The problem with that is they should have read him his rights prior to a question like that.
He was free to leave, he wasn't even being temporarily detained, let alone arrested. Miranda, therefore, didn't apply. For example, if you walk into a police station and say "I killed that woman whose head you found last night over at the strip club", that's admissible even though the police didn't Mirandize you before you uttered your confession. Same thing if you walk up to an officer on the street and utter your confession. Same thing if you utter your confession to your buddy and an officer overhears it. If you publish that statement on your blog, the police can also use it against you even though they didn't have a chance to Mirandize you before you clicked [SUBMIT].
I don't care for this decision, and would like to see legislation that extends the situations where you must be Mirandized for your utterances or behaviors to be admissible, but it seems correct constitutionally. Reading of "Miranda Rights" as most people think of them are, of course, not prescribed by the United States Constitution -- they were a remedy imposed by the SCOTUS in the 1960's to give police a safe harbor with respect to a suspect's right to a lawyer and right to not provide testimony that could incriminate them. The so blanket "right to remain silent" which is included in many jurisdictions' "Miranda Rights" doesn't even exist anywhere in the U.S. Constitution -- most obviously, a court can compel you to testify as long as they believe your testimony won't incriminate you or that immunity has been granted that protects you from prosecution.
What we really need is a better public eduction system in the United States that insures that anyone graduating from High School understands the U.S. Constitution and civics better -- then these situations would not be as common.
As many others have said here:
Officer:I need you to answer some questions. Me:Am I free to leave? Officer:<mumble 'good citizen' comments>Yes.<mumble threats> Me:Officer, have a nice afternoon, good bye.
Unless you are the victim of a crime, the downside of talking to the police can be much greater than the upside even if you are completely innocent of any crime. LEOs often make up their mind who is guilty long before the evidence actually supports their hunch and then enter a spiral driven by confirmation bias. As well, if you make an inadvertent misstatements caused by stress, ambiguous questions, or simple human frailty you can then be charged in many jurisdictions with lying or misleading an LEO.
If he doesn't drive a car, I wonder how he avoids using public/private transportation which are controlled by software that doesn't meet his licensing standards.
Does he walk everywhere? If so, I assume he ignores all traffic signals since they are controlled by software that doesn't meet his licensing standards. He must be a very lucky man crossing busy streets on a red light!
Why can't you do that with existing gmail function? I've been doing what you seem to be describing w/gmail for years.
A downside in my case is that there were emails, generally forum digests, that I considered "not very important or time critical" that I would actually at least skim most of eventually when they were in my inbox. I routed them to other folders and now I pay no attention to them (a quick glance shows over 2,700 unread messages in one of these folders - yikes). I've toyed with removing the filters/routing but am hesitant to subject myself to the onslaught again.
We tell men (and women) all the time that they can't control their own bodies. Look at laws outlawing meth and heroin for example. Or, look at laws requiring motorcycle helmets and seatbelts. Or, consider various laws that prevent one from selling themselves into slavery.
Such rules may not be right, but it's worth noting that they are common.
I don't know why you suspect that those who support the right of a law abiding resident to have a reliable firearm would also support required breath analyzer interlocks on all cars. Indeed, I suspect the two groups are quite disjoint.
Anyway, its very rare that a car's failure to start will get the operator killed. The same can not be said of a firearm used for self defense.
I'll listen to the "reliable enough" argument when at least half the major urban police departments put/require such devices on all firearms carried by all their employees while on duty.
Review the thread. I'm not the one who said I need changes to my salary - I was responding to that post. I, like virtually every STEM worker in America (and probably the rest of the world), has way more than they "need". I applaud everyone for striving to get "more" if they chose to, but not to claim they "need" more. Of course, I'm not a member of the entitlement generation.
So, quit. The deal you had when you were hired is irrelevant to the deal you have now unless the contract still binds you and the other party. Salaries change, markets change, etc so I don't see why you even mentioned it.
Also, if the company initially paid P1 for your insurance with a deductible of D1 but the only way to cover you for P1 years later is with a higher deducible D2 (even in CPI adjusted dollars due to medical costs outstripping general inflation for some interval), why would you expect them to not raise the deductible to D2 and continue to pay P1 for your coverage.
Everyone "wants" more. Markets, in the long term, decide what everyone "gets".
Do you really "need" more? Are you not getting sufficient hydration and calories to sustain life? If not, you should probably spend the time and personal resources you spent responding to me and instead go for a walk and scavenge some discarded recyclables to sell. Few highly paid people in STEM fields really understand what people "need".
Wait - your employer entered into an infinite duration contract with you to provide you with a low/no deductible plan when you were hired? That's quite unusual, but if they did, you should sue their ass in court. I assume you are not in the US because "infinite duration" employment contracts are not enforceable here (they reek of indentured servitude or slavery which we are somewhat sensitive about).
Personally, I wouldn't enter into such a contract though as it probably would also leave my salary fixed forever -- and I really would not want to be making what I did decades ago.
Indeed. Looking at the code and fully understanding the logic as a basis creating documentation is insufficient in many cases without quite a bit of help from "programmers". Unfortunately, in most projects (both commercial and FOSS), there are many bugs "implemented".
With the dearth of requirements and consistent and coherent design documents and useful code comments, in many projects too often the only way to determine if it's a bug, a feature (perhaps some corner of legacy crap left in intentionally for a handful of users which has never been deprecated), an 'undocumented behavior' that "doesn't matter" is to "ask the expert". If a project has one "expert" who can overrule all others and who engages in resolution of detailed discrepancies, this can work well. If, however, the project is "consensus based", every "expert" can support a different resolution leaving the well meaning documentation writer in the cold. (And I'm ignoring those FOSS projects where there are multiple commercial competing consultancies who are trying to be "top dog" and childishly jump on a situation like this to use as a pawn or a springboard for largely unrelated conflicts - I'm sure this problem resonates some readers here!).
Sadly, it needs more than marketing - it needs quality 'help' as well. Unfortunately, the population of those who enjoy writing tech docs and will do it in a FOSS project seems to be much smaller than coders who enjoy writing software in FOSS projects.
LO's online docs/help are a mere shadow of those in MS Office - even when comparing them to MS Office versions from over a decade ago. This makes LO less friendly to new users.
yes, of course i understand what "financially" means. the partner's efforts meant the family didn't have to buy the labor on the open market and buying that labor would have cost money. hence, the partner may well have contributed financially in a fairly direct way. by your definition, the "bread winner" also didn't contribute financially if they worked at a salaried/hourly job -- some business (the "bread winner's" employer) did contribute to the family financially, but all the "bread winner" contributed was effort.
If Google doesn't continue to create new public projects with a high subsequent cancellation rate, they probably can overcome the reputation. Speculative stuff is good, but it would be helpful if Google did a better job of "we are playing with this" (appealing to early adopters and geeks) vs. "we stand behind this" (appealing to the mass market) and carefully label projects as such and thoughtfully transition from "playing" to "stand behind". Just declaring everything "beta" forever wasn't terribly helpful.
The SMS search was not anything I ever used, but abandoning iGoogle (with plenty of notice!) disappoints me - it works, it seems like it should be very low overhead to maintain, and it does everything I need. I would think that Google could do a lot with knowing what I click on, what I have on my page, even when I click on stuff and monetize that, but I guess that wasn't in the cards.
she often gets 50% of the community property (to which she contributed nothing financially)
Umm.... maybe she raised the kids and took care of the house so her partner could focus on working and, had she not done that, her partner would have been unable to make as much money for the household? If she just sat around eating bon-bons and watching soap operas in a moo-moo, the partner was either okay with that or not smart enough to divorce her before "50% of community property" amounted to much.
Although, MSFT kept Bob longer than I expected - they should have killed it in utero.
Google's strategy makes sense if they really just want to be a advertising/search firm -- which may be enough to sustain them for many decades. However, every time they cancel a product that people were using and getting value from for years makes it more likely that people won't bother to try their new products and certainly won't let themselves become dependent on them. Although I liked a lot of stuff Google came out with over the years, now I tend not to bother to invest my energy in discovering or using them as I don't expect them to be around in two years.
I do use gmail, but only as a backup. I never was comfortable using it as my primary email address since it was perpetually in beta for so many years. Knowing what I know now, I probably would never have bothered to use gmail. I also use Android as it's fairly clear that when (not if) Google abandons that, there will be other entities that will pick up the slack.
Google is building up a reputation here. Maybe someday they will actually get a marketing department that understands that the latest thing from "Fart Around Fridays" shouldn't always be "released" unless they have good reason to believe that it's sustainably profitable by some metric and they are willing to sustain it even if they are wrong in their projections. Should they choose to do so someday, it will be hard for them to become "adults" given their reputation over many years.
Google's search capabilities are not all that much better than Bing's right now IMHO (both have strengths and weaknesses relative to the other). I think Google is a bit more vulnerable than most people seem to think - as any "one hit wonder" company is (yes, I'm talking about you Apple also -- although they are a 2½ hit company - iPod + iPhone + ½ iPad).
But, esp. w/the case where the server limits by IP address (based, I assume, on some sort of subscription), dynamic IP addresses have the same problems, just that we don't notice them as often as we would with CGN. For the "excessive load from host" case, if the person assigned to your new dynamic IP address this morning was banned from site X, you are suddenly banned when you get that IP address - with CGN the window is smaller and overlapping, but that just points out the flaw in such strategies.
There are plenty of sites (newspapers, the site I get textures from, RapidShare, etc.) who limit their services by IP address. There's nothing quite like seeing messages about how your IP has exceeded the download limit on a website you've never visited before.
My cable ISP (one of the big names) doesn't give static IP addresses with their standard consumer packages and, AFAIK, never has. You can buy higher end packages which do include static IP address(es), but most people don't select these. My IP address doesn't change often, but it does from time-to-time without advance notice. So, some of the things you describe are already a reality by your definition for a lot of consumers in the United States.
Mostly, implementation of CGN might force sloppy providers who do things like prevent downloads based on load by IP address or check licensing based on IP address to get their act together as, in most cases, this hasn't worked well for years for so many reasons in the consumer market. So, adoption of CGN by a major carrier, as long as you don't use that carrier, may have an upside to the community as a whole.
Previously, did BT provide life-long static IP addresses for the tier of customers they are converting to CGN? I doubt it.
Of course, the court could be "packed" as Roosevelt tried (unsuccessfully due, in part, to public outcry) to do in 1937. And, yes, that packed court could ignore the Constitution that they swore to uphold (just as a handful of people in the military could conspire to use nuclear weapons to wipe out major cities in the United States).
However, recall that 2/3 of the state legislatures can call for a Constitutional convention and 3/4 of the state legislatures can then ratify the resulting changes -- the House, the Senate, the Administration, and the Judicial branches can do nothing to stop this (well, of course, without just declaring martial law or something like that -- but, that's one reason we have the Second Amendment!). In these matters, Wyoming (the least populous state with a population of about 564,000) has the same power as California (the most populous state with a population of about 37,000,000 - or 65x the population of Wyoming). Such a convention could do almost anything except eliminate equal suffrage in the Senate (but, they could simply gut the Senate's power and add a house of Congress called NewSenate that looks a lot like the current Senate and takes on all the powers of the existing Senate but where large states have NO say!). In the extreme, states with just 40% of the population can rewrite the Constitution to undo whatever court packing scheme was enacted -- and, in theory, just 50%+1 of the people in each of those states would be needed to make this happen -- i.e., just 20% of the population in the U.S. has to agree to rewrite the Constitution. Of course, this isn't likely to happen, but it's a safety valve that discourages the kind of mischief you're proposing.
Ref:
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Yep I missed that. It's unlikely that restriction would pass Second Amendment muster if tested, but it's never been tested and it would be a case of "first impression". Miller tends to support that any restriction on a fully automatic weapon (just as a shotgun with a barrel < 16") would be a violation of the Second Amendment if the military routinely "keeps" and "bears" such arms (which it does). If the SCOTUS smashes that down, expect unwarranted searches being allowed soon after based on the same precedent!
Yep! It will be interesting if enough of the united States ignores the United States Constitution!
Those who understand that the Tyranny of the Majority (think Hitler) is more important than the United States Constitution will have a tough choice.
Ultimately, unfortunately, it may come down to the conviction of the soldiers in the tanks who are unwilling or willing to kill their parents or their parent's friends and relatives when asked to so by politically appointed commanders (remember how the USSR collapsed?). Personally, I'm betting on a bunch of good people who value their freedom and the United States Constitution more than a couple more (statistical) years of life making the right decisions. I'm sure I'd make the correct decision, and I'm even surer that tens of millions of Americans would make the same decision.
Read the Constitution! EVERY state must consent to the 3/4 requirement if the amendment removes the state's power to assert it's power.
I'd give you a link, but obviously you've not read the United States Constitution and it's better that you do so to understand it and puzzle over it. My comment here is not completely correct (although it's mostly correct) -- if you understand the law, please respond with cites support your position! I look forward to it!
Seriously, outlawing drugs (meth, crack, marijuana, et alt) hasn't led to corruption? Maybe you should check your stats on that! None of these, of course, creep across any US borders or are manufactured in the US? Nope, not possible since passing an unjust law results in immediate compliance - after all, they are illegal and therefore must not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
He was free to leave, he wasn't even being temporarily detained, let alone arrested. Miranda, therefore, didn't apply. For example, if you walk into a police station and say "I killed that woman whose head you found last night over at the strip club", that's admissible even though the police didn't Mirandize you before you uttered your confession. Same thing if you walk up to an officer on the street and utter your confession. Same thing if you utter your confession to your buddy and an officer overhears it. If you publish that statement on your blog, the police can also use it against you even though they didn't have a chance to Mirandize you before you clicked [SUBMIT].
I don't care for this decision, and would like to see legislation that extends the situations where you must be Mirandized for your utterances or behaviors to be admissible, but it seems correct constitutionally. Reading of "Miranda Rights" as most people think of them are, of course, not prescribed by the United States Constitution -- they were a remedy imposed by the SCOTUS in the 1960's to give police a safe harbor with respect to a suspect's right to a lawyer and right to not provide testimony that could incriminate them. The so blanket "right to remain silent" which is included in many jurisdictions' "Miranda Rights" doesn't even exist anywhere in the U.S. Constitution -- most obviously, a court can compel you to testify as long as they believe your testimony won't incriminate you or that immunity has been granted that protects you from prosecution.
What we really need is a better public eduction system in the United States that insures that anyone graduating from High School understands the U.S. Constitution and civics better -- then these situations would not be as common.
As many others have said here:
Officer: I need you to answer some questions.
Me: Am I free to leave?
Officer: <mumble 'good citizen' comments>Yes.<mumble threats>
Me: Officer, have a nice afternoon, good bye.
Unless you are the victim of a crime, the downside of talking to the police can be much greater than the upside even if you are completely innocent of any crime. LEOs often make up their mind who is guilty long before the evidence actually supports their hunch and then enter a spiral driven by confirmation bias. As well, if you make an inadvertent misstatements caused by stress, ambiguous questions, or simple human frailty you can then be charged in many jurisdictions with lying or misleading an LEO.
...and now displays the incorrect time in your locale.
Surely modern steamboats must meet environmental emissions requirements which requires electronic control - i.e., software?
Interesting questions.
If he doesn't drive a car, I wonder how he avoids using public/private transportation which are controlled by software that doesn't meet his licensing standards.
Does he walk everywhere? If so, I assume he ignores all traffic signals since they are controlled by software that doesn't meet his licensing standards. He must be a very lucky man crossing busy streets on a red light!
Why can't you do that with existing gmail function? I've been doing what you seem to be describing w/gmail for years.
A downside in my case is that there were emails, generally forum digests, that I considered "not very important or time critical" that I would actually at least skim most of eventually when they were in my inbox. I routed them to other folders and now I pay no attention to them (a quick glance shows over 2,700 unread messages in one of these folders - yikes). I've toyed with removing the filters/routing but am hesitant to subject myself to the onslaught again.
FTFY
Indeed - I didn't bother with following the math because the conclusion was so implausible given that carbon dating works.
We tell men (and women) all the time that they can't control their own bodies. Look at laws outlawing meth and heroin for example. Or, look at laws requiring motorcycle helmets and seatbelts. Or, consider various laws that prevent one from selling themselves into slavery.
Such rules may not be right, but it's worth noting that they are common.
I don't know why you suspect that those who support the right of a law abiding resident to have a reliable firearm would also support required breath analyzer interlocks on all cars. Indeed, I suspect the two groups are quite disjoint.
Anyway, its very rare that a car's failure to start will get the operator killed. The same can not be said of a firearm used for self defense.
I'll listen to the "reliable enough" argument when at least half the major urban police departments put/require such devices on all firearms carried by all their employees while on duty.
Review the thread. I'm not the one who said I need changes to my salary - I was responding to that post. I, like virtually every STEM worker in America (and probably the rest of the world), has way more than they "need". I applaud everyone for striving to get "more" if they chose to, but not to claim they "need" more. Of course, I'm not a member of the entitlement generation.
So, quit. The deal you had when you were hired is irrelevant to the deal you have now unless the contract still binds you and the other party. Salaries change, markets change, etc so I don't see why you even mentioned it.
Also, if the company initially paid P1 for your insurance with a deductible of D1 but the only way to cover you for P1 years later is with a higher deducible D2 (even in CPI adjusted dollars due to medical costs outstripping general inflation for some interval), why would you expect them to not raise the deductible to D2 and continue to pay P1 for your coverage.
Everyone "wants" more. Markets, in the long term, decide what everyone "gets".
Do you really "need" more? Are you not getting sufficient hydration and calories to sustain life? If not, you should probably spend the time and personal resources you spent responding to me and instead go for a walk and scavenge some discarded recyclables to sell. Few highly paid people in STEM fields really understand what people "need".
Wait - your employer entered into an infinite duration contract with you to provide you with a low/no deductible plan when you were hired? That's quite unusual, but if they did, you should sue their ass in court. I assume you are not in the US because "infinite duration" employment contracts are not enforceable here (they reek of indentured servitude or slavery which we are somewhat sensitive about).
Personally, I wouldn't enter into such a contract though as it probably would also leave my salary fixed forever -- and I really would not want to be making what I did decades ago.
Indeed. Looking at the code and fully understanding the logic as a basis creating documentation is insufficient in many cases without quite a bit of help from "programmers". Unfortunately, in most projects (both commercial and FOSS), there are many bugs "implemented".
With the dearth of requirements and consistent and coherent design documents and useful code comments, in many projects too often the only way to determine if it's a bug, a feature (perhaps some corner of legacy crap left in intentionally for a handful of users which has never been deprecated), an 'undocumented behavior' that "doesn't matter" is to "ask the expert". If a project has one "expert" who can overrule all others and who engages in resolution of detailed discrepancies, this can work well. If, however, the project is "consensus based", every "expert" can support a different resolution leaving the well meaning documentation writer in the cold. (And I'm ignoring those FOSS projects where there are multiple commercial competing consultancies who are trying to be "top dog" and childishly jump on a situation like this to use as a pawn or a springboard for largely unrelated conflicts - I'm sure this problem resonates some readers here!).
Sadly, it needs more than marketing - it needs quality 'help' as well. Unfortunately, the population of those who enjoy writing tech docs and will do it in a FOSS project seems to be much smaller than coders who enjoy writing software in FOSS projects.
LO's online docs/help are a mere shadow of those in MS Office - even when comparing them to MS Office versions from over a decade ago. This makes LO less friendly to new users.
yes, of course i understand what "financially" means. the partner's efforts meant the family didn't have to buy the labor on the open market and buying that labor would have cost money. hence, the partner may well have contributed financially in a fairly direct way. by your definition, the "bread winner" also didn't contribute financially if they worked at a salaried/hourly job -- some business (the "bread winner's" employer) did contribute to the family financially, but all the "bread winner" contributed was effort.
Good point.
If Google doesn't continue to create new public projects with a high subsequent cancellation rate, they probably can overcome the reputation. Speculative stuff is good, but it would be helpful if Google did a better job of "we are playing with this" (appealing to early adopters and geeks) vs. "we stand behind this" (appealing to the mass market) and carefully label projects as such and thoughtfully transition from "playing" to "stand behind". Just declaring everything "beta" forever wasn't terribly helpful.
The SMS search was not anything I ever used, but abandoning iGoogle (with plenty of notice!) disappoints me - it works, it seems like it should be very low overhead to maintain, and it does everything I need. I would think that Google could do a lot with knowing what I click on, what I have on my page, even when I click on stuff and monetize that, but I guess that wasn't in the cards.
Umm.... maybe she raised the kids and took care of the house so her partner could focus on working and, had she not done that, her partner would have been unable to make as much money for the household? If she just sat around eating bon-bons and watching soap operas in a moo-moo, the partner was either okay with that or not smart enough to divorce her before "50% of community property" amounted to much.
Agreed.
Although, MSFT kept Bob longer than I expected - they should have killed it in utero.
Google's strategy makes sense if they really just want to be a advertising/search firm -- which may be enough to sustain them for many decades. However, every time they cancel a product that people were using and getting value from for years makes it more likely that people won't bother to try their new products and certainly won't let themselves become dependent on them. Although I liked a lot of stuff Google came out with over the years, now I tend not to bother to invest my energy in discovering or using them as I don't expect them to be around in two years.
I do use gmail, but only as a backup. I never was comfortable using it as my primary email address since it was perpetually in beta for so many years. Knowing what I know now, I probably would never have bothered to use gmail. I also use Android as it's fairly clear that when (not if) Google abandons that, there will be other entities that will pick up the slack.
Google is building up a reputation here. Maybe someday they will actually get a marketing department that understands that the latest thing from "Fart Around Fridays" shouldn't always be "released" unless they have good reason to believe that it's sustainably profitable by some metric and they are willing to sustain it even if they are wrong in their projections. Should they choose to do so someday, it will be hard for them to become "adults" given their reputation over many years.
Google's search capabilities are not all that much better than Bing's right now IMHO (both have strengths and weaknesses relative to the other). I think Google is a bit more vulnerable than most people seem to think - as any "one hit wonder" company is (yes, I'm talking about you Apple also -- although they are a 2½ hit company - iPod + iPhone + ½ iPad).
But, esp. w/the case where the server limits by IP address (based, I assume, on some sort of subscription), dynamic IP addresses have the same problems, just that we don't notice them as often as we would with CGN. For the "excessive load from host" case, if the person assigned to your new dynamic IP address this morning was banned from site X, you are suddenly banned when you get that IP address - with CGN the window is smaller and overlapping, but that just points out the flaw in such strategies.
My cable ISP (one of the big names) doesn't give static IP addresses with their standard consumer packages and, AFAIK, never has. You can buy higher end packages which do include static IP address(es), but most people don't select these. My IP address doesn't change often, but it does from time-to-time without advance notice. So, some of the things you describe are already a reality by your definition for a lot of consumers in the United States.
Mostly, implementation of CGN might force sloppy providers who do things like prevent downloads based on load by IP address or check licensing based on IP address to get their act together as, in most cases, this hasn't worked well for years for so many reasons in the consumer market. So, adoption of CGN by a major carrier, as long as you don't use that carrier, may have an upside to the community as a whole.
Previously, did BT provide life-long static IP addresses for the tier of customers they are converting to CGN? I doubt it.
Of course, the court could be "packed" as Roosevelt tried (unsuccessfully due, in part, to public outcry) to do in 1937. And, yes, that packed court could ignore the Constitution that they swore to uphold (just as a handful of people in the military could conspire to use nuclear weapons to wipe out major cities in the United States).
However, recall that 2/3 of the state legislatures can call for a Constitutional convention and 3/4 of the state legislatures can then ratify the resulting changes -- the House, the Senate, the Administration, and the Judicial branches can do nothing to stop this (well, of course, without just declaring martial law or something like that -- but, that's one reason we have the Second Amendment!). In these matters, Wyoming (the least populous state with a population of about 564,000) has the same power as California (the most populous state with a population of about 37,000,000 - or 65x the population of Wyoming). Such a convention could do almost anything except eliminate equal suffrage in the Senate (but, they could simply gut the Senate's power and add a house of Congress called NewSenate that looks a lot like the current Senate and takes on all the powers of the existing Senate but where large states have NO say!). In the extreme, states with just 40% of the population can rewrite the Constitution to undo whatever court packing scheme was enacted -- and, in theory, just 50%+1 of the people in each of those states would be needed to make this happen -- i.e., just 20% of the population in the U.S. has to agree to rewrite the Constitution. Of course, this isn't likely to happen, but it's a safety valve that discourages the kind of mischief you're proposing.
Ref:
Yep I missed that. It's unlikely that restriction would pass Second Amendment muster if tested, but it's never been tested and it would be a case of "first impression". Miller tends to support that any restriction on a fully automatic weapon (just as a shotgun with a barrel < 16") would be a violation of the Second Amendment if the military routinely "keeps" and "bears" such arms (which it does). If the SCOTUS smashes that down, expect unwarranted searches being allowed soon after based on the same precedent!
Yep! It will be interesting if enough of the united States ignores the United States Constitution!
Those who understand that the Tyranny of the Majority (think Hitler) is more important than the United States Constitution will have a tough choice.
Ultimately, unfortunately, it may come down to the conviction of the soldiers in the tanks who are unwilling or willing to kill their parents or their parent's friends and relatives when asked to so by politically appointed commanders (remember how the USSR collapsed?). Personally, I'm betting on a bunch of good people who value their freedom and the United States Constitution more than a couple more (statistical) years of life making the right decisions. I'm sure I'd make the correct decision, and I'm even surer that tens of millions of Americans would make the same decision.
Read the Constitution! EVERY state must consent to the 3/4 requirement if the amendment removes the state's power to assert it's power.
I'd give you a link, but obviously you've not read the United States Constitution and it's better that you do so to understand it and puzzle over it. My comment here is not completely correct (although it's mostly correct) -- if you understand the law, please respond with cites support your position! I look forward to it!
Huh?
Seriously, outlawing drugs (meth, crack, marijuana, et alt) hasn't led to corruption? Maybe you should check your stats on that! None of these, of course, creep across any US borders or are manufactured in the US? Nope, not possible since passing an unjust law results in immediate compliance - after all, they are illegal and therefore must not exist.
How did prohibition work out?