It doesn't matter. He bypassed the customs and border guards. He could carry *anything* in his boat - or anyone, to that matter.
No, doesn't follow. The boat may have been allowed to pass, having been scanned for nuclear materials, for instance. Not being stopped isn't the same thing as not being examined. You might be quite surprised at some of the surveillance tech in use.
Even the satellite observation is pointless if two identical boats approach the same point at the border and then "turn around" and go back where they came from.
No. Just... no. That wouldn't be true even if you had said "cats" instead of "boats."
If you were growing your, uh, more valuable crops indoors, using the most modern techniques, this would not be an issue. The fact that hemp pollen might affect ditchweed, I mean, your outdoor crops, isn't really of concern to the market.
You mean as opoosed to the "left wing nutjobs" who ran in 2008 and in 2012?
No. When I say "nutjob", I'm talking about things like not knowing how the reproductive system works; not knowing where strategic countries are located; pushing for more warfare and more fronts and more troops and more military under conditions where we clearly need less of all of those; where candidates spout such gems as "you're entitled to the best education you can afford"; anything at all that came out of Bachman's mouth; "Corporations are people"; that sort of thing. The republicans fielded an entire class of idiots this year, and it didn't help at all that the republican dominated congress was screwing up left, right and center.
While I'm not happy with either party when it comes to personal liberties and military adventurism, lately, I'm not happy with the republicans on any issue. They literally seem to me to be nuts, or if not nuts, then terminally stupid. Most likely, both.
Certainly Paul would not have expanded and would have reversed, if only be executive order, as much as he could.
Paul was utterly, completely unelectable. If I thought he had even a ghost of a chance, and he had stayed in there, and he'd had an understanding that the ACA (or something better) is needed, I'd have voted for him. But he didn't. He doesn't give a crap about anyone who isn't moneyed, and even if he did, there are not even close to enough voters who will step out of the democratic / republican veins. That's not even counting the fuckery that went on at the convention, and the outright blockage the media engaged in.
Paul is strong on military reductionism, currency control and civil liberties, all of which I like, but he's batshit crazy on healthcare and religion, and the topping on the sundae is he's simply unelectable.
there are always other choices, one of which was to vote for Romney because he would not be able to get what he wanted out of the senate
No. Romney is a cast iron idiot and would have been either a terrible president or a puppet president like Bush (and that would mean we'd have had Ryan running things... omFg.) He could have screwed up the ACA, something the country desperately needs, in any number of ways. Just that alone disqualified him. Presidents can do a lot to get in the way of progress. Veto funding bills, issue executive orders, etc. Just as bad, the president has a great deal of autonomy in foreign relations, and Romney is a senseless hawk. Between the two positions, that means he didn't want to spend where we should (ACA) and he did want to spend where we shouldn't (military.) If republicans want the presidency, they're going to have to come to terms with the fact that it's not all about making war.
I guess the weakness in that argument is that Bush rolled the Dems even when they had both houses.
You mean Cheney. Bush could barely pick his nose, let alone spell it correctly. Bush was and is a superstitious, culturally clueless man with a mouth full of marbles and a head full of cocaine voids. Cheney was responsible for the most massive intrusion on civil liberties since WWII, something we still haven't extricated ourselves from. They put the "terrorist, omg" earworm in the low functioners, and it stuck like glue. Not to mention putting the economy into a tailspin that didn't even begin to recover until Obama took office. Now we have the homeland security jackboots, the TSA, hammered travel, search, privacy and court rights... Bush's reign was indeed a nightmare, but Cheney gets all the credit in circles more sophisticated than the Fox news droolers.
This last election, the only reason the republicans retained the lower house was gerrymandering. They lost the presidency handily. They couldn't win the upper house. Hell, in my state, Montana, a very
no endless military budgets and drone killings, no draconian drug laws, nothing.
I immediately imagine it invaded and conquered.
If someone threatens you, and your response is to draw a line on the ground and assert it can't be crossed, without having force to back you up, guess what happens next?
The point to be made here, however, is, would a right wing nutjob like (well, any of the republican candidates) done any better? Or would they have done more of the same, while in the meantime, trampling on the progress made in the last four years, such as in consumer credit laws, the ACA, gay rights, etc.
See, speaking AS an Obama supporter, I did not vote for the man because I was under any illusion he was going to roll back Bush's policies. No, I voted for him because I was pretty sure (and still am) that he'd do less damage than the republicans would have, and there were no other choices.
"They" have fighters, frigates, submarines, and if you were to really make them annoyed, torpedos and cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. And satellites to watch you. And SONUS to track you.
Well, yes, they will. They'll see you in leg irons and handcuffs. Then you'll go back to the cellblock, where Bubba is waiting to introduce you, again and again, to the pleasures of anal sex. Without lube. Or a reach-around. Or your consent.
See, that's the problem. You contemplate resisting? They have something very, very, very bad they can introduce you to. For months. Perhaps years. As your case drags on.
This is reality. Whatever you might want to do other than play in the courtroom, you can't do it from jail; and you can arrive in jail on the very thinnest of pretexts. Once you're playing in the courtroom, it's their rules; their timing; their decision if and when you get to talk to a lawyer, or if you do at all.
You can only afford to sue them if you have money; that limits the pool of potential claimants rather thoroughly.
In addition, in cuffs on the ground or in a cell, bringing suit is somewhat difficult. In the interim, you lose your home, your job, your possessions, you concern yourself with your family...
In the US, being "right" only means "I managed to pay the legal costs."
That 2nd amendment bullcrap sure has saved you from tyranny and kept up the freedom right there, no?
You do understand that such action would be in response to abuse, not in anticipation of same, right? Right?
Even the American revolution didn't just fire up the first few times King George abused the colonists. It was a cumulative thing. Now, as to whether current events could reach such a crescendo of abuse as to actually inspire revolution... I doubt it. The average American today seems more intent on sitting in front of the television and chowing down some fast food. While the television in turn keeps them enthralled with nonsense about terrorism, saving the children, and whatnot. So I think it'll have to get quite a bit worse before anyone meaningful seriously contemplates violence.
The question seems to be, will it get worse, and just how bad would that be?
But they have their own law enforcement, who are authorized powers our law enforcement are not (which is not to say they don't exert them anyway.) So are you really winning if you move there?
I don't know. Sometimes it's tradeoffs. I don't see anything (other than auroras) in Iceland that calls to me, and I see some things that leave me wary.
For you, maybe it's perfect. I'm ok with that, too.
Iceland? Really? They have a "state church" (Lutheran, therefore Christian); they regulate and license firearms (unconstitutional practices here in the US); their president can dissolve their congress, subject only to having to have new elections within 45 days, so the executive leg there is much stronger than the congressional leg; and they have an "anti" 1st amendment that gives the government the right to restrict speech on "moral" grounds, as well as others.
If that's what you want for you and yours, then... I guess. Me, I'd rather have what the US constitution says, although I'm perfectly up front in admitting that we don't have it, not by a long way. Too many sleazy lawyers and judges declaring black is white, up is down and "enumerated powers" means "we can do anything."
Well, the question then becomes, where would you go? If your objection is that the government isn't following the constitution, then, in a world where that constitution is wholly unique (it is, believe me... other countries took the idea and turned it into a way to codify much more government-centric rule)... you kind of end up thinking there's nowhere else to go, and hope that somehow, some day, our constitution is taken as written instead of as if willful children had read it, and then forgotten most of it.
Even though there's no evidence at all that such a change is ongoing -- or likely.
Well, inasmuch as the issue at hand here is (basically) 4th amendment rights, i fail to see what relevance BLM land, populated exclusively with cactus, has to do with either the question or answer. It's about people; 2/3rds of the people live in the zone; that's the point of relevance.
No. The universe existing is evidence that the universe exists. It could have been here forever, perhaps expanding and contracting in repeated cycles; it could have arisen as a purely deterministic event; it could have been a probabilistic event. None of these ideas require a god or gods. Inasmuch as there is no evidence whatsoever for a god or gods, William of Occam's razor tells us where to look: and it's not for god. You come up with evidence for god (or gods), then it's time to look. Until then, plenty of physical evidence exists for us to look at.
We have ample evidence that a creator is required by the lack of other Universes springing up inside of our own.
Oh? You (a) have personal knowledge of what is springing up outside your neighborhood, what it would look like, act like, be perceived as? No, I didn't think so. (b) You have made a scientific survey of our universe? No, I didn't think so. (c) You enter as an assumption that universes spring up within other universes, and while that may be an interesting assertion, you have evidence for it? No, I didn't think so.
We don't know what a new universe would look like; we don't know what size it would seem to be to us; we don't know if it would be in the same set of dimensions as we seem to be; we don't know if there'd be an energy signature, or a materials signature, or if, given either of those, it would be within a distance, or time, given the limitations of relativity, where we'd notice it. In short, you're making really, really broad assumptions about a subject we are woefully uninformed about. You present them as fact, then build your argument from them. This is very sloppy thinking, at best.
We also seem to have this crazy idea that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. We use this to trace back the expanding vacuum and big bang to a point where we run out of actions. That does not mean that we don't exist.. but rather you are choosing not to look at the root question.
You have the wrong guy. I view the big bang theory as the equivalent of observing a softball in mid-flight, computing the visible arc, and, knowing the arc, projecting backwards to a portion of the field we can't see, and then assuming the ball spontaneously flew into the air from, as far as we can tell, astroturf. Breaking the rules of physics. Because that's exactly parallel to what big bang theory expounds.
Still, the projection of the curve works for quite a while according to other evidence; so, at least until the known behaviors of physics break (which they do in big bang theory, and that's where I withhold acceptance at this time), and while big bang theory describes the results we see today better than anything else, I'll take it on a provisional basis.
I suspect that either we don't completely understand physics well enough (most likely), or that something occurred for which we have no referents at this time and so no one has put the idea on the table to test (also possible.) None of this brings to mind, for me, the idea that "some dude did it." Two reasons. One, no evidence at all. Two, still leaves the same question unanswered: Where did the dude come from? Dude, of course, being a handwaving shortform version of "intelligent creator of the universe"
287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3), which provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General.
The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."
That's the genesis of the current state of affairs. As far as I know, it's not been tested in USSC. However, inasmuch as they've approved ex post facto laws, inverted the commerce clause (and in so doing created the legislative condition where anything they like, they can regulate), usurped article 5 powers for themselves, violated almost the entire bill of rights in other cases... this is why I blame them. If they were doing their jobs, legislators would know better than to make such as laws. As it is, legislators can expect that these absurdities may well be upheld, even though they are on the face obviously and blatantly unconstitutional. That's been no barrier to the sophists on SCOTUS in recent decades, and congress knows it.
The questionchanges everything we do if there is a creator. Without one, morality is not an issue. With one, morality becomes important
Utter nonsense. Morality is a social force within a society, it has zero to do with if there is a god, or not. Furthermore, if the only thing keeping someone in line morally is the idea that some "god" will punish them, they are a disgusting excuse for a socialized human being. The rest of us -- you know, the ones that actually think -- tailor our morals to the benefit of those we love, those we care about, and those who may have an effect upon us. And yes, to ourselves. But the idea that putting one's self forth first in case of morals is the endgame is ridiculous. Set your neighbor's kid on fire, and your career in moral experimentation is over, and check it: absolutely no god required.
Lastly, if what you claimed about atheists not caring was true then we would not see them using rhetorical fallacies trying to discount people that believe in a creator.
No, see, here's what you're missing. Atheists don't care what theists believe, though they may well indulge in sympathy or pity. However, all the laws that the religious cults have gotten onto the books, all the restrictive social policies based on theist superstitions... not to mention witch burnings, irrational prejudices against various lifestyles, see, those we care about, and since they're coming from theists, we've learned to be quite wary of them.
Consequently, we've got self-interest to consider, as well as the interest of our kids, that theist superstition be stamped out. And we're happy folk today, because that's exactly what's happening. We'll keep up the pressure, and some day, no doubt well into the future, but some day, the normal public and legislative reaction to a declaration of religious belief will be nothing but laughter.
And the answer is... because there are no legal penalties whatsoever defined for violating the constitution. The oath is an empty act, with absolutely no teeth behind it.
And as for the "ammo box" answer, your fellow citizens, by and large, would just as soon you attempt to gum them to death, and the government took that idea and ran with it over a half century ago in United States v.Miller.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's of huge benefit to the US government, that's why.
No, doesn't follow. The boat may have been allowed to pass, having been scanned for nuclear materials, for instance. Not being stopped isn't the same thing as not being examined. You might be quite surprised at some of the surveillance tech in use.
No. Just... no. That wouldn't be true even if you had said "cats" instead of "boats."
If you were growing your, uh, more valuable crops indoors, using the most modern techniques, this would not be an issue. The fact that hemp pollen might affect ditchweed, I mean, your outdoor crops, isn't really of concern to the market.
Oh, no. It's broken, all right. And we're the thing that broke it. But the earth will fix the problem. See "super-volcano", LOL.
No. When I say "nutjob", I'm talking about things like not knowing how the reproductive system works; not knowing where strategic countries are located; pushing for more warfare and more fronts and more troops and more military under conditions where we clearly need less of all of those; where candidates spout such gems as "you're entitled to the best education you can afford"; anything at all that came out of Bachman's mouth; "Corporations are people"; that sort of thing. The republicans fielded an entire class of idiots this year, and it didn't help at all that the republican dominated congress was screwing up left, right and center.
While I'm not happy with either party when it comes to personal liberties and military adventurism, lately, I'm not happy with the republicans on any issue. They literally seem to me to be nuts, or if not nuts, then terminally stupid. Most likely, both.
Paul was utterly, completely unelectable. If I thought he had even a ghost of a chance, and he had stayed in there, and he'd had an understanding that the ACA (or something better) is needed, I'd have voted for him. But he didn't. He doesn't give a crap about anyone who isn't moneyed, and even if he did, there are not even close to enough voters who will step out of the democratic / republican veins. That's not even counting the fuckery that went on at the convention, and the outright blockage the media engaged in.
Paul is strong on military reductionism, currency control and civil liberties, all of which I like, but he's batshit crazy on healthcare and religion, and the topping on the sundae is he's simply unelectable.
No. Romney is a cast iron idiot and would have been either a terrible president or a puppet president like Bush (and that would mean we'd have had Ryan running things... omFg.) He could have screwed up the ACA, something the country desperately needs, in any number of ways. Just that alone disqualified him. Presidents can do a lot to get in the way of progress. Veto funding bills, issue executive orders, etc. Just as bad, the president has a great deal of autonomy in foreign relations, and Romney is a senseless hawk. Between the two positions, that means he didn't want to spend where we should (ACA) and he did want to spend where we shouldn't (military.) If republicans want the presidency, they're going to have to come to terms with the fact that it's not all about making war.
You mean Cheney. Bush could barely pick his nose, let alone spell it correctly. Bush was and is a superstitious, culturally clueless man with a mouth full of marbles and a head full of cocaine voids. Cheney was responsible for the most massive intrusion on civil liberties since WWII, something we still haven't extricated ourselves from. They put the "terrorist, omg" earworm in the low functioners, and it stuck like glue. Not to mention putting the economy into a tailspin that didn't even begin to recover until Obama took office. Now we have the homeland security jackboots, the TSA, hammered travel, search, privacy and court rights... Bush's reign was indeed a nightmare, but Cheney gets all the credit in circles more sophisticated than the Fox news droolers.
This last election, the only reason the republicans retained the lower house was gerrymandering. They lost the presidency handily. They couldn't win the upper house. Hell, in my state, Montana, a very
I immediately imagine it invaded and conquered.
If someone threatens you, and your response is to draw a line on the ground and assert it can't be crossed, without having force to back you up, guess what happens next?
The point to be made here, however, is, would a right wing nutjob like (well, any of the republican candidates) done any better? Or would they have done more of the same, while in the meantime, trampling on the progress made in the last four years, such as in consumer credit laws, the ACA, gay rights, etc.
See, speaking AS an Obama supporter, I did not vote for the man because I was under any illusion he was going to roll back Bush's policies. No, I voted for him because I was pretty sure (and still am) that he'd do less damage than the republicans would have, and there were no other choices.
The "enterprising wonk" was congress. Who gave the authority to define the size of the zone to the attorney general. Who did so. 100 miles.
"They" have fighters, frigates, submarines, and if you were to really make them annoyed, torpedos and cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. And satellites to watch you. And SONUS to track you.
Now. What do you have? A gaff?
Well, yes, they will. They'll see you in leg irons and handcuffs. Then you'll go back to the cellblock, where Bubba is waiting to introduce you, again and again, to the pleasures of anal sex. Without lube. Or a reach-around. Or your consent.
See, that's the problem. You contemplate resisting? They have something very, very, very bad they can introduce you to. For months. Perhaps years. As your case drags on.
This is reality. Whatever you might want to do other than play in the courtroom, you can't do it from jail; and you can arrive in jail on the very thinnest of pretexts. Once you're playing in the courtroom, it's their rules; their timing; their decision if and when you get to talk to a lawyer, or if you do at all.
No. Treason is defined in the constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Internal violations of the law for the benefit (or to the disadvantage) of citizens is not treason.
Sorry. Really, I am sorry, I wish that read "or any public official intentionally violating the constitution"... but it doesn't.
But in a constitutional republic, that isn't supposed to be what happens.
You can only afford to sue them if you have money; that limits the pool of potential claimants rather thoroughly.
In addition, in cuffs on the ground or in a cell, bringing suit is somewhat difficult. In the interim, you lose your home, your job, your possessions, you concern yourself with your family...
In the US, being "right" only means "I managed to pay the legal costs."
Or, perhaps he's referring to the confiscation of private citizen's arms during Katrina.
You do understand that such action would be in response to abuse, not in anticipation of same, right? Right?
Even the American revolution didn't just fire up the first few times King George abused the colonists. It was a cumulative thing. Now, as to whether current events could reach such a crescendo of abuse as to actually inspire revolution... I doubt it. The average American today seems more intent on sitting in front of the television and chowing down some fast food. While the television in turn keeps them enthralled with nonsense about terrorism, saving the children, and whatnot. So I think it'll have to get quite a bit worse before anyone meaningful seriously contemplates violence.
The question seems to be, will it get worse, and just how bad would that be?
But they have their own law enforcement, who are authorized powers our law enforcement are not (which is not to say they don't exert them anyway.) So are you really winning if you move there?
I don't know. Sometimes it's tradeoffs. I don't see anything (other than auroras) in Iceland that calls to me, and I see some things that leave me wary.
For you, maybe it's perfect. I'm ok with that, too.
Iceland? Really? They have a "state church" (Lutheran, therefore Christian); they regulate and license firearms (unconstitutional practices here in the US); their president can dissolve their congress, subject only to having to have new elections within 45 days, so the executive leg there is much stronger than the congressional leg; and they have an "anti" 1st amendment that gives the government the right to restrict speech on "moral" grounds, as well as others.
If that's what you want for you and yours, then... I guess. Me, I'd rather have what the US constitution says, although I'm perfectly up front in admitting that we don't have it, not by a long way. Too many sleazy lawyers and judges declaring black is white, up is down and "enumerated powers" means "we can do anything."
On the other hand Iceland has nice auroras. Sigh.
Well, the question then becomes, where would you go? If your objection is that the government isn't following the constitution, then, in a world where that constitution is wholly unique (it is, believe me... other countries took the idea and turned it into a way to codify much more government-centric rule)... you kind of end up thinking there's nowhere else to go, and hope that somehow, some day, our constitution is taken as written instead of as if willful children had read it, and then forgotten most of it.
Even though there's no evidence at all that such a change is ongoing -- or likely.
Well, inasmuch as the issue at hand here is (basically) 4th amendment rights, i fail to see what relevance BLM land, populated exclusively with cactus, has to do with either the question or answer. It's about people; 2/3rds of the people live in the zone; that's the point of relevance.
No. The universe existing is evidence that the universe exists. It could have been here forever, perhaps expanding and contracting in repeated cycles; it could have arisen as a purely deterministic event; it could have been a probabilistic event. None of these ideas require a god or gods. Inasmuch as there is no evidence whatsoever for a god or gods, William of Occam's razor tells us where to look: and it's not for god. You come up with evidence for god (or gods), then it's time to look. Until then, plenty of physical evidence exists for us to look at.
Oh? You (a) have personal knowledge of what is springing up outside your neighborhood, what it would look like, act like, be perceived as? No, I didn't think so. (b) You have made a scientific survey of our universe? No, I didn't think so. (c) You enter as an assumption that universes spring up within other universes, and while that may be an interesting assertion, you have evidence for it? No, I didn't think so.
We don't know what a new universe would look like; we don't know what size it would seem to be to us; we don't know if it would be in the same set of dimensions as we seem to be; we don't know if there'd be an energy signature, or a materials signature, or if, given either of those, it would be within a distance, or time, given the limitations of relativity, where we'd notice it. In short, you're making really, really broad assumptions about a subject we are woefully uninformed about. You present them as fact, then build your argument from them. This is very sloppy thinking, at best.
You have the wrong guy. I view the big bang theory as the equivalent of observing a softball in mid-flight, computing the visible arc, and, knowing the arc, projecting backwards to a portion of the field we can't see, and then assuming the ball spontaneously flew into the air from, as far as we can tell, astroturf. Breaking the rules of physics. Because that's exactly parallel to what big bang theory expounds.
Still, the projection of the curve works for quite a while according to other evidence; so, at least until the known behaviors of physics break (which they do in big bang theory, and that's where I withhold acceptance at this time), and while big bang theory describes the results we see today better than anything else, I'll take it on a provisional basis.
I suspect that either we don't completely understand physics well enough (most likely), or that something occurred for which we have no referents at this time and so no one has put the idea on the table to test (also possible.) None of this brings to mind, for me, the idea that "some dude did it." Two reasons. One, no evidence at all. Two, still leaves the same question unanswered: Where did the dude come from? Dude, of course, being a handwaving shortform version of "intelligent creator of the universe"
Pointless without an envelope stuffed with money. They won't even see it.
287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3), which provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General.
The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."
That's the genesis of the current state of affairs. As far as I know, it's not been tested in USSC. However, inasmuch as they've approved ex post facto laws, inverted the commerce clause (and in so doing created the legislative condition where anything they like, they can regulate), usurped article 5 powers for themselves, violated almost the entire bill of rights in other cases... this is why I blame them. If they were doing their jobs, legislators would know better than to make such as laws. As it is, legislators can expect that these absurdities may well be upheld, even though they are on the face obviously and blatantly unconstitutional. That's been no barrier to the sophists on SCOTUS in recent decades, and congress knows it.
Utter nonsense. Morality is a social force within a society, it has zero to do with if there is a god, or not. Furthermore, if the only thing keeping someone in line morally is the idea that some "god" will punish them, they are a disgusting excuse for a socialized human being. The rest of us -- you know, the ones that actually think -- tailor our morals to the benefit of those we love, those we care about, and those who may have an effect upon us. And yes, to ourselves. But the idea that putting one's self forth first in case of morals is the endgame is ridiculous. Set your neighbor's kid on fire, and your career in moral experimentation is over, and check it: absolutely no god required.
No, see, here's what you're missing. Atheists don't care what theists believe, though they may well indulge in sympathy or pity. However, all the laws that the religious cults have gotten onto the books, all the restrictive social policies based on theist superstitions... not to mention witch burnings, irrational prejudices against various lifestyles, see, those we care about, and since they're coming from theists, we've learned to be quite wary of them.
Consequently, we've got self-interest to consider, as well as the interest of our kids, that theist superstition be stamped out. And we're happy folk today, because that's exactly what's happening. We'll keep up the pressure, and some day, no doubt well into the future, but some day, the normal public and legislative reaction to a declaration of religious belief will be nothing but laughter.
And the answer is... because there are no legal penalties whatsoever defined for violating the constitution. The oath is an empty act, with absolutely no teeth behind it.
And as for the "ammo box" answer, your fellow citizens, by and large, would just as soon you attempt to gum them to death, and the government took that idea and ran with it over a half century ago in United States v.Miller.
2/3rds of the US population lives within the constitution-free zone