Its a crime to hit someone, and the state is the plaintiff... so even if the person wanted to be hit, asked you to hit them, hell, even if they begged for it... its still a crime to do it.
How do they handle boxing then? Does it have an explicit exemption? Or is it just a matter of ignoring it because it is more socially acceptable?
Ms. Kagan pointed to the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause as granting Congress the power to pass the law, though the clause is not ordinarily thought of as a source of free-standing authority. The clause gives Congress the right “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its other powers
Not that it makes it any more right, but it isn't the commerce clause. It's their second favorite misused clause.
What amendment is that violating exactly? Not that I disagree....
You seem to have a very wrong (albeit common) view of how the constitution works. The amendments don't grant us rights; they merely amend the body of the constitution. For that matter the constitution doesn't grant us rights either. We, as human beings, simply have the rights. Rather, the constitution creates a federal government to handle matters that are better handled by it than by the states. As the other reply said the 9th and 10th amendments make this quite clear.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment
Those make it quite clear that any power the constitution doesn't explicitly give to the federal government it doesn't have. Rather the states and the people retain all rights unless they are explicitly given up to the federal government by the constitution.
The reason this is pretty much ignored today is that the federal government has the money, power, and force to back up its will. Add this to the fact that people are willing to turn a blind eye to giving up rights if it gets them what they want at the federal level, and you have the current situation where the federal government has slowly accumulated more and more illegal, but de facto powers.
I highly doubt you could get away with distributing Avatar with the original audio replaced with your commentary. Even if you completely removed the original audio, and tied what you were saying into the characters and what was happening in the video. Using a copyrighted work may make it easier for you to make your free speech point; however, there is no requirement that anyone make it easier for you to make your point. If you needed to use a PC to make up some fliers could you just use someone else's PC without their permission?
Article I Section 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
You can say anything you want without using someone else's work. If freedom of speech meant you could republish copyrighted works at will as long as you claimed freedom of speech, then copyright would be meaningless.
Actually, you just gave me a better idea. Instead of hollowed coin, why not a key? That would get around the weight problem, since some random key doesn't have a known weight. Also the key is larger making it easier.
I think I'm like this, my preferred sleeping time is 8am - 4pm. That being said I was in the Marines for 4 years, and 5am wake ups was the norm. I did just adapt to it, like a normal person would adapt to working nights. The key is that on weekend I would revert back to my preferred sleep schedule (or closer to it), and then on Mondays I'd either get a couple hours sleep or none. Now that I'm out I am fully on the 8am-4pm sleep schedule, and have simply shaped the rest of my life around it.
So you are right, that you can just force yourself to be on a different schedule, but just as a normal person would rather sleep nights, I'd rather sleep days.
This is a pretty good idea. It effectively removes the scarcity imposed by the fact that venues must have limited capacities (however it's also limited to events that can be reproduced endlessly, so it wouldn't work with sporting events). One problem though is that most tours are planned as a whole and adding multiple dates in each city dynamically as sell outs occur would mess this up. To some degree you could solve this by matching the on sale dates to the event dates. Come up with the order of cities then 6 months out put the first city's tickets on sale for the first day. If they sell out in the first day then you add a second day in that city and start those sales the next day. Whenever they don't sell out in the first day on sale the next day you begin sale in the next city on the list. This way every day a new city's tickets go on sale for an event with a known date 6 months in advance. While this solves the technical problems I'd imagine that in practice there would be other problems (like wanting to play certain cities on specific days).
Minors do have school IDs and they are issued by a agent of the Government - a school district..
Not all schools provide IDs. Many school's ID would be jokingly easy to counterfeit if there was any financial benefit to doing so. Lastly the fact that there are thousands of schools means that it would be impossible to know if a ID even looked like any valid ID.
In the case of an event that is going to be primarily attended by kids you could set up rules to accommodate that. Allow people that are obviously under too young to have an ID to use tickets that have matching last names. I realize some parents have different last names, but this is better than requiring the name to exactly match.
I agree, it's the standard "give a man a fish...". The key to raising the standard of living in third would countries is reducing the population growth rate, and boosting their economy. They need to be able to support themselves, because human history shows that relying on the charity of others won't ever work out in the long run. Even if the west has enough surplus to provide for them they simply won't take a decrease in lifestyle in order to do it. I'm not saying that is good, but that is simply how it is.
We should be promoting birth control as much as possible, and then various policies to help with economy. Something I've thought of would be providing nuclear power plants and running them for them. Simply put energy is needed for economic development. The only means of power generation that would be feasible for them to do themselves would be coal, and we don't want that. So instead we design a safe standard rather small nuclear plant and offer to build and run them in some countries. The cost should be a lot less since there shouldn't be much red tape. We run them for 20 or so years while training locals to run them themselves. After 20 years we turn over control, while maintaining some inspectors to ease nuclear weapons concerns.
They aren't tracking via GPS. They are seeing which tower your phone is pinging. So if the phone is powered, and within range of a tower it is trackable.
As I said above laws are currently not read before being passed. The fact that congressmen opening admit to not reading stuff they pass is mind boggling to me. At least requiring them to be renewed every couple years would allow some to read it in the mean time.
I believe segregation was ended largely by the courts, not Congress. As for the Declaration of Independence it passed with 9/13 = 69%. That being said I do see the spirit of what you are saying. I'm not sure if I agree with it or not.
Yes, I know. However the version of the Patriot Act that repassed had two important features. First it was somewhat less insane than the first. Second it doesn't have any more sunset clauses, which means it is here to stay.
As for the extra work load, I thinks the pros would outweigh that. Frankly, congress doesn't read the laws before passing them now. At least if the law was being renewed they would have had years to maybe read parts of it, and the public could have analyzed it. Since obvious stuff would likely pass with 80+ it would mean that laws would only need to be renewed every 25 years, which I think is reasonable.
I may be open to the idea of some types of legislature being exempt, but I think that is very difficult to do in a way that can't be exploited. I'd like this to be as simple as possible, done in the Constitution and apply to all laws federal, state, and local (except the Constitution itself, and perhaps state's constitutions).
I'd rather just place a time limit on all laws after which they would need to be renewed or become null and void. The period would range between 2-25 laws based on what majority (which ever house was less) it passed with (say 50-60 = 5, 60-70 = 10, 70-80 = 20, 80+ = 25). All new laws would be 5 year regardless of the majority (to prevent panic laws like Patriot Act from starting with 25 years). All existing laws would start with whatever period they should have based on the scale (exempt from 5 year mandatory first period). A law could only be renewed in the year it was due for renewal (to avoid parties from passing pet laws when they had control).
However the Constitution doesn't bar congress from creating different crimes which have the death penalty. I've always wondered why it doesn't define murder and treason then limit the death penalty to those.
I feel perfectly safe at home in the US too. Unless you are arguing that outlawing weapons is good because it makes people feel safer than it doesn't matter. Instead the question is if outlawing weapons makes people actually safer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate According to that page the homicide rate in the US is 5.4 per 100,000, while the UK is 2.03. The US has 2.66 times more homicides per person than the UK. However, the US state of New Hampshire has only 1.4. NH probably has the least restrictive gun laws in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
In other words there isn't much correlation between gun laws and homicide rates.
He probably doesn't know any identifying information (car number), or possibly even the town of the cop in the second example. I'm sure that a complaint that some random cop was breaking a traffic law would investigated fully.
That's the problem, that it's so common place for police to disregard the law that it just accepted.
Slashdot Mirror
Its a crime to hit someone, and the state is the plaintiff... so even if the person wanted to be hit, asked you to hit them, hell, even if they begged for it... its still a crime to do it.
How do they handle boxing then? Does it have an explicit exemption? Or is it just a matter of ignoring it because it is more socially acceptable?
Ms. Kagan pointed to the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause as granting Congress the power to pass the law, though the clause is not ordinarily thought of as a source of free-standing authority. The clause gives Congress the right “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its other powers
Not that it makes it any more right, but it isn't the commerce clause. It's their second favorite misused clause.
What amendment is that violating exactly? Not that I disagree....
You seem to have a very wrong (albeit common) view of how the constitution works. The amendments don't grant us rights; they merely amend the body of the constitution. For that matter the constitution doesn't grant us rights either. We, as human beings, simply have the rights. Rather, the constitution creates a federal government to handle matters that are better handled by it than by the states. As the other reply said the 9th and 10th amendments make this quite clear.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment
Those make it quite clear that any power the constitution doesn't explicitly give to the federal government it doesn't have. Rather the states and the people retain all rights unless they are explicitly given up to the federal government by the constitution.
The reason this is pretty much ignored today is that the federal government has the money, power, and force to back up its will. Add this to the fact that people are willing to turn a blind eye to giving up rights if it gets them what they want at the federal level, and you have the current situation where the federal government has slowly accumulated more and more illegal, but de facto powers.
During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.
I highly doubt you could get away with distributing Avatar with the original audio replaced with your commentary. Even if you completely removed the original audio, and tied what you were saying into the characters and what was happening in the video. Using a copyrighted work may make it easier for you to make your free speech point; however, there is no requirement that anyone make it easier for you to make your point. If you needed to use a PC to make up some fliers could you just use someone else's PC without their permission?
Article I Section 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" You can say anything you want without using someone else's work. If freedom of speech meant you could republish copyrighted works at will as long as you claimed freedom of speech, then copyright would be meaningless.
What countries have an independent police watchdog? I'd like to read how they are organized and how successful they are.
You only get rear-ended if the guy behind you is following too close or not paying attention. Not your problem
And if they don't have insurance? Or if it is an 80,000 lbs tractor trailer and you are in a 1000 lbs Isetta?
Hilarious that they are so concerned with military preparedness. Prepared for what exactly? Swiss in a war? Unheard of!
Why do you think that may be? Perhaps because they are quite prepared for it, making an invasion very difficult.
Actually, you just gave me a better idea. Instead of hollowed coin, why not a key? That would get around the weight problem, since some random key doesn't have a known weight. Also the key is larger making it easier.
I think I'm like this, my preferred sleeping time is 8am - 4pm. That being said I was in the Marines for 4 years, and 5am wake ups was the norm. I did just adapt to it, like a normal person would adapt to working nights. The key is that on weekend I would revert back to my preferred sleep schedule (or closer to it), and then on Mondays I'd either get a couple hours sleep or none. Now that I'm out I am fully on the 8am-4pm sleep schedule, and have simply shaped the rest of my life around it.
So you are right, that you can just force yourself to be on a different schedule, but just as a normal person would rather sleep nights, I'd rather sleep days.
This is a pretty good idea. It effectively removes the scarcity imposed by the fact that venues must have limited capacities (however it's also limited to events that can be reproduced endlessly, so it wouldn't work with sporting events). One problem though is that most tours are planned as a whole and adding multiple dates in each city dynamically as sell outs occur would mess this up. To some degree you could solve this by matching the on sale dates to the event dates. Come up with the order of cities then 6 months out put the first city's tickets on sale for the first day. If they sell out in the first day then you add a second day in that city and start those sales the next day. Whenever they don't sell out in the first day on sale the next day you begin sale in the next city on the list. This way every day a new city's tickets go on sale for an event with a known date 6 months in advance. While this solves the technical problems I'd imagine that in practice there would be other problems (like wanting to play certain cities on specific days).
Minors do have school IDs and they are issued by a agent of the Government - a school district. .
Not all schools provide IDs. Many school's ID would be jokingly easy to counterfeit if there was any financial benefit to doing so. Lastly the fact that there are thousands of schools means that it would be impossible to know if a ID even looked like any valid ID.
In the case of an event that is going to be primarily attended by kids you could set up rules to accommodate that. Allow people that are obviously under too young to have an ID to use tickets that have matching last names. I realize some parents have different last names, but this is better than requiring the name to exactly match.
I agree, it's the standard "give a man a fish...". The key to raising the standard of living in third would countries is reducing the population growth rate, and boosting their economy. They need to be able to support themselves, because human history shows that relying on the charity of others won't ever work out in the long run. Even if the west has enough surplus to provide for them they simply won't take a decrease in lifestyle in order to do it. I'm not saying that is good, but that is simply how it is.
We should be promoting birth control as much as possible, and then various policies to help with economy. Something I've thought of would be providing nuclear power plants and running them for them. Simply put energy is needed for economic development. The only means of power generation that would be feasible for them to do themselves would be coal, and we don't want that. So instead we design a safe standard rather small nuclear plant and offer to build and run them in some countries. The cost should be a lot less since there shouldn't be much red tape. We run them for 20 or so years while training locals to run them themselves. After 20 years we turn over control, while maintaining some inspectors to ease nuclear weapons concerns.
They aren't tracking via GPS. They are seeing which tower your phone is pinging. So if the phone is powered, and within range of a tower it is trackable.
As I said above laws are currently not read before being passed. The fact that congressmen opening admit to not reading stuff they pass is mind boggling to me. At least requiring them to be renewed every couple years would allow some to read it in the mean time.
I believe segregation was ended largely by the courts, not Congress. As for the Declaration of Independence it passed with 9/13 = 69%. That being said I do see the spirit of what you are saying. I'm not sure if I agree with it or not.
Yes, I know. However the version of the Patriot Act that repassed had two important features. First it was somewhat less insane than the first. Second it doesn't have any more sunset clauses, which means it is here to stay.
As for the extra work load, I thinks the pros would outweigh that. Frankly, congress doesn't read the laws before passing them now. At least if the law was being renewed they would have had years to maybe read parts of it, and the public could have analyzed it. Since obvious stuff would likely pass with 80+ it would mean that laws would only need to be renewed every 25 years, which I think is reasonable.
I may be open to the idea of some types of legislature being exempt, but I think that is very difficult to do in a way that can't be exploited. I'd like this to be as simple as possible, done in the Constitution and apply to all laws federal, state, and local (except the Constitution itself, and perhaps state's constitutions).
I'd rather just place a time limit on all laws after which they would need to be renewed or become null and void. The period would range between 2-25 laws based on what majority (which ever house was less) it passed with (say 50-60 = 5, 60-70 = 10, 70-80 = 20, 80+ = 25). All new laws would be 5 year regardless of the majority (to prevent panic laws like Patriot Act from starting with 25 years). All existing laws would start with whatever period they should have based on the scale (exempt from 5 year mandatory first period). A law could only be renewed in the year it was due for renewal (to avoid parties from passing pet laws when they had control).
Why isn't their punishment for trying to pass treasonous laws.
Because the people who would have to enact the law are the same people that would be punished by it.
However the Constitution doesn't bar congress from creating different crimes which have the death penalty. I've always wondered why it doesn't define murder and treason then limit the death penalty to those.
Is your ex Jonathan Swift?
I feel perfectly safe at home in the US too. Unless you are arguing that outlawing weapons is good because it makes people feel safer than it doesn't matter. Instead the question is if outlawing weapons makes people actually safer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
According to that page the homicide rate in the US is 5.4 per 100,000, while the UK is 2.03. The US has 2.66 times more homicides per person than the UK. However, the US state of New Hampshire has only 1.4. NH probably has the least restrictive gun laws in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
In other words there isn't much correlation between gun laws and homicide rates.
Whose responsibility should it be to select a religion for those children?
Maybe you were being sarcastic, but I think it's pretty obvious it should be the child's choice to select a religion.
He probably doesn't know any identifying information (car number), or possibly even the town of the cop in the second example. I'm sure that a complaint that some random cop was breaking a traffic law would investigated fully.
That's the problem, that it's so common place for police to disregard the law that it just accepted.