Most Congresspersons have multiple offices. NEVER send a letter to the Washington, D.C. office of a Congressperson, as they will likely not see the letter for months, if ever. Instead, try to mail the letter to the main office in the Congressperson's state; in my case I would send my letter to Rep. Paul Ryan's Janesville, WI office.
LOL, the point remains that "du jour" is translated as "of the day" from the French -- "du" being the combination of "de" and "le" ("of" and the masculine singular of "the", respectively), and "jour" meaning "day."
Pursuing LEGAL action in a LEGAL way is far from being unethical - this has nothing to do with genocide or stealing paper clips! If we are causing damage to you or others, those who are damaged are completely within their rights to pursue LEGAL actions against US.
So are their actions legal?
I quote Martin Luther King, Jr. from his Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
"How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."
By claiming to have created something they know they haven't, they're degrading the value of the real authors of that code. It is never fun to have someone steal something from you, especially when they're allowed to do it in plain view of you and everyone else. Hence, their lawsuit is unjust and unethical.
The basis of U.S. law is the Constitution. Laws and court rulings that have been found to be legal extentions of the rights and powers given in the Constitution are next in line of importance. The article is badly written and vague, but it sounds like the appeals court decided that the provision in the DMCA requiring ISPs to divulge personal information without a judge-ordered subpoena is either unconstitutional or in conflict with a number of previous laws. Based on this, the court has said the right the law grants is unconstitutional.
The court could've chosen not to decide the constituionality of the law, and rather deliver a decision based upon the law. In this case, Verizon would've had to appeal to the Supreme Court and hope to be heard. This would be a more "technical" ruling.
You may say "well, that is the role of the Army/Navy/Air Force today" - and you would be wrong again. At the time, it was seen that a government with a standing army was a dangerous government (to the people it governs). It was argued (I believe in the various Federalist Papers and elsewhere) that such a system should not be put into place. Alas, it was never codified in the Constitution that such a standing army not be erected.
Saying that the Constitution was silent on the issue of a standing army, as you imply, would be wrong. Congress is specifically given the right to provide, maintain, and regulate an Army and a Navy (Article I, Section 8). The right to regulate the Militia is also given to Congress, for the record.
One must remember that Constitution also contains an elastic clause for Congress, stating that they have the right to pass the laws necessary for executing their enumerated powers (See Article I, Section 8). In many cases, information about an individual is absolutely necessary for government to function.
It is for this reason that the case is a constitutional question; the Supreme Court needs to clarify the line between the privacy of a citizen and the usage of information about a person in functional government.
A Second Constitutional Convention would do us a world of good.
Oh, please. The irony kills me; you cite how the current Constitution supports what you're trying to say, and how the current powers-that-be ignore it, and then urge people to support a new Constitution which would be written by those in power. A rewrite at this point would simply give those in power the ability to make their failure to follow the Law compliance with a new Law.
For the record, your quote is from the 9th Amendment to the Constitution, not the Constitution proper. It is essentially the equivilent of the legislative elastic clause found in Article I of the Constitituion, except it applies to the people. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution also plays into this debate, as it deals with the "security" of the people. Finding the text of cited passages is left as an exercise to the reader.
There is no recall procedure for the office of President. To the best of my knowledge, none of our national representatives (House Reps. and Senators) can be recalled -- their contemporaries in the House would have to impeach them and their buddies in the Senate would have to remove them from office. Hardly a likely occurance.
Woohoo! I've been looking for a faster alternative to bochs, and this may be it! The last incarnation of Plex86 didn't work correctly for me; I couldn't get it to completely boot from any media:-/
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, and to further narrow it down, [Evolution] is about being *good enough* at only 1 thing: reproduction.
It's pretty good at email, too.
Most Congresspersons have multiple offices. NEVER send a letter to the Washington, D.C. office of a Congressperson, as they will likely not see the letter for months, if ever. Instead, try to mail the letter to the main office in the Congressperson's state; in my case I would send my letter to Rep. Paul Ryan's Janesville, WI office.
LOL, the point remains that "du jour" is translated as "of the day" from the French -- "du" being the combination of "de" and "le" ("of" and the masculine singular of "the", respectively), and "jour" meaning "day."
Yes, but these same narrow and close shock waves wreak havoc on traditional wing architecture :)
To quote John Bunyon, "I will stay in jail till the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience."
Pursuing LEGAL action in a LEGAL way is far from being unethical - this has nothing to do with genocide or stealing paper clips! If we are causing damage to you or others, those who are damaged are completely within their rights to pursue LEGAL actions against US.
So are their actions legal?
I quote Martin Luther King, Jr. from his Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
"How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."
By claiming to have created something they know they haven't, they're degrading the value of the real authors of that code. It is never fun to have someone steal something from you, especially when they're allowed to do it in plain view of you and everyone else. Hence, their lawsuit is unjust and unethical.
Are there other sorts of rulings in your country?
The basis of U.S. law is the Constitution. Laws and court rulings that have been found to be legal extentions of the rights and powers given in the Constitution are next in line of importance. The article is badly written and vague, but it sounds like the appeals court decided that the provision in the DMCA requiring ISPs to divulge personal information without a judge-ordered subpoena is either unconstitutional or in conflict with a number of previous laws. Based on this, the court has said the right the law grants is unconstitutional.
The court could've chosen not to decide the constituionality of the law, and rather deliver a decision based upon the law. In this case, Verizon would've had to appeal to the Supreme Court and hope to be heard. This would be a more "technical" ruling.
The internet was created by the US, in the US.
Yeah! I always knew Al Gore was good for something!
You may say "well, that is the role of the Army/Navy/Air Force today" - and you would be wrong again. At the time, it was seen that a government with a standing army was a dangerous government (to the people it governs). It was argued (I believe in the various Federalist Papers and elsewhere) that such a system should not be put into place. Alas, it was never codified in the Constitution that such a standing army not be erected.
Saying that the Constitution was silent on the issue of a standing army, as you imply, would be wrong. Congress is specifically given the right to provide, maintain, and regulate an Army and a Navy (Article I, Section 8). The right to regulate the Militia is also given to Congress, for the record.
One must remember that Constitution also contains an elastic clause for Congress, stating that they have the right to pass the laws necessary for executing their enumerated powers (See Article I, Section 8). In many cases, information about an individual is absolutely necessary for government to function.
It is for this reason that the case is a constitutional question; the Supreme Court needs to clarify the line between the privacy of a citizen and the usage of information about a person in functional government.
A Second Constitutional Convention would do us a world of good.
Oh, please. The irony kills me; you cite how the current Constitution supports what you're trying to say, and how the current powers-that-be ignore it, and then urge people to support a new Constitution which would be written by those in power. A rewrite at this point would simply give those in power the ability to make their failure to follow the Law compliance with a new Law.
For the record, your quote is from the 9th Amendment to the Constitution, not the Constitution proper. It is essentially the equivilent of the legislative elastic clause found in Article I of the Constitituion, except it applies to the people. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution also plays into this debate, as it deals with the "security" of the people. Finding the text of cited passages is left as an exercise to the reader.
There is no recall procedure for the office of President. To the best of my knowledge, none of our national representatives (House Reps. and Senators) can be recalled -- their contemporaries in the House would have to impeach them and their buddies in the Senate would have to remove them from office. Hardly a likely occurance.
Woohoo! I've been looking for a faster alternative to bochs, and this may be it! The last incarnation of Plex86 didn't work correctly for me; I couldn't get it to completely boot from any media :-/
:)
Hopefully it's better now
A 1920's president (I believe it was Calvin Coolridge) once said, "What's good for business is good for America."
I just dl'ed disc 1 and grabbed the rest of the junk I need from cooker. . .