The electoral system of the US isn't capable of supporting a third party for long. It will either die soon after being popularized or it wil take the place of one of the other two established parties. Any other result is so remote as to be practically impossible.
The US party system will not change without changing the way elections are run, and the US party system controls the process for changing the electoral system. Also, it would take a Constitutional amendment for starters. Not likely to happen.
The US government will more than likely have to collapse before such a change in US politics is likely to happen.
All states (AFAIK) try to do that to all out-of-state purchases.
The thing I never understood about states charging use taxes on out-of-state purchases is this section in the US Constitution:
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Of course, governments routinely exceed their authority, so I suppose it should be no surprise.
Bringing an item into a state is an import, whether done in the course of business or not. This definition of import is borne out by the practice of charging import duties at customs when an individual brings items they purchased abroad back into the US.
If the states had this power, they could prevent internal migration (in the US) by charging use tax on entire households worth of items every time someone moved across state lines.
There are very few free-marketeers that advocate having no rules at all in the market.
I would certainly agree with this particular statement. I'd say that even the hardliners agree that "rules" per se are necessary, the only difference is really just semantic. Those who advocate "no rules" tend to advocate that on the basis of having some arbitrary body make and enforce a "set of rules."
I think the difference between free-marketers and others is that those pushing free markets are in favor of being able to trade within the "norm" while also having the right to negotiate trades that are not bound by the usual rules, but rather independently negotiated terms acceptable to both parties.
I understand that these systems are open to abuse, but current systems are open to other types of abuse. My personal opinion is that the risks are worth the rewards. Unfortunately, I live in an industrialized society where the term "personal responsibility" means that someone else is personally responsible for every terminally stupid (or any other) act a person can commit. I don't expect to see any of this happen in my lifetime, barring the collapse of an empire.
The similarity between the Horse and the Trackman was my first thought as well (Trackman Marble FX, rather than Marble+).
Too bad they don't manufacture it anymore. I'm wearing through my second one, and looking at spending $60-$100 on eBay to get another one in good condition.:(
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
When was the last time you saw a State make payment in gold or silver?
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Try that with a gay marriage or concealed weapons permit (some states have reciprocity with the latter, but coverage is spotty).
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Try to claim anything not specifically protected by the Constitution as a right and see how far it gets you.
The Constitution doesn't protect anything. Only people can protect things (or the occasional guard dog...). When the people vested with the power to enforce the provision of the Constitution not only don't know what those provisions are but actively work against many of them, the Constitution essentially ceases to exist. That is the state the USA is in now. It, like all empires before it, will collapse and fall away under the bloated arrogance and corruption of those the masses have willingly ceded their power to.
No, but jailing or fining people for exercising their 1st amendment rights (which are not subject to "filling out a form") or specifically choosing to continue political speech within the banned timeframe right around elections (another exercise of the 1st amendment).
Also, if you had read the article for comprehension, you would realize that it clearly states that there are a) caps on contributions and b) a personal link to a campaign contribution page (or any other activity that helps a campaign raise money) counts toward that cap. Popular blogs could easily run over contribution limits and be subject to fines simply because an individual stated a political opinion and provided contact information. THAT is the censorship.
Then again, McCain-Feingold was one of the most brilliantly crafted pieces of suppressive legislation out there. It exempted the traditional media, and made everyone else criminals. The 1st amendment makes no distinction regarding "the press." It doesn't just mean a corporation that commands a circulation of 100 million, it means Average Joe printing a flier and handing it out to a dozen friends (or sending an email to a dozen friends).
At first I thought it was strange that so many would attack your position with their own exclamations about how censorship is unacceptable.
Ah, the joys of Slashdot and readers who don't read for comprehension.
If only there were more people who held themselves to higher standards while not attempting to force others to hold the same (especially since people are not perfect, and can be prone to slipping).
First off, I can't believe I quoted the wrong amendment. What's truly amazing is that nobody corrected me. Sorry state of affairs for the US when nobody notices that it's not the 4th amendment that deals with cruel and unusual punishment, but rather the 8th.
My bad...
Anyway, to deal with your question, I haven't heard any argument backed up with historical documentation one way or the other regarding the intent of that phrase. I would be more inclined to side with the latter of your definitions, but that is simply my personal feeling on the matter.
Having said that, it would be difficult to impossible for a highly unusual sentence to be imposed. Most US laws have sentencing guidlines that are difficult or impossible to surmount. The more grievous the crime the less latitude there is in sentencing. That's not absolute, but close to it.
The IRS won't allow you to file without an SSN (eligibility for a TIN notwithstanding), but they can't legally compel you to fill out an SS-5. Selective Services can't compel you to fill one out either. It states plainly on the back of the SS-5 that they (the Federal Government in general and the SSA in particular) cannot require you to divulge the information necessary to process the application. It's as simple as that. The ramifications are enormous, but that's a discussion for another time.
Several states don't even require positive ID to get a certified birth certificate. My own birth state requires only two utility bills issued to the name on the birth certificate in order to get one, and these can be faxed (and hence easily forged) at that.
Which goes to show that both Republicans and Democrats are only interested in their own benefit (obtaining more power over others), and that neither party should be trusted.
Sometimes they don't even accept their own listed ID requirements, as happened in my attempt to get an Idaho license. Check out my journal if you want the entire story on what can happen in my state.
The purchase of Netflix as a subsidiary would have no effect on the charging of sales tax by Amazon. However, if Amazon incorporated Netflix into the parent company, all Netflix properties and employees would become Amazon property and employees.
The latter is unlikely to occur because of the name recognition that Netflix enjoys. It would be purchased and remain a subsidiary rather than being absorbed.
Interestingly enough, nobody has in return gone after states for taxing interstate movement of goods in violation of US Constitution Article 1 Sec. 10 Clause 2.
These charges are not to compensate for the execution of state inspection laws, which is the only exception provided.
Even if it were allowed by the Federal Government, all monies collected would be for use solely by the US Treasury, hence not actually netting the State anything.
Of course, that would be in a closer-to-ideal world where politicians and bureaurats actually stayed within the bounds of power granted to them. The US has never actually been that country, and it's always a fight to keep the corrupt members of government in line.
Notice the term "regulations." Legal changes always have trickle-down effects that far exceed the actual bulk of the law. Most of the effects that are felt by individuals will be as a result of changed regulations in regard to the actual legal changes, rather than the legal changes themselves.
As far as the USC goes (and CFR for that matter), it is labrythine in its construction. It is very time intensive to review changes on a massive scale, especially when reviewing the possible ramifications of subjects as sensitive and far-reaching as those dealt with in this particular legislation. It's really not my problem if you believe that to be bullshit. I stand by my statements.
If I didn't feel the need to post in this story I would have modded you up. Insightful in a story where so many people apparently lack any kind of insight into why government should generally be distrusted and granted power sparingly.
Yes, I do. Every day I loath US society and the direction it's moving in more and more. Thanks for asking.:)
Privacy is mostly a desire of the underdog in a relationship with an unequal power distribution. It's a defense mechanism. As the centralization of power within the government increases, more individuals will strive for privacy even if they have nothing of consequence (to the government, or most other people) to hide.
A good citizen is one who exercises the right to dissent when he/she feels the need, and does not attempt to deny the same exercise by another. Someone who sits down and shuts up because they're told to is not a good citizen.
I was going to moderate in this story, but I had to reply to this comment...
One person's bug is another person's feature. If a site does not work correctly with Opera, most people either have the capability of using another browser, or they can set Opera to render all pages, or they don't care enough about these instances to bother.
I have to agree with previous posters. Opera has saved me countless hours over the years in not needing to re-render pages. It would be hard for me to enumerate all of the times where the non-rendering of the browser is extraordinarily helpful or timesaving. If I'm on a page where I would actually want to force Opera to re-render it when I hit the back button (I can't think of a single instance I'd want to though), Opera can be set to do so.
Out of curiosity, what pages does Opera's back button break? I've never run across one. I'd be interested to know.
Slashdot Mirror
The electoral system of the US isn't capable of supporting a third party for long. It will either die soon after being popularized or it wil take the place of one of the other two established parties. Any other result is so remote as to be practically impossible.
The US party system will not change without changing the way elections are run, and the US party system controls the process for changing the electoral system. Also, it would take a Constitutional amendment for starters. Not likely to happen.
The US government will more than likely have to collapse before such a change in US politics is likely to happen.
The thing I never understood about states charging use taxes on out-of-state purchases is this section in the US Constitution:
Of course, governments routinely exceed their authority, so I suppose it should be no surprise.
Bringing an item into a state is an import, whether done in the course of business or not. This definition of import is borne out by the practice of charging import duties at customs when an individual brings items they purchased abroad back into the US.
If the states had this power, they could prevent internal migration (in the US) by charging use tax on entire households worth of items every time someone moved across state lines.
I would mod this funny if I had any points, but that's just me. :)
There are very few free-marketeers that advocate having no rules at all in the market.
I would certainly agree with this particular statement. I'd say that even the hardliners agree that "rules" per se are necessary, the only difference is really just semantic. Those who advocate "no rules" tend to advocate that on the basis of having some arbitrary body make and enforce a "set of rules."
I think the difference between free-marketers and others is that those pushing free markets are in favor of being able to trade within the "norm" while also having the right to negotiate trades that are not bound by the usual rules, but rather independently negotiated terms acceptable to both parties.
I understand that these systems are open to abuse, but current systems are open to other types of abuse. My personal opinion is that the risks are worth the rewards. Unfortunately, I live in an industrialized society where the term "personal responsibility" means that someone else is personally responsible for every terminally stupid (or any other) act a person can commit. I don't expect to see any of this happen in my lifetime, barring the collapse of an empire.
Yeah, but that's really stretching it. If you try to stretch too far at once, you're likely to pull something important.
Don't insert logic into a rant about the evils of the right to associate (or not associate)!
The similarity between the Horse and the Trackman was my first thought as well (Trackman Marble FX, rather than Marble+).
:(
Too bad they don't manufacture it anymore. I'm wearing through my second one, and looking at spending $60-$100 on eBay to get another one in good condition.
When was the last time you saw a State make payment in gold or silver?
Try that with a gay marriage or concealed weapons permit (some states have reciprocity with the latter, but coverage is spotty).
Try to claim anything not specifically protected by the Constitution as a right and see how far it gets you.
The Constitution doesn't protect anything. Only people can protect things (or the occasional guard dog
No, now their job seems to be deciding the best way to dodge the task of determining and writitg clear, concise opinions on important issues.
No, but jailing or fining people for exercising their 1st amendment rights (which are not subject to "filling out a form") or specifically choosing to continue political speech within the banned timeframe right around elections (another exercise of the 1st amendment).
Also, if you had read the article for comprehension, you would realize that it clearly states that there are a) caps on contributions and b) a personal link to a campaign contribution page (or any other activity that helps a campaign raise money) counts toward that cap. Popular blogs could easily run over contribution limits and be subject to fines simply because an individual stated a political opinion and provided contact information. THAT is the censorship.
Then again, McCain-Feingold was one of the most brilliantly crafted pieces of suppressive legislation out there. It exempted the traditional media, and made everyone else criminals. The 1st amendment makes no distinction regarding "the press." It doesn't just mean a corporation that commands a circulation of 100 million, it means Average Joe printing a flier and handing it out to a dozen friends (or sending an email to a dozen friends).
At first I thought it was strange that so many would attack your position with their own exclamations about how censorship is unacceptable.
Ah, the joys of Slashdot and readers who don't read for comprehension.
If only there were more people who held themselves to higher standards while not attempting to force others to hold the same (especially since people are not perfect, and can be prone to slipping).
First off, I can't believe I quoted the wrong amendment. What's truly amazing is that nobody corrected me. Sorry state of affairs for the US when nobody notices that it's not the 4th amendment that deals with cruel and unusual punishment, but rather the 8th.
My bad...
Anyway, to deal with your question, I haven't heard any argument backed up with historical documentation one way or the other regarding the intent of that phrase. I would be more inclined to side with the latter of your definitions, but that is simply my personal feeling on the matter.
Having said that, it would be difficult to impossible for a highly unusual sentence to be imposed. Most US laws have sentencing guidlines that are difficult or impossible to surmount. The more grievous the crime the less latitude there is in sentencing. That's not absolute, but close to it.
The IRS won't allow you to file without an SSN (eligibility for a TIN notwithstanding), but they can't legally compel you to fill out an SS-5. Selective Services can't compel you to fill one out either. It states plainly on the back of the SS-5 that they (the Federal Government in general and the SSA in particular) cannot require you to divulge the information necessary to process the application. It's as simple as that. The ramifications are enormous, but that's a discussion for another time.
Simple enough. :)
Several states don't even require positive ID to get a certified birth certificate. My own birth state requires only two utility bills issued to the name on the birth certificate in order to get one, and these can be faxed (and hence easily forged) at that.
Which goes to show that both Republicans and Democrats are only interested in their own benefit (obtaining more power over others), and that neither party should be trusted.
Sometimes they don't even accept their own listed ID requirements, as happened in my attempt to get an Idaho license. Check out my journal if you want the entire story on what can happen in my state.
My kingdom for some mod points. This is certainly an astute example of how laws are changing in this country.
"Trust us, the law says we can do this, but we can't show you the law that says we can. That would be a threat to National Security."
I am not familiar with this book, but I will certainly find a copy and read it now.
The purchase of Netflix as a subsidiary would have no effect on the charging of sales tax by Amazon. However, if Amazon incorporated Netflix into the parent company, all Netflix properties and employees would become Amazon property and employees.
The latter is unlikely to occur because of the name recognition that Netflix enjoys. It would be purchased and remain a subsidiary rather than being absorbed.
Interestingly enough, nobody has in return gone after states for taxing interstate movement of goods in violation of US Constitution Article 1 Sec. 10 Clause 2.
These charges are not to compensate for the execution of state inspection laws, which is the only exception provided.
Even if it were allowed by the Federal Government, all monies collected would be for use solely by the US Treasury, hence not actually netting the State anything.
Of course, that would be in a closer-to-ideal world where politicians and bureaurats actually stayed within the bounds of power granted to them. The US has never actually been that country, and it's always a fight to keep the corrupt members of government in line.
Notice the term "regulations." Legal changes always have trickle-down effects that far exceed the actual bulk of the law. Most of the effects that are felt by individuals will be as a result of changed regulations in regard to the actual legal changes, rather than the legal changes themselves.
As far as the USC goes (and CFR for that matter), it is labrythine in its construction. It is very time intensive to review changes on a massive scale, especially when reviewing the possible ramifications of subjects as sensitive and far-reaching as those dealt with in this particular legislation. It's really not my problem if you believe that to be bullshit. I stand by my statements.
If I didn't feel the need to post in this story I would have modded you up. Insightful in a story where so many people apparently lack any kind of insight into why government should generally be distrusted and granted power sparingly.
Or do you like being a pain in society's rear?
:)
Yes, I do. Every day I loath US society and the direction it's moving in more and more. Thanks for asking.
Privacy is mostly a desire of the underdog in a relationship with an unequal power distribution. It's a defense mechanism. As the centralization of power within the government increases, more individuals will strive for privacy even if they have nothing of consequence (to the government, or most other people) to hide.
A good citizen is one who exercises the right to dissent when he/she feels the need, and does not attempt to deny the same exercise by another. Someone who sits down and shuts up because they're told to is not a good citizen.
Unless uses of the information are clearly enumerated and limitted by law to only those uses, it will absolutely be abused.
The problem is, once the basic provisions become law the limitations are easily changed or removed surreptitiously.
For example, the initial Social Security Act stated SSNs were not ever to be used for identification purposes.
Function creep is an essential way bureaucracies increase their power and influence.
I was going to moderate in this story, but I had to reply to this comment...
One person's bug is another person's feature. If a site does not work correctly with Opera, most people either have the capability of using another browser, or they can set Opera to render all pages, or they don't care enough about these instances to bother.
I have to agree with previous posters. Opera has saved me countless hours over the years in not needing to re-render pages. It would be hard for me to enumerate all of the times where the non-rendering of the browser is extraordinarily helpful or timesaving. If I'm on a page where I would actually want to force Opera to re-render it when I hit the back button (I can't think of a single instance I'd want to though), Opera can be set to do so.
Out of curiosity, what pages does Opera's back button break? I've never run across one. I'd be interested to know.