Also, Alaskans are, in general, more prepared to go without power, heat, water, transportation, and the like for months at a time. They call it "winter."
It's not just that. Revenue is not $1.9M. It's $2M times P, then minus the $100k, where P is a probability between 0 and 1. Even more realistically, it's a probability curve plotting numbers from 0 to $2M to the probability that you'll get at least that amount, which is impossible to calculate but easy to envision. You do have the time factor right, though.
Your second paragraph responds to a point not made - you seem to think that the comments about a "more perfect union" somehow refer to a more perfect constitution. I'm going to pretend you didn't write that irrelevant bit.
Did you use the 1781 dictionary? Our language has evolved a great deal in the past 230 years. Then-common uses of words have fallen to secondary definitions in modern dictionaries. You simply can't argue "The 2009 dictionary lists this definition first, so it is obviously the one that the Framers intended 230 years ago!" and be taken seriously.
Fair enough. I'd say that they balanced those things out with the DOE and such, but you absolutely met my challenge, so I stand corrected. That said, there has been, while not monotonic, at least long-term smoothly net growth in the federal government's power and size since July 4, 1776. That's why I usually write in "Veto Bot 9000" for President.
You do know what comes not long after those first kisses, right? I hate that I belong to a species capable of the Kool Aid swallowing that so many of us are - on all sides. Politics in America has through out history become more and more a game of fanaticism and personality cults rather than a matter of focusing on rational thought processes.
To me, it cheapens even the most rationally-supported political victories, because so few of the votes had anything to do with intelligent (not as in high-IQ, but rather simply as in "sapiens" of homo sapiens fame) thought.
It'd be unprecedented, unless someone can point out to me a presidential administration under whose leadership the federal government relinquished any substantial powers.
Except that "perfect" doesn't mean flawless, but rather it means complete. It's not about a union without flaws, it's about a union without state-by-state insurgence.
Welcome to Slashdot. Here, we use are different terms for when a Democratic President violates the Constitution and when a Republican President does so.
You forgot to mention that those three companies didn't turn down the challenge per se. It sounds from the description on that page that the companies were asked to provide their normal quotes for recovering the data and refused to even provide a quote (with one company saying it would do so and make an effort if they needed to make an effort for legal purposes).
I did some Wikifactchecking of course, so don't be too impressed.:P The interesting thing with Richard Nixon is that, if it weren't for him, there would basically be no legal opinions on the area of executive privilege at all, just because he pushed the limits so far, so often.
And your point itself is absolutely right: Nixon is definitely not the person to look to when you want to know the answer to the question "How much authority does the President have?"
Just for the sake of completeness, Nixon was the closest to being impeached without getting there. Clinton and Andrew Johnson have been the only two to be impeached thus far. Both were acquitted by the Senate. So far, the only federal impeachments to reach conviction and removal from office have been for federal judges, I believe seven in total. One was named Walter Nixon, removed in 1989 - perhaps that's a source of the grandparent's confusion.
A criminal defense attorney defends the Constitution and our system of justice much more so than he defends rapists or murderers. The Constitution guarantees you a fair trial. If your attorney doesn't do his best within the bounds of the rules of ethics, just because he thinks (or knows for a fact) that you're guilty, then your trial wasn't fair. I don't care how guilty a person is: If he is locked up by a drumhead tribunal he was denied a right that all of us has.
Worse, if you let a defendant's lawyer be the one who decides whether he looks guilty enough to be locked up without the right to a fair trial, what's to stop you from just letting the judge make that decision instead of a jury? Next up, the prosecuting attorney will make the call. Soon enough, the police officer will make the final decision of your guilt.
Google for "why I defend guilty clients" for hundreds of stories of lawyers explaining what really goes through their minds when they defend the guilty. What I was looking for, though, is an article that doesn't seem to be available for free. Long story short, everyone, including the defense attorney, believed this guy to be guilty of vehicular homicide because police reports showed that he was removed from the left side of the vehicle that had crashed, leaving the passenger dead, so obviously he was the driver. He didn't remember what had happened, and even he believed that he must have been driving while so intoxicated that he couldn't even remember doing it, and he felt all the guilt of having killed someone through his wrongful acts.
It was only late in the process that a surprise fact came to light: The car was upside-down when the client was removed from its left side - in other words, he was removed from the passenger side, and had been in fact a victim of the deceased driver's recklessness. Without zealous advocacy by his attorney, nobody would have realized that fact and the man would have served time in prison for a death he played no role in. And that's why lawyers defend guilty clients.
As to this appointment, the only real fear a person should have about it is that the guy is too indoctrinated by the RIAA's mindset. This could certainly be the case, especially if he has had sanctions awarded against him in RIAA cases. Find some insurance defense lawyers and some personal injury plaintiffs' lawyers and get them talking about politics or about the insurance and health care industries sometime if you want some fun with indoctrinated views. But it's just as possible that he's nothing but a hired gun who will bring the same fierce representation to his new client, the US government, as he did to the RIAA when they were his client.
Professors of constitutional law are no more inherently likely to agree with any particular interpretation of the Constitution than other people are. One of the nation's greatest (at least, far more successful than Obama ever was at it) Constitutional Law professors holds adamantly that the Second Amendment is about an absolute, individual right to keep and bear arms. Another one was involved in advising Bush that all of his policies regarding detainees were constitutionally permissible. Other professors disagree vehemently with these professors.
The only things that being a Constitutional Law professor does reliably tell you about a person is that he knows the history of constitutional interpretation from Marbury v. Madison to Lawrence v. Texas and beyond and that he knows how to get any group of people to discuss, for instance, both sides of the issue of whether the Due Process Clause prevents a state from limiting the number of hours that bakers are allowed to work. It doesn't mean a lick about what he actually believes the document means.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, Alaskans are, in general, more prepared to go without power, heat, water, transportation, and the like for months at a time. They call it "winter."
It's not just that. Revenue is not $1.9M. It's $2M times P, then minus the $100k, where P is a probability between 0 and 1. Even more realistically, it's a probability curve plotting numbers from 0 to $2M to the probability that you'll get at least that amount, which is impossible to calculate but easy to envision. You do have the time factor right, though.
Oh, just wait and see. They'll pass this on February 18, after the switch, and really foul things up.
For those who weren't familiar with rule suspension votes until now, I found this article helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_Committee.
Is there actually something that Japanese men don't want to take pictures of?
Your second paragraph responds to a point not made - you seem to think that the comments about a "more perfect union" somehow refer to a more perfect constitution. I'm going to pretend you didn't write that irrelevant bit.
Did you use the 1781 dictionary? Our language has evolved a great deal in the past 230 years. Then-common uses of words have fallen to secondary definitions in modern dictionaries. You simply can't argue "The 2009 dictionary lists this definition first, so it is obviously the one that the Framers intended 230 years ago!" and be taken seriously.
Fair enough. I'd say that they balanced those things out with the DOE and such, but you absolutely met my challenge, so I stand corrected. That said, there has been, while not monotonic, at least long-term smoothly net growth in the federal government's power and size since July 4, 1776. That's why I usually write in "Veto Bot 9000" for President.
Can you describe specifically which substantial powers each of those relinquished? I appreciate the history lesson.
You do know what comes not long after those first kisses, right? I hate that I belong to a species capable of the Kool Aid swallowing that so many of us are - on all sides. Politics in America has through out history become more and more a game of fanaticism and personality cults rather than a matter of focusing on rational thought processes.
To me, it cheapens even the most rationally-supported political victories, because so few of the votes had anything to do with intelligent (not as in high-IQ, but rather simply as in "sapiens" of homo sapiens fame) thought.
It'd be unprecedented, unless someone can point out to me a presidential administration under whose leadership the federal government relinquished any substantial powers.
Except that "perfect" doesn't mean flawless, but rather it means complete. It's not about a union without flaws, it's about a union without state-by-state insurgence.
Welcome to Slashdot. Here, we use are different terms for when a Democratic President violates the Constitution and when a Republican President does so.
They also traffic drugs, but only due to entrapment.
You forgot to mention that those three companies didn't turn down the challenge per se. It sounds from the description on that page that the companies were asked to provide their normal quotes for recovering the data and refused to even provide a quote (with one company saying it would do so and make an effort if they needed to make an effort for legal purposes).
I did some Wikifactchecking of course, so don't be too impressed. :P The interesting thing with Richard Nixon is that, if it weren't for him, there would basically be no legal opinions on the area of executive privilege at all, just because he pushed the limits so far, so often.
And your point itself is absolutely right: Nixon is definitely not the person to look to when you want to know the answer to the question "How much authority does the President have?"
You know that new Idle section y'all put so much work into creating? Please at least use it.
Just for the sake of completeness, Nixon was the closest to being impeached without getting there. Clinton and Andrew Johnson have been the only two to be impeached thus far. Both were acquitted by the Senate. So far, the only federal impeachments to reach conviction and removal from office have been for federal judges, I believe seven in total. One was named Walter Nixon, removed in 1989 - perhaps that's a source of the grandparent's confusion.
You can pardon someone without there having been a conviction. You just can't pardon someone for a crime that hasn't yet been committed, that's all.
Here's a bugle call I won't get tired of hearing
Obama fixed my grandma's analog TV!
Like Flock of Seagulls!
Truly timeless, in the most literal of senses.
A criminal defense attorney defends the Constitution and our system of justice much more so than he defends rapists or murderers. The Constitution guarantees you a fair trial. If your attorney doesn't do his best within the bounds of the rules of ethics, just because he thinks (or knows for a fact) that you're guilty, then your trial wasn't fair. I don't care how guilty a person is: If he is locked up by a drumhead tribunal he was denied a right that all of us has.
Worse, if you let a defendant's lawyer be the one who decides whether he looks guilty enough to be locked up without the right to a fair trial, what's to stop you from just letting the judge make that decision instead of a jury? Next up, the prosecuting attorney will make the call. Soon enough, the police officer will make the final decision of your guilt.
Google for "why I defend guilty clients" for hundreds of stories of lawyers explaining what really goes through their minds when they defend the guilty. What I was looking for, though, is an article that doesn't seem to be available for free. Long story short, everyone, including the defense attorney, believed this guy to be guilty of vehicular homicide because police reports showed that he was removed from the left side of the vehicle that had crashed, leaving the passenger dead, so obviously he was the driver. He didn't remember what had happened, and even he believed that he must have been driving while so intoxicated that he couldn't even remember doing it, and he felt all the guilt of having killed someone through his wrongful acts.
It was only late in the process that a surprise fact came to light: The car was upside-down when the client was removed from its left side - in other words, he was removed from the passenger side, and had been in fact a victim of the deceased driver's recklessness. Without zealous advocacy by his attorney, nobody would have realized that fact and the man would have served time in prison for a death he played no role in. And that's why lawyers defend guilty clients.
As to this appointment, the only real fear a person should have about it is that the guy is too indoctrinated by the RIAA's mindset. This could certainly be the case, especially if he has had sanctions awarded against him in RIAA cases. Find some insurance defense lawyers and some personal injury plaintiffs' lawyers and get them talking about politics or about the insurance and health care industries sometime if you want some fun with indoctrinated views. But it's just as possible that he's nothing but a hired gun who will bring the same fierce representation to his new client, the US government, as he did to the RIAA when they were his client.
Professors of constitutional law are no more inherently likely to agree with any particular interpretation of the Constitution than other people are. One of the nation's greatest (at least, far more successful than Obama ever was at it) Constitutional Law professors holds adamantly that the Second Amendment is about an absolute, individual right to keep and bear arms. Another one was involved in advising Bush that all of his policies regarding detainees were constitutionally permissible. Other professors disagree vehemently with these professors.
The only things that being a Constitutional Law professor does reliably tell you about a person is that he knows the history of constitutional interpretation from Marbury v. Madison to Lawrence v. Texas and beyond and that he knows how to get any group of people to discuss, for instance, both sides of the issue of whether the Due Process Clause prevents a state from limiting the number of hours that bakers are allowed to work. It doesn't mean a lick about what he actually believes the document means.