It would be cheaper (in the long run, of course) to install a system in the ground that has two transmitter/receivers on each yard line...a guy types in which yard they want the line to appear into a program and it displays it automatically..
You're talking about installing 200 pieces of permanent equipment in a facility that is routinely ripped up and reconfigured for various purposes. The current method works at any field with no permanently installed equipment. From a broadcaster's perspective, that is exactly what you want.
a guy types in which yard they want the line to appear into a program and it displays it automatically.
After it's calibrated, that's exactly how the current system works.
IIRC, MR didn't have lawyers, but it did have a court similar to the FISA court. Doesn't Anderton have to get some sort of approval before arresting the guy in the prelude?
FYI, we have a legal system in this country. That system determined several things, notably that the lawsuit was not frivilous and that the hospital was indirectly at fault for the injury to the child for failing to disclose risks.
If you have a problem, it's with the judge who presided, the jury who decided the case, or the lawyers who defended the hospital. All John Edwards did was the job he was hired to do.
That theory doesn't make sense. The part about selling WAAF appears to be true (stemming from a lawsuit). Now, if you're CBS Radio, why don't you just transfer them to BCN outright? Why pay them for three months of doing nothing? Furthermore, it was years before O&A were back on BCN. There were 3 years of non-syndicated shows in NYC.
A very idealistic reading of history. However, I seem to recall some events in Scotland (and elsewhere) that predate the 1780s and dealt with this whole free-thinking and separation thing.
In any case, the Revolutionary War did not "establish the right of a free-thinking people to [declare independence]." All it did was show that when you've got enough guns (including French assistance, mind you), and a convenient ocean between you and your enemy, you can declare and maintain independence.
As for the 1860s, the Confederacy just didn't have enough guns (or they did, and mismanaged them, depending on your view).
I have read the law, and what YOU don't understand is that when the tap is done first, and the approval done second, the tappers can tap anyone they want, without certifying anything at all.
FISA lets the administration do whatever it wants, then issues a warrant, which is backwards.
This is incorrect. FISA lets the administration do what a FISA Court Order would allow them to do. The AG must certify that there is probable cause to connect the target to a foreign agent. If you've ever read the law, you would understand this.
Using your cop analogy, it's similar to a police officer seeing something through your window, then coming to search your house (sans warrant, mind you). They have probable cause based on what they saw through the window and they do not need to get a court warrant to search your house.
The 72-hour window strikes the balance between the urgency of intelligence collection and the safeguards of the 4th amendment.
(a). I am aware that the FISA court has only outright rejected a few applications (they have rejected others but still approved them with modifications). I tend to think (at least, pre-Bush) that means that the AGs are doing their jobs and are only pursuing this course when absolutely necessary. (The number of applications (and applications approved with modifications) went way up under Bush - see here.)
(b). That is why the law opens the AG to civil remedy, and the law also includes criminal sanctions in certain situations. It doesn't sound like any other solution would satisfy you, so we should just not issue warrants, or even indictments and convictions for that matter, since they could be wrong.
approval of eavesdropping without warrants (I'm referring to FISA... getting approval *afterwards* is about as messed up an idea as anything they've ever come up with)
It's not really that messed up. In those cases, the Attorney General is basically required to certify that the Government would get approval from the FISA court if there were time to present the case.
In the event that the Government is wrong, they must destroy everything obtained and the Attorney General becomes civilly liable, iirc (for some reason Cornell's server is down).
While he can't introduce legislation himself, he need only present it to a willing accomplice for it to make its way to the floor.
This statement grossly oversimplifies the process.
While any Congressperson can submit a bill, it generally will not go anywhere without the blessing of the relevant Committee chairperson. When bills are submitted, they are almost always routed to the Committee for markup (and/or hearings, as deemed necessary by the chairperson). Then the Committee votes on whether or not the bill will proceed. The chairperson schedules markup, hearings and votes. Nothing gets done in committee without the Chairperson's blessing.
Assuming it passes the relevant committee, you then have to deal with the Rules committee who must schedule it on the calendar for the Committee of the Whole (I'm talking House here.. it's slightly different in the Senate.. and bills can skip the Committee of the Whole if the Rules Committee says so).
There is a mechanism to get around committees (discharge petition), but you need a majority of members to support it. Such situations are extremely rare.
So yeah.. the point is that the President can have people submit bills all he wants. However, if his party isn't in control of either body, his bills probably aren't going to go anywhere. A President facing an opposition party in Congress must rely on amendments and the veto.
It was inserted in conference, where there is no prohibition non-germane additions (in fact, there are no rules at all really when you control both houses).
who decides whether an amendment is on the same topic as the bill? The courts I guess
Not true. The courts have routinely deferred to the Congress' Art. I, Sec 5 powers to self-regulate. The House has a rule that prohibits non-germane amendments (and it carries through to the Senate when dealing with Conference Reports, which was the case with REAL ID). However, the Speaker of the House (or whoever is acting Chair) rules on which amendments are relevant. There is a process to object to the Chair's ruling, but it's rigged to almost always side with the majority party.
Though from what I've read it sounds like this clash is far from over.
I think it is, at least in this arena. While the composition of the court has changed, the "states rights" conservatives are usually blinded by their knee-jerk urge to reject anything possibly pro-drug. Even Scalia joined in Raich. The courts aren't going to change things.. it will take state legislatures and ultimately the Congress, imo. Either that or an Executive (governor/president) who pardons non-violent drug offenders and refuses to enforce the laws.
It would also be interesting to see the public's reaction to such a move.
My guess: That state's government would be reorganized at the next election.
You don't shutdown the roads of your state. That's just stupid. Interrupting the flow of goods to and from your state has serious consequences for the citizens and businesses of that state.
If thirty-three states go for it, it's a proposed amendment, with or without Congress' blessing.
Not true, and you're calling the wrong official.
If 33 State Legislatures petition the Congress, then the Congress is supposed to call a Amending Convention. 33 States (actually all 50) have petitioned the Congress and the Congress has refused to call a Convention. In fact, 567 petitions have been submitted over the years.
The Supreme Court has failed to force the Congress to perform its Constitutional duties. See http://www.article5.org/ (a badly designed website, but has the info).
You legal analysis is off. Congress created the Controlled Substances Act. The Executive Branch is tasked with executing and enforcing the laws, in this instance via the Justice Department. The President has authority under the Constitution and United States Code Title 5, Section 5317 to create agencies within Executive Departments.
If Congress didn't really want the DEA, why did they confirm its Administrator?
Relying on slashdot lawyers could get you in some trouble.
That's for sure, since your interpretation ignores SCOTUS rulings.
The Controlled Substances Act applies everywhere. Not just when you cross state lines, sadly. SCOTUS ruled that it is indeed "interstate commerce" even if the product is grown and sold wholly within one state, or even when no money or other items of value change hands.
Nice try, but extend that logic. How does defending California help me here on the East Coast?
The thing is, the Congress (and since these programs have been in existence for 30-70 years, the people) have decided that it is indeed in the 'general welfare' to provide support to certain individuals (the disabled, retirees, poor people, etc).
In other words some sleezy congress-critter appended it to a "must pass" spending bill, and we, the people, didn't get a chance to debate it, or determine if it was in fact "necessary" at all.
A couple of problems with this.
1. All amendments are voted on. It's impossible for any one person to amend a bill. You need a quorum and then a majority of that quorum (or more, depending on if it's House or Senate).
1a. Note the wiki article appears inaccurate here. It was not an amendment, but was added in the Conference Report for HR 1268. I can't get into the details of how conference reports work here. To boil it down.. basically the GOP leadership amended the appropriations bill.
2. We the people don't necessarily get a chance to debate any Congressional action. That's the whole point of a representative democracy.
3. Many of us did debate it and determined it was not necessary. Democratic Senators offered amendments to strip out the REAL ID act. These were voted down or struck via procedural means. Unfortunately, the whole Senate voted to pass the bill, most likely because it was a military appropriations bill and voting against it would not be "supporting the troops".
There is no "official inflation figure" in the US.
The BLS publishes the CPI (Consumer Price Index) among other figures. This is commonly reported in the media as "the widely used measure of inflation". Per BLS:
The "best" measure of inflation for a given application depends on the intended use of the data.
I don't think they would require you to bring a cable with you, since it's probably only a matter of time before they ban all cables of any kind from airplanes because they could be used to make bombs or something.
Of course, if you bought your Cat-5 cable in the terminal, you could take it on the flight...
Slashdot Mirror
True, but it would work in stadiums that exclusively hold football games.
There is no such facility. No one builds a multi-hundred million dollar stadium to hold just 8 events a year.
It would be cheaper (in the long run, of course) to install a system in the ground that has two transmitter/receivers on each yard line...a guy types in which yard they want the line to appear into a program and it displays it automatically..
You're talking about installing 200 pieces of permanent equipment in a facility that is routinely ripped up and reconfigured for various purposes. The current method works at any field with no permanently installed equipment. From a broadcaster's perspective, that is exactly what you want.
a guy types in which yard they want the line to appear into a program and it displays it automatically.
After it's calibrated, that's exactly how the current system works.
IIRC, MR didn't have lawyers, but it did have a court similar to the FISA court. Doesn't Anderton have to get some sort of approval before arresting the guy in the prelude?
FYI, we have a legal system in this country. That system determined several things, notably that the lawsuit was not frivilous and that the hospital was indirectly at fault for the injury to the child for failing to disclose risks.
If you have a problem, it's with the judge who presided, the jury who decided the case, or the lawyers who defended the hospital. All John Edwards did was the job he was hired to do.
That theory doesn't make sense. The part about selling WAAF appears to be true (stemming from a lawsuit). Now, if you're CBS Radio, why don't you just transfer them to BCN outright? Why pay them for three months of doing nothing? Furthermore, it was years before O&A were back on BCN. There were 3 years of non-syndicated shows in NYC.
A very idealistic reading of history. However, I seem to recall some events in Scotland (and elsewhere) that predate the 1780s and dealt with this whole free-thinking and separation thing.
In any case, the Revolutionary War did not "establish the right of a free-thinking people to [declare independence]." All it did was show that when you've got enough guns (including French assistance, mind you), and a convenient ocean between you and your enemy, you can declare and maintain independence.
As for the 1860s, the Confederacy just didn't have enough guns (or they did, and mismanaged them, depending on your view).
Since the OP didn't "prove" anything, I'm not sure what there is to disprove.
I have read the law, and what YOU don't understand is that when the tap is done first, and the approval done second, the tappers can tap anyone they want, without certifying anything at all.
I'm sorry, this is simply false.
FISA lets the administration do whatever it wants, then issues a warrant, which is backwards.
This is incorrect. FISA lets the administration do what a FISA Court Order would allow them to do. The AG must certify that there is probable cause to connect the target to a foreign agent. If you've ever read the law, you would understand this.
Using your cop analogy, it's similar to a police officer seeing something through your window, then coming to search your house (sans warrant, mind you). They have probable cause based on what they saw through the window and they do not need to get a court warrant to search your house.
The 72-hour window strikes the balance between the urgency of intelligence collection and the safeguards of the 4th amendment.
(a). I am aware that the FISA court has only outright rejected a few applications (they have rejected others but still approved them with modifications). I tend to think (at least, pre-Bush) that means that the AGs are doing their jobs and are only pursuing this course when absolutely necessary. (The number of applications (and applications approved with modifications) went way up under Bush - see here.)
(b). That is why the law opens the AG to civil remedy, and the law also includes criminal sanctions in certain situations. It doesn't sound like any other solution would satisfy you, so we should just not issue warrants, or even indictments and convictions for that matter, since they could be wrong.
approval of eavesdropping without warrants (I'm referring to FISA... getting approval *afterwards* is about as messed up an idea as anything they've ever come up with)
It's not really that messed up. In those cases, the Attorney General is basically required to certify that the Government would get approval from the FISA court if there were time to present the case.
In the event that the Government is wrong, they must destroy everything obtained and the Attorney General becomes civilly liable, iirc (for some reason Cornell's server is down).
While he can't introduce legislation himself, he need only present it to a willing accomplice for it to make its way to the floor.
This statement grossly oversimplifies the process.
While any Congressperson can submit a bill, it generally will not go anywhere without the blessing of the relevant Committee chairperson. When bills are submitted, they are almost always routed to the Committee for markup (and/or hearings, as deemed necessary by the chairperson). Then the Committee votes on whether or not the bill will proceed. The chairperson schedules markup, hearings and votes. Nothing gets done in committee without the Chairperson's blessing.
Assuming it passes the relevant committee, you then have to deal with the Rules committee who must schedule it on the calendar for the Committee of the Whole (I'm talking House here.. it's slightly different in the Senate.. and bills can skip the Committee of the Whole if the Rules Committee says so).
There is a mechanism to get around committees (discharge petition), but you need a majority of members to support it. Such situations are extremely rare.
So yeah.. the point is that the President can have people submit bills all he wants. However, if his party isn't in control of either body, his bills probably aren't going to go anywhere. A President facing an opposition party in Congress must rely on amendments and the veto.
It was inserted in conference, where there is no prohibition non-germane additions (in fact, there are no rules at all really when you control both houses).
who decides whether an amendment is on the same topic as the bill? The courts I guess
Not true. The courts have routinely deferred to the Congress' Art. I, Sec 5 powers to self-regulate. The House has a rule that prohibits non-germane amendments (and it carries through to the Senate when dealing with Conference Reports, which was the case with REAL ID). However, the Speaker of the House (or whoever is acting Chair) rules on which amendments are relevant. There is a process to object to the Chair's ruling, but it's rigged to almost always side with the majority party.
Though from what I've read it sounds like this clash is far from over.
I think it is, at least in this arena. While the composition of the court has changed, the "states rights" conservatives are usually blinded by their knee-jerk urge to reject anything possibly pro-drug. Even Scalia joined in Raich. The courts aren't going to change things.. it will take state legislatures and ultimately the Congress, imo. Either that or an Executive (governor/president) who pardons non-violent drug offenders and refuses to enforce the laws.
It would also be interesting to see the public's reaction to such a move.
My guess: That state's government would be reorganized at the next election.
You don't shutdown the roads of your state. That's just stupid. Interrupting the flow of goods to and from your state has serious consequences for the citizens and businesses of that state.
In return they let their grocery shop+pharmacy uniquely brand them with a number and track all their purchases, from birth control pills to diapers.
That's illegal under HIPAA.
If thirty-three states go for it, it's a proposed amendment, with or without Congress' blessing.
Not true, and you're calling the wrong official.
If 33 State Legislatures petition the Congress, then the Congress is supposed to call a Amending Convention. 33 States (actually all 50) have petitioned the Congress and the Congress has refused to call a Convention. In fact, 567 petitions have been submitted over the years.
The Supreme Court has failed to force the Congress to perform its Constitutional duties. See http://www.article5.org/ (a badly designed website, but has the info).
You legal analysis is off. Congress created the Controlled Substances Act. The Executive Branch is tasked with executing and enforcing the laws, in this instance via the Justice Department. The President has authority under the Constitution and United States Code Title 5, Section 5317 to create agencies within Executive Departments.
If Congress didn't really want the DEA, why did they confirm its Administrator?
Relying on slashdot lawyers could get you in some trouble.
That's for sure, since your interpretation ignores SCOTUS rulings.
The Controlled Substances Act applies everywhere. Not just when you cross state lines, sadly. SCOTUS ruled that it is indeed "interstate commerce" even if the product is grown and sold wholly within one state, or even when no money or other items of value change hands.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Nice try, but extend that logic. How does defending California help me here on the East Coast?
The thing is, the Congress (and since these programs have been in existence for 30-70 years, the people) have decided that it is indeed in the 'general welfare' to provide support to certain individuals (the disabled, retirees, poor people, etc).
In other words some sleezy congress-critter appended it to a "must pass" spending bill, and we, the people, didn't get a chance to debate it, or determine if it was in fact "necessary" at all.
A couple of problems with this.
1. All amendments are voted on. It's impossible for any one person to amend a bill. You need a quorum and then a majority of that quorum (or more, depending on if it's House or Senate).
1a. Note the wiki article appears inaccurate here. It was not an amendment, but was added in the Conference Report for HR 1268. I can't get into the details of how conference reports work here. To boil it down.. basically the GOP leadership amended the appropriations bill.
2. We the people don't necessarily get a chance to debate any Congressional action. That's the whole point of a representative democracy.
3. Many of us did debate it and determined it was not necessary. Democratic Senators offered amendments to strip out the REAL ID act. These were voted down or struck via procedural means. Unfortunately, the whole Senate voted to pass the bill, most likely because it was a military appropriations bill and voting against it would not be "supporting the troops".
If Maine wins, it could potentially undo all kinds of federal encroachment into areas it has no business to be in.
Maine won't win. I'll take any odds that SCOTUS won't even grant cert.
The BLS publishes the CPI (Consumer Price Index) among other figures. This is commonly reported in the media as "the widely used measure of inflation". Per BLS:
I don't think they would require you to bring a cable with you, since it's probably only a matter of time before they ban all cables of any kind from airplanes because they could be used to make bombs or something.
Of course, if you bought your Cat-5 cable in the terminal, you could take it on the flight...