Yes, but if it got to the Supreme Court, then (unless the Court decided to be perverse and ignored its previous rulings), they'd get their gold or silver coin. Just because a particular State might ignore that clause doesn't mean it's been ignored by case law.
Can you cite any instances of someone demanding this (whether or not they got it, with or without a fight)? I'm not saying it's unimportant even if nobody ever demanded it, I just want to know how big of a problem this is, since your original premise is that people ignore the Constitution willy-nilly, and then you cited what must be just about the least important clause in the entire document.
The idea that democracy sucks and representation rules is true, insofar as you're talking about deciding policy. Someone still has to do that policy deciding, and those are the representatives. How do we pick the representatives? Popular vote.
Why should the Presidency be an exception? How exactly does the Electoral College help us pick better presidents?
When the US abolished gold standard in 1971 and the dollar became "fiat money [about.com]", all State tax-refunds, welfare payments, salaries of the State-employees, etc. became unarguably unconstitutional.
So I'm wondering, is this your own interpretation, or are you basing this on something? Because there've been a number of Supreme Court cases on that exact issue, and they've determined that what the clause means is that states can't insist on paying with a bank draft if a debtor insists on gold or silver, but there's nothing that says that a debtor can't *choose* to accept a bank draft instead.
This was more true before 2008. In 2008, Obama won 36 counties and McCain won 25. In the House races, Democrats won all but three districts in New York state.
And for those unfortunate souls who are bereft of the sense of touch? What then, you insensitive clod?!
Hm, I suppose the camera could be required to drip a taste-producing chemical on their tongues. "Hm, butterscotch followed by asparagus... oh no! A pervert is taking pictures of me!... and feeding me chemicals..."
10. Passed an executive order banning ex-White House personnel from lobbying the White House until after Obama is out of office
Please keep in mind that that particular Executive Order has a provision for waiving this rule if the director of the OMB asks for it. Here's the (entire) waiver section of the Executive Order:
Sec. 3. Waiver.
(a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, in consultation with the Counsel to the President or his or her designee, may grant to any current or former appointee a written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such appointee if, and to the extent that, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, certifies in writing (i) that the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction, or (ii) that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver. A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget or his or her designee.
(b) The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy. De minimis contact with an executive agency shall be cause for a waiver of the restrictions contained in paragraph 3 of the pledge.
So basically, only the Director of the OMB can grant it; but the Director is appointed by the President (and confirmed by the Senate). So no, this is not a blanket ban on anyone who's worked as a lobbyist in the past two years. (In some areas, there may not be any good candidates who haven't done any lobbying work recently.)
It's not trivial to get around the restriction, but on the other hand it's not all that difficult, either.
I don't expect this to be abused to our detriment, but all of us need to keep an eye on it. It's just as much, if not more, in the interest of Democrats to keep Obama honest, as it is for Republicans.
I hope it's as simple as changing what word the government uses to refer to what they currently call "marriage." Somehow I think the bigotry underlying this whole debacle won't go away just because we stop using that word in a legal context.
So your problem is with the use of the word "marriage"... yet I'd bet dollars to donuts that you've used that word to refer to something besides the holy union of a man and woman before the eyes of some god or other. "He's married to his job," "It's a marriage between the marketing and sales departments," etc.
And, not to be too blunt, but who are you to decide that I can't call the union between two atheists "marriage"? My wife and I had a wedding ceremony attended by a hundred of our family and friends, performed by a friend of ours (in California, any adult can legally solemnize a marriage, as long as you have two witnesses; you don't need to be an ordained minister or have a license or any such nonsense). We now have two kids and a house in the 'burbs. And because we're atheists, we can't call what we have "marriage" according to you?
Frankly, if you're that obsessed with the word "marriage," you need to rethink your priorities. I think most of us can manage the mental distinction between "married before the eyes of God" and "married in the opinion of the state government".
So it is OK for a state to discriminate against a group of people?
In general? Yes. Many states have laws prohibiting convicted felons from voting, for example. Most (probably all) states have laws requiring that anyone practicing medicine have a medical degree, which discriminates against the poor. Conversely, there are a lot of laws that allow certain groups advantages over others (such as the poor, minorities, etc.) Those laws discriminate against people who are not in those groups. And (in general) there's nothing wrong with that, although you can always argue whether any particular law is a good idea, but to argue that the government should never discriminate at all is absurd.
What's not okay is discriminating against a group people for reasons that have no compelling state interest. If 99% of Californians think the law should say that Armenians should be expelled from California, that's not okay, because the state has no interest in doing such a thing.
Laws that favor one group for a particular purpose or reason are quite common and, really, unremarkable in general.
...I don't understand. Why name Chrome using the same word as something that has a specific technical meaning not just in regards to programs in general, but specifically to another popular web browser? It'd be like naming a program Folder or Library. There's no plausible way the Chrome developers were unaware of the other usage of the word, so did they just think it was a cool name and figure it wouldn't confuse most people? Or were they trying to specifically trade on the existing meaning of the word? It seems unlikely there's any malice behind it. I can't think of any other explanations, though surely there must be some.
I know it comes as a shock to all you fifteen year olds, but IP law is simpler than "Cory Doctorow says I can give my stuff away and copyright is bad!"
If you're still using the "left-right" model as your basis for political thought, you need a refresher course in reality, where political beliefs cannot be plotted along a one-dimensional line.
Right! Because they both happened to vote for one particular bad idea, therefore they're indistinguishable and no matter which one got elected, it would not have made one whit of difference in what happens in the future.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but I don't think it's accurate to say that wind is "inefficient". Wind power is quite efficient, it's just that the total amount of power we can get from wind isn't nearly enough to satisfy demand. Modern wind generators pay back their costs in a few years (if they're situated in a windy enough area).
Wind isn't likely to ever be able to provide more than a few percent of the energy we need. Anyone who says that wind is *the* answer is wrong, for this simple fact. But there's no reason wind can't be part of our energy production.
(note: I didn't write this, it's a classic meta-troll)
The "Moon": A ridiculous liberal myth
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt.45 and a.38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Ah, yes, the GIFT (Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory). I predict that in time, it'll simply come to be known as Gabriel's Gift, much like Occam's Razor (or, for those of you so inclined, Diax's Rake).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but if it got to the Supreme Court, then (unless the Court decided to be perverse and ignored its previous rulings), they'd get their gold or silver coin. Just because a particular State might ignore that clause doesn't mean it's been ignored by case law.
Can you cite any instances of someone demanding this (whether or not they got it, with or without a fight)? I'm not saying it's unimportant even if nobody ever demanded it, I just want to know how big of a problem this is, since your original premise is that people ignore the Constitution willy-nilly, and then you cited what must be just about the least important clause in the entire document.
The idea that democracy sucks and representation rules is true, insofar as you're talking about deciding policy. Someone still has to do that policy deciding, and those are the representatives. How do we pick the representatives? Popular vote.
Why should the Presidency be an exception? How exactly does the Electoral College help us pick better presidents?
When the US abolished gold standard in 1971 and the dollar became "fiat money [about.com]", all State tax-refunds, welfare payments, salaries of the State-employees, etc. became unarguably unconstitutional.
So I'm wondering, is this your own interpretation, or are you basing this on something? Because there've been a number of Supreme Court cases on that exact issue, and they've determined that what the clause means is that states can't insist on paying with a bank draft if a debtor insists on gold or silver, but there's nothing that says that a debtor can't *choose* to accept a bank draft instead.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause#Legal_Tender and http://supreme.justia.com/us/262/649/case.html.
This was more true before 2008. In 2008, Obama won 36 counties and McCain won 25. In the House races, Democrats won all but three districts in New York state.
Excellent tool for looking at electoral results: http://scoreboard.dailykos.com/map/
Correct. So what?
Except, no, showing everything as flagged wasn't a deliberate, intentional failsafe design feature; it was the actual error caused by a human.
And for those unfortunate souls who are bereft of the sense of touch? What then, you insensitive clod?!
Hm, I suppose the camera could be required to drip a taste-producing chemical on their tongues. "Hm, butterscotch followed by asparagus... oh no! A pervert is taking pictures of me!... and feeding me chemicals..."
I don't think I like where this is going.
10. Passed an executive order banning ex-White House personnel from lobbying the White House until after Obama is out of office
Please keep in mind that that particular Executive Order has a provision for waiving this rule if the director of the OMB asks for it. Here's the (entire) waiver section of the Executive Order:
Sec. 3. Waiver.
(a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, in consultation with the Counsel to the President or his or her designee, may grant to any current or former appointee a written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such appointee if, and to the extent that, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, certifies in writing (i) that the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction, or (ii) that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver. A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget or his or her designee.
(b) The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy. De minimis contact with an executive agency shall be cause for a waiver of the restrictions contained in paragraph 3 of the pledge.
So basically, only the Director of the OMB can grant it; but the Director is appointed by the President (and confirmed by the Senate). So no, this is not a blanket ban on anyone who's worked as a lobbyist in the past two years. (In some areas, there may not be any good candidates who haven't done any lobbying work recently.)
It's not trivial to get around the restriction, but on the other hand it's not all that difficult, either.
I don't expect this to be abused to our detriment, but all of us need to keep an eye on it. It's just as much, if not more, in the interest of Democrats to keep Obama honest, as it is for Republicans.
I hope it's as simple as changing what word the government uses to refer to what they currently call "marriage." Somehow I think the bigotry underlying this whole debacle won't go away just because we stop using that word in a legal context.
So your problem is with the use of the word "marriage"... yet I'd bet dollars to donuts that you've used that word to refer to something besides the holy union of a man and woman before the eyes of some god or other. "He's married to his job," "It's a marriage between the marketing and sales departments," etc.
And, not to be too blunt, but who are you to decide that I can't call the union between two atheists "marriage"? My wife and I had a wedding ceremony attended by a hundred of our family and friends, performed by a friend of ours (in California, any adult can legally solemnize a marriage, as long as you have two witnesses; you don't need to be an ordained minister or have a license or any such nonsense). We now have two kids and a house in the 'burbs. And because we're atheists, we can't call what we have "marriage" according to you?
Frankly, if you're that obsessed with the word "marriage," you need to rethink your priorities. I think most of us can manage the mental distinction between "married before the eyes of God" and "married in the opinion of the state government".
So it is OK for a state to discriminate against a group of people?
In general? Yes. Many states have laws prohibiting convicted felons from voting, for example. Most (probably all) states have laws requiring that anyone practicing medicine have a medical degree, which discriminates against the poor. Conversely, there are a lot of laws that allow certain groups advantages over others (such as the poor, minorities, etc.) Those laws discriminate against people who are not in those groups. And (in general) there's nothing wrong with that, although you can always argue whether any particular law is a good idea, but to argue that the government should never discriminate at all is absurd.
What's not okay is discriminating against a group people for reasons that have no compelling state interest. If 99% of Californians think the law should say that Armenians should be expelled from California, that's not okay, because the state has no interest in doing such a thing.
Laws that favor one group for a particular purpose or reason are quite common and, really, unremarkable in general.
Aren't you be glad that you'd finally be able to create life without the services of a woman?
So you're asking if he'd like to not have sex, and yet be saddled with the responsibility of raising a child anyway?
...I don't understand. Why name Chrome using the same word as something that has a specific technical meaning not just in regards to programs in general, but specifically to another popular web browser? It'd be like naming a program Folder or Library. There's no plausible way the Chrome developers were unaware of the other usage of the word, so did they just think it was a cool name and figure it wouldn't confuse most people? Or were they trying to specifically trade on the existing meaning of the word? It seems unlikely there's any malice behind it. I can't think of any other explanations, though surely there must be some.
That'd be the Fark headline.
Excuse me! I believe the proper term is Outsourced-American.
I know it comes as a shock to all you fifteen year olds, but IP law is simpler than "Cory Doctorow says I can give my stuff away and copyright is bad!"
Er... did you mean "more complex"?
If you're still using the "left-right" model as your basis for political thought, you need a refresher course in reality, where political beliefs cannot be plotted along a one-dimensional line.
Or, if you don't want people in your car thinking you're the kind of guy who might eat their livers with a nice Chianti, you could just count to two.
(Actually, I always heard of it as the count-to-three rule.)
I can beat that: WIN+R opens up the Run dialog directly. I saved another keystroke! ;)
Right! Because they both happened to vote for one particular bad idea, therefore they're indistinguishable and no matter which one got elected, it would not have made one whit of difference in what happens in the future.
I agree with most of what you wrote, but I don't think it's accurate to say that wind is "inefficient". Wind power is quite efficient, it's just that the total amount of power we can get from wind isn't nearly enough to satisfy demand. Modern wind generators pay back their costs in a few years (if they're situated in a windy enough area).
Wind isn't likely to ever be able to provide more than a few percent of the energy we need. Anyone who says that wind is *the* answer is wrong, for this simple fact. But there's no reason wind can't be part of our energy production.
(note: I didn't write this, it's a classic meta-troll)
The "Moon": A ridiculous liberal myth
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Ah, yes, the GIFT (Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory). I predict that in time, it'll simply come to be known as Gabriel's Gift, much like Occam's Razor (or, for those of you so inclined, Diax's Rake).
the Great Space Oyster
Uh-oh. I don't think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to like this.
Is it just me, or does Paul Vixie look like the Terminator?