The same goes for the FBI. They can flash their badges and make all sorts of demands. Do not comply. Ever. Insist they follow due process and obtain a warrant or subpeona for the specific information they need, and give them that and only that.
I will do no such thing. As I am in favor of the FBI succeeding and criminals failing, I am more than happy to go out of my way to help the FBI where I can.
Who are you saving? What are you actually doing? You're just torturing some slob for dated information that's not going to help anyone. And torture is a crappy way of getting accurate information anyhow.
The only interrogation technique that the US has used that could qualify as torture is water-boarding. And I would generally agree that its use is unacceptable. However using such techniques on "high level detainees" such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, I have no problem with. There are other things which would be called torture which I would say should NEVER be done, but water-boarding KSM seems completely justified. Just as people can give up the right to live by their actions, which KSM has also done, people can give up their rights by their actions to not face extremely unpleasant interrogation techniques to get them to share more information about their crimes. As for it not being effective at getting reliable information, it's just not true. Especially in the case of KSM. The information from him has almost certainly saved many lives around the world.
if you were stuck in a quarantine, and you believed yourself or your family to be in danger of being infected, you'd do whatever you could to break quarantine, even at the risk of infecting countless others...That's why they defend barricades with guns, not pamphlets on disease control.
The desire to protect yourself and your loved ones trumps it all, when it comes down to it. That's just human nature.
You're wrong. I would NOT break quarantine and risk infecting countless others. That would be the very definition of evil. While it's true that evil is one part of human nature, it is not the ONLY part.
Lets hope they don't get besieged by PETA, who seem to want to protect the rights cockroaches now.
Or maybe we should hope they do? Would it be immoral to trick the PETA people into getting into the radiation chambers with the cockroaches? Since it's for science?
Re:This is HIGHLY illegal in the US
on
eBay The Vote
·
· Score: 1
You, my libertarian (anarchist?) friend seem to be under the misguided notion that less government is always better government. In reality, where we need police, roads, schools, and corporate, health, and banking regulators, and even (gasp) an army, some government actions are actually good things.
Sheesh, it was a generalization, not a policy paper! US taxation and spending are both FAR higher than what is necessary for performing the essentials of government. So cutting both is a good thing in principle until such time as when the government looks something similar to what is described in the Constitution (which admittedly, may never happen). Yes, we shouldn't defund the army or the police, or certain regulatory agencies, but I have a feeling that there will always be more than enough to get rid of, and if so, "cut more spending" will always remain a good policy.
Well, in the case of our fish, there is no human choosing which fish reproduce and which fish don't, but nature is doing something equivalent: the fish that have high tolerance to air eat better, live longer, and reproduce more, whereas the fish that don't don't reproduce as much, don't eat as well, etc. It shouldn't be hard to see that in a few hundred generations or so, most all of the fish would be able to jump onto the bank, eat some insects, and jump back.
Notice that in this scenario, there is no "random mutation" -- while mutations do play a part in evolution, at its core, evolution is just a shift in allele frequency. It causes certain already existing traits to become dominant in a population. Despite the fact that the breed of dog that produced the Dachshund wasn't short and long to begin with, it got shorter and longer as a result of selective breeding -- ie, letting some dogs reproduce and others not.
For a fish to adapt to breathing air, not just tolerating it for a minute or two, it needs to do more than sink his gills further into his body. He needs to redirect them up through the throat via a new structure (the trachea), find a way to join them up with the esophagus in the throat without compromising digestion or breathing, for new neurological structures to coordinate the new dual-purpose use of the throat and mouth, and develop new muscular structures for pumping air in and out of the lungs, and neurological structures to control those as well. Surely, you're not saying that all this happened without genetic mutation. Personally, like the poster you responded to, I find the idea that such changes happened through accumulated successive changes that occurred RANDOMLY, implausible to the point of absurdity.
The NORC study doesn't claim in any place I can find that there were more votes cast for Gore. While it does give scenarios in which Gore would have gotten more votes counted, as far as actual votes CAST, it seems to stick to what seems to be obvious: it was a statistical tie.
You must not deal with creationists much. I've met a YEC who actually denied even microevolution. He thought that even antibiotic resistance was just an example of an organism we'd never encountered, not an effect of genetic change in the microbe population. He is a nurse. There are tens of millions of Americans like that. If you press hard enough, you'll find that about 50 million Americans basically reject the Enlightenment.
I'm a Christian, but not a YEC. I SERIOUSLY doubt there are 10 million young-earth creationists. As far as rejecting the Enlightenment, hopefully there are more than 50 million, as most of the Enlightenment was utterly irrational. I don't think it's a coincidence that the part of the Enlightenment that has had the most permanent influence was the Scottish Enlightenment, which compared to the rest was not dogmatically atheistic.
I don't see how you can think creationism and evolution aren't at odds. Special creation (i.e. things just poofing into existence) is basically magic. The two models are completely incompatible. Either the life forms we see around us just poofed into existence, or they descended from common ancestors. How can you reconcile the two mental models?
This seems to be the irrational need to dismiss religion by associating all religion with the magical poofing into existence of things, when relatively few religious people actually believe anything like that.
And it's hard not to bash religion once you decide to apply reason to its arguments.
People smarter than either of us, such as Newton and Galileo, spent much of their lives applying reason to religion without ever finding it hard not to bash it. In fact both spent significant portions of their lives writing extensive theological studies. (Contrary to popular belief, it was this that got Galileo in trouble with Rome; they were supporters of his science until they starting taking issue with his religious doctrines.)
The only way for people to feel that you respect their religion is to give it a free pass. As soon as you look at stuff like the resurrection, the holy trinity, the Book of Mormon, etc with the same critical faculties you'd bring to basically any other subject, religion can't escape looking ridiculous.
No, religious people, like anyone else, will only consider you some sort of base dogmatic idiot if all you can say is, "you're an idiot, science causes the weather not religion." However, if you're actually going to have a reasoned and civil discussion, I think most religious people, or at least a large minority, enjoy debating their beliefs with both believers and non-believers. I, for one, am always looking for opportunities to do so.
I don't doubt that there are some people, both religious and atheistic, who are not intelligent enough to reason for themselves. So all they will do is cling to the dogmas of others, and toss epithets at those who don't share their particular dogmas. Those aren't the characteristics of any particular belief, just a common human behavior pattern.
Bush wasn't the top vote getter in the popular vote, and to the best evidence, also didn't receive even a plurality of the votes cast (as opposed to counted) in any combination of states holding a majority of the electoral votes.
I'm assuming you're talking about 2000, as he obviously won the majority of votes in 2004. Several media organizations did a study of the different possible combinations of Florida districts that could have been recounted. All the studies found that Bush would have won regardless of the combination of districts that were ordered to perform recounts. While this obviously doesn't jibe with the dogmas of your political religion, it does jibe with reality.
Depending on how the question is asked somewhere between 40 and 60 per cent of the UK population profess to have no religion.
Over the last twenty years of so we haven't been involved in much mass slaughter, genocide or torture. Most of the population deplores our involvement in the Iraqi occupation.
Wow, atheism as lead the UK to peace and love! Praise the Lord!..er wait, I mean... Imagine the peace and love that must have existed under truly atheistic regimes such as Stalin's or Mao's, where ALL the people were atheist by law. Oh, wait, they perpetrated the two greatest genocides in all of known human history. Never mind.
Re:Forbidding this is not part of a democracy
on
eBay The Vote
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
In a democracy, you have the right to vote and the right to be heard. You also have the right to democratically select a dictatorship. If the citizens want to be bought voluntarily and sell their freedom, a democracy should let them do that. If not, it's not a true democracy.
By that definition there are no "true democracies," and few people would want to live in one, as it wouldn't be very compatible with individual freedom.
Re:This is HIGHLY illegal in the US
on
eBay The Vote
·
· Score: 1
On one level, it was bad economics and good politics. It was "I'll cut tax rates mid-year and send you your refund in advance, rather than at tax time". Gained lots of political capital, but was designed to draw people into stupid money management choices.
Cutting taxes across the board is always good economics. Of course cutting gvt spending would be even better economics, but it's getting to the point where I can't imagine how or by whom that is ever going to happen.
Title 50, ch 36 subchapter I 1809) A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally-- (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
Look, it's what you argued didn't exist! FISA create a 'right to privacy' under the law, although not using those words, and requires all wiretapping 'under color of law' (Aka, as part of the operation of the government) to be authorized by statute.
Uh, how is that a right of privacy? That electronic surveillance can only be used when it is backed up by a statute doesn't mean that it can't be used, and doesn't mean that other means of surveillance can't be used.
While you can yammer about how the 4th amendment doesn't say what all courts have said it says, that's really rather irrelevant. The government cannot listen to communication of private individuals, by law, regardless of to any constitutional claims. A law must explicitly be passed allowing such listening.
There are at least two exceptions to that prohibition. One is the exception provided in FISA, that the law doesn't apply if their is a warrant, and the other exception is any application in which the law is unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court has long held, laws that are prima facie unconstitutional are completely null and void, and laws that are unconstitutional in specific applications are null and void in those applications. The Congress has the power to create by law military organizations and agencies, and to provide them with basic regulations, but any laws they pass which impede on the President's constitutional power to actually use those agencies to conduct national security operations are unconstitutional.
It's sorta like, even if we didn't have a right not to be deprived of our life without due process, the executive branch still couldn't wander around killing people because killing people deliberately is almost always illegal, without an reference to the constitution at all. Just plain ordinary laws make it illegal. Likewise, wiretapping without operating with the explicit legal framework laid out by the laws is illegal, and that's entirely unrelated to whether or not doing that is constitutional.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of war. That's where the executive branch wanders around killing people; often without any authorization whatsoever from Congress.
You could possibly argue he has the right to use the military however he wants, aka, as much as Congress lets him, but, sadly for you, neither the NSA or the CIA are part of the military, he has no 'constitutional right' to them. They aren't even part of 'faithfully executing the law', as they are not law enforcement. They are something created solely by Congress under Congress's power to provide for the common defense.
By what stretch of the imagination are "the military" and agencies "provided for the common defense" separate concepts? Aside from the fact that the president runs ALL the executive agencies established by Congress, and that is the meaning of "faithfully executing the law", the NSA IS part of the Department of Defense, and in fact must, by law, be directed by a lieutenant general or vice admiral.
Hundreds of years of precident have establish that 4th Ammendment rights apply to mail, telegraph, telephone, and recently email and SMS messages. You've actually heard of the 4th right, and it's application to wiretaps, right? There's only hundreds of years of precidant, you can't seriously have read the Constitution with any context and not know.
The 4th amendment relates to criminal investigations and prosecutions. We were talking about the gathering of military intelligence by a military body. The judicial precedents for interpreting the 4th amendments are respected by the judicial branch of government. As such, they must be respected by the executive branch of government in order to get conviction in criminal cases. This is an example of checks and balances and separation of powers, in that the power to convict criminals of according to laws passed by the legislature is split between the executive and judicial. The power to spy on military enemies is not split between the judicial and executive. Only the executive and legislative are given any roles in the providing of national security. Since the goal is to obtain information for military purposes, and the goal is not obtaining convictions in court, the judicial branch, along with its precedents, are irrelevant. In sum, the 4th amendment does not inherently mandate warrants, and no precedent suggests otherwise; and if it did, the precedents of the courts don't effect the other branches except where those branches must constitutionally interact with the courts.
each branch is given a distinct set of powers that hold sway over and counterballance the powers that the other branches have over them. There is a section where it is described what each branch is given the power to do, and yes that includes powers that govern the branches of government other than their own.
exactly right.
Article 3, Section 2 gives the judiciary the explicit power to decide cases involving the government itself, including all branches, that arise under the laws passed by Congress or the Constitution itself, the highest law of the land. You're confused thinking that because this "deciding" power is only executed within the auspices of a court case, that this is the only place the power applies. This is wrong.
No, this is a fundamental constitutional principle. The power of the courts are limited to "cases and controversies." More on this below...
What that means is that the Attorney General's opinion is nothing more than that -- an opinion. He can advise the President on what he believes is legal, and accuse some party before the court of doing something illegal. But his mere advice or accusation means nothing. Until the issue is brought before the court, no penalty is applied to the accused.
You're talking about a criminal prosecution. In a criminal prosecution, due process requires that the courts get the final say on any legal questions, and as you say, the AG's opinion is just an opinion. However, in the functioning of an executive agency, the AG gets the final say, and the court's opinion, if they have one, is just an opinion. This is the fundamental principle without which the separation of powers would never work. If the Court could tell the other branches what the law said, regardless of what it actually said, they could have all power over the government.
What that means is that the Attorney General's opinion is nothing more than that -- an opinion. He can advise the President on what he believes is legal, and accuse some party before the court of doing something illegal. But his mere advice or accusation means nothing. Until the issue is brought before the court, no penalty is applied to the accused. And if someone accuses the government, only the court decides if the law applies and penalties can applied to the government. And that decision, in either case, is binding.
You're thinking of the Communists though, nitwit. The Nazis didn't "coopt" religion. The holocaust was merely the implementation of the plan laid out by Martin Luther.
blah blah blah... I'm not feeding you anymore, troll. Seek mental help. If you're on drugs, stop doing them.
If you interpret it as strictly as you want to, anything beyond life as usual in the 1700's would require an amendment, which would just slow down the government over time until it came to a complete halt. I can't see that being the intention.
Not sure what you mean. Only things beyond the enumerated powers require amendment, and the government didn't decide it wanted to vastly exceed these until FDR. Yes, adhering to the Constitution would have significantly slowed down FDR and his successors. That was supposed to be the point of the Constitution.
Uh... Because the Constitution also says that the President can't tell the NSA to spy on people without a warrant issued by a judge.
Uh... what constitution is that in? It's not in the US Constitution.
That's the only thing the judge is involved with. The judge isn't telling the NSA what to do, he's telling them whether what they've been told to do is Constitutional or not.
Of course if what they're doing is Unconstitutional, then the President should tell them to stop doing it. But that's only the case with Presidents who uphold their oath to uphold the Constitution. Thus the current problem.
No... the people who support the FISA law are arguing that a judge should have to issue a warrant for the NSA to be allowed to gather certain intelligence. The constitution establishes a separation of powers. The entity capable of determining for the NSA or any other executive agency whether something is constitutional or not is the AG, specifically, the Office of Legal Council or OLC. The judicial branch has no right to impose their constitutional interpretations upon those of the AG or the OLC or executive agencies. The interpretations of the judicial branch is only relevant in the case of civil or criminal lawsuits, in which case the judicial branch's interpretation of the Constitution is used to resolve those particular cases.
The Congress shall have Power...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Such as FISA, which the executive branch openly flaunted with their wiretaps.
That argument would be completely valid, except that Congress does not have the constitutional power to change the balance and separation of powers defined in the Constitution. While Congress does have the power in general to set the rules and regulations for intelligence gathering, those rules become unconstitutional when they take part of the power of executing the spying function away from the executive branch and give it to the judicial branch.
One of the central tenets of fascism was the abolition of religious institutions and the formation of a secular state. So "fascist theocracy" is an oxymoron.
Yeah, about that--you're thinking of Communism. See The Doctrine of Fascism:
I'm not thinking of Communism. Communism opposed religion even in principle. Fascism just abolished the religious institutions, regardless of its rhetorical support for religion in principle. See the Fascist Manifesto, of which one of the tenets was:
The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;
And again, looking at it your way, I can see that you'd conclude that the list given is an absolute, whereas if you look at it the other way, the list just seems to be things felt to be particularly important.
Well, to make sure that no one drew that conclusion, they included the 10th amendment, specifically prohibiting the federal government from exercising any power not specifically enumerated. If you read the Federalist Papers, the WHOLE POINT of the constitution was to make a government limited by enumerated powers. As Chief Justice Marshall said,
"This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted."
Given this, it would complete undermine the purpose of enumerated powers if they had made one of them "to provide for the general welfare." That could include ANYTHING. And they didn't.
So you are saying that it's the President's job to interpret what his own legal abilities are in all matters regarding the military? What if he was to (just hypothetically of course) interpret the Constitution as saying he's allowed to use the military to kill his political opponents, stage a coup, and start a dictatorship? According to your logic, that would be perfectly acceptable. According to common sense and the framers' idea of checks and balances, however, the powers of each of the three branches of government are to be held in check by the other two. That's why a judge (and/or Congress) must have a say in the matter.
The President swears allegiance to the Constitution. How could he do that if he didn't know what he was swearing allegiance to? Do you really think he should be swearing allegiance to some given judge's spin on the Constitution? There is a danger if ANY of the branches try to subvert the constitution, and that is why the founders gave them ALL the independent duty to follow it, regardless of if another branch tries to say that it says something it doesn't.
There are indeed checks and balances between the branches. Congress can set up rules and regulations for the military, but only the President can command the military. There are many checks and balances that would prevent a scenario like the one you suggested. The first is the fact that the military chain of command will refuse to carry out any such clearly illegal orders. Another is that the Congress would impeach him for treason. Another is that Congress could dismantle and defund the military if necessary. It's absolutely true that each branch is held in check by the other two, but only in the ways that are actually prescribed in the Constitution.
But if the judiciary branch had the universal power to interpret the Constitution for the other two branches, how could the other two branches possibly enact any check on the power of the judiciary?
I have no interest in history "lessons" from fools. You've proven yourself to be one. If that idiotic nonsense you spewed were anything approaching sane, then explain the extremist Christianity of Nazi Germany, including "gott mit uns" on all of the freaking uniforms.
Well, since you asked so politely... The Nazis adopted a great deal from the Fascists, but they chose to to co-opt and control religion and use it in their rhetoric, whereas the Fascists just tried to eliminate it. However, you don't deserve to learn any of this, because you are an uncivil ass.
Bullshit, you idiot. If that were true, then the Republicans wouldn't be the biggest big government party, now would they? They wouldn't Have needed to pass laws retroactively excusing those complicit in their treason, now would they? They wouldn't be trying to shove religion everywhere, now would they? They wouldn't declare large chunks of the bill of rights null and void such as the topic of this article, now would they? Look, I know you're a deeply ignorant fool who hates the idea of thinking and just spouts lies you hear from the very people using you to fuck your country, so there's no need to make it any more obvious.
Do us all, and especially yourself, a favor and log off of moveon.org and grow a brain. There's nothing in the above vomit that's even connected enough to reality to respond to. You are literally delusional.
That would be the Libertarian party. All the people who want that left the Republican party a long fucking time ago.
The Libertarian party is far better than the Democrats, but they tend to have certain extreme and untenable views, for example on foreign policy. Obviously not all Republicans are great, but all the competent thinkers are Republicans, including Bush, Cheney, Fred Thompson, and others.
The Republican party stands for corporate welfare and religious extremism and that's it. Why do you think Bush was elected entirely becasue he hates fags? Seriously, moron, try thinking and do some god damned research. Don't just keep spouting easily refuted idiocy. You just look dumber all the time.
Bush was elected entirely because he hates fags? I'm completely seriously when I say that I think you need mental help. Look into it.
Of course FISA established a right of privacy for citizens. A specific one that said anyone wiretapping their communications was behaving in a criminal manner.
That's how laws work, you see. We protect people's right to live by criminalizing, for example, murder. We protect their right to privacy by outlawing the monitoring of them.
Even though you're clearly retarded, I'm not going to completely explain your retardation to you, I'm only going to give you a hint by informing you what FISA stands for. This is how we can help you to aquire thinking skills of your own. It stands for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
And wiretapping is not an executive power. Even if it's not unconstitutional, it's not a 'power' of any sort.
It's not a power of any sort? I think your retardation has metastasized. You are no longer even coherent.
Congress is in charge of the 'common defence', not the president. (And by 'common defense', they mean 'defense of all', aka, national defense.)
Can you not actually read or something? Congress and the president are jointly in charge of providing the common defense. Their respective roles in this are enumerated in a document called the Constitution of the United States of America.
But more to the point, Congress in charge of making 'Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces'.
Yes. You seem to do fine when you actually quote the document. The problem seems to be in reading comprehension
Congress is in charge of the military, I don't care what fuzzy-headed thinking you're doing about 'commander-in-chief', the president can only act within rules and regulations created by congress. A commander-in-chief is in charge of the military, it does not mean that no one is in charge of him or he follows no rules, just that the top of the military reports to him.
Brilliant. I think you are thinking of a parliamentary system where there is no separation of power, and the legislative body has total power, including power over executive functions. If the president had no power except to do anything but what the Congress told him to do, there wouldn't be much point in holding an election for him would there be. If the Constitution isn't self-explanatory enough for you, try reading the Federalist Papers.
Congress can require all wars are fought with nerf bats if it wants, or that there's no military at all. Congress set the rules.
That's largely true. Congress has the power to create the military, to arm it, and establish its regulations. The president has the power to use it.
And, more to the point, the existence of 'regulations' does, indeed, imply that the court system in involved in it. Congress makes regulations, everyone follows them, the court decides them.
The court system is involved when a civil law suit or a criminal prosecution is filed. These are the "cases and controversies" which the Constitution gives them power over. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination give them power over deciding what country to invade or what country to spy on.
And, perhaps even more relevantly, 'commander-in-chief' has nothing to do with foreign intelligence gathering at all. There is nothing in the constitution that would grant an 'intelligence gathering' power to the President. Not any sort of mention of any sort. None whatsoever.
Since the beginning of history, waging war has involved spying on the enemy. To argue that these are unrelated activities is asinine. To argue that spying on our enemies is related to some OTHER function of government besides the waging of war is similarly asinine.
Foreign intelligence gathering exists solely because Congress, while providing for the national defense, decided to make such a system and, like all the other agencies they set up, handed over to the executive to run. It's no more a presidential power than running the Post Office is.
Congress sets up the institutions necessary for intelligence gathering, and then turns them over to the President to run, but running them ISN'T a presidential power?
Again, Article 1, Section 8. Gives Congress the power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
You are talking about the enumerated power to collect taxes. That those taxes are limited to being used for purposes of providing for the common defense and the general welfare, does NOT make "providing for the general welfare" an enumerated power! (It does exclude such things as the "welfare" program from the constitutional uses of tax revenue, as it is neither for the common defense nor the general welfare, but for the welfare of a small minority of the citizenry.) The particular powers that Congress is given, pursuant to providing for the common defense and general welfare, are listed AFTER the power to collect taxes for those purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
I will do no such thing. As I am in favor of the FBI succeeding and criminals failing, I am more than happy to go out of my way to help the FBI where I can.
The only interrogation technique that the US has used that could qualify as torture is water-boarding. And I would generally agree that its use is unacceptable. However using such techniques on "high level detainees" such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, I have no problem with. There are other things which would be called torture which I would say should NEVER be done, but water-boarding KSM seems completely justified. Just as people can give up the right to live by their actions, which KSM has also done, people can give up their rights by their actions to not face extremely unpleasant interrogation techniques to get them to share more information about their crimes. As for it not being effective at getting reliable information, it's just not true. Especially in the case of KSM. The information from him has almost certainly saved many lives around the world.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/
You're wrong. I would NOT break quarantine and risk infecting countless others. That would be the very definition of evil. While it's true that evil is one part of human nature, it is not the ONLY part.
Or maybe we should hope they do? Would it be immoral to trick the PETA people into getting into the radiation chambers with the cockroaches? Since it's for science?
Sheesh, it was a generalization, not a policy paper! US taxation and spending are both FAR higher than what is necessary for performing the essentials of government. So cutting both is a good thing in principle until such time as when the government looks something similar to what is described in the Constitution (which admittedly, may never happen). Yes, we shouldn't defund the army or the police, or certain regulatory agencies, but I have a feeling that there will always be more than enough to get rid of, and if so, "cut more spending" will always remain a good policy.
For a fish to adapt to breathing air, not just tolerating it for a minute or two, it needs to do more than sink his gills further into his body. He needs to redirect them up through the throat via a new structure (the trachea), find a way to join them up with the esophagus in the throat without compromising digestion or breathing, for new neurological structures to coordinate the new dual-purpose use of the throat and mouth, and develop new muscular structures for pumping air in and out of the lungs, and neurological structures to control those as well. Surely, you're not saying that all this happened without genetic mutation. Personally, like the poster you responded to, I find the idea that such changes happened through accumulated successive changes that occurred RANDOMLY, implausible to the point of absurdity.
The NORC study doesn't claim in any place I can find that there were more votes cast for Gore. While it does give scenarios in which Gore would have gotten more votes counted, as far as actual votes CAST, it seems to stick to what seems to be obvious: it was a statistical tie.
I'm a Christian, but not a YEC. I SERIOUSLY doubt there are 10 million young-earth creationists. As far as rejecting the Enlightenment, hopefully there are more than 50 million, as most of the Enlightenment was utterly irrational. I don't think it's a coincidence that the part of the Enlightenment that has had the most permanent influence was the Scottish Enlightenment, which compared to the rest was not dogmatically atheistic.
This seems to be the irrational need to dismiss religion by associating all religion with the magical poofing into existence of things, when relatively few religious people actually believe anything like that.People smarter than either of us, such as Newton and Galileo, spent much of their lives applying reason to religion without ever finding it hard not to bash it. In fact both spent significant portions of their lives writing extensive theological studies. (Contrary to popular belief, it was this that got Galileo in trouble with Rome; they were supporters of his science until they starting taking issue with his religious doctrines.)
No, religious people, like anyone else, will only consider you some sort of base dogmatic idiot if all you can say is, "you're an idiot, science causes the weather not religion." However, if you're actually going to have a reasoned and civil discussion, I think most religious people, or at least a large minority, enjoy debating their beliefs with both believers and non-believers. I, for one, am always looking for opportunities to do so.
I don't doubt that there are some people, both religious and atheistic, who are not intelligent enough to reason for themselves. So all they will do is cling to the dogmas of others, and toss epithets at those who don't share their particular dogmas. Those aren't the characteristics of any particular belief, just a common human behavior pattern.
I'm assuming you're talking about 2000, as he obviously won the majority of votes in 2004. Several media organizations did a study of the different possible combinations of Florida districts that could have been recounted. All the studies found that Bush would have won regardless of the combination of districts that were ordered to perform recounts. While this obviously doesn't jibe with the dogmas of your political religion, it does jibe with reality.
Wow, atheism as lead the UK to peace and love! Praise the Lord!
By that definition there are no "true democracies," and few people would want to live in one, as it wouldn't be very compatible with individual freedom.
Cutting taxes across the board is always good economics. Of course cutting gvt spending would be even better economics, but it's getting to the point where I can't imagine how or by whom that is ever going to happen.
Uh, how is that a right of privacy? That electronic surveillance can only be used when it is backed up by a statute doesn't mean that it can't be used, and doesn't mean that other means of surveillance can't be used.
There are at least two exceptions to that prohibition. One is the exception provided in FISA, that the law doesn't apply if their is a warrant, and the other exception is any application in which the law is unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court has long held, laws that are prima facie unconstitutional are completely null and void, and laws that are unconstitutional in specific applications are null and void in those applications. The Congress has the power to create by law military organizations and agencies, and to provide them with basic regulations, but any laws they pass which impede on the President's constitutional power to actually use those agencies to conduct national security operations are unconstitutional.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of war. That's where the executive branch wanders around killing people; often without any authorization whatsoever from Congress.
By what stretch of the imagination are "the military" and agencies "provided for the common defense" separate concepts? Aside from the fact that the president runs ALL the executive agencies established by Congress, and that is the meaning of "faithfully executing the law", the NSA IS part of the Department of Defense, and in fact must, by law, be directed by a lieutenant general or vice admiral.
The 4th amendment relates to criminal investigations and prosecutions. We were talking about the gathering of military intelligence by a military body. The judicial precedents for interpreting the 4th amendments are respected by the judicial branch of government. As such, they must be respected by the executive branch of government in order to get conviction in criminal cases. This is an example of checks and balances and separation of powers, in that the power to convict criminals of according to laws passed by the legislature is split between the executive and judicial. The power to spy on military enemies is not split between the judicial and executive. Only the executive and legislative are given any roles in the providing of national security. Since the goal is to obtain information for military purposes, and the goal is not obtaining convictions in court, the judicial branch, along with its precedents, are irrelevant. In sum, the 4th amendment does not inherently mandate warrants, and no precedent suggests otherwise; and if it did, the precedents of the courts don't effect the other branches except where those branches must constitutionally interact with the courts.
exactly right.
No, this is a fundamental constitutional principle. The power of the courts are limited to "cases and controversies." More on this below...
You're talking about a criminal prosecution. In a criminal prosecution, due process requires that the courts get the final say on any legal questions, and as you say, the AG's opinion is just an opinion. However, in the functioning of an executive agency, the AG gets the final say, and the court's opinion, if they have one, is just an opinion. This is the fundamental principle without which the separation of powers would never work. If the Court could tell the other branches what the law said, regardless of what it actually said, they could have all power over the government.
blah blah blah... I'm not feeding you anymore, troll. Seek mental help. If you're on drugs, stop doing them.
Not sure what you mean. Only things beyond the enumerated powers require amendment, and the government didn't decide it wanted to vastly exceed these until FDR. Yes, adhering to the Constitution would have significantly slowed down FDR and his successors. That was supposed to be the point of the Constitution.
Uh... what constitution is that in? It's not in the US Constitution.
No... the people who support the FISA law are arguing that a judge should have to issue a warrant for the NSA to be allowed to gather certain intelligence. The constitution establishes a separation of powers. The entity capable of determining for the NSA or any other executive agency whether something is constitutional or not is the AG, specifically, the Office of Legal Council or OLC. The judicial branch has no right to impose their constitutional interpretations upon those of the AG or the OLC or executive agencies. The interpretations of the judicial branch is only relevant in the case of civil or criminal lawsuits, in which case the judicial branch's interpretation of the Constitution is used to resolve those particular cases.
That argument would be completely valid, except that Congress does not have the constitutional power to change the balance and separation of powers defined in the Constitution. While Congress does have the power in general to set the rules and regulations for intelligence gathering, those rules become unconstitutional when they take part of the power of executing the spying function away from the executive branch and give it to the judicial branch.
I'm not thinking of Communism. Communism opposed religion even in principle. Fascism just abolished the religious institutions, regardless of its rhetorical support for religion in principle. See the Fascist Manifesto, of which one of the tenets was:
Well, to make sure that no one drew that conclusion, they included the 10th amendment, specifically prohibiting the federal government from exercising any power not specifically enumerated. If you read the Federalist Papers, the WHOLE POINT of the constitution was to make a government limited by enumerated powers. As Chief Justice Marshall said,
"This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted."
Given this, it would complete undermine the purpose of enumerated powers if they had made one of them "to provide for the general welfare." That could include ANYTHING. And they didn't.
The President swears allegiance to the Constitution. How could he do that if he didn't know what he was swearing allegiance to? Do you really think he should be swearing allegiance to some given judge's spin on the Constitution? There is a danger if ANY of the branches try to subvert the constitution, and that is why the founders gave them ALL the independent duty to follow it, regardless of if another branch tries to say that it says something it doesn't.
There are indeed checks and balances between the branches. Congress can set up rules and regulations for the military, but only the President can command the military. There are many checks and balances that would prevent a scenario like the one you suggested. The first is the fact that the military chain of command will refuse to carry out any such clearly illegal orders. Another is that the Congress would impeach him for treason. Another is that Congress could dismantle and defund the military if necessary. It's absolutely true that each branch is held in check by the other two, but only in the ways that are actually prescribed in the Constitution.
But if the judiciary branch had the universal power to interpret the Constitution for the other two branches, how could the other two branches possibly enact any check on the power of the judiciary?
Well, since you asked so politely... The Nazis adopted a great deal from the Fascists, but they chose to to co-opt and control religion and use it in their rhetoric, whereas the Fascists just tried to eliminate it. However, you don't deserve to learn any of this, because you are an uncivil ass.
Do us all, and especially yourself, a favor and log off of moveon.org and grow a brain. There's nothing in the above vomit that's even connected enough to reality to respond to. You are literally delusional.
The Libertarian party is far better than the Democrats, but they tend to have certain extreme and untenable views, for example on foreign policy. Obviously not all Republicans are great, but all the competent thinkers are Republicans, including Bush, Cheney, Fred Thompson, and others.
Bush was elected entirely because he hates fags? I'm completely seriously when I say that I think you need mental help. Look into it.
Your mother is ugly.
Even though you're clearly retarded, I'm not going to completely explain your retardation to you, I'm only going to give you a hint by informing you what FISA stands for. This is how we can help you to aquire thinking skills of your own. It stands for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
It's not a power of any sort? I think your retardation has metastasized. You are no longer even coherent.
Can you not actually read or something? Congress and the president are jointly in charge of providing the common defense. Their respective roles in this are enumerated in a document called the Constitution of the United States of America.
Yes. You seem to do fine when you actually quote the document. The problem seems to be in reading comprehension
Brilliant. I think you are thinking of a parliamentary system where there is no separation of power, and the legislative body has total power, including power over executive functions. If the president had no power except to do anything but what the Congress told him to do, there wouldn't be much point in holding an election for him would there be. If the Constitution isn't self-explanatory enough for you, try reading the Federalist Papers.
That's largely true. Congress has the power to create the military, to arm it, and establish its regulations. The president has the power to use it.
The court system is involved when a civil law suit or a criminal prosecution is filed. These are the "cases and controversies" which the Constitution gives them power over. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination give them power over deciding what country to invade or what country to spy on.
Since the beginning of history, waging war has involved spying on the enemy. To argue that these are unrelated activities is asinine. To argue that spying on our enemies is related to some OTHER function of government besides the waging of war is similarly asinine.
Congress sets up the institutions necessary for intelligence gathering, and then turns them over to the President to run, but running them ISN'T a presidential power?
You are talking about the enumerated power to collect taxes. That those taxes are limited to being used for purposes of providing for the common defense and the general welfare, does NOT make "providing for the general welfare" an enumerated power! (It does exclude such things as the "welfare" program from the constitutional uses of tax revenue, as it is neither for the common defense nor the general welfare, but for the welfare of a small minority of the citizenry.) The particular powers that Congress is given, pursuant to providing for the common defense and general welfare, are listed AFTER the power to collect taxes for those purposes.