Before smoking bans, had you ever seen a single restaurant that was 100% non-smoking? I posit "no."
Second, people in the food service industry sometimes have nowhere else to go (that is safer). I worked in the industry. It is a true statement.
Therefore, we may deduce that even if a food server or cook wanted to go to a different restaurant to work, he'd still have to put up with smoke.
Without smoking bans, there are only a statistically insignificant number of 100% non-smoking locales.
Beyond that, do you have a problem with requiring nuclear facilities to provide their employees proper clothing? Because, remember, if the employees don't like it, they can always go somewhere else.
And cat owners with that logic. You most likely can't be near cats or people who have cats or places where cats have been. Possibly dogs too, and then blind people cannot bring their seeing eye dog into the same store as you. Is that fair to the blind person?
No, it's not fair to the blind person. However, we have to balance the rights of the allergic with the rights of the blind. Both have illnesses which cannot be cured.
In the case of smokers' rights versus asthmatics' rights, both have a disease, but one is curable (hint: it's not the asthma). One is also a personal choice (hint: it's not asthma). One is even bad for passersby (hint: it's not asthma).
And don't give me that crap about hurting others. That would be true in some place where you had no choice but to go,but now the owner of the building can't even decide for himself if he wants to cater to smokers,WTF?
Except the employees get hurt, and often times those who work in the foodservice industry do not have the luxury of looking for other work.
The only way that I can get myself out of the "obese" range is by eating all protean and fat, while getting little to no exercise. If I go with a carnivorous diet, I will lose the fat, but if I exercise, my muscle mass puts be right back into the "obese" range.
I assume you're using BMI as a classification for obesity.
#1 - BMI is complete and utter bullshit, as you've discovered. Go with the highly technical "do I look fat in the mirror" test. Or get your body fat measured.
#2 - If you think you might be obese, you probably are. Barring anorexia, if you're not, then you will at least get in better shape.
#3 - It sounds like you're suggesting that if you put on more muscle, you're more obese than if you don't put any on. If I'm reading your comments correctly, then it's pretty obvious you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
I assure you that you're making yourself worse off by not exercising, no matter what your BMI says.
if your BMI is 29 without muscle, but 31 with muscle, it doesn't matter because your body fat mass is the same. Hell, your body fat percentage is higher without muscle.
Jesus Christ, go to a freaking doctor already. Every time I read your comment, I am awestruck by one more ridiculous assertion. Your post just seems to be along the lines of: I look bigger when I put on muscle. Therefore I don't work out because bigger = less healthy. Stop hating fat people, guys. We're all different, and maybe in some ethnicities, being obese is the most healthy way to be. Here, I'll quote you for you:
weight has become a religion. It is absurd to think that someone whose ancestors have been eating beef for the last 5000 years would have the same nutritional requirements as someone whose ancestors has been picking fresh fruit from trees for the last 5000 years.
Until we can get past the "fat people people have different nutrition/exercise needs, we won't get anywhere with the problem.
And until ridiculously unhealthy people are all healthy, I will continue to show concern for my fellow man, and strive to improve humanity by pushing them to improve their health and the well-being of this world.
Disclaimer: some of what I said here could be self-loathing, since I used to be fat and am still working on getting in terrific shape.
That's it!! That's the way to kill dupes on Slashdot!
1. Get two accounts: NaziSympthizer, and MisterGodwin
2. Have NaziSympathizer get FRIST PSOT NAZI NAZI NAZI and have MisterGodwin say "nyah nyah GODWIN" and all conversation will be killed, effectively rendering the dupe nonexistant!
You failed to rebut anything I said in my post. You took my thesis and said I was wrong, whilst ignoring my entire argument supporting the thesis statement.
If someone "makes available" an MP3, they're not just putting a book in public. They're putting a book in public with a copy machine that makes copies in one minute of entire books with a pretty strong presumption that they've also put up a sign saying, "Here, make a copy!"
Because that's what happens when you make an MP3 available on Limewire and the like. You're not just putting a CD somewhere. You're putting a CD somewhere with a suggestion to download it AND a machine that makes copies trivially.
can an artist who creates a statue which is placed in a public park place a camera on or in the statue and sue everyone who looks at the statue for copyright violation
Among the other reactions this question of yours has gotten, no one has mentioned estoppel yet (probably because Slashdot isn't a forum full of lawyers).
Estoppel has many forms, but all of them basically say one thing: a person's past behavior can prevent them from enforcing their rights in the future against someone who relied on that person's behavior
Examples include adoption by estoppel (aka "equitable adoption") which says that under certain conditions (a child treats a person like their parent, the person treats the child like their child), then they have an adoptive relationship regardless of formal paperwork--this comes into play in probate issues when there is no will.
copyright estoppel says that if you write a fiction but pass it off as non-fiction, if a person uses your "facts" in their own work, you can't sue them for copyright infringement
I suspect this would be another form of estoppel or implied license--if you place a work of yours out in a public place, then you are estopped from enforcing rights
This is sort of how anyone can take a photo of a copyrighted architectural work if it is publicly visible, except in that case it is statutorially permitted by 17 USC 120 rather than depending on the common law doctrine of estoppel
The next logical extension if this case is allowed to stand is that you can be prosecuted for putting down a book you are reading in a public place and not taking adequate care to secure it.
"Making available" may not constitute infringement, but when you make available via P2P, you're putting not only the MP3 out there, but the tools with which to make the copy. This is very similar to setting up a video copy machine out in public with a stack of DVDs, and requiring some form of consideration on the part of the user (whether it be cash, or their informal social promise to "pay it forward" as is implicit in most P2P communities).
Putting an MP3 in your share folder isn't copyright infringement, but you'd better fucking believe that if there is evidence to show that you did engage in some copyright infringement, those thousand OTHER MP3s you made available are strong circumstantial evidence that you dealt in more than just one infringing act.
That is, of course, under the current legal regime.
Actually, Lincoln had the constitutional right to revoke the writ of habeas corpus under the US constitution.
Not this again. I suggest you look up to see who has the power to suspend HC. I think you'll find the language in Article I. Here's a hint: Article I is the "Congress" Article.
Lincoln was able to suspend HC because he had the political will to do it, and Congress didn't have the political will to stop him. Rather, they ex post facto ratified his action, making it "Constitutional" merely because the Congress said it was OK.
Hell, the Supreme Court issued a court order to stop him, and he flipped the bird and continued on his way (recall that Lincoln controlled the military, and how is the SCOTUS supposed to tell the military to do anything?
That's the big secret about the Supreme Court: they only have power as long as we think they're relevant.
They don't control the purse and they don't control the guns.
I own a Windows and a Mac laptop. The Mac laptop is better. There isn't one particular feature I can point to as to why it's better, but as I use both, I prefer the Mac. There's just a ton of little reasons that make up for the fact that I can't run Windows prog--oh wait, yes I can do that, too.
I was a Windows zealot; I defended Microsoft during the antitrust trials; I've faithfully used Microsoft products (including MS-DOS) since I was in kindergarten (that's 20 friggin years). I've used Tandy, IBM, Dell, and Sony systems (desktops and laptops). I wish the desktop I'm using now were a Mac!
And as for my credentials? Programming since I was 4, formerly employed as a web developer (I've heard from former coworkers that my boss has talked about me to new hires and how he'd hire me back in a second if I applied--I left because of school), experienced in software design and abstract math. I'm not a moron.
So believe me when I say: I have become a Mac fan in spite of my former Microsoft fanboyism, and it's not because I wanted something more geared towards idiotism.
The fact that you've been modded up +2 Insightful means there are two idiots or blind MS fanboys trolling Slashdot right now.
I haven't read anything so informative in years. I already learned how to count many bajillions of times higher thanks to jez9999's link (took all of 5 minutes).
It is still my understanding that the common converters for mp4 to CDA result in loss.
That's a convertor problem, not a codec limitation.
I had a long response written for this, but Slashdot deleted it somehow. I don't really want to write it all again. However, let's look at something you quoted of me, that I quoted.
So when you burn a CD from your Apple Lossless files, the tracks that are burned to CD are exact duplicates of those ripped from the original CD
Well, that pretty plainly states that Lossless MP4->CDA is lossless.
What I question is if there is loss in the normal conversion process from mp4.
Well, of course there'd be a loss if the converter program is flawed, as you continuously suggest. But that's a limitation on the software, not the codec.
Look, if you don't believe me, let's look at this: MP4->decompressed raw audio is lossless. Period. decompressed raw audio to LPCM is lossless. Period. LPCM is CDA. Period.
Let's look at something from Wikipedia's article on audio compression:
The primary users of lossless compression have been audio engineers, audiophiles and those consumers who want to preserve an exact copy of their audio files
OK, so we can conclude that (ignoring Wikipedia's veracity) experts agree lossless compression preserves an exact copy of an audiofile whether the audiofile they're copying is of crappy quality, is of a different format, etc. Other pre-stated fact: CDA is lossless.
Here's a syllogism: Major premise: Lossless compression preserves an exact copy of an audiofile. Minor premise: CDA uses lossless compression. Conclusion: CDA preserves an exact copy of an audiofile.
Where's the flaw in the logic. Please point it out. Of course if I'm wrong, I look forward to enlightenment!
Various Hydrogenaudio quotes: [1] "Transcoding lossy -> any lossless format. (This will provide quality equal to the original lossy file)" [2] I just asked in the Hydrogenaudio IRC channel on Freenode:
11:20 TheoMurpse I have a dispute with someone. If I have a lossy format and burn it to an audio CD, will there be any degradation whatsoever in the conversion. My friend says yes, and I say that since audio CDs use LPCM and are lossless, there is by definition no loss. Who is right?
TheoMurpse Say, MP4s from iTunes. 11:35 Canar TheoMurpse: No degradation whatsoever.
11:36 Canar The same stream of bits sent to your speakers can also be written to an audio cd
Canar Or rather, sent to your sound card.
So (and I realize Canar is not a proven expert), an audio CD can store the exact same information that goes to your speakers.
I'm sorry I don't have access to the Journal of Audio Engineers or whatever research publication audio engineers use.
One poster there writes, "IF you rip a cd burned with transparent mp3's and encode that to mp3 you will likely start to notice some loss."
Well, duh. If you convert MP3 to MP3, of course you experience loss: MP4 is a lossy format!
So what I'm looking for is an actual reference to a converter that says it can transform mp4 to CDA without any loss. I haven't found any that claim to do so.
If I were a Linux guru, I'd write you a script right now that uses an mp4 player to do exactly what you're demanding. All you have to do is pipe the decompressed audio to a program that creates CDA/LPCM files.
Yes, I agree it is a lossless format. What I question is if there is loss in the normal conversion process from mp4.
No, because that's the very definition of "lossless": that there is no loss of audio data between input file
CDA ("CD Audio") is a lossless format. If there's loss going from anything other than analog to CDA, then your converter is crap. Here are references from various sources that I consider credible
CDA is actually an implementation of linear PCM which, according to Wikipedia, "[t]heoretically, there is no loss or error in conversion and reconstruction, as long as the sampling rate is just over twice the highest desired frequency component of the recorded signal. . . . LPCM is further used for the lossless encoding of audio data in the compact disc Red Book standard" (emphasis added).
Stereophile, a well-respected audio magazine, compared MP3 to CDA in a section entitled "Lossless vs Lossy."
Hydrogen Audio, a great resource for audio work, has users that say things such as "In clearer terms, converting your MP3s to CD-Audio will not degrade the sound quality relative to the mp3, but will, relative to the original file." Other users in the same thread refer to MP3->CDA as "lossless."
People in other fora say that CDA is lossless: "So when you burn a CD from your Apple Lossless files, the tracks that are burned to CD are exact duplicates of those ripped from the original CD"; "Audio can be converted from Lossless to the original format, and if you compare them you find bit-for-bit identical files"; etc.
The President has a duty to uphold the law. Uphold != interpret. As you pointed out, the presidential oath of office requires him to "preserve, protect, and defend...". It doesn't say "preserve, protect, defend, and interpret...". The constitution defines interpretation as the role of the judicial branch, not the executive branch.
And if the courts have not ruled on an issue yet, if the President cannot interpret, how can he faithfully execute the laws of the US?
You do realize that practically every piece of legislation has ambiguities, right?
Also, if the courts have not ruled on an issue yet, but he believes a piece of legislation is unconstitutional, then he must ignore the legislation as per his oath to preserve, protect, and defend. That requires some level of interpretive leeway.
The constitution defines interpretation
I find this interesting, as the word "interpret" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, the only thing the Constitution says about judicial powers is this: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." That's it. Where in there is interpretive ability?
What you're thinking of is judicial review, a doctrine that Justice John Marshall practically made up in Marbury v. Madison in the very early 19th century.
Now, I agree with the doctrine of judicial review (but there is a significant minority of Constitutional scholars who don't agree with it, as it's an extra-Constitutional doctrine); however, to state that the Constitution assigns the interpretive power solely to the Judiciary shows an unfamiliarity with the plain text of the Constitution.
Additionally, all the Constitution says about what the President has power to do is: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That's it. There are no enumerated powers for the Executive and Judicial branches, only for the Legislative branch.
the executive branch (which has no say-so on interpreting law, by the way)
Well, not except for the whole "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" part of the Presidential Oath.
The President has a duty to interpret the law. The SCOTUS may provide the ultimate interpretation of the law, but in absence of court holdings on an issue, it is incumbent upon all officers of the US government to interpret the laws (the Executive in how to enforce; the Legislature in how to understand for future legislation; and the Judiciary for obvious reasons).
I'm against telecom immunity, however, as listening to the legal advice of Bush (who, after all, was rejected from the law school here at The University of Texas and had to go to business school as his fallback). I'm just pointing out that it's not true that the Executive doesn't get to interpret law.
the Hitler Youth was one of the main ways Hitler managed to keep loyalty among his troops - even after all his war crimes
There's actually a good depiction of this in Der Untergang, a great German films about Hitler's final days. It won an Academy Award for best foreign film in (I think) 2004.
he encourages people in places like China and Iran to practice forbidden religion . . . but he just doesn't measure up as the leading follower of Jesus Christ in the world.
Not sure if you ever knew, but there are multiple instructional stories in the Bible about people practicing forbidden religion. In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshac, and Abednigo practiced a forbidden religion (by refusing to worship King Nebuchadnezzar), and they are burned alive. They survive because the Son of God appears in the furnace to save them.
Nebuchadnezzar's successor, Darius, orders that "for the next thirty days, no one can ask a favor from God or man. Whoever does ask a favor from God or man will be thrown to the lions." Daniel continues to pray, is caught, is thrown to the lions, and Daniel survives, attributing this to God sending an angel to protect him.
Now, the veracity of these stories is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Christian (and, since these are Old Testament stories, presumably Jewish as well--though I'm not knowledgeable about how important the non-Torah books of the OT are to Jews) instruction here is clear: practice your religion even if it is forbidden.
Slashdot Mirror
Second, people in the food service industry sometimes have nowhere else to go (that is safer). I worked in the industry. It is a true statement.
Therefore, we may deduce that even if a food server or cook wanted to go to a different restaurant to work, he'd still have to put up with smoke.
Without smoking bans, there are only a statistically insignificant number of 100% non-smoking locales.
Beyond that, do you have a problem with requiring nuclear facilities to provide their employees proper clothing? Because, remember, if the employees don't like it, they can always go somewhere else.
In the case of smokers' rights versus asthmatics' rights, both have a disease, but one is curable (hint: it's not the asthma). One is also a personal choice (hint: it's not asthma). One is even bad for passersby (hint: it's not asthma).
#1 - BMI is complete and utter bullshit, as you've discovered. Go with the highly technical "do I look fat in the mirror" test. Or get your body fat measured.
#2 - If you think you might be obese, you probably are. Barring anorexia, if you're not, then you will at least get in better shape.
#3 - It sounds like you're suggesting that if you put on more muscle, you're more obese than if you don't put any on. If I'm reading your comments correctly, then it's pretty obvious you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
I assure you that you're making yourself worse off by not exercising, no matter what your BMI says.
if your BMI is 29 without muscle, but 31 with muscle, it doesn't matter because your body fat mass is the same. Hell, your body fat percentage is higher without muscle.
Jesus Christ, go to a freaking doctor already. Every time I read your comment, I am awestruck by one more ridiculous assertion. Your post just seems to be along the lines of: I look bigger when I put on muscle. Therefore I don't work out because bigger = less healthy. Stop hating fat people, guys. We're all different, and maybe in some ethnicities, being obese is the most healthy way to be. Here, I'll quote you for you: And until ridiculously unhealthy people are all healthy, I will continue to show concern for my fellow man, and strive to improve humanity by pushing them to improve their health and the well-being of this world.
Disclaimer: some of what I said here could be self-loathing, since I used to be fat and am still working on getting in terrific shape.
GASP
That's it!! That's the way to kill dupes on Slashdot!
1. Get two accounts: NaziSympthizer, and MisterGodwin
2. Have NaziSympathizer get FRIST PSOT NAZI NAZI NAZI and have MisterGodwin say "nyah nyah GODWIN" and all conversation will be killed, effectively rendering the dupe nonexistant!
3. Profit (No "????" needed)!!
You failed to rebut anything I said in my post. You took my thesis and said I was wrong, whilst ignoring my entire argument supporting the thesis statement.
If someone "makes available" an MP3, they're not just putting a book in public. They're putting a book in public with a copy machine that makes copies in one minute of entire books with a pretty strong presumption that they've also put up a sign saying, "Here, make a copy!"
Because that's what happens when you make an MP3 available on Limewire and the like. You're not just putting a CD somewhere. You're putting a CD somewhere with a suggestion to download it AND a machine that makes copies trivially.
I love how you use the "ae" ligature in the singular form, but not in the double form.
Estoppel has many forms, but all of them basically say one thing: a person's past behavior can prevent them from enforcing their rights in the future against someone who relied on that person's behavior
Examples include adoption by estoppel (aka "equitable adoption") which says that under certain conditions (a child treats a person like their parent, the person treats the child like their child), then they have an adoptive relationship regardless of formal paperwork--this comes into play in probate issues when there is no will.
copyright estoppel says that if you write a fiction but pass it off as non-fiction, if a person uses your "facts" in their own work, you can't sue them for copyright infringement
I suspect this would be another form of estoppel or implied license--if you place a work of yours out in a public place, then you are estopped from enforcing rights
This is sort of how anyone can take a photo of a copyrighted architectural work if it is publicly visible, except in that case it is statutorially permitted by 17 USC 120 rather than depending on the common law doctrine of estoppel
"Making available" may not constitute infringement, but when you make available via P2P, you're putting not only the MP3 out there, but the tools with which to make the copy. This is very similar to setting up a video copy machine out in public with a stack of DVDs, and requiring some form of consideration on the part of the user (whether it be cash, or their informal social promise to "pay it forward" as is implicit in most P2P communities).
Putting an MP3 in your share folder isn't copyright infringement, but you'd better fucking believe that if there is evidence to show that you did engage in some copyright infringement, those thousand OTHER MP3s you made available are strong circumstantial evidence that you dealt in more than just one infringing act.
That is, of course, under the current legal regime.
Well, you apparently slept through Day 1 because I'm pretty sure you're confusing "tort" with "negligence."
Lincoln was able to suspend HC because he had the political will to do it, and Congress didn't have the political will to stop him. Rather, they ex post facto ratified his action, making it "Constitutional" merely because the Congress said it was OK.
Hell, the Supreme Court issued a court order to stop him, and he flipped the bird and continued on his way (recall that Lincoln controlled the military, and how is the SCOTUS supposed to tell the military to do anything?
That's the big secret about the Supreme Court: they only have power as long as we think they're relevant.
They don't control the purse and they don't control the guns.
You know what? Fuck you.
I own a Windows and a Mac laptop. The Mac laptop is better. There isn't one particular feature I can point to as to why it's better, but as I use both, I prefer the Mac. There's just a ton of little reasons that make up for the fact that I can't run Windows prog--oh wait, yes I can do that, too.
I was a Windows zealot; I defended Microsoft during the antitrust trials; I've faithfully used Microsoft products (including MS-DOS) since I was in kindergarten (that's 20 friggin years). I've used Tandy, IBM, Dell, and Sony systems (desktops and laptops). I wish the desktop I'm using now were a Mac!
And as for my credentials? Programming since I was 4, formerly employed as a web developer (I've heard from former coworkers that my boss has talked about me to new hires and how he'd hire me back in a second if I applied--I left because of school), experienced in software design and abstract math. I'm not a moron.
So believe me when I say: I have become a Mac fan in spite of my former Microsoft fanboyism, and it's not because I wanted something more geared towards idiotism.
The fact that you've been modded up +2 Insightful means there are two idiots or blind MS fanboys trolling Slashdot right now.
nano is mu (well, so much for Slashdot liking science, what with µ not giving me the mu character!), not m.
I haven't read anything so informative in years. I already learned how to count many bajillions of times higher thanks to jez9999's link (took all of 5 minutes).
That's a convertor problem, not a codec limitation.
I had a long response written for this, but Slashdot deleted it somehow. I don't really want to write it all again. However, let's look at something you quoted of me, that I quoted.
Well, that pretty plainly states that Lossless MP4->CDA is lossless.
Well, of course there'd be a loss if the converter program is flawed, as you continuously suggest. But that's a limitation on the software, not the codec.
Look, if you don't believe me, let's look at this:
MP4->decompressed raw audio is lossless. Period.
decompressed raw audio to LPCM is lossless. Period.
LPCM is CDA. Period.
Let's look at something from Wikipedia's article on audio compression:
OK, so we can conclude that (ignoring Wikipedia's veracity) experts agree lossless compression preserves an exact copy of an audiofile whether the audiofile they're copying is of crappy quality, is of a different format, etc. Other pre-stated fact: CDA is lossless.
Here's a syllogism:
Major premise: Lossless compression preserves an exact copy of an audiofile.
Minor premise: CDA uses lossless compression.
Conclusion: CDA preserves an exact copy of an audiofile.
Where's the flaw in the logic. Please point it out. Of course if I'm wrong, I look forward to enlightenment!
Various Hydrogenaudio quotes:
[1] "Transcoding lossy -> any lossless format. (This will provide quality equal to the original lossy file)"
[2] I just asked in the Hydrogenaudio IRC channel on Freenode:
So (and I realize Canar is not a proven expert), an audio CD can store the exact same information that goes to your speakers.
I'm sorry I don't have access to the Journal of Audio Engineers or whatever research publication audio engineers use.
Well, duh. If you convert MP3 to MP3, of course you experience loss: MP4 is a lossy format!
If I were a Linux guru, I'd write you a script right now that uses an mp4 player to do exactly what you're demanding. All you have to do is pipe the decompressed audio to a program that creates CDA/LPCM files.
No, because that's the very definition of "lossless": that there is no loss of audio data between input file
CDA ("CD Audio") is a lossless format. If there's loss going from anything other than analog to CDA, then your converter is crap. Here are references from various sources that I consider credible
CDA is actually an implementation of linear PCM which, according to Wikipedia, "[t]heoretically, there is no loss or error in conversion and reconstruction, as long as the sampling rate is just over twice the highest desired frequency component of the recorded signal. . . . LPCM is further used for the lossless encoding of audio data in the compact disc Red Book standard" (emphasis added).
Stereophile, a well-respected audio magazine, compared MP3 to CDA in a section entitled "Lossless vs Lossy."
Hydrogen Audio, a great resource for audio work, has users that say things such as "In clearer terms, converting your MP3s to CD-Audio will not degrade the sound quality relative to the mp3, but will, relative to the original file." Other users in the same thread refer to MP3->CDA as "lossless."
People in other fora say that CDA is lossless: "So when you burn a CD from your Apple Lossless files, the tracks that are burned to CD are exact duplicates of those ripped from the original CD"; "Audio can be converted from Lossless to the original format, and if you compare them you find bit-for-bit identical files"; etc.
4channers, run on home. Slashdot is for big boys and girls.
You do realize that practically every piece of legislation has ambiguities, right?
Also, if the courts have not ruled on an issue yet, but he believes a piece of legislation is unconstitutional, then he must ignore the legislation as per his oath to preserve, protect, and defend. That requires some level of interpretive leeway.I find this interesting, as the word "interpret" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, the only thing the Constitution says about judicial powers is this: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." That's it. Where in there is interpretive ability?
What you're thinking of is judicial review, a doctrine that Justice John Marshall practically made up in Marbury v. Madison in the very early 19th century.
Now, I agree with the doctrine of judicial review (but there is a significant minority of Constitutional scholars who don't agree with it, as it's an extra-Constitutional doctrine); however, to state that the Constitution assigns the interpretive power solely to the Judiciary shows an unfamiliarity with the plain text of the Constitution.
Additionally, all the Constitution says about what the President has power to do is: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That's it. There are no enumerated powers for the Executive and Judicial branches, only for the Legislative branch.
The President has a duty to interpret the law. The SCOTUS may provide the ultimate interpretation of the law, but in absence of court holdings on an issue, it is incumbent upon all officers of the US government to interpret the laws (the Executive in how to enforce; the Legislature in how to understand for future legislation; and the Judiciary for obvious reasons).
I'm against telecom immunity, however, as listening to the legal advice of Bush (who, after all, was rejected from the law school here at The University of Texas and had to go to business school as his fallback). I'm just pointing out that it's not true that the Executive doesn't get to interpret law.
So that's why, after applying the Hot Coffee Mod, The Muppet Show stopped airing...
Nebuchadnezzar's successor, Darius, orders that "for the next thirty days, no one can ask a favor from God or man. Whoever does ask a favor from God or man will be thrown to the lions." Daniel continues to pray, is caught, is thrown to the lions, and Daniel survives, attributing this to God sending an angel to protect him.
Now, the veracity of these stories is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Christian (and, since these are Old Testament stories, presumably Jewish as well--though I'm not knowledgeable about how important the non-Torah books of the OT are to Jews) instruction here is clear: practice your religion even if it is forbidden.