The Constitution says the President is in charge of the Executive Branch. That gives him the power to issue orders to the branch -- QED, Executive Orders are legal.
The Constitution, Article I Section 2 says:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Representation is afforded those who pay taxes - i.e. land owners. Only Land Owners paid taxes at the time of Ratification of the Constitution. Only Taxpaying Land Owners (males) had the right of Representation. There is not a single word anywhere in the Constitution or the Amendments thereto that changes that requirement.
The 15th Amendment says: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The 18th Amendment says: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
So, no mention of the duty to pay taxes and own real property. Where is that changed?
You can blindly state that the President can Order the Executive Branch - but you think very little about the exceptions - there are limits to Executive power. The President cannot reinstate Slavery by Executive Order. The President cannot take land by executive order and the damages paid Japanese-Americans (not merely Nisei) had to originate in the House and after the legislation passed House and Senate it had to be approved by the EXECUTIVE or else have his VETO overridden.
Congress did not just "second guess" FDR. The damage was done by a taking without just compensation and the Statute of Limitations for a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 Action ran about 1946.
We live in a Democratic Republic - not "W's" Kingdom.
(1) The article said: Psychiatrists. Psychologists have Ph.D.s (4 years of college + 3 years of grad school) where Psychiatrists have M.D. degrees (4 years of College + 4 years in Medical School), a year of internship and 3-4 years of residency training. Full Blown Physicians with 5-6 years more training than mere Psychologists. Somehow you missed the fact that real DOCTORS are required to care for these people.
(2) Chaplains (not, "Chaplin's") are ministers, priests, rabbis and imams. They all tell you that you are doing God's work. They have nothing else that they can do - they read all sorts of old crap about invisible beings and tell you all about it. You know, praying is a way of feeling good about not doing anything helpful.
While Hebrews do not believe in heaven - the advice remains the same.
All of the Chaplains say: God put you here to kill those people. Please go kill more people. Today we have declared those people the right people to die. The job you get paid for is to sit here and kill your fellow humans a half a world away. Now, have a Latte and go kill some more people... some women and children would be good, because as smaller targets you have to be even better at what you do.
Physicians can give you medications that numbs the pain and puts off for a week, a month, a year or more - the ultimate horror of what you are doing; but eventually it will catch up with you.
Shell Shock, Combat Fatigue or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - all happen to a certain percentage of the population placed under these kinds of stressors and you and I are about to face a large number of people who are not being treated for the harm that killing for their God & Nation has done to them.
You can't spell or read for content. Perhaps the problem is your IQ?
On the other hand, how did it go with the cambodians and the vietnameese? Wonderful, ey? No, it didn't go wonderful. Why not? Because the US tucked tail and ran.
NO. The Vietnamese won. Just like they won over the French.
The US did not expend 56,000+ servicemen's lives "to run" - it did so out of a criminally stupid policy called, "the Domino Theory" that stands completely disproved today.
We had no business in that war. None at all. Millions died. More munitions were expended than in all of WWII and you call that running away?
Try reading a little book: Hell in a Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu.
That book, relating the French experience in Viet Nam, easily shows us what would (and, did) happen if we were so stupid to enter that conflict. We had nearly 10 years warning - and Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon & McNamara foisted that horror upon us and we have never been the same since. (Mostly because people like Bush, Rove & Cheney learned not to let the news that war is hell come to our dinner tables - or, have a draft).
(1) The Japanese would never surrender. They were preparing to fight to the last man on the home islands. (2) August 6 was the anniversary of the Hiroshima bomb - and the 9th is the anniversary of the Nagasaki bomb. (3) Pearl Harbor. (4) Pearl Harbor.
If you destroy the Pacific Fleet and do so without declaring war, you bought the price you paid.
Many of my friends are Japanese and I am happy that the generations since the last Japanese war of aggression have been peaceful. I believe to this day that the execution of the military and civilian commanders of Germany and Japan changed those nations.
Vincent Bugliosi makes the same observation in his book, The Trial of George W. Bush for Murder.
Very briefly: yes, yes - the pilots of hunter-killer drones are told that their acts will send them to heaven. Not as quickly as someone detonating a personal bomb - but the military has brought in the Chaplains and that can mean only one thing: God is on Our Side.
I guess that Anaheim and Orlando have to go. Let Euro and Japan Disney fare for themselves.
I think a few thousand hungry alligators dropped into each park every morning would take the luster off of the mouse - especially if the alligators were fitted with Mouse Ears (PARODY).
Increasing cases of infringement? Where did you get that BS?
Of course, with vastly more material in copyright there will be more infringement.
There are no such things as "innocent infringers" any longer and that is total BS. Do you really think that George Harrison intended to lift the melody from He's So Fine for My Sweet Lord?
The term that you should know is "spoliation" and that is the willful destruction of evidence that you know, or should have known, was relevant to a filed (ongoing) lawsuit, or relevant to a lawsuit that is not yet filed, but that is highly likely to be filed.
We agree - the language is, "by securing for limited Times..."
I'm for re-codifying the multiple renewal periods of 26 years that we had. Trivial works would pass into the public domain because it would cost the copyright holder some time, effort and a small fee to renew.
I hardly believe that a long-dead jingle for some defunct fast food chain would be renewed.
In my opinion It is unnecessary to address the obvious problems with the anonymous / corporate and life +70 terms - these terms exist to enrich those other than the author or creator.
Readopting the shorter term together with the renewal system certainly would allow vast numbers of works to come into the public domain (possibly cutting back on unintentional copyright infringement of the "He's So Fine" v. "My Sweet Lord" type, although I believe that only 10 years had passed between those two works.).
The loss of revenue to the authors of serious/popular works is not properly addressed by the current act - and attorney's fees are rarely paid to the artists' attorney - even for extraordinary cases. See, Ellison v. Robertson, et al., 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004); see also, Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1023 (1994).
I thoroughly agree that the terms as they exist today are per se unreasonable and a trap for the innocent infringer (who has ceased to exist).
How about a concrete example?
I'd love to see how many copies of Apple DOS 3.3 remain in use today. I once wrote a small application in microFourth running on the 6502 (an Apple II with a serial port to display controller I built) to control a simple chaser sign made up of individually addressable pixels (light bulbs) for a shopping center marquee.
I did that as a college student in the early 1970s and did it as work-for-hire. Over the past 30+ years, whenever my work called me back to that city - I'd check to see if the same program was still running. It ran until a year or two ago - when developers tore down the shopping center.
Now, exactly how would I benefit by renewing the copyright (assuming that I had licensed the work and retained my copyright) for a one-off application that paid a college student about $4k in 1974-5 (a LOT of money for me, then)? All that would have happened is that my code could become a trap for the unwary and the basis for a trivial (but, expensive) infringement suit.
But, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) hadn't been decided - so, arguably my code would not have constituted valid copyrightable subject matter until 6 years after it was written.
Or, if I had filed for a copyright and not renewed it at the end of 26 years (due to the stunning lack of demand for my limited work and the shortage of new Apple II computers), my code would simply pass into the public domain - as it should.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. The term of a copyright ought to be reasonable in length. The Author ought to be able to realize profit (very, very few do).
Consider Robert A. Caro's brilliant (soon to be 4 volume) biography of LBJ: (1) The Path To Power (Knopf; 1st ed edition (November 12, 1982)); and, (2) The Means of Ascent (Alfred A. Knopf (March 1990)); and, (3) Master of the Senate (Knopf; 1st edition (April 23, 2002)).
Aside from a fine book about a NY Power Broker, these books are Caro's life's work.
The final volume will cover the Presidency - it has taken three massive books about the man just to document his life before he becomes the president.
5-10 years does not make a reasonable copyright term for Caro's life's work- hell, he takes 8-10 years to research and write each volume. He ought to be paid accordingly. The 1976 act left in place the right to two 26 year terms - you could renew your copyright in the 25th year and get 52 years total.
That sounds reasonable to me - and a hell of a lot more reasonable than the life or the author + 70 years or 95 years for corporate and anonymous works.
Now, if Congress would just act on that war power duty and do what it did in 1973 and cut off funding the damn war.....
We have different interpretations of the law review article (and, the title seems definitive) - but, where the founders insert an imperative the duty of Congress to act is clear. The goal - as stated by Sec.8 Cl.8 - is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."
WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU WANT TO ARGUE AGAINST CONGRESS ACTING "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?"
This particular Supreme Court makes me glad I'm not a Con Law Prof. How do you teach stare decisis given these holdings?
How does a "strict constructionist" make nonsense out of the term "limited?"
I blame everything on the book, Rembrants in the Attic. That, and a lot of loonies appointed to the federal courts.
What can happen next? The 4th Amendment has ceased to exist and 1st (speech) has been eliminated for Federal Sector employees. There are no "liberals" on the Court and Jerry Ford's appointee, Associate Justice Stevens (who Nixon appointed to the 7th Cir in 1970 and Ford elevated to the SCT in 1975), is by far the Justice most committed to the doctrine of stare decisis.
Who would ever have guessed that the Court would swing so far - since 1985's Loudermill decision?
Tom Monaghan's town,- with his Catholic law school is Ave Maria, FL. He has enough money and influence for that one to survive. The town is strict in its codes - essentially a strict Roman Catholic school for everybody.
Well, actually - no. Mickey's image could be used as it would be in the public domain - but for the extension. Disney never wants that mouse image to fall into the hands of some wag who might devalue the franchise.
Imagine Mickey porn - or Japanese "Hello Mickey" kitsch.
Slashdot Mirror
You are living in a nation contained entirely within your warped mind.
Precedent, law and civility mean nothing to you.
Sociopath!
There are jokes and there are gruesome act of schgadienfreud.
You are a massive example of how the Internet can unmask a mass murderer.
NOT A JOKE!!!!!!
Hope that you are caught before you kill more.
The Constitution says the President is in charge of the Executive Branch. That gives him the power to issue orders to the branch -- QED, Executive Orders are legal.
The Constitution, Article I Section 2 says:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Representation is afforded those who pay taxes - i.e. land owners. Only Land Owners paid taxes at the time of Ratification of the Constitution. Only Taxpaying Land Owners (males) had the right of Representation. There is not a single word anywhere in the Constitution or the Amendments thereto that changes that requirement.
The 15th Amendment says: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The 18th Amendment says: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
So, no mention of the duty to pay taxes and own real property. Where is that changed?
You can blindly state that the President can Order the Executive Branch - but you think very little about the exceptions - there are limits to Executive power. The President cannot reinstate Slavery by Executive Order. The President cannot take land by executive order and the damages paid Japanese-Americans (not merely Nisei) had to originate in the House and after the legislation passed House and Senate it had to be approved by the EXECUTIVE or else have his VETO overridden.
Congress did not just "second guess" FDR. The damage was done by a taking without just compensation and the Statute of Limitations for a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 Action ran about 1946.
We live in a Democratic Republic - not "W's" Kingdom.
SO, you read my link. Nice job.
Did you read the section that questions the right of the President to make use of these?
How about the fact that we have paid damages for the harm done by one "Executive Order" that disenfranchised Japanese-Americans and German-Americans.
Did you note that NOTHING in the Constitution EXPRESSLY authorizes these Orders?
(1) The article said: Psychiatrists. Psychologists have Ph.D.s (4 years of college + 3 years of grad school) where Psychiatrists have M.D. degrees (4 years of College + 4 years in Medical School), a year of internship and 3-4 years of residency training. Full Blown Physicians with 5-6 years more training than mere Psychologists. Somehow you missed the fact that real DOCTORS are required to care for these people.
(2) Chaplains (not, "Chaplin's") are ministers, priests, rabbis and imams. They all tell you that you are doing God's work. They have nothing else that they can do - they read all sorts of old crap about invisible beings and tell you all about it. You know, praying is a way of feeling good about not doing anything helpful.
While Hebrews do not believe in heaven - the advice remains the same.
All of the Chaplains say: God put you here to kill those people. Please go kill more people. Today we have declared those people the right people to die. The job you get paid for is to sit here and kill your fellow humans a half a world away. Now, have a Latte and go kill some more people... some women and children would be good, because as smaller targets you have to be even better at what you do.
Physicians can give you medications that numbs the pain and puts off for a week, a month, a year or more - the ultimate horror of what you are doing; but eventually it will catch up with you.
Shell Shock, Combat Fatigue or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - all happen to a certain percentage of the population placed under these kinds of stressors and you and I are about to face a large number of people who are not being treated for the harm that killing for their God & Nation has done to them.
You can't spell or read for content. Perhaps the problem is your IQ?
You are one sick puppy.
On the other hand, how did it go with the cambodians and the vietnameese? Wonderful, ey? No, it didn't go wonderful. Why not? Because the US tucked tail and ran.
NO. The Vietnamese won. Just like they won over the French.
The US did not expend 56,000+ servicemen's lives "to run" - it did so out of a criminally stupid policy called, "the Domino Theory" that stands completely disproved today.
We had no business in that war. None at all. Millions died. More munitions were expended than in all of WWII and you call that running away?
Try reading a little book: Hell in a Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu.
That book, relating the French experience in Viet Nam, easily shows us what would (and, did) happen if we were so stupid to enter that conflict. We had nearly 10 years warning - and Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon & McNamara foisted that horror upon us and we have never been the same since. (Mostly because people like Bush, Rove & Cheney learned not to let the news that war is hell come to our dinner tables - or, have a draft).
(1) The Japanese would never surrender. They were preparing to fight to the last man on the home islands.
(2) August 6 was the anniversary of the Hiroshima bomb - and the 9th is the anniversary of the Nagasaki bomb.
(3) Pearl Harbor.
(4) Pearl Harbor.
If you destroy the Pacific Fleet and do so without declaring war, you bought the price you paid.
Many of my friends are Japanese and I am happy that the generations since the last Japanese war of aggression have been peaceful. I believe to this day that the execution of the military and civilian commanders of Germany and Japan changed those nations.
Vincent Bugliosi makes the same observation in his book, The Trial of George W. Bush for Murder.
Charlie Wilson and a few others at the CIA had a lot to do with it, too.
Executive Orders? Where in the Constitution does it say that the President has the right to issue Executive Orders?
Better still, when did Presidents start issuing Executive Orders?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)
Very briefly: yes, yes - the pilots of hunter-killer drones are told that their acts will send them to heaven. Not as quickly as someone detonating a personal bomb - but the military has brought in the Chaplains and that can mean only one thing: God is on Our Side.
I guess that Anaheim and Orlando have to go. Let Euro and Japan Disney fare for themselves.
I think a few thousand hungry alligators dropped into each park every morning would take the luster off of the mouse - especially if the alligators were fitted with Mouse Ears (PARODY).
Increasing cases of infringement? Where did you get that BS?
Of course, with vastly more material in copyright there will be more infringement.
There are no such things as "innocent infringers" any longer and that is total BS. Do you really think that George Harrison intended to lift the melody from He's So Fine for My Sweet Lord?
It is not "ignorance of the law."
The term that you should know is "spoliation" and that is the willful destruction of evidence that you know, or should have known, was relevant to a filed (ongoing) lawsuit, or relevant to a lawsuit that is not yet filed, but that is highly likely to be filed.
Eat it, wizard. Reductio ad absurdum gets you nowhere.
We agree - the language is, "by securing for limited Times..."
I'm for re-codifying the multiple renewal periods of 26 years that we had. Trivial works would pass into the public domain because it would cost the copyright holder some time, effort and a small fee to renew.
I hardly believe that a long-dead jingle for some defunct fast food chain would be renewed.
In my opinion It is unnecessary to address the obvious problems with the anonymous / corporate and life +70 terms - these terms exist to enrich those other than the author or creator.
Readopting the shorter term together with the renewal system certainly would allow vast numbers of works to come into the public domain (possibly cutting back on unintentional copyright infringement of the "He's So Fine" v. "My Sweet Lord" type, although I believe that only 10 years had passed between those two works.).
The loss of revenue to the authors of serious/popular works is not properly addressed by the current act - and attorney's fees are rarely paid to the artists' attorney - even for extraordinary cases. See, Ellison v. Robertson, et al., 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004); see also, Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1023 (1994).
I thoroughly agree that the terms as they exist today are per se unreasonable and a trap for the innocent infringer (who has ceased to exist).
How about a concrete example?
I'd love to see how many copies of Apple DOS 3.3 remain in use today. I once wrote a small application in microFourth running on the 6502 (an Apple II with a serial port to display controller I built) to control a simple chaser sign made up of individually addressable pixels (light bulbs) for a shopping center marquee.
I did that as a college student in the early 1970s and did it as work-for-hire. Over the past 30+ years, whenever my work called me back to that city - I'd check to see if the same program was still running. It ran until a year or two ago - when developers tore down the shopping center.
Now, exactly how would I benefit by renewing the copyright (assuming that I had licensed the work and retained my copyright) for a one-off application that paid a college student about $4k in 1974-5 (a LOT of money for me, then)? All that would have happened is that my code could become a trap for the unwary and the basis for a trivial (but, expensive) infringement suit.
But, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) hadn't been decided - so, arguably my code would not have constituted valid copyrightable subject matter until 6 years after it was written.
Or, if I had filed for a copyright and not renewed it at the end of 26 years (due to the stunning lack of demand for my limited work and the shortage of new Apple II computers), my code would simply pass into the public domain - as it should.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. The term of a copyright ought to be reasonable in length. The Author ought to be able to realize profit (very, very few do).
Consider Robert A. Caro's brilliant (soon to be 4 volume) biography of LBJ: (1) The Path To Power (Knopf; 1st ed edition (November 12, 1982)); and, (2) The Means of Ascent (Alfred A. Knopf (March 1990)); and, (3) Master of the Senate (Knopf; 1st edition (April 23, 2002)).
Aside from a fine book about a NY Power Broker, these books are Caro's life's work.
The final volume will cover the Presidency - it has taken three massive books about the man just to document his life before he becomes the president.
5-10 years does not make a reasonable copyright term for Caro's life's work- hell, he takes 8-10 years to research and write each volume. He ought to be paid accordingly. The 1976 act left in place the right to two 26 year terms - you could renew your copyright in the 25th year and get 52 years total.
That sounds reasonable to me - and a hell of a lot more reasonable than the life or the author + 70 years or 95 years for corporate and anonymous works.
Now, if Congress would just act on that war power duty and do what it did in 1973 and cut off funding the damn war.....
Reality intrudes ever so slightly into your world, doesn't it?
We have different interpretations of the law review article (and, the title seems definitive) - but, where the founders insert an imperative the duty of Congress to act is clear. The goal - as stated by Sec.8 Cl.8 - is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."
WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU WANT TO ARGUE AGAINST CONGRESS ACTING "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?"
I just graduate college recently....
Well, you failed simple English subject-verb agreement in the quote. Perhaps you are a plant from the RIAA?
I'll pass, thanks just the same....
Well, I must be dense. Of course you are correct.
This particular Supreme Court makes me glad I'm not a Con Law Prof. How do you teach stare decisis given these holdings?
How does a "strict constructionist" make nonsense out of the term "limited?"
I blame everything on the book, Rembrants in the Attic. That, and a lot of loonies appointed to the federal courts.
What can happen next? The 4th Amendment has ceased to exist and 1st (speech) has been eliminated for Federal Sector employees. There are no "liberals" on the Court and Jerry Ford's appointee, Associate Justice Stevens (who Nixon appointed to the 7th Cir in 1970 and Ford elevated to the SCT in 1975), is by far the Justice most committed to the doctrine of stare decisis.
Who would ever have guessed that the Court would swing so far - since 1985's Loudermill decision?
The Disney town failed.
Tom Monaghan's town,- with his Catholic law school is Ave Maria, FL. He has enough money and influence for that one to survive. The town is strict in its codes - essentially a strict Roman Catholic school for everybody.
Well, actually - no. Mickey's image could be used as it would be in the public domain - but for the extension. Disney never wants that mouse image to fall into the hands of some wag who might devalue the franchise.
Imagine Mickey porn - or Japanese "Hello Mickey" kitsch.
http://www.law.utk.edu/FACULTY/scope.PDF
Harvard Law Journal on Legislation. The duty to act is well cited.