy it, even if not buying it affects interstate commerce).
the Attorney General shall send a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this section--
This is what SOPA allows the Attorney General to do - send a notice that he's about to initiate legal proceedings.
And then...
On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site or, in an action brought in rem under paragraph (2), against the foreign infringing site or a portion of such site, or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site.
is the next step. Note the Court Order.
After that, people start having a legal obligation to do something. The Attorney General can send notices till doomsday, and incur no legal obligation on anyone involved.
Other interesting bits from the actual text:
BLOCKQUOTE>(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- An internet advertising service shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).
and...
BLOCKQUOTE>(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- A payment network provider shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).
Which, among other things, means that someone so served will not have to make an ongoing effort to block access to a site. If the site reappears elsewhere under a new name, that means absolutely nothing as far as imposing any obligations on an ISP/payment-service/etc.
If that's true then the EFF is being misleading in their One-Page Guide to SOPA, which says in part:
Under SOPA, corporations could send notice to a site's payment providers, requiring those partners to cut the site off...
So perhaps I'm misinterpreting the EFF's guide but it looks like this is similar to the take-down notice, direct from copyright holder to payment provider without passing through a court and due process and all that.
The EFF is being misleading. Rather deliberately so, it looks like.
Could you give a reference to what in SOPA requires a court order? I'd like to read it.
Check Stop Online Piracy Act on thomas.gov for the text of SOPA. I'd give you a link, but Thomas is annoying about giving you search timeouts if you use an old link.
It allows for the Attorney General to send notice to people that he's begun legal action. And it allows the Courts to order people to take "technically feasible and reasonable measures" to block access to foreign sites against which legal action has been begun.
seen many drive through daquiri shops or cities without open container laws in San Diego lately?
Objection, Your Honor! A drive-through daiquiri shop isn't covered by open container laws, since the anti-spill cap on the daiquiri makes it a closed container.
And if you think I'm joking about that, c'mon down to N'Awlins, and visit one of our many fine drive-through daiquiri shops. There's one by the drug store near my home....
You get 5 days [pcworld.com] to contest it before payment processors are barred from doing business with you and search engines must stop acknowledging your existence. That alone is alarming to me.
No, the payment processors/etc have five days "or within such time as the court may order" to obey the Court Order.
Note that they may contest the Court Order at any time at all. Note that they may ignore the Court Order, which will require the Attorney General to get a new Court Order (that's all he's allowed to do under this Bill).
Note that disobeying a Court Order is Contempt of Court, and not to be done lightly.
Note that demonstrating that "the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection. " is sufficient to establish an affirmative defense against any action under this Bill.
Key words above are "unreasonable economic burden". Nice thing about it is that once you've done the paperwork to present to the Courts the unreasonable economic burden, you can just forward a new copy to the Courts every time you get such an order.
What's "unreasonable"? Well, that's why Google and Paypal have lawyers, right?
No, I stopped reading when I didn't see the text on the first page.
Now that I've read the text, I'm opposed to their proposed Amendment.
1) The first section is fine.
2) But then there's the second section...
As written, it basically restricts ALL political speech (that nasty First Amendment again) except that of the "press".
So, who defines the "press"? Because whoever gets to define the "press" gets to pick the people who have the Right to talk about politics.
If the government can restrict MY ability to buy an advertisement saying "Obama Stinks" or "Gingrich is an Ass" or whatever, the First Amendment becomes meaningless.
If they can't restrict me, they can't restrict anyone else either, and so nothing changes.
Given that they can so restrict me, they have relegated ALL political speech to the "press". Which has to be defined.
If the definition of the "press" is loose enough, then any corporation that wants to make political noise just needs to start a newspaper/TV station/radio station/whatever-qualifies-as-the-Press to be heard.
If it's tight enough to prevent that, it effectively gives the Media absolute control over political debate in the country, by virtue of the fact that they get to pick and choose what they report about any particular politician or Bill.
In a/. article bitching about giving the Media too much control, arguing that we should give them even more control might not play as well as you might expect....
This is not true, because of what the EFF calls the "vigilante provision". They just tell your service provider to cut you off.
I am assuming that when you use "They", you mean the Court? Because SOPA requires a Court Order to accomplish anything.
The "Vigilante provision" you're referring to is in the section about obligations under a Court Order.
Note, by the way, that the same provision protects the ISP/Search-Engine/whatever if they do NOT cut you off, though ignoring the Court Order is a bad idea.
Note also that the ONLY power granted to the Attorney General by SOPA is the power to get a Court Order requiring ISPs/Search-Engines/whatever to stop doing whatever it was that offends.
Also note the Affirmative Defense clause included in SOPA. It's a nice Get Out of Jail Free card for anyone who wants to use it.
Huh? What judge? With SOPA & PIPA, there's no due process to follow or judge to convince; the bully companies get to play judge, jury and executioner themselves!
Umm, no.
SOPA requires a Court Order to do anything. Read the Bill.
And yes, you have to convince a Judge to get a Court Order.
Slightly off-topic but if you are asking "what can I do" and you want to get at the root cause, not the symptom, you might want to check out the Move to Amend [movetoamend.org].
When they come up with a text for their proposed Amendment, I might take them more seriously.
But it's not too likely.
Any attempt to limit campaign spending will just hand more political clout to...Big Media.
After all, they've already got the First Amendment on their side. Silence every corporation except Big Media, and just how much do you think you'd have heard about SOPA?
And how much influence would anyone other than Big Media have in Congress, if ONLY Big Media was allowed to freely donate to Congress? And DO keep in mind that favourable (or unfavourable) articles in the news are effectively "donations in kind", and impossible to prevent, absent repeal of the First Amendment.
Nonsense. The best solution is to limit government power so they can't do this.
And pray tell who is going to limit government power? The government? Yes, your solution makes much more sense...
Properly speaking, in the USA, the Constitution does that.
Alas, generations of people who think that, as an example, "Health Insurance is a Right", have been pushing the government well beyond its Constitutional limits.
To the point where many (most?) people think that the solution to every problem is a new federal law.
Hint: the Tenth Amendment exists for a reason. We've been holding our ears and going "lalalala" for a long time whenever someone suggests that the Tenth didn't allow something we dearly wanted, and now we have to live with the fact that giving YOU everything YOU want also means giving THEM everything THEY want....
Slashdot Mirror
Double jeopardy applies, I expect.
And if it doesn't, it should.
So, how much a news article saying nice things about a politician worth? Or one saying bad things about his opponent?
Or were you planning on outlawing all mention of politics in the news? Seems to me that might violate the First Amendment.
And restricting campaign contributions to a small enough amount as to be meaningless, unless you happen to be a news organization with donates "in kind" in the form of favourable/unfavourable press coverage would be worse than what we have now.
Probably because noone told them there were RTG's on those spacecraft. It's not like they glow from radiation, after all (and I suspect that many of the anti-nuke whackjobs really do believe that "nuclear" power plants/etc GLOW)....
Dropping something into the corona of the sun from LEO....
Okay, assume that that requires us to get down to ~3,000,000 km (about four times the radius of the sun).
orbital speed up at this end of the hohmann ellipse is ~5900 m/s.
If we assume our orbital speed in LEO is about 7100 m/s (corresponding to an escape speed of about 10 km/s), then a single burn of about 18800 m/s is required to reach the corona of the sun.
Note, for reference, that from the same LEO, solar escape speed requires ab out 8800 m/s deltaV.
No matter how you slice it, it's easier to just toss something out of the solar system than it is to toss it into the sun...
It should, perhaps, be noted that GM didn't manage to sell even 10,000 Volts last year. Not an especially inspiring start....
Read more history.
Politicians have never worked for the people.
Second reply:
Something that few people seem to be aware of is the functional difference in the Constitution of the United States between State and Federal governments.
For the Federal government, unless it is specifically allowed, it is, in general, forbidden.
For State governments, unless it is specifically forbidden, it is, in general, allowed.
That's a fairly crucial difference.
It's also a difference that the Federal government has been doing its best to reverse for the last eight decades, with varying degrees of success.
A mall is a public place. In the case in question, just compensation was provided.
That said, note that the Supremes didn't say that the taking in question was good, right, or proper. Merely that it wasn't forbidden by the Constitution.
Note that the Constitution doesn't actually forbid very many things to the State goverrnments - it's mostly about forbidding things to the Federal government.
Also note that in response, many States "clarified" (such a nice word for "quickly changed") their laws on eminent domain so that it couldn't happen again.
Note that the phrase "so that it couldn't happen again" really means "so that it couldn't happen until we really need the tax revenue (or receive the appropriate bribes) again"....
Noone expected the captain to "go down with his ship".
Some of us expected him to do his job, which includes being responsible for the safety of his passengers and crew.
Running screaming like a little girl for a lifeboat at the first sign of trouble isn't being responsible for anyone buy himself.
No, he's right on that bit too.
Most people look at the Constitution, pick out the bits they like, and then hate on anyone who disagrees with the parts they like.
This applies to both sides of the political spectrum, mind you.
But there are very few who will say "yep, the Supremes ruled that Constitutional (or not), and even though I don't like it, they're right"...mostly it's "I don't like guns, so any ruling in favor of the Second Amendment is WRONG!!!" or "I don't think that States should be able to exercise eminent domain on your property then give it to someone else to make a mall, so it's WRONG!!!!".
Yes, there is.
And BOTH are constitutionally protected in the USA.
Where do you live that people are "typically drunk and/or coked out"?
Jut curious, since I can't actually recall the last time I saw someone was either of those things, except on TV....
I've got bad news for you.
In a case challenging the Constitutionality of a law, the ONLY thing they look at is whether the law is allowed by the Constitution. And that whole "Congress shall have the power..." thing pretty much says that, well, Congress (not the President, not the Courts) has the power to do Copyright Law to suit them.
Hmm, the Commerce clause gained its awesome power because a President threatened to add enough Supreme Court Justices to guarantee himself an absolute majority in the Court no matter what he proposed.
Then, having cowed the Supremes, he proceeded to spend the next 13 years doing unconstitutional things.
Including that neat little ruling that said that growing feed for your own livestock on your own land was something that the Feds had the power to restrict under the Commerce Clause....
Segue to the present. The Congress passes a law at the behest of the President. The States sue to overturn the law. The general public spends a lot of time shouting that the people who oppose the law are evil incarnate.
Note that I'm talking about a law making it a federal crime to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.
Seems the homeowners (among many others) who lived near schools objected to losing their Second Amendment Rights.
Long story short, the Supremes ruled that the Commerce Clause isn't actually universally applicable and can't be used to override the rest of the Constitution.
Hopefully, they'll remember that this year when the same thing comes up for Obamacare (no, the fact that I CAN buy something does NOT make it possible for the Feds to decree that I MUST buy it, even if not buying it affects interstate commerce).
and...
BLOCKQUOTE>(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR- A payment network provider shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).
Which, among other things, means that someone so served will not have to make an ongoing effort to block access to a site. If the site reappears elsewhere under a new name, that means absolutely nothing as far as imposing any obligations on an ISP/payment-service/etc.
The EFF is being misleading. Rather deliberately so, it looks like.
Check Stop Online Piracy Act on thomas.gov for the text of SOPA. I'd give you a link, but Thomas is annoying about giving you search timeouts if you use an old link.
It allows for the Attorney General to send notice to people that he's begun legal action. And it allows the Courts to order people to take "technically feasible and reasonable measures" to block access to foreign sites against which legal action has been begun.
Yes, they should.
And they should be charged room and board also....
Objection, Your Honor! A drive-through daiquiri shop isn't covered by open container laws, since the anti-spill cap on the daiquiri makes it a closed container.
And if you think I'm joking about that, c'mon down to N'Awlins, and visit one of our many fine drive-through daiquiri shops. There's one by the drug store near my home....
No, the payment processors/etc have five days "or within such time as the court may order" to obey the Court Order.
Note that they may contest the Court Order at any time at all. Note that they may ignore the Court Order, which will require the Attorney General to get a new Court Order (that's all he's allowed to do under this Bill).
Note that disobeying a Court Order is Contempt of Court, and not to be done lightly.
Note that demonstrating that "the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection. " is sufficient to establish an affirmative defense against any action under this Bill.
Key words above are "unreasonable economic burden". Nice thing about it is that once you've done the paperwork to present to the Courts the unreasonable economic burden, you can just forward a new copy to the Courts every time you get such an order.
What's "unreasonable"? Well, that's why Google and Paypal have lawyers, right?
No, I stopped reading when I didn't see the text on the first page.
Now that I've read the text, I'm opposed to their proposed Amendment.
1) The first section is fine.
2) But then there's the second section...
As written, it basically restricts ALL political speech (that nasty First Amendment again) except that of the "press".
So, who defines the "press"? Because whoever gets to define the "press" gets to pick the people who have the Right to talk about politics.
If the government can restrict MY ability to buy an advertisement saying "Obama Stinks" or "Gingrich is an Ass" or whatever, the First Amendment becomes meaningless.
If they can't restrict me, they can't restrict anyone else either, and so nothing changes.
Given that they can so restrict me, they have relegated ALL political speech to the "press". Which has to be defined.
If the definition of the "press" is loose enough, then any corporation that wants to make political noise just needs to start a newspaper/TV station/radio station/whatever-qualifies-as-the-Press to be heard.
If it's tight enough to prevent that, it effectively gives the Media absolute control over political debate in the country, by virtue of the fact that they get to pick and choose what they report about any particular politician or Bill.
In a /. article bitching about giving the Media too much control, arguing that we should give them even more control might not play as well as you might expect....
I am assuming that when you use "They", you mean the Court? Because SOPA requires a Court Order to accomplish anything.
The "Vigilante provision" you're referring to is in the section about obligations under a Court Order.
Note, by the way, that the same provision protects the ISP/Search-Engine/whatever if they do NOT cut you off, though ignoring the Court Order is a bad idea.
Note also that the ONLY power granted to the Attorney General by SOPA is the power to get a Court Order requiring ISPs/Search-Engines/whatever to stop doing whatever it was that offends.
Also note the Affirmative Defense clause included in SOPA. It's a nice Get Out of Jail Free card for anyone who wants to use it.
Umm, no.
SOPA requires a Court Order to do anything. Read the Bill.
And yes, you have to convince a Judge to get a Court Order.
When they come up with a text for their proposed Amendment, I might take them more seriously.
But it's not too likely.
Any attempt to limit campaign spending will just hand more political clout to...Big Media.
After all, they've already got the First Amendment on their side. Silence every corporation except Big Media, and just how much do you think you'd have heard about SOPA?
And how much influence would anyone other than Big Media have in Congress, if ONLY Big Media was allowed to freely donate to Congress? And DO keep in mind that favourable (or unfavourable) articles in the news are effectively "donations in kind", and impossible to prevent, absent repeal of the First Amendment.
Properly speaking, in the USA, the Constitution does that.
Alas, generations of people who think that, as an example, "Health Insurance is a Right", have been pushing the government well beyond its Constitutional limits.
To the point where many (most?) people think that the solution to every problem is a new federal law.
Hint: the Tenth Amendment exists for a reason. We've been holding our ears and going "lalalala" for a long time whenever someone suggests that the Tenth didn't allow something we dearly wanted, and now we have to live with the fact that giving YOU everything YOU want also means giving THEM everything THEY want....
Citation?