US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 2: "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
This seems pretty explicit to me. I do not understand what the administration's argument is here. And none of the critical articles I have read mention this clause. It's as if this isn't the standing issue here. Can someone explain to me how the President can legally sign a treaty without a senate vote?
The reason behind this is simple: Libertarians (or at least the "think tank" Establishment branch of them) equate freedom with being able to make as much money for yourself as you can, and do with that money whatever you please.
The problem with FOSS in their eyes is that it prevents the proprietary software companies from making as much money as they want.
They don't want a "free market" in the classical sense. To them "free market" means "free to be anti-competitive and free from government safety/environmental regulations."
They only care about making money for themselves, and to hell with everyone else.
A true free-market economy is as much of a pipe dream as a true Communist one. Greed and lust for power corrupt both of these ideologies before they ever get fully established.
I'll grant that many rank-and-file Libertarians do not think this way, but the most vocal part of the Libertarian movement sure seems to.
GM actually used to build locomotives. Remember those old-school carbody diesels? The ones with the bulldog noses? Those F-Units were build by GM's Electro-Motive Division, or EMD.
GM Sold EMD to PE firms in 2005. EMD I believe is now based in Canada. WMD mainly builds in Mexico, though this happened under GM's watch. Their major competitor is General Electric.
Slashdot Mirror
US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, paragraph 2:
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
This seems pretty explicit to me. I do not understand what the administration's argument is here. And none of the critical articles I have read mention this clause. It's as if this isn't the standing issue here. Can someone explain to me how the President can legally sign a treaty without a senate vote?
The reason behind this is simple: Libertarians (or at least the "think tank" Establishment branch of them) equate freedom with being able to make as much money for yourself as you can, and do with that money whatever you please.
The problem with FOSS in their eyes is that it prevents the proprietary software companies from making as much money as they want.
They don't want a "free market" in the classical sense. To them "free market" means "free to be anti-competitive and free from government safety/environmental regulations."
They only care about making money for themselves, and to hell with everyone else.
A true free-market economy is as much of a pipe dream as a true Communist one. Greed and lust for power corrupt both of these ideologies before they ever get fully established.
I'll grant that many rank-and-file Libertarians do not think this way, but the most vocal part of the Libertarian movement sure seems to.
Somebody please mod parent up. This is the whole point.
GM actually used to build locomotives. Remember those old-school carbody diesels? The ones with the bulldog noses? Those F-Units were build by GM's Electro-Motive Division, or EMD. GM Sold EMD to PE firms in 2005. EMD I believe is now based in Canada. WMD mainly builds in Mexico, though this happened under GM's watch. Their major competitor is General Electric.
No it doesn't. I play SF64 with the cube controller all the time and I never have to connect my classic controller to my wiimote to start it.