They are used on your behalf to defend the United States
Not since WWII, they haven't. Not even indirectly. The most you can say for them is they would form a deterrent if we were at risk of invasion -- however, we aren't, and we have not been, for well over sixty years.
No one will be turned away from an emergency room.
ER's don't provide reasonable care for anything that can't be fixed immediately. They'll put your arm in a cast or stitch up a cut, but you're not going to get anything even CLOSE to adequate cancer treatment, diabetes amelioration, allergies, and so on.
It is simply disingenuous to hold up the ER as evidence that anyone can get reasonable medical care.
Hope you like ambulances forming a queue outside hospitals.
Right now, we're at about 300 million population. By some estimates, about 30 million are uninsured. That's about 10%. Let's say that ALL of them become insured under Obamacare, or whatever it devolves to. This should represent, on average, a 10% increase in health care load.
I don't think you can make a legitimate case that this will create "queues of ambulances" or any other kind of major change in the quality, delivery, or cost of health care.
But it sure will make a difference in many of the lives of those who were previously uninsurable, or simply uninsured.
The federalist papers are not the constitution. The constitution says what it says, not what some judge (or you) *want* it to say. It doesn't include many of the ideas of those who crafted it; significant numbers of those ideas didn't make it through the selection process. And what it actually says is that the only way to mod the constitution is via article five.
Precedent in the sense you mean it is argument from false justification, without regard for correctness or authorization. For instance, there was precedent for slavery. Legal and otherwise. Slavery is still completely lacking in justification start to finish. Law is likewise: For (US) law not to be bullshit, it has to comply 100% with the constitution. Just because legislation is produced, that doesn't mean it's right, justified, or authorized -- or that it should be obeyed.
The government is FORBIDDEN from doing certain things by the HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND, which law was set in place by the government's employers, the citizens; therefore, when the government does those things, it is acting CRIMINALLY. No judge, congressperson, or member of the executive can change that by any action legitimately available to them. The fact that they even try is just more evidence that they are the very worst sort of criminals. Only action in accordance with article five can *legitimately* change the constitution.
You -- and anyone else who thinks congress, the executive, or judges can change the constitution -- have been duped.
Moderation has only become the norm because it has had to because of jerks.
Really? I browse at -1 all the time so as to not miss posts by anonymous posters, who often have valuable and interesting things to say. I see the trolls and etc., but they don't bother me. I neither need or depend upon moderation to sanitize the world for me. And frankly, if you do, that's your own fail. I see no need to have moderation just because you're unable to correctly parse what you read.
There's no need to criminalize those words. Criminalize the giving of funds or barter for murder-for-hire and you have the problem 100% covered at the source. Criminalize the killing, and you have it 100% covered at the operational level.
On the other hand, criminalize the words and you have one of the components of a repressive regime. We tried not to do that here in the US, but unfortunately, a lot of people don't think very well and as a result our free speech is significantly tainted by corrosive and toxic laws that should never have reached the books.
The privileges and immunities clause has pretty much been written out of the constitution
No, it hasn't. No such amendment exists; and there's no other way to legitimately remove it. What you're referring to is illegitimate action of the judiciary, usurping article 5 powers that were never authorized via article 3. You're talking about the actions of traitors who are in violation of their solemn oaths.
If that's what you're talking about, I'm not surprised at the level of fail you indicate; the attempt to place one governmental entity over a large number of radically different cultures was fated to create discord from the very start. You need at least some kind of unified outlook in the populace to come to reasonable consensus on broad rule-making.
The US is a different case. We started small and to the extent that our states and regions express different cultures, they are mostly rooted in the same source, basically trying to extract ourselves from the bottomless pitfalls of England's foul 1700's-era monarchy. With perhaps one exception, the Louisiana region, whose culture expresses a mishmosh of French-derived law and custom.
We've made some horrible errors. Early on, slavery, subjugation of females, followed by McCarthyism, the Patriot Act, the current intentional inversion of the commerce clause, ex post facto laws, erosion and abrogation of constitutional authority by the executive, judiciary and congress -- but the design of the system remains, I think, a standout. The main problem is that there are no penalties for those individuals and government entities that violate the constitution.
It was a good try, and I'm sad to see our nation on its current downward swing. If we can't restore government compliance with our constitution, I fully expect to witness a complete collapse of our society. With the majority continuing to shout "rah-rah" in lockstep as we go.
"The will of the people" is often not a good thing. That's why our society was designed as a constitutional democratic republic, rather than as a straight democracy. Not saying the delegates don't get it wrong -- they often do, and spectacularly -- but I think they do better than the masses do. For instance, with 80% or so of the country being Christian, general sentiment doesn't favor equal rights and immunities for atheists. But the republic does, because the constitution lays out principles that transcend popular sentiment. This is an excellent example of where the masses cannot be trusted to do the right thing, ergo where democracy is a bad idea.
The bill of rights only became applicable to the states after the Supreme Court decided to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in a novel way.
Novel?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
Seems clear to me. What is constitutional free speech but a privilege extended to US citizens guaranteed by the power of the federal government? Where would it come from if the federal government didn't guarantee it? The constitution seems to be the initial level of privilege definition and assurance for US citizens as a class in our society.
Likewise, the immunity from search without warrant, probable cause, and oath or affirmation arises specifically as a consequence of the constitution.
What other types of privileges or immunities could the 14th amendment possibly be talking about? Please enumerate some (or even one) specific privilege or immunity a US citizen has in the absence of the constitution. I would be fascinated to learn of such a thing. Not sure they don't exist, but I'm completely unsure where they would arise from. Please enlighten me.
Clearly you have not read Facebook's terms of service. The fact that you disobeyed those terms and your act wasn't immediately detected doesn't exonerate Facebook, or "prove" that those terms of service don't apply.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said they would utilize presently existing, but unused, capacity. Of which there is a great deal available. Further, the comment to which I was replying (which was not TFS or TFA) said that there would be an overall increase in energy usage; and that's not true either, which is what I was primarily addressing. You need to apply context for proper comprehension.
As the Volt and others become more popular they may cause an significant increase in energy usage.
Nope. They'll shift usage from inefficient individual gasoline and diesel engines to considerably more efficient large turbines and etc. in power plants, then lose only part of that efficiency in transmission and other losses. In the process, they'll make vehicles power-flavor agnostic, allowing a fully transparent shift between coal, oil, nuclear, solar and so forth for all those electric vehicles. In the meantime, as most grid capacity is unused at night, the potential exists for much more effective use of already existing resources as (presently) unused capacity is brought online at night. Side effects include reduced emissions, lower petroleum demand, quieter operation, and immense effort invested in battery / ultracapacitor development that should benefit many other sectors of the economy.
The main problem right now is battery / ultracap technology. It's just borderline. But improving all the time. Right now, we suffer with hybrid designs; but I expect that to be merely a blip on the overall vehicle class radar. Fully electric vehicles are the future. Can't really go any other way.
"Giant" houses? GP mentioned the home described was 3900 sq feet. This is hardly "giant", though it might be fair to call it roomy as compared to the average. The average home size (in the US) was 2700 sq feet in 2009, up from 1400 square feet in 1970. Which isn't to say that 2700 square feet is "large", either... it's just the average. In order to create that 2700 sq foot average, there have to be plenty of homes on the high side of that number.
Especially since members may have submitted many times, even been voted *way* up in the firehose, yet blocked by editors. "first time" simply has no useful meaning.
This explains that what is in the constitution is overall intended to promote general welfare; it doesn't mean that what's in the document can be ignored by the government if some contrary idea promotes the general welfare. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who are very confused about this.
Legitimately authorized federal (and to a large extent, state) use of power is fairly clearly specified by the enumerated powers, the bill of rights, and the various amendments to all of the foregoing. Any exercise of power not so enumerated, or explicitly restricted, is illegitimate action of government wildly out of control. Practical examples of this abound - obvious rights violations, blatantly ex post facto laws, outright usurpation of powers not granted, sophist re-interpretations of otherwise clearly stated limits, etc.
Disclosure has zero value if the item being disclosed is irrelevant by the time the patent expires; worse, in the case of most patents, which are, in fact, quite obvious, all disclosure does is locks the obvious away from use.
Patents do far too much harm to ever be a good thing, on balance.
Drugs. It takes about 8-10 years to get a drug from raw materials some scientist thinks might be effective in some way to an actual drug that you can take with some reasonable assurance it won't kill you.
This is because the system is broken; there's no reason (other than legislative malfeasance and attorney trough-piggery) that a drug couldn't go right on the market with a label that says "side effects presently unquantified" for which the responsibility of dealing with any side effects rests with the users.
You want the (cough) "safe" version vis-a-vis side effects, you wait for some trials. You want to be even safer, you wait for a LOT of trials and watch the news. You want to be PERFECTLY safe from side effects, then don't take the bloody drug. And the attorneys can go find more direct employment, perhaps simply as muggers. Likewise the FDA and the entire chain of innovation stifling our manifestly incompetent legislature has put together.
Our society has developed a persistent and widespread disease of re-directing responsibility towards the nearest deep pocket. This in turn has produced a bumper crop of whiny, sniveling peons. I doubt it'll ever reverse itself, it'll just keep getting worse until our country grinds to a halt in a fit of economic breakage, finger pointing, liberty stomping, and citizen rights losses.
Slashdot Mirror
Not since WWII, they haven't. Not even indirectly. The most you can say for them is they would form a deterrent if we were at risk of invasion -- however, we aren't, and we have not been, for well over sixty years.
ER's don't provide reasonable care for anything that can't be fixed immediately. They'll put your arm in a cast or stitch up a cut, but you're not going to get anything even CLOSE to adequate cancer treatment, diabetes amelioration, allergies, and so on.
It is simply disingenuous to hold up the ER as evidence that anyone can get reasonable medical care.
Wait, what? The law prohibits homelessness? In the US? Where?
Right now, we're at about 300 million population. By some estimates, about 30 million are uninsured. That's about 10%. Let's say that ALL of them become insured under Obamacare, or whatever it devolves to. This should represent, on average, a 10% increase in health care load.
I don't think you can make a legitimate case that this will create "queues of ambulances" or any other kind of major change in the quality, delivery, or cost of health care.
But it sure will make a difference in many of the lives of those who were previously uninsurable, or simply uninsured.
Same here. So too, Spotify, apparently. :)
The federalist papers are not the constitution. The constitution says what it says, not what some judge (or you) *want* it to say. It doesn't include many of the ideas of those who crafted it; significant numbers of those ideas didn't make it through the selection process. And what it actually says is that the only way to mod the constitution is via article five.
Precedent in the sense you mean it is argument from false justification, without regard for correctness or authorization. For instance, there was precedent for slavery. Legal and otherwise. Slavery is still completely lacking in justification start to finish. Law is likewise: For (US) law not to be bullshit, it has to comply 100% with the constitution. Just because legislation is produced, that doesn't mean it's right, justified, or authorized -- or that it should be obeyed.
The government is FORBIDDEN from doing certain things by the HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND, which law was set in place by the government's employers, the citizens; therefore, when the government does those things, it is acting CRIMINALLY. No judge, congressperson, or member of the executive can change that by any action legitimately available to them. The fact that they even try is just more evidence that they are the very worst sort of criminals. Only action in accordance with article five can *legitimately* change the constitution.
You -- and anyone else who thinks congress, the executive, or judges can change the constitution -- have been duped.
Games are not the only thing computers are used for. I don't even consider games when I make a purchasing decision.
Really? I browse at -1 all the time so as to not miss posts by anonymous posters, who often have valuable and interesting things to say. I see the trolls and etc., but they don't bother me. I neither need or depend upon moderation to sanitize the world for me. And frankly, if you do, that's your own fail. I see no need to have moderation just because you're unable to correctly parse what you read.
There's no need to criminalize those words. Criminalize the giving of funds or barter for murder-for-hire and you have the problem 100% covered at the source. Criminalize the killing, and you have it 100% covered at the operational level.
On the other hand, criminalize the words and you have one of the components of a repressive regime. We tried not to do that here in the US, but unfortunately, a lot of people don't think very well and as a result our free speech is significantly tainted by corrosive and toxic laws that should never have reached the books.
So is the thinking that leads to them, idiot.
lol
Whoops. Sorry. :)
No, it hasn't. No such amendment exists; and there's no other way to legitimately remove it. What you're referring to is illegitimate action of the judiciary, usurping article 5 powers that were never authorized via article 3. You're talking about the actions of traitors who are in violation of their solemn oaths.
The EC? European Comission?
If that's what you're talking about, I'm not surprised at the level of fail you indicate; the attempt to place one governmental entity over a large number of radically different cultures was fated to create discord from the very start. You need at least some kind of unified outlook in the populace to come to reasonable consensus on broad rule-making.
The US is a different case. We started small and to the extent that our states and regions express different cultures, they are mostly rooted in the same source, basically trying to extract ourselves from the bottomless pitfalls of England's foul 1700's-era monarchy. With perhaps one exception, the Louisiana region, whose culture expresses a mishmosh of French-derived law and custom.
We've made some horrible errors. Early on, slavery, subjugation of females, followed by McCarthyism, the Patriot Act, the current intentional inversion of the commerce clause, ex post facto laws, erosion and abrogation of constitutional authority by the executive, judiciary and congress -- but the design of the system remains, I think, a standout. The main problem is that there are no penalties for those individuals and government entities that violate the constitution.
It was a good try, and I'm sad to see our nation on its current downward swing. If we can't restore government compliance with our constitution, I fully expect to witness a complete collapse of our society. With the majority continuing to shout "rah-rah" in lockstep as we go.
Whooosh
"The will of the people" is often not a good thing. That's why our society was designed as a constitutional democratic republic, rather than as a straight democracy. Not saying the delegates don't get it wrong -- they often do, and spectacularly -- but I think they do better than the masses do. For instance, with 80% or so of the country being Christian, general sentiment doesn't favor equal rights and immunities for atheists. But the republic does, because the constitution lays out principles that transcend popular sentiment. This is an excellent example of where the masses cannot be trusted to do the right thing, ergo where democracy is a bad idea.
Novel?
Seems clear to me. What is constitutional free speech but a privilege extended to US citizens guaranteed by the power of the federal government? Where would it come from if the federal government didn't guarantee it? The constitution seems to be the initial level of privilege definition and assurance for US citizens as a class in our society.
Likewise, the immunity from search without warrant, probable cause, and oath or affirmation arises specifically as a consequence of the constitution.
What other types of privileges or immunities could the 14th amendment possibly be talking about? Please enumerate some (or even one) specific privilege or immunity a US citizen has in the absence of the constitution. I would be fascinated to learn of such a thing. Not sure they don't exist, but I'm completely unsure where they would arise from. Please enlighten me.
Clearly you have not read Facebook's terms of service. The fact that you disobeyed those terms and your act wasn't immediately detected doesn't exonerate Facebook, or "prove" that those terms of service don't apply.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said they would utilize presently existing, but unused, capacity. Of which there is a great deal available. Further, the comment to which I was replying (which was not TFS or TFA) said that there would be an overall increase in energy usage; and that's not true either, which is what I was primarily addressing. You need to apply context for proper comprehension.
Nope. They'll shift usage from inefficient individual gasoline and diesel engines to considerably more efficient large turbines and etc. in power plants, then lose only part of that efficiency in transmission and other losses. In the process, they'll make vehicles power-flavor agnostic, allowing a fully transparent shift between coal, oil, nuclear, solar and so forth for all those electric vehicles. In the meantime, as most grid capacity is unused at night, the potential exists for much more effective use of already existing resources as (presently) unused capacity is brought online at night. Side effects include reduced emissions, lower petroleum demand, quieter operation, and immense effort invested in battery / ultracapacitor development that should benefit many other sectors of the economy.
The main problem right now is battery / ultracap technology. It's just borderline. But improving all the time. Right now, we suffer with hybrid designs; but I expect that to be merely a blip on the overall vehicle class radar. Fully electric vehicles are the future. Can't really go any other way.
"Giant" houses? GP mentioned the home described was 3900 sq feet. This is hardly "giant", though it might be fair to call it roomy as compared to the average. The average home size (in the US) was 2700 sq feet in 2009, up from 1400 square feet in 1970. Which isn't to say that 2700 square feet is "large", either... it's just the average. In order to create that 2700 sq foot average, there have to be plenty of homes on the high side of that number.
Fourth-ified.
Especially since members may have submitted many times, even been voted *way* up in the firehose, yet blocked by editors. "first time" simply has no useful meaning.
This explains that what is in the constitution is overall intended to promote general welfare; it doesn't mean that what's in the document can be ignored by the government if some contrary idea promotes the general welfare. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who are very confused about this.
Legitimately authorized federal (and to a large extent, state) use of power is fairly clearly specified by the enumerated powers, the bill of rights, and the various amendments to all of the foregoing. Any exercise of power not so enumerated, or explicitly restricted, is illegitimate action of government wildly out of control. Practical examples of this abound - obvious rights violations, blatantly ex post facto laws, outright usurpation of powers not granted, sophist re-interpretations of otherwise clearly stated limits, etc.
Disclosure has zero value if the item being disclosed is irrelevant by the time the patent expires; worse, in the case of most patents, which are, in fact, quite obvious, all disclosure does is locks the obvious away from use.
Patents do far too much harm to ever be a good thing, on balance.
This is because the system is broken; there's no reason (other than legislative malfeasance and attorney trough-piggery) that a drug couldn't go right on the market with a label that says "side effects presently unquantified" for which the responsibility of dealing with any side effects rests with the users.
You want the (cough) "safe" version vis-a-vis side effects, you wait for some trials. You want to be even safer, you wait for a LOT of trials and watch the news. You want to be PERFECTLY safe from side effects, then don't take the bloody drug. And the attorneys can go find more direct employment, perhaps simply as muggers. Likewise the FDA and the entire chain of innovation stifling our manifestly incompetent legislature has put together.
Our society has developed a persistent and widespread disease of re-directing responsibility towards the nearest deep pocket. This in turn has produced a bumper crop of whiny, sniveling peons. I doubt it'll ever reverse itself, it'll just keep getting worse until our country grinds to a halt in a fit of economic breakage, finger pointing, liberty stomping, and citizen rights losses.