The court's opinion also points out that the USPS did make a substantial (millions of dollars) profit in selling the stamp, from collectors purchasing it and never using it to send a letter.
Isn't even mouthwash that contains alcohol deliberately made unsafe to drink? This article seems to be mostly a big kdawson scare and not really news in any meaningful sense.
It's really a question of what you mean by the "egg." Is the egg the growing embryo inside the eggshell, or is it the shell itself? All philosophical arguments devolve to semantics, after all.;)
I have just written the funniest book. My only fear is that some readers may fail to understand the subtle humor in it, and take it seriously. The far-reaching implications for our sacred field of study could be disastrous.
Is that the same one that had the benefit of 50 years of NASA trial and error to help guide them in what does and does not work, not to mention the countless other organizations and researchers who made rocket propulsion of large vehicles practical?
I guess it depends on where you go to school. It's a sufficiently well-known Greek myth that it was taught in my public high school. There are also numerous references in modern popular culture, from metal music (Iron Maiden's "Flight of Icarus") to video games (the Icarus and Daedalus entities in the game Deus Ex). I wasn't criticizing you, at any rate, but whatever school failed to teach you this simple and memorable myth - probably all schools, at that. =)
I meant mutually exclusive in the sense that the concepts they embody would not intersect on a Venn diagram, not in the sense that you can't have both at once. I should probably have written that better.:)
I'm not convinced it was truly stupid. A good troll comment is indistinguishable from a stupid one, but this one was almost too well-written. I fear the truly talented trolls, because they can blend in perfectly with the surrounding idiots.
Similarly, we blame the murderer for exploiting a system that relies on numerous single points of failure to keep a person alive. This comment deserves every -1 Troll mod it gets.
Incidentally, you are right that I inadvertently typed Lopez when I meant Stewart in my previous comment. I'm bad with individuals' names, but my comment indicates no confusion as to the holdings in the two cases. Sorry about my failure to name the right defendant, though. In my defense, I had quite a few comments to respond to on the topic, most of which involved people thinking that Stewart had been convicted of selling machine gun parts online.
The 16th amendment just gives authority to tax income from any source. The general welfare reference is in Article I, Section 8, and relates to spending - not to regulating. However, taking the income tax together with the spending power, the federal government has a lot of de facto power to regulate things. For instance, the drinking age throughout the United States is 21 because, while states can set it lower, federal law stops states from getting federal highway funds if they do. It's a pretty big hammer to swing, but it does not give Congress the power to directly regulate citizens' behavior. The commerce clause is the one that most often gets invoked for that.
Odd that you used your >> quoting style for something that I didn't say. I am well aware of Lopez. Again, what I'm not aware of is a Congressional response to that decision that involves them backing off from their perception that the commerce clause grants them unlimited authority to do as they please. If you are aware of that happening, please do enlighten me.
Read it again. He wasn't convicted of selling a machine gun in interstate commerce. He was prosecuted for and convicted of possession of machine guns only. Not one count for which he was convicted involved moving anything in interstate commerce.
And yes, his possession of machine guns was in violation of the statute under which he was charged. The issue was not whether he had violated the statute but rather whether the statute was enforceable as a proper exercise of Congress's authority to pass laws under the interstate commerce clause.
Don't look at me. I'm telling you what Congress and the Supreme Court do, not what they should do. Blame your elected representatives for passing laws beyond their powers and for appointing judges who don't think those powers have real limits.
Lopez was convicted for possession of a machine gun, nothing else. The online ads were just how they found him. And regardless of Lopez, let me know if you see Congress start to actually slow down on passing far-reaching laws purportedly founded on the power they hold under the commerce clause. The real effect of Lopez seems to be more that Congress will say that such and such issue "substantially affects interstate commerce" and pass the same laws that they would have previously passed with a Congressional finding that it merely "impacts interstate commerce." If Congress passes the lederhosen law with the right magic words, it will withstand rational basis review.
I didn't say I agree with it. I just said that's what the law is and what the Constitution has been interpreted to mean. The original inquiry was where the authority to do these things comes from, and my answer is accurate (in the same way as it's accurate to say that fairy dust comes from Never Never Land - true, if you believe in fairy dust and Never Never Land).
Sure. Congress can, under the interstate commerce clause, regulate the amount of wheat you grow to feed your own chickens. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
Congress can criminalize, under the interstate commerce clause, mere possession of a machine gun that has never itself been in interstate commerce. United States v. Stewart, which the 9th Circuit was ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), which held that Congress can criminalize marijuana that has never been in interstate commerce because locally grown cannabis changes the supply and demand for the product in the interstate trade. The 9th Circuit ended up reinstating the machine gun guy's conviction even though he built the gun from scratch without crossing state lines.
Slashdot Mirror
The court's opinion also points out that the USPS did make a substantial (millions of dollars) profit in selling the stamp, from collectors purchasing it and never using it to send a letter.
Isn't even mouthwash that contains alcohol deliberately made unsafe to drink? This article seems to be mostly a big kdawson scare and not really news in any meaningful sense.
It's really a question of what you mean by the "egg." Is the egg the growing embryo inside the eggshell, or is it the shell itself? All philosophical arguments devolve to semantics, after all. ;)
Dear Mssr. Mersenne:
/s/ Renee
I have just written the funniest book. My only fear is that some readers may fail to understand the subtle humor in it, and take it seriously. The far-reaching implications for our sacred field of study could be disastrous.
Sincerely,
She's got nothing on Mrs. Roberts.
Is that the same one that had the benefit of 50 years of NASA trial and error to help guide them in what does and does not work, not to mention the countless other organizations and researchers who made rocket propulsion of large vehicles practical?
I was just surprised at how long ago that misuse had become a problem, particularly in as well-regarded a thing as Superman.
I guess it depends on where you go to school. It's a sufficiently well-known Greek myth that it was taught in my public high school. There are also numerous references in modern popular culture, from metal music (Iron Maiden's "Flight of Icarus") to video games (the Icarus and Daedalus entities in the game Deus Ex). I wasn't criticizing you, at any rate, but whatever school failed to teach you this simple and memorable myth - probably all schools, at that. =)
I meant mutually exclusive in the sense that the concepts they embody would not intersect on a Venn diagram, not in the sense that you can't have both at once. I should probably have written that better. :)
Is that, on page 5, the first recorded printed misuse of your in place of you're?
Don't miss the other obvious implication: Truth and Justice are mutually exclusive.
Please tell me that you knew that Daedalus built the wings for Icarus without resorting to Wikipedia. I really want to believe it.
I'm not convinced it was truly stupid. A good troll comment is indistinguishable from a stupid one, but this one was almost too well-written. I fear the truly talented trolls, because they can blend in perfectly with the surrounding idiots.
I actually think that the penalty should be the same regardless of whose computer he broke into (other than his own).
Similarly, we blame the murderer for exploiting a system that relies on numerous single points of failure to keep a person alive. This comment deserves every -1 Troll mod it gets.
Do you (or does anyone else) have recommendations for a good iTunes replacement on the Mac that doesn't throw out features?
Incidentally, you are right that I inadvertently typed Lopez when I meant Stewart in my previous comment. I'm bad with individuals' names, but my comment indicates no confusion as to the holdings in the two cases. Sorry about my failure to name the right defendant, though. In my defense, I had quite a few comments to respond to on the topic, most of which involved people thinking that Stewart had been convicted of selling machine gun parts online.
The 16th amendment just gives authority to tax income from any source. The general welfare reference is in Article I, Section 8, and relates to spending - not to regulating. However, taking the income tax together with the spending power, the federal government has a lot of de facto power to regulate things. For instance, the drinking age throughout the United States is 21 because, while states can set it lower, federal law stops states from getting federal highway funds if they do. It's a pretty big hammer to swing, but it does not give Congress the power to directly regulate citizens' behavior. The commerce clause is the one that most often gets invoked for that.
Odd that you used your >> quoting style for something that I didn't say. I am well aware of Lopez. Again, what I'm not aware of is a Congressional response to that decision that involves them backing off from their perception that the commerce clause grants them unlimited authority to do as they please. If you are aware of that happening, please do enlighten me.
Wickard v. Filburn. I linked to it above.
Read it again. He wasn't convicted of selling a machine gun in interstate commerce. He was prosecuted for and convicted of possession of machine guns only. Not one count for which he was convicted involved moving anything in interstate commerce.
And yes, his possession of machine guns was in violation of the statute under which he was charged. The issue was not whether he had violated the statute but rather whether the statute was enforceable as a proper exercise of Congress's authority to pass laws under the interstate commerce clause.
Don't look at me. I'm telling you what Congress and the Supreme Court do, not what they should do. Blame your elected representatives for passing laws beyond their powers and for appointing judges who don't think those powers have real limits.
Lopez was convicted for possession of a machine gun, nothing else. The online ads were just how they found him. And regardless of Lopez, let me know if you see Congress start to actually slow down on passing far-reaching laws purportedly founded on the power they hold under the commerce clause. The real effect of Lopez seems to be more that Congress will say that such and such issue "substantially affects interstate commerce" and pass the same laws that they would have previously passed with a Congressional finding that it merely "impacts interstate commerce." If Congress passes the lederhosen law with the right magic words, it will withstand rational basis review.
I didn't say I agree with it. I just said that's what the law is and what the Constitution has been interpreted to mean. The original inquiry was where the authority to do these things comes from, and my answer is accurate (in the same way as it's accurate to say that fairy dust comes from Never Never Land - true, if you believe in fairy dust and Never Never Land).
Sure. Congress can, under the interstate commerce clause, regulate the amount of wheat you grow to feed your own chickens. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
Congress can criminalize, under the interstate commerce clause, mere possession of a machine gun that has never itself been in interstate commerce. United States v. Stewart, which the 9th Circuit was ordered by the Supreme Court to reconsider in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), which held that Congress can criminalize marijuana that has never been in interstate commerce because locally grown cannabis changes the supply and demand for the product in the interstate trade. The 9th Circuit ended up reinstating the machine gun guy's conviction even though he built the gun from scratch without crossing state lines.