The problem is that the question is, who gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional?
The people who wrote the damn thing!
On the other point, how can someone say that they believe something is the good and right thing to do, if they do not do it?
Just open your eyes, people do that all the time!:)
You have basically said, "You can believe anything you like, but you can only act as if you believe the things I believe." That is not really any more tolerant than anybody else.
I say "You may believe anything you want, as long as your actions don't violate the law." What I mean is that I wish people would stop attacking others just for having different beliefs.
They do, you just have to take enough and often enough. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about.:)
I agree that we have societal problems that outweigh any damage done by drugs, but sometimes drugs are just entertaining. Nobody takes LSD, for example, to escape from their miserable life. That's like jumping from the pot to the fire. Taking drugs as self-medication is arguably bad, but taking drugs for recreation isn't any worse than watching a movie or playing football. Please note that either of these would be bad if taken to an unhealthy extreme, just as with drugs.
I personally know more than one person who took (also) LSD as a mean to escape, maybe you have also heard of this guy named Jim Morrison (read his biography, an absolute acid freak he was). And I have my own experiences with almost all of the "common" drugs we have here (Germany). So I consider myself somewhat competent on these matters.
And I am not advocating total abstinence for everyone, I advocate to make society better. I am sure that not only much less people would consume in unhealthy manners, also the number of people using it for recreation would decrease in general.
The courts have ruled these laws constitutional (or at least failed to rule them unconstitutional). So, if you were to sue officials for enforcing this law, the courts would throw the case out.
You really need to throw these judges out then, for not doing their job. And, doesn't your constitution allow you to even shoot them for making and/or enforcing unconstitutional laws?
You really have not thought that through. If someone believed that they were morally required to kill one person a day, do you really think society would work fine if nobody interfered with that person's belief?
As long as he wouldn't really do it, it would be fine, yes.:) I thought it obvious that all outward actions had to stay in the boundaries of the law.
I'm not missing the point. Even we highly educated people usually don't like boring tasks, and our potential can be put to a better use if there's no need to waste our time on boring stuff that a machine can luckily do nowadays. With that we are better off than the lowly educated, because they often can't offer much more than doing such things (on their level).
As an IT guy, continual education is vital. A lawyer who didn't learn anything new in the last five years will still be able to do better work as a lawyer than a computer sciences guy could in his profession.
We do, but there's a few serious catches. First you have to have an actual interest. That is, they have to have actually taken the money from you personally.
No. It is absolutely in everyone's actual interest that he is able to carry any amount in cash around with him without having to fear that gov't takes it away from him (except when they can prove that he earned it in illegal ways, or when he owes them (think taxes)). Or in other words: the cause lies in the threat that is the result of the sole existence of such laws. If they suddenly made a law that a cop may shoot you for no reason, do you need to get killed before you can do anything against that law? Doesn't make any sense!
Then you have to have exhausted your normal court options..
I read up a little on that stuff now, and if I got it right, there are no options when I can't prove being not guilty. I'd even go that far to say that proving myself not being guilty is not really an option, because the constitution says that I do not have to.
Finally, if it seems like you might actually go as far as the supreme court, they give you your money back (really they just steal it from someone else) so that you no longer have a cause of action.
Oh, for sure I have. My money has been taken illegally from me, and retaking it cost me at least time and money. By enforcing an unconstitutional and therefore illegal law they caused me lots of damages. I would demand compensation for that, and I would demand that the culprits are punished. That's even more than just a little cause.
But, anyway, one person taking this to a constitutional court should be enough to have these laws invalidated. Or what else happens if someone goes to your constitutional court and has a certain law ruled unconstitutional? The only thing I can imagine is that this law gets "deleted".
Then they wonder why average citizens seem to have less respect for the law every year.
That amazement is just acting. No halfway intelligent person in a position of leadership/power really wonders why others follow his example. But they have to act it, because otherwise they would have to admit their own lack of respect for the law.
btw, how can I tell/. not to insert an additional blank line between every two of my lines of text?
How can such an obviously unconstitutional law survive? What does your constitutional court say about these things?
Here (Germany) you are not bound to unconstitutional laws, and it would be illegal if someone enforced them. How is this in the USA? Wasn't there something that allows you to defend yourself against unconstitutional laws, even with weapons (making it legal to shoot the officials who enforce this absurdity)? Can't you at least sue the shit out of them for enforcing an unconstitutional law?
Somehow I feel reminded of my opinion about many religions(*) - back in history someone or some people had really great ideas on how people could live together. Today, the only leftover is a perverted and distorted version, being abused by some few people to serve only their interests.
(*) Please do not get confused here. I talk about the organizations, not the belief systems. If everyone just believed what he wanted to, and let everyone else do the same, all would be fine. But mostly, when the people start to build some kind of organization around their believes, it doesn't take long until big, big instances of shit and fan match coordinates.
What? How can they sell it before he has been proven guilty? Until that they belong to him! A law that would allow the gov't to sell it before he is proven guilty would be unconstitutional, or don't you have any guarantee of personal property in your constitution? If you have, such a law can't survive even one second of judicial review.
That means war on priests/mullahs, politicians/dictators and managers. I could live with that.:)
See, what I mean is not to forbid anyone his beer, reefer or even line of coke. What I mean is to repair the bad sides of society, so people will be less inclined to flee from their life that they experience as miserable. Usually people do not consume greater amounts of psychoactive substances without any reason. If we spent the money and manpower we waste on the "war on drugs" on making society and with that almost everyone's life better, the people would be much less interested in numbing themselves with substances, because they were too busy enjoying life.
That would not only be illegal, it would be unconstitutional. Or am I wrong with remembering that your constitution contains a paragraph or something like that, which guarantees personal property?
The sentences in the USA are often insane. In some states, you even can get a lifetime sentence just for shoplifting, if you are caught the third time. Yes, this is idiotic, because it is known for a long time now, that maximizing the punishment for a certain offense does not keep anyone from committing that offense. The reason is that people usually think that they will not be caught. So, the solution is not to punish harder, but to increase the fear of getting caught.
IIRC back in time when abductions of celeb's kids for ransom increased greatly, some states in the USA put that under death penalty. It did not make things better, it made them worse, because now the abductors just killed their victims, so they could not identify them.
Ah, ok and that trial for dealing meth is just a farce to grab his comic books. Thanks or enlightening me.
Serious, I believe that they just want to make sure that these assets are still there when the trial is over, and he will get them back when not proven guilty.
War on those aspects of society that make people chose to take drugs (in unhealthy manners). For example the massive pressure to achieve wealth and/or power in our western society, caused by the big lie capitalism is built on - that everyone can "make" it, if he just works hard enough.
War on false friends and lack of self-esteem. And except for the poor babies of addicted mothers, no one is born with an addiction, you develop that. I know what I'm talking about here.
Slashdot Mirror
The people are government.
These times are gone for many decades now.
LOL, that was the first thing coming to my mind after reading the post.
And then, will the Hungarian gov't be forced by Apple to let the Hungarians vote via their iPads?
The problem is that the question is, who gets to decide what is and what is not constitutional?
The people who wrote the damn thing!
On the other point, how can someone say that they believe something is the good and right thing to do, if they do not do it?
Just open your eyes, people do that all the time! :)
You have basically said, "You can believe anything you like, but you can only act as if you believe the things I believe." That is not really any more tolerant than anybody else.
I say "You may believe anything you want, as long as your actions don't violate the law." What I mean is that I wish people would stop attacking others just for having different beliefs.
Not all drugs have the effect of numbing, though.
They do, you just have to take enough and often enough. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. :)
I agree that we have societal problems that outweigh any damage done by drugs, but sometimes drugs are just entertaining. Nobody takes LSD, for example, to escape from their miserable life. That's like jumping from the pot to the fire. Taking drugs as self-medication is arguably bad, but taking drugs for recreation isn't any worse than watching a movie or playing football. Please note that either of these would be bad if taken to an unhealthy extreme, just as with drugs.
I personally know more than one person who took (also) LSD as a mean to escape, maybe you have also heard of this guy named Jim Morrison (read his biography, an absolute acid freak he was). And I have my own experiences with almost all of the "common" drugs we have here (Germany). So I consider myself somewhat competent on these matters.
And I am not advocating total abstinence for everyone, I advocate to make society better. I am sure that not only much less people would consume in unhealthy manners, also the number of people using it for recreation would decrease in general.
The courts have ruled these laws constitutional (or at least failed to rule them unconstitutional). So, if you were to sue officials for enforcing this law, the courts would throw the case out.
You really need to throw these judges out then, for not doing their job. And, doesn't your constitution allow you to even shoot them for making and/or enforcing unconstitutional laws?
You really have not thought that through. If someone believed that they were morally required to kill one person a day, do you really think society would work fine if nobody interfered with that person's belief?
As long as he wouldn't really do it, it would be fine, yes. :) I thought it obvious that all outward actions had to stay in the boundaries of the law.
I'm not missing the point. Even we highly educated people usually don't like boring tasks, and our potential can be put to a better use if there's no need to waste our time on boring stuff that a machine can luckily do nowadays. With that we are better off than the lowly educated, because they often can't offer much more than doing such things (on their level).
As an IT guy, continual education is vital. A lawyer who didn't learn anything new in the last five years will still be able to do better work as a lawyer than a computer sciences guy could in his profession.
We do, but there's a few serious catches. First you have to have an actual interest. That is, they have to have actually taken the money from you personally.
No. It is absolutely in everyone's actual interest that he is able to carry any amount in cash around with him without having to fear that gov't takes it away from him (except when they can prove that he earned it in illegal ways, or when he owes them (think taxes)). Or in other words: the cause lies in the threat that is the result of the sole existence of such laws. If they suddenly made a law that a cop may shoot you for no reason, do you need to get killed before you can do anything against that law? Doesn't make any sense!
Then you have to have exhausted your normal court options..
I read up a little on that stuff now, and if I got it right, there are no options when I can't prove being not guilty. I'd even go that far to say that proving myself not being guilty is not really an option, because the constitution says that I do not have to.
Finally, if it seems like you might actually go as far as the supreme court, they give you your money back (really they just steal it from someone else) so that you no longer have a cause of action.
Oh, for sure I have. My money has been taken illegally from me, and retaking it cost me at least time and money. By enforcing an unconstitutional and therefore illegal law they caused me lots of damages. I would demand compensation for that, and I would demand that the culprits are punished. That's even more than just a little cause.
But, anyway, one person taking this to a constitutional court should be enough to have these laws invalidated. Or what else happens if someone goes to your constitutional court and has a certain law ruled unconstitutional? The only thing I can imagine is that this law gets "deleted".
Then they wonder why average citizens seem to have less respect for the law every year.
That amazement is just acting. No halfway intelligent person in a position of leadership/power really wonders why others follow his example. But they have to act it, because otherwise they would have to admit their own lack of respect for the law.
btw, how can I tell /. not to insert an additional blank line between every two of my lines of text?
Or is being boring, giving headaches and so on somewhere in your list of must- or nice-to-haves when looking for a job?
How can such an obviously unconstitutional law survive? What does your constitutional court say about these things?
Here (Germany) you are not bound to unconstitutional laws, and it would be illegal if someone enforced them. How is this in the USA? Wasn't there something that allows you to defend yourself against unconstitutional laws, even with weapons (making it legal to shoot the officials who enforce this absurdity)? Can't you at least sue the shit out of them for enforcing an unconstitutional law?
Somehow I feel reminded of my opinion about many religions(*) - back in history someone or some people had really great ideas on how people could live together. Today, the only leftover is a perverted and distorted version, being abused by some few people to serve only their interests.
(*) Please do not get confused here. I talk about the organizations, not the belief systems. If everyone just believed what he wanted to, and let everyone else do the same, all would be fine. But mostly, when the people start to build some kind of organization around their believes, it doesn't take long until big, big instances of shit and fan match coordinates.
Don't you have any kind of constitutional court, like we have in Germany ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Federal_Constitutional_Court_of_Germany ), who is there to take down such laws?
Btw, in civilized countries there is no death penalty and no torture.
What? How can they sell it before he has been proven guilty? Until that they belong to him! A law that would allow the gov't to sell it before he is proven guilty would be unconstitutional, or don't you have any guarantee of personal property in your constitution? If you have, such a law can't survive even one second of judicial review.
Ah, c'mon, let them live, they are soo funny! And they don't harm anyone, except for one or two times when my laughing muscles became sore.
That means war on priests/mullahs, politicians/dictators and managers. I could live with that. :)
See, what I mean is not to forbid anyone his beer, reefer or even line of coke. What I mean is to repair the bad sides of society, so people will be less inclined to flee from their life that they experience as miserable. Usually people do not consume greater amounts of psychoactive substances without any reason. If we spent the money and manpower we waste on the "war on drugs" on making society and with that almost everyone's life better, the people would be much less interested in numbing themselves with substances, because they were too busy enjoying life.
Bloody human scientists! Now I have to relocate.
Bah, just send them out for a walk, once they are up there. Problem solved.
That would not only be illegal, it would be unconstitutional. Or am I wrong with remembering that your constitution contains a paragraph or something like that, which guarantees personal property?
I am not that familiar with US law, so could you please elaborate? If he's not guilty, why wouldn't he get his stuff back?
Is spam really an epidemic?
Even the most conservative estimations range around 80 percent of all emails being spam. So, yes, it is.
The sentences in the USA are often insane. In some states, you even can get a lifetime sentence just for shoplifting, if you are caught the third time. Yes, this is idiotic, because it is known for a long time now, that maximizing the punishment for a certain offense does not keep anyone from committing that offense. The reason is that people usually think that they will not be caught. So, the solution is not to punish harder, but to increase the fear of getting caught.
IIRC back in time when abductions of celeb's kids for ransom increased greatly, some states in the USA put that under death penalty. It did not make things better, it made them worse, because now the abductors just killed their victims, so they could not identify them.
Ah, ok and that trial for dealing meth is just a farce to grab his comic books. Thanks or enlightening me.
Serious, I believe that they just want to make sure that these assets are still there when the trial is over, and he will get them back when not proven guilty.
War on those aspects of society that make people chose to take drugs (in unhealthy manners). For example the massive pressure to achieve wealth and/or power in our western society, caused by the big lie capitalism is built on - that everyone can "make" it, if he just works hard enough.
"Anti-death" penalty? Oh, you mean an injection of immortality serum! What crime do I have to commit for that penalty?
So, you want to advocate that e. g. a thief should be allowed to keep what he stole?
War on false friends and lack of self-esteem. And except for the poor babies of addicted mothers, no one is born with an addiction, you develop that. I know what I'm talking about here.
War on lacking other, healthier methods to relax.