Whether or not something is constitutional is a matter of opinion, not fact.
1 + 1 = 3, you say? Ridiculous.
And only the courts' opinion matters.
Subjective.
Oh, pedantic much? Effectively, only the courts' opinions matter, because random Internet guy cannot do anything about the fact that his opinion is that a law is unconstitutional.
you completely missed the point, even though you just refuted your own point.
I did no such thing. Re-read and comprehend. The sidewalk repair (where I've lived) is not the homeowner's responsibility. The city takes care of it. All city homeowners pay taxes that fund the sidewalk repair. It is not the homeowner's individual responsibility or sole cost.
The only opinion that matters is that of the courts (with the Supreme Court getting the last say, if they choose to).
That's subjective.
An action or law is not unconstitutional until judged to be so.
Ridiculous. A law is unconstitutional if it violates the constitution.
The only thing to be said here is that, in practice, what the courts say has the most impact. You cannot say that something can not be considered unconstitutional just because some judges haven't declared it to be so.
Of course I can. It is effectively how it works. Whether or not something is constitutional is a matter of opinion, not fact. And only the courts' opinion matters.
The Constitution is remarkably easy to read and understand - it's illegal. Period. I don't even think anybody's even trying to say it's legal - just that we can't do anything to stop them.
Well, that's your opinion. Opinion of random internet guy (or even every internet guy) is irrelevant when it comes to determining if an action is unconstitutional. The only opinion that matters is that of the courts (with the Supreme Court getting the last say, if they choose to). The thing about the law is that judging is a matter of opinion. An action or law is not unconstitutional until judged to be so. And, usually, that's a good thing, as anyone who doesn't like a law nowadays claims the law is unconstitutional.
Nowhere in the USA that I've lived ever made the homeowner do anything with the sidewalk in front of their house. The city always paid for it. I have lived in DC, MD, VA, and CA.
Good for your anecdote!
In Findlay, Ohio, the landowner is responsible for the sidewalk.
If the landowner does not maintain the sidewalk properly, the City will take it upon themselves to fix it, and then bill the homeowner accordingly.
It depends what you mean by "take care of it". In my city, I'm responsible for shoveling snow off of the sidewalk and for mowing the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the street, but I am not responsible for filling cracks or anything like that, the city takes care of that. It seems like a pretty reasonable compromise and probably better than the city running tiny snowplows up and down the sidewalks in the winter or something.
Yes, I meant repairs, only. I can't imagine any municipality plowing the sidewalks for everyone.
everywhere i've lived its been the homeowners responsibilty. now, the city may do it initially, and may repair it as needed...but the law on the books says its you, and if you look, i bet your taxes are paying for it.
Of course your taxes are paying for it. It's not being done with pixie dust.
Yes, that's the European approach, which makes much more sense to me.
The North American approach, I guess in an attempt to avoid spending taxpayer money on things, instead requires landowners to pay for miscellaneous things that the state really ought to take care of. As one example, in many N.A. jurisdictions the property owner is responsible for maintaining a sidewalk in front of their house up to certain standards. Whereas in most of Europe, sidewalk maintenance is considered the state's responsibility.
Nowhere in the USA that I've lived ever made the homeowner do anything with the sidewalk in front of their house. The city always paid for it. I have lived in DC, MD, VA, and CA.
I don't see any reason to call me a coward, Mr. Tough Guy. I was just suggesting that you follow your own advice. And if you think three-letter-agency types are afraid of a few video cameras, you're a fool.
The NSA needs to be flooded with false positives. They need to have so many false positives generated that their illegal, unconstitutional spying is rendered moot.
On the other side, we need to surveille every member of Congress and the Executive and have their every move published on a publicly available site. After all, if they have nothing to hide then they shouldn't worry, right?
In a perfect world the President and every member of Congress who signed off on this unconstitutional behavior would be impeached. But I know this is not a perfect world. So instead I will advocate a world where we turn the panopticon on itself and make them suffer three times for what they make us suffer.
Tyrants must always be hoisted on their own petards.
Might I suggest that you be the first to generate all those false positives? I'm sure you'll have no problem with the black SUV's that show up at your house.
Though the most likely outcome is that the Court will not rule on the issue at all, deciding that whoever brings whatever case doesn't have standing because they cannot prove they were spied upon.
I would think that bringing in last month's Verizon bill would be enough to prove you were spied upon.
This is the only truly insightful comment in this thread.
Everybody is so hung up on the pervasive illusion of a spatiotemporally continuous consciousness that they forget that nothing on any reasonable macro level even exists without a definition.
For some definitions of 'you', you didn't exist a minute ago. For others, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are multiple instances of 'you'. It just happens that those definitions are not as useful to work with in daily life. It is more effective for an organism to have any instance of consciousness feel responsible for the next one that may arise in it and the ones that previously arose in it. We can't prove that our current consciousness is 'the same' as it was yesterday. We can only define that it is.
Which leads to the only reasonable conclusion: You define whether 'you' die in copy/teleportation thought experiments.
I always consider myself a new person each day. The previous day's person died when he went to sleep. It's a great defense in court, too. "Your Honor, I'm not the guy who committed that murder, he died that night. And if you lock me up, you'll be unjustly punishing an endless series of people who achieve consciousness in this body each day."
"You have the right to remain silent..." ring a bell with you?
"Driving is a privilege not a right", ring a bell? They will probably revoke your license if you refuse, as various states may do with respect to breath analysis. Asserting your rights is not always without consequence. Keep in mind that you entered into a "contract" with the state to obtain your "driving privilege". That contract obligates you to do certain things upon request.
Fortunately, my contract was with a different state than NJ.
Did I make that argument? AC posted that men lie. I counter that men who lie face all the consequence, while women who lie do not. You don't see the inequity?
I think you forgot about the part that women must contribute child support, too. They don't just get a free ride. It all depends on income. With gender pay inequality comes gender child support inequality.
Although they are more reversible now, I believe you need to have had a more recent one for it to be reversible. It's not just the improvement in reversing, but the improvement in doing one in a way that is reversible.
You might want to fire up that second brain cell of yours to understand this. Look at that definition of ruling by fiat that you posted. If the president is ruling by fiat, why did it take years of dealing to get the ACA passed? If he ruled by fiat, he would just declare it law and be done. The same goes for nearly every policy the president is pushing - the republicans block it. If he ruled by fiat, no one could block it. With regard to the original topic of surveillance, Congress approved it, FISA approved it, and it has been in place for years. Obama did not make a pronouncement and start doing it.
Hey, troll. STFU. You ignore what I say and keep trolling. I already said Congress knew about it; I already said it's been around for decades. Why don't you go upstairs - your mommy is calling you for dinner. And STFU!
No, dumbass, I'm not saying it's Bush's fault. At the risk of repeating myself - this is an NSA thing, not a prez thing! It has been going on for decades and will continue. Congress knows all about it, the secret courts know all about it, and the prez knows all about it.
And once again, this is not ruling by fiat as you claim it is. Yes, it's overstepping bounds; yes it's outrageous. No, it's not ruling by fiat. Go find a dictionary.
It doesn't even remotely show it. This is NSA business as usual. If the president ruled by Fiat
Yeah, blatantly violating the constitution and violating the law in no way indicates ruling by fiat. Just business as usual.
You just don't get it. This isn't the president. It is the out-of-control intelligence community and predates the current administration. If the prez ruled by fiat, he wouldn't be elected.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I can.
I was not referring to your ability to say it.
Whether or not something is constitutional is a matter of opinion, not fact.
1 + 1 = 3, you say? Ridiculous.
And only the courts' opinion matters.
Subjective.
Oh, pedantic much? Effectively, only the courts' opinions matter, because random Internet guy cannot do anything about the fact that his opinion is that a law is unconstitutional.
Perhaps you'd care to explain why my data is an anecdote, while yours is an example.
you completely missed the point, even though you just refuted your own point.
I did no such thing. Re-read and comprehend. The sidewalk repair (where I've lived) is not the homeowner's responsibility. The city takes care of it. All city homeowners pay taxes that fund the sidewalk repair. It is not the homeowner's individual responsibility or sole cost.
The only opinion that matters is that of the courts (with the Supreme Court getting the last say, if they choose to).
That's subjective.
An action or law is not unconstitutional until judged to be so.
Ridiculous. A law is unconstitutional if it violates the constitution.
The only thing to be said here is that, in practice, what the courts say has the most impact. You cannot say that something can not be considered unconstitutional just because some judges haven't declared it to be so.
Of course I can. It is effectively how it works. Whether or not something is constitutional is a matter of opinion, not fact. And only the courts' opinion matters.
That wasn't an anecdote. It was a specific example.
Oh, so mine is an anecdote, and yours is an example. Got it!
The Constitution is remarkably easy to read and understand - it's illegal. Period. I don't even think anybody's even trying to say it's legal - just that we can't do anything to stop them.
Well, that's your opinion. Opinion of random internet guy (or even every internet guy) is irrelevant when it comes to determining if an action is unconstitutional. The only opinion that matters is that of the courts (with the Supreme Court getting the last say, if they choose to). The thing about the law is that judging is a matter of opinion. An action or law is not unconstitutional until judged to be so. And, usually, that's a good thing, as anyone who doesn't like a law nowadays claims the law is unconstitutional.
Good for your anecdote!
In Findlay, Ohio, the landowner is responsible for the sidewalk.
If the landowner does not maintain the sidewalk properly, the City will take it upon themselves to fix it, and then bill the homeowner accordingly.
Good for your anecdote, too.
It depends what you mean by "take care of it". In my city, I'm responsible for shoveling snow off of the sidewalk and for mowing the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the street, but I am not responsible for filling cracks or anything like that, the city takes care of that. It seems like a pretty reasonable compromise and probably better than the city running tiny snowplows up and down the sidewalks in the winter or something.
Yes, I meant repairs, only. I can't imagine any municipality plowing the sidewalks for everyone.
everywhere i've lived its been the homeowners responsibilty. now, the city may do it initially, and may repair it as needed...but the law on the books says its you, and if you look, i bet your taxes are paying for it.
Of course your taxes are paying for it. It's not being done with pixie dust.
Yes, that's the European approach, which makes much more sense to me.
The North American approach, I guess in an attempt to avoid spending taxpayer money on things, instead requires landowners to pay for miscellaneous things that the state really ought to take care of. As one example, in many N.A. jurisdictions the property owner is responsible for maintaining a sidewalk in front of their house up to certain standards. Whereas in most of Europe, sidewalk maintenance is considered the state's responsibility.
Nowhere in the USA that I've lived ever made the homeowner do anything with the sidewalk in front of their house. The city always paid for it. I have lived in DC, MD, VA, and CA.
May he rest eternally, viewing the blue screen of death.
I don't see any reason to call me a coward, Mr. Tough Guy. I was just suggesting that you follow your own advice. And if you think three-letter-agency types are afraid of a few video cameras, you're a fool.
The NSA needs to be flooded with false positives. They need to have so many false positives generated that their illegal, unconstitutional spying is rendered moot.
On the other side, we need to surveille every member of Congress and the Executive and have their every move published on a publicly available site. After all, if they have nothing to hide then they shouldn't worry, right?
In a perfect world the President and every member of Congress who signed off on this unconstitutional behavior would be impeached. But I know this is not a perfect world. So instead I will advocate a world where we turn the panopticon on itself and make them suffer three times for what they make us suffer.
Tyrants must always be hoisted on their own petards.
Might I suggest that you be the first to generate all those false positives? I'm sure you'll have no problem with the black SUV's that show up at your house.
Though the most likely outcome is that the Court will not rule on the issue at all, deciding that whoever brings whatever case doesn't have standing because they cannot prove they were spied upon.
I would think that bringing in last month's Verizon bill would be enough to prove you were spied upon.
Not in California. You are allowed to split lanes there. The police do it. Without sirens or lights.
This is the only truly insightful comment in this thread.
Everybody is so hung up on the pervasive illusion of a spatiotemporally continuous consciousness that they forget that nothing on any reasonable macro level even exists without a definition.
For some definitions of 'you', you didn't exist a minute ago. For others, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are multiple instances of 'you'. It just happens that those definitions are not as useful to work with in daily life. It is more effective for an organism to have any instance of consciousness feel responsible for the next one that may arise in it and the ones that previously arose in it. We can't prove that our current consciousness is 'the same' as it was yesterday. We can only define that it is.
Which leads to the only reasonable conclusion: You define whether 'you' die in copy/teleportation thought experiments.
I always consider myself a new person each day. The previous day's person died when he went to sleep. It's a great defense in court, too. "Your Honor, I'm not the guy who committed that murder, he died that night. And if you lock me up, you'll be unjustly punishing an endless series of people who achieve consciousness in this body each day."
"You have the right to remain silent..." ring a bell with you?
"Driving is a privilege not a right", ring a bell? They will probably revoke your license if you refuse, as various states may do with respect to breath analysis. Asserting your rights is not always without consequence. Keep in mind that you entered into a "contract" with the state to obtain your "driving privilege". That contract obligates you to do certain things upon request.
Fortunately, my contract was with a different state than NJ.
Did I make that argument? AC posted that men lie. I counter that men who lie face all the consequence, while women who lie do not. You don't see the inequity?
I think you forgot about the part that women must contribute child support, too. They don't just get a free ride. It all depends on income. With gender pay inequality comes gender child support inequality.
Although they are more reversible now, I believe you need to have had a more recent one for it to be reversible. It's not just the improvement in reversing, but the improvement in doing one in a way that is reversible.
Someone just informed me that I'm not the jackass whisperer. She's right. I'll quit trying.
You might want to fire up that second brain cell of yours to understand this. Look at that definition of ruling by fiat that you posted. If the president is ruling by fiat, why did it take years of dealing to get the ACA passed? If he ruled by fiat, he would just declare it law and be done. The same goes for nearly every policy the president is pushing - the republicans block it. If he ruled by fiat, no one could block it. With regard to the original topic of surveillance, Congress approved it, FISA approved it, and it has been in place for years. Obama did not make a pronouncement and start doing it.
Hey, troll. STFU. You ignore what I say and keep trolling. I already said Congress knew about it; I already said it's been around for decades. Why don't you go upstairs - your mommy is calling you for dinner. And STFU!
No, dumbass, I'm not saying it's Bush's fault. At the risk of repeating myself - this is an NSA thing, not a prez thing! It has been going on for decades and will continue. Congress knows all about it, the secret courts know all about it, and the prez knows all about it.
And once again, this is not ruling by fiat as you claim it is. Yes, it's overstepping bounds; yes it's outrageous. No, it's not ruling by fiat. Go find a dictionary.
It doesn't even remotely show it. This is NSA business as usual. If the president ruled by Fiat
Yeah, blatantly violating the constitution and violating the law in no way indicates ruling by fiat. Just business as usual.
You just don't get it. This isn't the president. It is the out-of-control intelligence community and predates the current administration. If the prez ruled by fiat, he wouldn't be elected.
Ah, nothing like tackling decades old math "problems"...for absofuckinglutely no reason whatsoever.
I believe there are a million reasons to solve this old problem.