and you ignore the entire common-law basis of the document
I don't ignore common law -- I observe that the constitution supersedes it. That's why it was written: to prevent the government from using the King's methods to disenfranchise the population.
The idea that common law, pre-constitution, overrides the constitution itself is ludicrous. US law cannot be based upon common law where common law conflicts with the constitution.
You do not have a right to free speech when that free speech impedes on someone else's rights.
Speech does not "impede", or even "impose", on anyone else's rights. I defy you to give me even one defensible example of the content of speech imposing on someone else's rights.
Until or unless you can do that, you don't have a leg to stand upon. And I'm quite sure you can't do it, too.:)
Wrong. Just wrong. There is no power to nullify laws enumerated in the passages you quote. It isn't there. You have fallen for the big lie.
Interesting.
Walk me through this, please. When the constitution says that the judicial power over all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, is assigned to the supreme court, what do you assert that means? What can the justices do? Anything? Nothing? What?
Putting it another way, what do justices (judges) usually do? Isn't it determine guilt or innocence under a particular law or laws, and then if guilt is found, to determine punishment (sentence)? Do you see that as different from what supreme court justices do? If so (other than appellate, which is the power to review lower court decisions), what is the difference?
Do you see a "case arising under this constitution" a case of violation of a constitutional provision, or as something else? If it is something else, what is it, and why is it described as something unique, specifically as a "case arising under this constitution", such that they felt they had to bring it up as a distinct matter?
Lastly, as there are no penalties specified for congress when they violate their oaths and create unconstitutional law, what is the role of the supreme court when such a violation is determined by them to have been made? If your answers to the above don't exclude this step, which is also, like determination of guilt, normally a judge's task.
Section one: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court
Section two: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution -- and appellate power is assigned as well.
Consequently, the supreme court can receive a case where a law is claimed to be in violation of the constitution; and it may exercise the judicial power, that is, decide the facts of the matter and agree, or disagree, with the complainant, that the law is, or is not, in compliance with the constitution.
It is reasonably obvious that by assigning the supreme court power to review cases that arise under the constitution -- which in turn is primarily an authorization blueprint for the legislature -- that the court can in fact determine that "the law in question is in violation", and that the consequence of that is that the law is invalidated -- because it was not authorized by the constitution.
The thing is, that's all they can do. There are no penalties that may be applied to the legislature, and the only thing that officially guides the justices is an oath, which they regularly and consistently break. They are not authorized to make new law, or to change what the constitution says.
So, for instance, when congress and/or a state legislature makes a law that infringes on the people's right to keep and/or bear arms, and the supreme court says "oh yeah, fine", the court is guilty of violating their oaths, because the constitution specifically says congress can't do that. The responsibility, by oath, of any judge is to enforce the law. The constitution is the law at this level of discourse. Judges should be removed from their jobs, as provided for in article III ("shall hold their Offices during good Behavior") when they are caught in such a violation of their oaths.
I've never yet met a corporation that did not consist of people.
And I've never yet "met a corporation" that did not consist of paperwork, where people flowed in and out but only the structure remained integral. Corporations are not people, though they may employ people.
A football team consists of people organized to get something done; does that make the team "a person"?
A crowd consists only of people; does that make the crowd "a person"?
A fight consists of two people (only people) engaged in the same activity; does that make a fight "a person"?
No. A person is.... A PERSON. Nothing else is a person. The idea is stupid. Like a lot of other things that vomit out of our legal system in the role of counteraction to challenges to unauthorized power.
I work for a corporation. I do various things for them, as instructed, because they pay me to do so. I do not agree with corporate policy; it is neither my place to make it, or to complain about it; nor was I ever consulted about it. The corporation is directed at a level far above my head. Consequently, in no way can the corporation be said to be exercising my rights for me. I have not authorized them to do so, either. Our association is purely service for money. They very clearly do not care what I think, and I return the favor with gusto.
Corporations are not people. They are paper constructs. To seriously compare them to a living thing, I pick a virus - of a kind that produces something useful, but would eat your skin off if you got any on you. They're rule-based, not compassionate; they're self-centered to the point of white-hot insanity; they're dangerous if left to their own devices (and even when they're not); they are immune to the vast majority of punishments that may be addressed to a person, and they simply cannot be trusted.
Amendment 14, somewhat indirectly, but still reasonably, says that the states must treat rights as specified in the federal constitution. What that turns out to mean is that amendments one through ten apply both to federal lawmaking and state lawmaking. Beyond this, we have local lawmaking, but that must comply with state laws so it really doesn't describe a third domain of authority; finally, the people receive the ability to control, but this is limited to home and property.
Therefore the 9th and 10th amendments apply (such a right/power is reserved to the States or People).
Actually, the 14th applies the bill of rights to the states -- so they don't get that power either. It's directly in the hands of the people. Which boils down to you don't have to allow me to speak my mind in your home or on your property. That's about the sum of it.
You are most likely wrong on this.
You see, if a corporation doesn't have freedom of speech, and congress can make any law it wants concerning a corporation's speech
That is not my position. I simply pointed out that the first amendment addresses the making of law which restricts freedom of speech. People, who can create speech, not corporations, which are paper constructs which are devoid of speech.
I did not say that congress can make any law it wants. My position is simply that you would have to look elsewhere for law dealing with corporate policies, products, or actions.
In general, the list of things congress is authorized to make law about are enumerated in the beginning of the constitution. The amendments either specify restrictions, or add areas where law may be made. So for your concern about corporations, first see the enumerated powers, then read the amendments, parsing for corporations, business, etc. Try not to get caught up in the nonsensical proposition that a corporation is a person. If you find yourself tempted, try to marry one, dress one in stockings, take one out dancing, or get one drunk. Corporations are obviously not persons.
It doesn't? You might want to check the wording of the First Amendment again, because I'm pretty sure that they mention "the press" in there.
No, it doesn't. I'll give it one last try.
The first amendment is not something you can reasonably characterize as a "freedom of speech" amendment, lumping each phrase into that category. It is, instead, a "congress shall make no law" amendment. That's what it is there for, to prevent certain types of laws. Here it is, in its entirety, for your reference:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Broken down:
Initially, it restricts congress from making law that would establish state religion. Congress has violated this by putting "in god we trust" on money, allowing Christian motifs in public buildings, prayer in government process, and more.
Then it prohibits congress from making law that would restrict the people's exercise of religion. Congress has violated this by laws that forbid consensual practices such as polygamy, various drug laws, and more.
Next, it forbids congress from making law that restricts the freedom of speech, or the freedom of the press (note that the commonality there is twofold because of the phrasing: the prohibition on lawmaking, and two different types of freedom. The commonality is not "speech.") Congress has created law that limits both domains of expression extensively, speech and press.
Next, it forbids congress from making law that restricts the people from peacefully assembling. Congress has made law that restricts assembly in many ways.
Finally, it forbids congress from making law that restricts the people from addressing the government with their grievances. Here, the judiciary creates the restriction using the legal technique of claiming citizens have no standing. See Michael Newdow for a specific example of how this is implemented.
So, in summary, the first is not simply about speech, and you have to read it to understand it (as with the rest of the constitution), you can't just depend on random bits of knowledge you've collected. The constitution isn't difficult, but it isn't offhand, either. Reading it carefully, one will immediately discern that it is being largely ignored by both congress and the judiciary; this puts analysis of it into an odd state; one that does not -- cannot, in fact -- consider the input of the laws or the courts as a known valid factor, as both parties are clearly in violation of their oaths. Because we know the legislature and judiciary are in violation, every law has to be considered in light of the constitution anew; otherwise, one is simply being complicit, or worse, a dupe, of the parties who are misappropriating powers not authorized to them.
So now... what about mutes and infants - they don't possess the capability of speech. Do they have no freedom of speech until such time as they possess the "ability" to speak?
You're confusing speech with vocalization. Any form of information -- including vocalization -- produced by a member of the class "the people" is speech, that is, opinion or information you are attempting to transfer. The people are covered, so both mutes and infants are covered.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? I see nothing in the Bill of Rights saying that "these only apply to people". Could it be that you are - gasp - interpreting the Constitution?
You're just being obstinate; I have already addressed this. The constitution repeatedly addresses the
And yet, nowhere in the segment you quoted, does it specifically state that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of *PEOPLE* to speak.
That's because only people speak. It's obvious. It's not there for the same reason that a recipe for turtle soup may be constructed as "remove the shell" instead of "remove the turtle's shell." It doesn't refer to corporations because they don't speak. It doesn't refer to the press, because a newspaper isn't a person, either; hence, it takes a separate, specific phrase to include the press. The lack of a phrase governing corporations may be certain to indicate that they are not included, just as turtles are not included, and wagons are not included, and frigates are not included.
You have failed several times now to address the central problems with your position: corporations do not speak. They are not people. There is nothing to protect. The reason they do not speak is because they cannot; they have no brain. The relevant portion of the first amendment only addresses speech; therefore, if speech is not a capability, the first does not address it. You'd be better off arguing for the first to apply to a parrot than a corporation. Because at least in that context, the words still make sense. When a corporation is considered, the phrase becomes gibberish.
Presses do not speak either, they press, that is to say, they put words to paper, and that act, by them, is protected. Because it says so.
The point is this:
You are 'interpreting' the First Amendment by saying it doesn't apply to corporations
The point is invalid. Corporations can't speak. Therefore, regulating corporate "speech" is ridiculous. Corporations aren't people. The amendments address the people unless they say otherwise. There's nothing about corporations (unlike, as you point out, the press), and so again, completely irrelevant. You might as well be arguing for free speech for treehouses.
This is true. Money is one step removed (as a lever is removed from the object being moved) from power. As such, as an implement, it is a lot closer to being a "fist" than it is to "speech."
Should you have any doubt, simply observe the massive effects it has upon our court system.
Explain to me where the First Amendment says it only applies to "people"?
The entire bill of rights is directed to the people. Almost every one of the amendments in it (including the first, go read it if you doubt me) finds a place to specifically say so when there might be a question.
However, for this situation, there is no doubt. This is because in the case of speech, the subject at hand is a product of a person. Corporations are legal constructs. They don't speak. They don't think. They don't have opinions. Individual persons -- and only individual persons -- have opinions, and speak. Therefore the speech portion of the first amendment is directed at people.
By your own strict "as it's written" argument, all laws being passed by the government that restrict speech - any speech, by any entity - are unconstitutional, which means that corporations should also be exempted from any government restriction, as well
Corporations are not persons, and do not speak; therefore the first amendment does not address anything to do with them. Any rationale for regulation of corporate actions must be found elsewhere.
Or, when you said that "all speech is protected, there are no exceptions in the constitution," did you really mean to say, "I think the First Amendment should mean what I want it to mean, in the specific circumstances I think it should apply in?"
I mean that you should go read it; keeping in mind that it was meant for a normally educated person to read and understand, not lawyers; that in some cases (not many) the meaning of the words has changed and it must be read as written, not using words in ways the writers did not intend, which does take a little research here and there (I can sometimes help with that, been working on it for decades.)
I make every attempt to understand it as written; to read the comments of those who wrote it to gain context; to keep in mind what they considered the objectionable things they had suffered under English rule; and to recognize their devotion to the notions of liberty.
In most cases, I find the amendments, and the abuses they have suffered at the hands of oath-breaking justices and legislators, to be quite clear. In the few cases where it is not clear (for instance, there is a very good example in the 2nd amendment I can demonstrate for you), I have so far found that the different ways of reading produce the same result anyway.
"Abridging the freedom of speech" is in no way the same as "regulating speech".
That is utterly ridiculous. To abridge a freedom in the constitutional sense is to exert legislative control over it in any way. The word "abridge" is key here; it means exactly the same today as it did when it was written into the constitution: curtail. To regulate a thing is also to exert legislative control over it, to curtail particular uses of it.
What you haven't considered is the legal definition of "freedom". "Abridging the freedom of speech" is in no way the same as "regulating speech".
No, sir, speech is not comparable to a fist, swinging or passive, and consequently you are bewildered.
...does that also apply to corporations funding the campaigns of favored candidates?
Corporations are not people. Therefore the first amendment does not address the actions of a corporation. Therefore the actions of a corporation are not protected by the first amendment. You'd have to look elsewhere for legitimate regulation of corporations.
Actually, all speech is protected. There are no exceptions in the constitution. It's quite specific:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech
See? "NO law." There you go. Not "some laws when we don't like speech", but NO LAW.
What you have done here is confuse the illicit, usurped power to attack speech, which the US government has taken, with the authority to exercise power to attack speech, which has never, ever been extended to the US government by the people.
Also, BTW, the supreme court has no legitimate authority here other than to reject any law that abridges the freedom of speech. Article III authorizes absolutely no power to carve out exceptions; that's limited to article V, and is authorized ONLY to the people.
Premeditation is your guess at what the person was thinking. So it doesn't show anything other than that you are guessing, and using that guess to modify your punishment regime. You can't read minds (at least, not yet); hence, unless the person tells you they planned something out - in which case they're admitting to assault anyway and the maximum penalty should apply - you really don't know. That's why premeditation "because they own a firearm" or any other external factor is nonsensical.
There are many valid reasons to own firearms. Hunting. Martial arts. Reserve or active military status. Olympic style shooting. As a signal to your government, as encoded in the US constitution. Or, in the end, as a means to leverage the replacement of your government, as encoded in the US declaration of independence. As a collector. As a means of self- and familial-defense. None of these signal any premeditation of ending any person's life.
I would like to direct you here; it's a lesson in thinking about liberty in chart form:
Premeditation should never be an issue. The valid issues are the harm actually done, defense or assault, consensuality, competence, as described above.
I *think* about things a lot; doesn't mean I'm going to do them, or, having had those thoughts, that this is why I actually did something in the end, assuming I actually did it.
Trying to assign me guilt for what you think I may have been thinking, or what you think you can intuit about what I may (or may not) have been thinking... that's stupid bullshit invented by idiots. You want to punish me for what I did? Ok. You want to punish me for what you imagine I was thinking? Fuck no. "Thoughtcrime" is bullshit on every level.
And yes, I'm aware that most countries have created a huge pile of stupid law about these matters. Just like slave law, drug law, and a whole *bunch* of other law, the fact that it is law is in no way any assurance that it is anything but outright idiocy. The root problem is that most people can't think their way out of a paper bag. And I *especially* include lawmakers, lawyers and justices in that assessment, given the huge pile of evidence they've provided along those lines.
Gun Crime is a term employed by those engaged in Liberty Crime.
Seriously, I don't care if you assaulted someone with your fingernail clippings, fists, a knife, a gun, or a spork. What I care about is, did you start it, or were you defending? If you started it, was it intentional or accidental? Was it, perhaps, consensual (for instance, pulling the plug on old uncle Ed, who formally asked you to do it?) And finally, how much harm was done? Not what it was done with. Were people injured consequent to consensual agreement (boxing within the rules, etc.)? Was property harmed or transferred without consensual agreement? If so, what is the value here?
If Joe nicks you with a bullet from a.30 cal machine gun, that's a lot less serious (basically, it isn't serious) than if he rips your eye out with his fingers. If Joe opens a half-inch gash in the top two layers of your skin with a centuries-old Katana (arguably one of the deadliest hand weapons ever made), that's a lot less serious than if he breaks your jaw with an open-handed slap. It's just common sense: And that, of course, is why the law doesn't look at it that way, because the people who make, enforce, and adjudicate the law are fucking idiots. All this "OMFG, gun!" "OMFG, knife!", "OMFG, martial artist" nonsense is just the purest kind of demonstration of an inability to reason much better than a three year old.
Where's the harm? What is its degree? I want to know if it was consensual. I want to know if the party or parties were informed. I want to know if they could be informed (because as anyone capable of critical thinking knows, the line in the sand about age is one stupid, broken-ass way to determine competence -- it is absolutely guaranteed to do huge damage to people on either side of it, because its relation to actual competence is vague and highly uncorrelated to specific cases. Some 15-year olds are perfectly competent; some 30-year olds are not. The only way to know if they are competent is to test them for it, just as you would for a driver's license. An "I am competent" license would go a long way towards ameliorating a lot of the stupid moral cul-de-sacs our society has driven itself into WRT age, dating, trust funds, soldiering, voting, drinking, drugging, sentencing, etc.)
The only thing I can think of that is more broken than most criminals is the court system: legislators, laws, lawyers, and judges. A complete fail, from end to end.
Which implies that using ASCII is fast to type, slow to read
No, it doesn't imply that at all. ASCII is fast to type, fast to read. It's not some kind of "complement" of a pictographic character set; alphabetic sets are simply different. Pictographic sets are inherently inferior to alphabetic sets like english, Korean hangul, Arabic, or Japanese hiragana for keyboarding applications because the input method for a pictographic set sufficient for a programming language is going to be comparatively cumbersome (leaving aside the learning curve.)
It doesn't rise to the level of snarkage, you're just waving around a lack of understanding how water works with gravity and air pressure when the body is no longer level.
If you pump water out of one end of an open canal, and into the other end, the water will flow until all resistance until the canal equalizes end to end, which will be done by gravity and air pressure, consistently moving water in the direction of the lowered end. Same reason any stream flows, despite the rocks on the bottom, turbulence, and etc. There's no resistance to the pumping at the draining end, unlike a tube, because local air pressure forces the pump's near end down. So the pumping is mundane.
Simplified, what do you imagine happens when you pump out the equivalent of X feet of canal every twenty minutes? Do you think the water further down will not flow towards the pumped out area? No, of course it will. Continue pumping, and the rate of flow along the entire canal will equalize. Resistance at the sides will simply ensure that the center of the canal flows faster. It has to flow. The rate of flow is simply a matter of how much water is moved from end A to end B. There's plenty of inertia to overcome, and this has engineering implications; first that once it's moving, it won't be able to stop suddenly; and second, that it'll take a while for the whole thing to come up to speed, and third, that evaporation has to be compensated for, but yeah, it'll work fine.
But by the way, I do appreciate that you were attempting to be snarky. I wouldn't know where I was if someone didn't crawl out of the woodwork, declare a matter of straight-up physics "dumb", and wander off congratulating themselves.
Actually, I'd imagine it would take a ton of energy to push something through water
The smart way to do it is not to push the metal through the water, but to get the water moving by pumping it around. It'll then carry the barges / vehicles without any particular fanfare. When you pump water continuously from one end of a canal system to the other (which can of course be directly adjacent to one another, and for transport purposes, incorporate locks so as to make the entire system continuous), the entire canal will move continuously. Anything floating on the canal will move as well, no extra charge. Consequently, a long canal returns a great deal of motive capability for relatively little energy investment. The problems are (a) land costs and (b) speed and (c) you need two paths moving in opposite directions for any kind of efficiency - getting someone to put in a significant modern canal design these days is impossible, and many goods are problematic to move at the relatively slow rates a canal provides.
Do some research, if you don't even include the batteries you'll find that electic motors weigh more than gasoline engines of the same power rating.
Nope. Without batteries, electric motors run between 3 to 5 times the power to weight ratio of internal combustion engines. Electrics also provide high torque from 0 RPM, so they start better, and you don't need a transmission. That in turn allows them to more easily put that weight right down in the wheels, which improves the weight distribution of the vehicle and can eliminate losses from gearing and couplings.
The problem is the batteries; the problem has always been the batteries. While they can also be placed very low and so aid in the vehicle's overall stability, the bulk and weight is huge, and that is what tips the overall weight in favor of the ICE. The engines themselves, though... electric wins by a huge margin.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't ignore common law -- I observe that the constitution supersedes it. That's why it was written: to prevent the government from using the King's methods to disenfranchise the population.
The idea that common law, pre-constitution, overrides the constitution itself is ludicrous. US law cannot be based upon common law where common law conflicts with the constitution.
Speech does not "impede", or even "impose", on anyone else's rights. I defy you to give me even one defensible example of the content of speech imposing on someone else's rights.
Until or unless you can do that, you don't have a leg to stand upon. And I'm quite sure you can't do it, too. :)
Interesting.
Walk me through this, please. When the constitution says that the judicial power over all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, is assigned to the supreme court, what do you assert that means? What can the justices do? Anything? Nothing? What?
Putting it another way, what do justices (judges) usually do? Isn't it determine guilt or innocence under a particular law or laws, and then if guilt is found, to determine punishment (sentence)? Do you see that as different from what supreme court justices do? If so (other than appellate, which is the power to review lower court decisions), what is the difference?
Do you see a "case arising under this constitution" a case of violation of a constitutional provision, or as something else? If it is something else, what is it, and why is it described as something unique, specifically as a "case arising under this constitution", such that they felt they had to bring it up as a distinct matter?
Lastly, as there are no penalties specified for congress when they violate their oaths and create unconstitutional law, what is the role of the supreme court when such a violation is determined by them to have been made? If your answers to the above don't exclude this step, which is also, like determination of guilt, normally a judge's task.
It goes like this... from article III:
Section one: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court
Section two: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution -- and appellate power is assigned as well.
Consequently, the supreme court can receive a case where a law is claimed to be in violation of the constitution; and it may exercise the judicial power, that is, decide the facts of the matter and agree, or disagree, with the complainant, that the law is, or is not, in compliance with the constitution.
It is reasonably obvious that by assigning the supreme court power to review cases that arise under the constitution -- which in turn is primarily an authorization blueprint for the legislature -- that the court can in fact determine that "the law in question is in violation", and that the consequence of that is that the law is invalidated -- because it was not authorized by the constitution.
The thing is, that's all they can do. There are no penalties that may be applied to the legislature, and the only thing that officially guides the justices is an oath, which they regularly and consistently break. They are not authorized to make new law, or to change what the constitution says.
So, for instance, when congress and/or a state legislature makes a law that infringes on the people's right to keep and/or bear arms, and the supreme court says "oh yeah, fine", the court is guilty of violating their oaths, because the constitution specifically says congress can't do that. The responsibility, by oath, of any judge is to enforce the law. The constitution is the law at this level of discourse. Judges should be removed from their jobs, as provided for in article III ("shall hold their Offices during good Behavior") when they are caught in such a violation of their oaths.
Exactly. Rights are an emergent social construct.
And I've never yet "met a corporation" that did not consist of paperwork, where people flowed in and out but only the structure remained integral. Corporations are not people, though they may employ people.
A football team consists of people organized to get something done; does that make the team "a person"?
A crowd consists only of people; does that make the crowd "a person"?
A fight consists of two people (only people) engaged in the same activity; does that make a fight "a person"?
No. A person is.... A PERSON. Nothing else is a person. The idea is stupid. Like a lot of other things that vomit out of our legal system in the role of counteraction to challenges to unauthorized power.
I work for a corporation. I do various things for them, as instructed, because they pay me to do so. I do not agree with corporate policy; it is neither my place to make it, or to complain about it; nor was I ever consulted about it. The corporation is directed at a level far above my head. Consequently, in no way can the corporation be said to be exercising my rights for me. I have not authorized them to do so, either. Our association is purely service for money. They very clearly do not care what I think, and I return the favor with gusto.
Corporations are not people. They are paper constructs. To seriously compare them to a living thing, I pick a virus - of a kind that produces something useful, but would eat your skin off if you got any on you. They're rule-based, not compassionate; they're self-centered to the point of white-hot insanity; they're dangerous if left to their own devices (and even when they're not); they are immune to the vast majority of punishments that may be addressed to a person, and they simply cannot be trusted.
Amendment 14, somewhat indirectly, but still reasonably, says that the states must treat rights as specified in the federal constitution. What that turns out to mean is that amendments one through ten apply both to federal lawmaking and state lawmaking. Beyond this, we have local lawmaking, but that must comply with state laws so it really doesn't describe a third domain of authority; finally, the people receive the ability to control, but this is limited to home and property.
Actually, the 14th applies the bill of rights to the states -- so they don't get that power either. It's directly in the hands of the people. Which boils down to you don't have to allow me to speak my mind in your home or on your property. That's about the sum of it.
Oh, good grief. If you declare war -- speaking, writing, in a painting, whatever -- what happens? Of course, not a thing.
So it isn't the words that matter, is it? No, of course not. It is the exercise of actual power -- the action -- that is of consequence here.
Words are not actions.
That is not my position. I simply pointed out that the first amendment addresses the making of law which restricts freedom of speech. People, who can create speech, not corporations, which are paper constructs which are devoid of speech.
I did not say that congress can make any law it wants. My position is simply that you would have to look elsewhere for law dealing with corporate policies, products, or actions.
In general, the list of things congress is authorized to make law about are enumerated in the beginning of the constitution. The amendments either specify restrictions, or add areas where law may be made. So for your concern about corporations, first see the enumerated powers, then read the amendments, parsing for corporations, business, etc. Try not to get caught up in the nonsensical proposition that a corporation is a person. If you find yourself tempted, try to marry one, dress one in stockings, take one out dancing, or get one drunk. Corporations are obviously not persons.
No, it doesn't. I'll give it one last try.
The first amendment is not something you can reasonably characterize as a "freedom of speech" amendment, lumping each phrase into that category. It is, instead, a "congress shall make no law" amendment. That's what it is there for, to prevent certain types of laws. Here it is, in its entirety, for your reference:
Broken down:
Initially, it restricts congress from making law that would establish state religion. Congress has violated this by putting "in god we trust" on money, allowing Christian motifs in public buildings, prayer in government process, and more.
Then it prohibits congress from making law that would restrict the people's exercise of religion. Congress has violated this by laws that forbid consensual practices such as polygamy, various drug laws, and more.
Next, it forbids congress from making law that restricts the freedom of speech, or the freedom of the press (note that the commonality there is twofold because of the phrasing: the prohibition on lawmaking, and two different types of freedom. The commonality is not "speech.") Congress has created law that limits both domains of expression extensively, speech and press.
Next, it forbids congress from making law that restricts the people from peacefully assembling. Congress has made law that restricts assembly in many ways.
Finally, it forbids congress from making law that restricts the people from addressing the government with their grievances. Here, the judiciary creates the restriction using the legal technique of claiming citizens have no standing. See Michael Newdow for a specific example of how this is implemented.
So, in summary, the first is not simply about speech, and you have to read it to understand it (as with the rest of the constitution), you can't just depend on random bits of knowledge you've collected. The constitution isn't difficult, but it isn't offhand, either. Reading it carefully, one will immediately discern that it is being largely ignored by both congress and the judiciary; this puts analysis of it into an odd state; one that does not -- cannot, in fact -- consider the input of the laws or the courts as a known valid factor, as both parties are clearly in violation of their oaths. Because we know the legislature and judiciary are in violation, every law has to be considered in light of the constitution anew; otherwise, one is simply being complicit, or worse, a dupe, of the parties who are misappropriating powers not authorized to them.
You're confusing speech with vocalization. Any form of information -- including vocalization -- produced by a member of the class "the people" is speech, that is, opinion or information you are attempting to transfer. The people are covered, so both mutes and infants are covered.
You're just being obstinate; I have already addressed this. The constitution repeatedly addresses the
That's because only people speak. It's obvious. It's not there for the same reason that a recipe for turtle soup may be constructed as "remove the shell" instead of "remove the turtle's shell." It doesn't refer to corporations because they don't speak. It doesn't refer to the press, because a newspaper isn't a person, either; hence, it takes a separate, specific phrase to include the press. The lack of a phrase governing corporations may be certain to indicate that they are not included, just as turtles are not included, and wagons are not included, and frigates are not included.
You have failed several times now to address the central problems with your position: corporations do not speak. They are not people. There is nothing to protect. The reason they do not speak is because they cannot; they have no brain. The relevant portion of the first amendment only addresses speech; therefore, if speech is not a capability, the first does not address it. You'd be better off arguing for the first to apply to a parrot than a corporation. Because at least in that context, the words still make sense. When a corporation is considered, the phrase becomes gibberish.
Presses do not speak either, they press, that is to say, they put words to paper, and that act, by them, is protected. Because it says so.
The point is invalid. Corporations can't speak. Therefore, regulating corporate "speech" is ridiculous. Corporations aren't people. The amendments address the people unless they say otherwise. There's nothing about corporations (unlike, as you point out, the press), and so again, completely irrelevant. You might as well be arguing for free speech for treehouses.
This is true. Money is one step removed (as a lever is removed from the object being moved) from power. As such, as an implement, it is a lot closer to being a "fist" than it is to "speech."
Should you have any doubt, simply observe the massive effects it has upon our court system.
Sorry, incorrect blockquote in that last bit. I intended it to read:
No, sir, speech is not comparable to a fist, swinging or passive, and consequently you are bewildered.
The entire bill of rights is directed to the people. Almost every one of the amendments in it (including the first, go read it if you doubt me) finds a place to specifically say so when there might be a question.
However, for this situation, there is no doubt. This is because in the case of speech, the subject at hand is a product of a person. Corporations are legal constructs. They don't speak. They don't think. They don't have opinions. Individual persons -- and only individual persons -- have opinions, and speak. Therefore the speech portion of the first amendment is directed at people.
Corporations are not persons, and do not speak; therefore the first amendment does not address anything to do with them. Any rationale for regulation of corporate actions must be found elsewhere.
I mean that you should go read it; keeping in mind that it was meant for a normally educated person to read and understand, not lawyers; that in some cases (not many) the meaning of the words has changed and it must be read as written, not using words in ways the writers did not intend, which does take a little research here and there (I can sometimes help with that, been working on it for decades.)
I make every attempt to understand it as written; to read the comments of those who wrote it to gain context; to keep in mind what they considered the objectionable things they had suffered under English rule; and to recognize their devotion to the notions of liberty.
In most cases, I find the amendments, and the abuses they have suffered at the hands of oath-breaking justices and legislators, to be quite clear. In the few cases where it is not clear (for instance, there is a very good example in the 2nd amendment I can demonstrate for you), I have so far found that the different ways of reading produce the same result anyway.
That is utterly ridiculous. To abridge a freedom in the constitutional sense is to exert legislative control over it in any way. The word "abridge" is key here; it means exactly the same today as it did when it was written into the constitution: curtail. To regulate a thing is also to exert legislative control over it, to curtail particular uses of it.
No, sir, speech is not comparable to a fist, swinging or passive, and consequently you are bewildered.
Corporations are not people. Therefore the first amendment does not address the actions of a corporation. Therefore the actions of a corporation are not protected by the first amendment. You'd have to look elsewhere for legitimate regulation of corporations.
Actually, all speech is protected. There are no exceptions in the constitution. It's quite specific:
See? "NO law." There you go. Not "some laws when we don't like speech", but NO LAW.
What you have done here is confuse the illicit, usurped power to attack speech, which the US government has taken, with the authority to exercise power to attack speech, which has never, ever been extended to the US government by the people.
Also, BTW, the supreme court has no legitimate authority here other than to reject any law that abridges the freedom of speech. Article III authorizes absolutely no power to carve out exceptions; that's limited to article V, and is authorized ONLY to the people.
Premeditation is your guess at what the person was thinking. So it doesn't show anything other than that you are guessing, and using that guess to modify your punishment regime. You can't read minds (at least, not yet); hence, unless the person tells you they planned something out - in which case they're admitting to assault anyway and the maximum penalty should apply - you really don't know. That's why premeditation "because they own a firearm" or any other external factor is nonsensical.
There are many valid reasons to own firearms. Hunting. Martial arts. Reserve or active military status. Olympic style shooting. As a signal to your government, as encoded in the US constitution. Or, in the end, as a means to leverage the replacement of your government, as encoded in the US declaration of independence. As a collector. As a means of self- and familial-defense. None of these signal any premeditation of ending any person's life.
I would like to direct you here; it's a lesson in thinking about liberty in chart form:
http://www.ideaspike.com/law_nolaw.shtml#tent33
Premeditation should never be an issue. The valid issues are the harm actually done, defense or assault, consensuality, competence, as described above.
I *think* about things a lot; doesn't mean I'm going to do them, or, having had those thoughts, that this is why I actually did something in the end, assuming I actually did it.
Trying to assign me guilt for what you think I may have been thinking, or what you think you can intuit about what I may (or may not) have been thinking... that's stupid bullshit invented by idiots. You want to punish me for what I did? Ok. You want to punish me for what you imagine I was thinking? Fuck no. "Thoughtcrime" is bullshit on every level.
And yes, I'm aware that most countries have created a huge pile of stupid law about these matters. Just like slave law, drug law, and a whole *bunch* of other law, the fact that it is law is in no way any assurance that it is anything but outright idiocy. The root problem is that most people can't think their way out of a paper bag. And I *especially* include lawmakers, lawyers and justices in that assessment, given the huge pile of evidence they've provided along those lines.
Gun Crime is a term employed by those engaged in Liberty Crime.
Seriously, I don't care if you assaulted someone with your fingernail clippings, fists, a knife, a gun, or a spork. What I care about is, did you start it, or were you defending? If you started it, was it intentional or accidental? Was it, perhaps, consensual (for instance, pulling the plug on old uncle Ed, who formally asked you to do it?) And finally, how much harm was done? Not what it was done with. Were people injured consequent to consensual agreement (boxing within the rules, etc.)? Was property harmed or transferred without consensual agreement? If so, what is the value here?
If Joe nicks you with a bullet from a .30 cal machine gun, that's a lot less serious (basically, it isn't serious) than if he rips your eye out with his fingers. If Joe opens a half-inch gash in the top two layers of your skin with a centuries-old Katana (arguably one of the deadliest hand weapons ever made), that's a lot less serious than if he breaks your jaw with an open-handed slap. It's just common sense: And that, of course, is why the law doesn't look at it that way, because the people who make, enforce, and adjudicate the law are fucking idiots. All this "OMFG, gun!" "OMFG, knife!", "OMFG, martial artist" nonsense is just the purest kind of demonstration of an inability to reason much better than a three year old.
Where's the harm? What is its degree? I want to know if it was consensual. I want to know if the party or parties were informed. I want to know if they could be informed (because as anyone capable of critical thinking knows, the line in the sand about age is one stupid, broken-ass way to determine competence -- it is absolutely guaranteed to do huge damage to people on either side of it, because its relation to actual competence is vague and highly uncorrelated to specific cases. Some 15-year olds are perfectly competent; some 30-year olds are not. The only way to know if they are competent is to test them for it, just as you would for a driver's license. An "I am competent" license would go a long way towards ameliorating a lot of the stupid moral cul-de-sacs our society has driven itself into WRT age, dating, trust funds, soldiering, voting, drinking, drugging, sentencing, etc.)
The only thing I can think of that is more broken than most criminals is the court system: legislators, laws, lawyers, and judges. A complete fail, from end to end.
No, it doesn't imply that at all. ASCII is fast to type, fast to read. It's not some kind of "complement" of a pictographic character set; alphabetic sets are simply different. Pictographic sets are inherently inferior to alphabetic sets like english, Korean hangul, Arabic, or Japanese hiragana for keyboarding applications because the input method for a pictographic set sufficient for a programming language is going to be comparatively cumbersome (leaving aside the learning curve.)
It doesn't rise to the level of snarkage, you're just waving around a lack of understanding how water works with gravity and air pressure when the body is no longer level.
If you pump water out of one end of an open canal, and into the other end, the water will flow until all resistance until the canal equalizes end to end, which will be done by gravity and air pressure, consistently moving water in the direction of the lowered end. Same reason any stream flows, despite the rocks on the bottom, turbulence, and etc. There's no resistance to the pumping at the draining end, unlike a tube, because local air pressure forces the pump's near end down. So the pumping is mundane.
Simplified, what do you imagine happens when you pump out the equivalent of X feet of canal every twenty minutes? Do you think the water further down will not flow towards the pumped out area? No, of course it will. Continue pumping, and the rate of flow along the entire canal will equalize. Resistance at the sides will simply ensure that the center of the canal flows faster. It has to flow. The rate of flow is simply a matter of how much water is moved from end A to end B. There's plenty of inertia to overcome, and this has engineering implications; first that once it's moving, it won't be able to stop suddenly; and second, that it'll take a while for the whole thing to come up to speed, and third, that evaporation has to be compensated for, but yeah, it'll work fine.
But by the way, I do appreciate that you were attempting to be snarky. I wouldn't know where I was if someone didn't crawl out of the woodwork, declare a matter of straight-up physics "dumb", and wander off congratulating themselves.
The smart way to do it is not to push the metal through the water, but to get the water moving by pumping it around. It'll then carry the barges / vehicles without any particular fanfare. When you pump water continuously from one end of a canal system to the other (which can of course be directly adjacent to one another, and for transport purposes, incorporate locks so as to make the entire system continuous), the entire canal will move continuously. Anything floating on the canal will move as well, no extra charge. Consequently, a long canal returns a great deal of motive capability for relatively little energy investment. The problems are (a) land costs and (b) speed and (c) you need two paths moving in opposite directions for any kind of efficiency - getting someone to put in a significant modern canal design these days is impossible, and many goods are problematic to move at the relatively slow rates a canal provides.
Nope. Without batteries, electric motors run between 3 to 5 times the power to weight ratio of internal combustion engines. Electrics also provide high torque from 0 RPM, so they start better, and you don't need a transmission. That in turn allows them to more easily put that weight right down in the wheels, which improves the weight distribution of the vehicle and can eliminate losses from gearing and couplings.
The problem is the batteries; the problem has always been the batteries. While they can also be placed very low and so aid in the vehicle's overall stability, the bulk and weight is huge, and that is what tips the overall weight in favor of the ICE. The engines themselves, though... electric wins by a huge margin.