...yes and no. The Constitution specifies what the government is allowed to do with the consent of the governed.
That portion is rather important
"It says ANY PERSON. That means anyone, anywhere, at any time."
...see, that's what makes me think that you're not reading what you post, because before you went into that bit about "anyone, anywhere, anytime", you yourself posted this:
"...unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;..."(my emphasis added)
Folks, this is what happens when contributors to Slashdot blindly copy and paste. What you just read was more than just a trivial typo or grammatical error. That was a self-documented mis-understanding. If left un-challenged, it could (and probably would) lead to further mis-understanding.
I am not a lawyer (then again neither are you, just a hunch), but if you really want to formulate an educated opinion, do some research about the Constitution on your own.
...not in North Korea, but across the border. We tangled with them in the past.
Man for man, tank for tank, plane for plane, they aren't a problem for American military might. Then again, they shouldn't have been a problem 50 years ago. The Japanese handled the Chinese easily enough between 1937-1945, right?...and the Allies (mostly the U.S.) dealt with the Japanese. Hardened and experienced Americans should have had an easy time of it 5-6 years later.
...but it didn't work out that way.
Behind the scenes, our negotiators and theirs probably discussed what might happen if we opened up yet another war zone. My first guess is that they'd have none of it.
Remember also that the U.S. STILL has a military presence in Korea without an exit strategy to speak of.
It is very easy to criticize someone else for making an effort. It is very, very hard to get your ass out of your parents' basement and actually do something about it.
That seems to be the entire purpose of online forums....especially in the past few years. Every proposed solution takes heat. Everything that makes the news gets politicized and the nature of message boards seems to encourage it.
We can't even find a list of ours in plain English. No one knows what all the laws are, and no one can be held morally responsible for violating them. Until the system changes drastically, ignorance is indeed an excuse.
Have you ever tried pulling that in court?
If so, when do you get out?
If it ever goes to court he claims that he will not have any problem showing that the laws contradict, and thus can't be enforced, which he has done in the past.
In other words, laws are interpreted and implemented by judge and/or jury. That's the way it's supposed to work in a common law system. Interpretations based on earlier precedents will hold sway over how conflicting statutes will be decided. They aren't meant to be boilerplate as in civil law systems because one size doesn't (and ought not to) fit all.
...sorry about beating this to death but it is important to some of us. I'll re-phrase my question.
Specifically which portion of the United States Constitution "grants" any rights of any kind?
...and who is so high and mighty to have the authority to confer rights to anyone?
...and how did that person or persons get that authority?
Clue: One or more of the above might well be trick questions as rights are recognized and/or guaranteed, not granted. You shouldn't need to pass a pre-law program to know any of the above.
Try unclenching your teeth and your fists. It's easier to type that way.
I don't know if you have people in your life who care about you, but if you do, I wonder how they put up with your abusiveness and venom. Is this how you deal with folks who dare to disagree with you in person?
I don't want to waste your time, so I'll lay it out. I don't believe in any gods. I don't care if I misquoted scripture.
...kinda figured. I'm not that religious myself, but I also try to avoid questioning or taking a dismissive attitude towards other peoples' beliefs.
...but that's me.
I don't care if it really talks about murder, and not killing in general.
The Scripture doesn't always define the differences clearly. Over the centuries, that sort of thing led to all kinds of misunderstandings....still does, I guess.
My purpose was strictly political,...
Oh for cryin' out loud.
...to point out that justification of killing using a technical and lawyerly interpretation of the holy books of any religion is fucked up.
The histories of religion, ethics, and law have always intermingled. They influence one another. You can try in vain to separate them. You might even succeed... for a while, but they will not remain separate.
You want to be a lawyer? Go to law school.
...invalid premise. Not all killing is murder from a legal standpoint, or morally. You don't need a lawyer to prove it.
They can teach you a hundred different ways to twist an interpretation to support whatever kind of killing you want to do.
...invalid premise. You've also yet to prove that I've killed any more than you have, or that I want to.
What is your problem, anyway? If you're trying to suggest that all killing is murder, you will fail.
You want to be moral? Don't kill people, and then claim that God likes it because the other guy happened to be an opposing soldier.
Morals have been used to justify horrendous crimes against humanity.
Your criticism makes the most sense of all that have been given to that commandment.
"Thou shalt not kill..." is less of a commandment than it is a misquote. The closest transliteration is "You shall not do murder."
I am a bit surprised at just how aggressively some people have pointed out that it's really just a prohibition against murder, as if that makes other kinds of killing acceptable.
You stood corrected because you misquoted scripture. Granted that it means more to some folks than others, but you also appear to imply that all killing is murder when there are legal, moral, and practical differences between what sort of termination of life is considered murder and what is not.
Let's try this. Is it somehow acceptable to you that termination of animal and plant life is done to provide you (and people you care about) with food?
It's inevitable that people are going to switch to Chinese in the long run, at least Unix sysadmins. Perl becomes so much more fun when you have tens of thousands of one-glyph variable names. Heck, there's probably some one-line-wonder OS written in Chinese, just waiting for us to find it.
...commands, arguments and options - consisting of ideographs, which is what Chinese characters are....very much like icons. A few thousand years back they were much more graphically descriptive, but they're still kindasorta pictures.
Alphabetic characters convey phonetic sounds (and acronyms, I suppose). Pictographic characters were intended to convey meaning. Oddly enough, the Chinese started requiring that their kids master English long after the Koreans and Japanese implemented phonetic alphabetic systems of their own, even though their contact with the west was rather extensive. Isolationism and snobbery can have that effect, I guess.
Also when spoken, different intonations change the meaning in Chinese. The language is not only enunciated. You kinda have to sing it too. Fortunately, IBM has recently released much of their speech-recognition technology to the open-source community.
By in China, Mandarin, Cantonese and other dialects are all written using ideographs, where one glyph represents a single word. As a result, it is impossible to form acronyms. And as a result, technological progress is impossible.
Ideographs on a shell prompt can be an unholy bitch too.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone ever figure out how bumblebees can defy gravity after it was proven "impossible"?
...something about being too big 'n heavy and not flapping their little wings fast enough.
"...it's a list of what the GOVERNMENT can do..."
That portion is rather important
"It says ANY PERSON. That means anyone, anywhere, at any time."
"...unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;..." (my emphasis added)
Folks, this is what happens when contributors to Slashdot blindly copy and paste. What you just read was more than just a trivial typo or grammatical error. That was a self-documented mis-understanding. If left un-challenged, it could (and probably would) lead to further mis-understanding.
I am not a lawyer (then again neither are you, just a hunch), but if you really want to formulate an educated opinion, do some research about the Constitution on your own.
U.S. Constitution (Gutenberg.org - HTML)
U.S. Constitution (Gutenberg.org - plain text)
...not in North Korea, but across the border. We tangled with them in the past.
Man for man, tank for tank, plane for plane, they aren't a problem for American military might. Then again, they shouldn't have been a problem 50 years ago. The Japanese handled the Chinese easily enough between 1937-1945, right? ...and the Allies (mostly the U.S.) dealt with the Japanese. Hardened and experienced Americans should have had an easy time of it 5-6 years later.
Behind the scenes, our negotiators and theirs probably discussed what might happen if we opened up yet another war zone. My first guess is that they'd have none of it.
Remember also that the U.S. STILL has a military presence in Korea without an exit strategy to speak of.
Apple has been shipping a one-button mouse longer than anybody else currently in the computer industry has been shiping any kind of mouse.
Agreed. The key word is "shipping".
In this matter, it's not Apple that's being different. They were here first.
Correction: They weren't quite "here first". They got a LOT of their ideas from the Xerox Alto system.
Come to think of it, they didn't really ship first either because the White House and the U.S. Senate each had at least one.
...and that looks like a three (3) button mouse to me.
It is very easy to criticize someone else for making an effort. It is very, very hard to get your ass out of your parents' basement and actually do something about it.
That seems to be the entire purpose of online forums. ...especially in the past few years. Every proposed solution takes heat. Everything that makes the news gets politicized and the nature of message boards seems to encourage it.
It is very easy, and that's too bad.
We find out who Anakin's father really is.
1. Mace Windu gets killed.
2. Boba Fett kills him.
Um, Mao was not in charge of China last time I checked. Dubya is. Let's stay on current events.
Which alternative reality are you posting from?
Now we believe that black people have this huge innate physical sports advantage.
Whaddaya mean we
"Je ne suis pas un Marxiste."
He's been dead for 120 years and he's still taken out of context.
Maybe I just did it too. Oh well.
...fart sequence initiated!
We can't even find a list of ours in plain English. No one knows what all the laws are, and no one can be held morally responsible for violating them. Until the system changes drastically, ignorance is indeed an excuse.
Have you ever tried pulling that in court?
If so, when do you get out?
If it ever goes to court he claims that he will not have any problem showing that the laws contradict, and thus can't be enforced, which he has done in the past.
In other words, laws are interpreted and implemented by judge and/or jury. That's the way it's supposed to work in a common law system. Interpretations based on earlier precedents will hold sway over how conflicting statutes will be decided. They aren't meant to be boilerplate as in civil law systems because one size doesn't (and ought not to) fit all.
...if I downloaded Britney Spears' DNA?
Would they consider that stealing if someone just happened to be sharing it with me?
"Je ne suis pas un Marxiste."
...sorry. I just couldn't resist.
Since 1776 you numbnuts
...sorry about beating this to death but it is important to some of us. I'll re-phrase my question.
Specifically which portion of the United States Constitution "grants" any rights of any kind?
...and who is so high and mighty to have the authority to confer rights to anyone?
...and how did that person or persons get that authority?
Clue: One or more of the above might well be trick questions as rights are recognized and/or guaranteed, not granted. You shouldn't need to pass a pre-law program to know any of the above.
The fourth amendment doesn't grant individuals the right to commit crimes anonymously.
Since when does any portion of the United States Constitution "grant" any right of any kind?
Has there ever been a time in history where most human beings didn't think what they wanted to think anyway?
Does having grandparents who left Germany for America in 1938 count?
I think AC was referring to someplace closer to home and sometime closer to the present.
It's just that to compare 2004 America with 1938 Germany appears to trivialize the fear and desperation many of us can only read about.
It trivializes the consequences of the actions of fearful and desperate people too.
Oh, you are such an idiot.
A cunt, actually.
Try unclenching your teeth and your fists. It's easier to type that way.
I don't know if you have people in your life who care about you, but if you do, I wonder how they put up with your abusiveness and venom. Is this how you deal with folks who dare to disagree with you in person?
I don't want to waste your time, so I'll lay it out. I don't believe in any gods. I don't care if I misquoted scripture.
I don't care if it really talks about murder, and not killing in general.
The Scripture doesn't always define the differences clearly. Over the centuries, that sort of thing led to all kinds of misunderstandings. ...still does, I guess.
My purpose was strictly political,...
Oh for cryin' out loud.
The histories of religion, ethics, and law have always intermingled. They influence one another. You can try in vain to separate them. You might even succeed ... for a while, but they will not remain separate.
You want to be a lawyer? Go to law school.
They can teach you a hundred different ways to twist an interpretation to support whatever kind of killing you want to do.
What is your problem, anyway? If you're trying to suggest that all killing is murder, you will fail.
You want to be moral? Don't kill people, and then claim that God likes it because the other guy happened to be an opposing soldier.
Morals have been used to justify horrendous crimes against humanity.
So have politics.
There, now you know exactly where I stand.
You stand corrected, MuthaFucka.
3000 Americans died in WTC 911. But every day 5000 Americans die, many of cancer and heart disease...
...guvverm'nt oughta do somethin' about it, huh?
Your criticism makes the most sense of all that have been given to that commandment.
"Thou shalt not kill..." is less of a commandment than it is a misquote. The closest transliteration is "You shall not do murder."
I am a bit surprised at just how aggressively some people have pointed out that it's really just a prohibition against murder, as if that makes other kinds of killing acceptable.
You stood corrected because you misquoted scripture. Granted that it means more to some folks than others, but you also appear to imply that all killing is murder when there are legal, moral, and practical differences between what sort of termination of life is considered murder and what is not.
Let's try this. Is it somehow acceptable to you that termination of animal and plant life is done to provide you (and people you care about) with food?
Thou shalt not kill. No exceptions given, not even for self-defense.
Since we seem to cutting rather wide swaths today, "No exceptions given," should include the animals and plant life that living beings use for food.
...including you!
Come to think of it, there are no exceptions here either, are there?
You may answer for your sins. ...now.
It's inevitable that people are going to switch to Chinese in the long run, at least Unix sysadmins. Perl becomes so much more fun when you have tens of thousands of one-glyph variable names. Heck, there's probably some one-line-wonder OS written in Chinese, just waiting for us to find it.
Alphabetic characters convey phonetic sounds (and acronyms, I suppose). Pictographic characters were intended to convey meaning. Oddly enough, the Chinese started requiring that their kids master English long after the Koreans and Japanese implemented phonetic alphabetic systems of their own, even though their contact with the west was rather extensive. Isolationism and snobbery can have that effect, I guess.
Also when spoken, different intonations change the meaning in Chinese. The language is not only enunciated. You kinda have to sing it too. Fortunately, IBM has recently released much of their speech-recognition technology to the open-source community.
By in China, Mandarin, Cantonese and other dialects are all written using ideographs, where one glyph represents a single word. As a result, it is impossible to form acronyms. And as a result, technological progress is impossible.
Ideographs on a shell prompt can be an unholy bitch too.