You (and others) are of the belief that this proof doesn't exist. I assure you it does and it is widely believed it does. Fmr. AG Gonzales testified to this fact and the telcos have used such arguments in their legal cases.
Congress said "yeah, we'll get your back if you can prove Bush asked you to do it" knowing full well that the telcos have such proof. It was a compromise in name only.
And if anyone has any evidence of pre-9/11 acts, Congress will just pass another law making the actions retroactively legal.
Nixon was right. When the President does it, that means it's not illegal. Of course, he forgot to mention that it's not illegal because Congress will give the President a get-out-of-jail free card.
Dude. They have the paperwork (#3). They admit they have the paperwork and so does the government. Where have you been?
A judge gets to decide if the paperwork is authentic, but as I just said, we know it's authentic and every has already agreed that these letters exist.
voting for a republican is more effective than simply not voting for a democrat at removing democrats from office because it not only denies them their vote, it grants their opponents an extra vote.
And voting for a Republican often has the nasty side effect of electing Republicans, who are, at last glance, worse than Democrats.
voting for those others does not have the same effect as voting for a republican.
With all proper and due respect, that has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Try less emotion in your politics next time. A dispassionate, logical assessment of the candidates and their issue positions makes for more enjoyable living.
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.
It's obviously not 1, 2, or 4. 3 requires the punishment be greater.
I've heard of other precedents but I can't find them either.
You could always "waste" your vote on Nader, Barr, McKinney, etc., etc. I mean if you're going to vote against Obama for spite, you might as well vote for a flaming leftist.
I guarantee you that they don't lie about their positions on the issues, and they aren't in bed with the corporations.
Not to mention that Nixon was objectively to the left of today's average Democrat. He imposed rationing on gasoline for fuck's sake! Not even Dennis Kucinich or Barbara Boxer have put a bill in the hopper for that.
The SCOTUS has ruled that retroactive immunity isn't an ex post facto law.
You're welcome to continue believing that the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly, but there are only 9 opinions that matter when it comes to the meaning of the Constitution.
Yes, and how many times has the Congress failed to change the Constitution based on a horrid judicial decision?
Just about all of them, last I checked.
Remember we're talking about the Constitution here, not regular laws. If the SCOTUS decided the ice cream case I mentioned as a right (let's say for argument's sake they used the 9th Amendment as the basis of their decision), Congress could not simply pass a law; they'd need to amend the Constitution, which would require the help of 38 states.
The executive and legislative branches generally agree to follow SCOTUS rulings, but don't necessarily have to do so. Ron Paul has floated the idea of simply ignoring "obviously incorrect" decisions. In fact, using a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, one can argue with a reasonably straight face that the SCOTUS is not given the power to rule on the constitutionality of legislation.
The Supreme Court is tasked with saying what the law is. That is a very powerful position to have, which is why we've seen a movement away from trying to amend the Constitution (which has a very low success rate) to appointing judges who will reinterpret it in a more ideological manner -- hence the increased politicization of judicial nominees. The justices are not restricted in their rulings to any real extent, although they can be impeached and amendments to overturn decisions can be proposed, but these things almost never happen.
First, that case was probably the biggest overreach in judicial history. Taney thought he was fixing the slavery issue by ruling on all sorts of stuff that wasn't even at issue. It was hardly the narrow decision we've come to expect from the SCOTUS.
Second, the decision is defensible in a purely legal context based upon a historical understanding of the law and of the Constitution. Seven justices signed on to Taney's decision.
Third, my point still stands that the decision was the law of the land. Whether or not the decision was "right" or "wrong", it was followed until it was overturned. All that matters in practice is what the court ruled.
Tomorrow the SCOTUS could find that all Americans are entitled to free chocolate ice cream on prime numbered days in odd numbered months. It matters not one iota whether or not the Constitution actually says that. It only matters that the executive and legislative branches follow the ruling.
Granted you have a right to your interpretation of the Constitution, but arguing that the SCOTUS made a "wrong" interpretation is a non-starter.
The SCOTUS can't possibly be wrong in their interpretation because their interpretations are infallible.
Arguing that the constitution says something, but that the SCOTUS got it wrong is essentially an exercise in intellectual masturbation. In practice, the Constitution says whatever the SCOTUS says it says.
Technically speaking, the bill doesn't provide for amnesty. What that bill does do is require telcos to provide the letters the Bush administration gave them that said the programs were legal. Essentially, if the telcos can prove that Bush et al. told them this was legal, they get off the hook.
So I suppose if the executive branch told your company it was legal to do anything, you'll never be held accountable for your actions.
That's a pretty dangerous precedent. Why doesn't Bush let our oil companies know it's legal to drill in ANWR? He can give them the CYA letter and off they go.
And that's exactly why the SFLC must file suits and follow through.
If the only penalty is having to open up the source once a suit is filed (and the SFLC or associated copyright owners proceed to drop the suit) then there isn't a downside to closing the source and violating the license.
If there aren't any monetary damages, then any company can violate the GPL with impunity until they're "caught".
Then, there is the issue of "mail requests". If you don't distribute source with binaries, and are not an academic institution, you must be willing to provide an offer, good for three years, to provide source to anyone who asks! -- not just those you distributed binaries to. A lot of businesses are not set up to do this. [This is for GPLv2. I have not checked if GPLv3 is as onerous.]
Yeah. RMS said that provision was to encourage distributing the source with the binaries. If you do that, you don't have to worry about giving the source to anyone but your customers.
But, then the bean counters that try to shave every penny on the cost of an item will balk at including a CD that does nothing for functionality -- arguing that a web server is cheaper in the long run.
Remind your bean counters that simply distributing the source with the binaries is, by far, the best way to avoid costly litigation like in TFA.
Using racial slurs, at least in the States, isn't slander or libel because it isn't defaming.
As far as I know, no jurisdiction in the States has a criminal statute against using racial slurs. Of course, one could easily file a civil suit for intentionally inflicting emotional distress, since any reasonable person would know that calling someone an "n-word" is hurtful.
Your poor grammar belies an interesting point: what constitutes "better"?
In terms of the day-to-day standards of living of the average Iraqi, rule under Hussein probably was better, but then they had very little political freedom of which to speak.
Look at China. It seems to me that they really don't care too much about democracy because their Communist-in-name-only leaders are doing a bang-up job growing the economy. Who the hell cares if you don't have political freedom if your standard of living is going through the roof?
I, for one, do. I'll take freedom at the cost of convenience any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't require them to do anything. They asked. Qwest was the only telco that refused to help.
Last I checked, Qwest wasn't brought up on "not doing the executive branch's bidding" charges.
You (and others) are of the belief that this proof doesn't exist. I assure you it does and it is widely believed it does. Fmr. AG Gonzales testified to this fact and the telcos have used such arguments in their legal cases.
Congress said "yeah, we'll get your back if you can prove Bush asked you to do it" knowing full well that the telcos have such proof. It was a compromise in name only.
And if anyone has any evidence of pre-9/11 acts, Congress will just pass another law making the actions retroactively legal.
Nixon was right. When the President does it, that means it's not illegal. Of course, he forgot to mention that it's not illegal because Congress will give the President a get-out-of-jail free card.
Dude. They have the paperwork (#3). They admit they have the paperwork and so does the government. Where have you been?
A judge gets to decide if the paperwork is authentic, but as I just said, we know it's authentic and every has already agreed that these letters exist.
It's not immunity, but it might as well be.
You can always have your shadow senators crash the party and demand the floor.
And voting for a Republican often has the nasty side effect of electing Republicans, who are, at last glance, worse than Democrats.
With all proper and due respect, that has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Try less emotion in your politics next time. A dispassionate, logical assessment of the candidates and their issue positions makes for more enjoyable living.
The best I can find is in Calder v. Bull:
1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.
It's obviously not 1, 2, or 4. 3 requires the punishment be greater.
I've heard of other precedents but I can't find them either.
You could always "waste" your vote on Nader, Barr, McKinney, etc., etc. I mean if you're going to vote against Obama for spite, you might as well vote for a flaming leftist.
I guarantee you that they don't lie about their positions on the issues, and they aren't in bed with the corporations.
And not only that, Steny Hoyer is the Majority Leader in the House.
Not to mention that Nixon was objectively to the left of today's average Democrat. He imposed rationing on gasoline for fuck's sake! Not even Dennis Kucinich or Barbara Boxer have put a bill in the hopper for that.
Daily Kos has a statement from Obama that he supports the capitulation^Wcompromise bill.
Will a Mr. Nader please answer the white courtesy phone? Mr. Nader to the white courtesy phone, please.
(feel free to exchange "Mr. Nader" with any minor party/independent candidate you feel most comfortable with)
The SCOTUS has ruled that retroactive immunity isn't an ex post facto law.
You're welcome to continue believing that the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly, but there are only 9 opinions that matter when it comes to the meaning of the Constitution.
Yes, and how many times has the Congress failed to change the Constitution based on a horrid judicial decision?
Just about all of them, last I checked.
Remember we're talking about the Constitution here, not regular laws. If the SCOTUS decided the ice cream case I mentioned as a right (let's say for argument's sake they used the 9th Amendment as the basis of their decision), Congress could not simply pass a law; they'd need to amend the Constitution, which would require the help of 38 states.
Pretty much.
The executive and legislative branches generally agree to follow SCOTUS rulings, but don't necessarily have to do so. Ron Paul has floated the idea of simply ignoring "obviously incorrect" decisions. In fact, using a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, one can argue with a reasonably straight face that the SCOTUS is not given the power to rule on the constitutionality of legislation.
The Supreme Court is tasked with saying what the law is. That is a very powerful position to have, which is why we've seen a movement away from trying to amend the Constitution (which has a very low success rate) to appointing judges who will reinterpret it in a more ideological manner -- hence the increased politicization of judicial nominees. The justices are not restricted in their rulings to any real extent, although they can be impeached and amendments to overturn decisions can be proposed, but these things almost never happen.
First, that case was probably the biggest overreach in judicial history. Taney thought he was fixing the slavery issue by ruling on all sorts of stuff that wasn't even at issue. It was hardly the narrow decision we've come to expect from the SCOTUS.
Second, the decision is defensible in a purely legal context based upon a historical understanding of the law and of the Constitution. Seven justices signed on to Taney's decision.
Third, my point still stands that the decision was the law of the land. Whether or not the decision was "right" or "wrong", it was followed until it was overturned. All that matters in practice is what the court ruled.
Tomorrow the SCOTUS could find that all Americans are entitled to free chocolate ice cream on prime numbered days in odd numbered months. It matters not one iota whether or not the Constitution actually says that. It only matters that the executive and legislative branches follow the ruling.
I hope you're right.
... mostly because it'd probably fail.
That being said, I doubt he has the balls to lead a filibuster in the Senate
Granted you have a right to your interpretation of the Constitution, but arguing that the SCOTUS made a "wrong" interpretation is a non-starter.
The SCOTUS can't possibly be wrong in their interpretation because their interpretations are infallible.
Arguing that the constitution says something, but that the SCOTUS got it wrong is essentially an exercise in intellectual masturbation. In practice, the Constitution says whatever the SCOTUS says it says.
Technically speaking, the bill doesn't provide for amnesty. What that bill does do is require telcos to provide the letters the Bush administration gave them that said the programs were legal. Essentially, if the telcos can prove that Bush et al. told them this was legal, they get off the hook.
So I suppose if the executive branch told your company it was legal to do anything, you'll never be held accountable for your actions.
That's a pretty dangerous precedent. Why doesn't Bush let our oil companies know it's legal to drill in ANWR? He can give them the CYA letter and off they go.
Very likely neither will vote on the bill because they will be out campaigning.
And that's exactly why the SFLC must file suits and follow through.
If the only penalty is having to open up the source once a suit is filed (and the SFLC or associated copyright owners proceed to drop the suit) then there isn't a downside to closing the source and violating the license.
If there aren't any monetary damages, then any company can violate the GPL with impunity until they're "caught".
Using racial slurs, at least in the States, isn't slander or libel because it isn't defaming.
As far as I know, no jurisdiction in the States has a criminal statute against using racial slurs. Of course, one could easily file a civil suit for intentionally inflicting emotional distress, since any reasonable person would know that calling someone an "n-word" is hurtful.
Damn the bread, just give me the fucking circus!
Your poor grammar belies an interesting point: what constitutes "better"?
In terms of the day-to-day standards of living of the average Iraqi, rule under Hussein probably was better, but then they had very little political freedom of which to speak.
Look at China. It seems to me that they really don't care too much about democracy because their Communist-in-name-only leaders are doing a bang-up job growing the economy. Who the hell cares if you don't have political freedom if your standard of living is going through the roof?
I, for one, do. I'll take freedom at the cost of convenience any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
So "better" is really in the eye of the beholder.