I agree with Oliver here, but I think he sorta missed an opportunity to talk about confirming exactly who our US Constitutional protections should apply to.

It has been all-to-common in the past decade-plus for people / bodies in our government to "justify" questionable actions by saying that they were performed on people who aren't US citizens. Detain and torture suspected (or *known*) terrorists indefinitely without trial? That's fine, they aren't citizens. Send drone strikes against people outside of US borders that we suspect may be aiding terrorists, even though collateral damage is likely? Meh, they aren't Americans. Spy on people, record and intercept their communications to the greatest extent possible without a warrant or probable cause? Never mind -- we're not doing it to our own citizens (even though we now know that even that justification is an outright lie).

It would be nice for the government to take a stand and state that ALL of the protections that are granted by our constitution and have made our country what it is should actually be considered universal and binding in terms of how our government interacts with ALL people, not just US citizens.

Freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, fair trial, no unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. etc. Consistently and universally applied whenever the government has any interaction with any human being on the planet -- inside or outside of US soil, and whether that person is a US Citizen or not.

I suppose it would take a constitutional amendment to codify that. That would require 2/3 support in congress -- so I won't hold my breath. But here is where a president with true leadership could step up and say that whether there is an official amendment codifying that or not, every government office under his (or her) command should behave as though that was law. All the 3-letter agencies, the military, etc. I think that would get the ball rolling and make an amendment possible on down the line.

Our constitutional protections are arguably what made our country great. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by proving that to the rest of the world by actually standing by the courage of our own convictions.

Why? There's no reason to do something overly complex when something simple works. I think some people think that companies do random "evil" shit just for kicks. It is all about efficiency and money. Potatoes are cheap as hell, and processing them like this is really efficient. There would be no reason to go and do something overly complex and use other products. It is really easy to cut a potato in to fry shape.

If you want to see it happen, go to a In n' Out. There they take the potatoes and stick them in a little hand press device and when they push down, a pile of uncooked fries comes out the other end. Same concept as the water knife, just not a big assembly line process.

When you are talking cheap food preparation they keep it as simple as possible because the keeps it cheap. If anything is added, there's a reason like the Dextrose (which is just a sugar).

"Not so meaningless now, is it? ;-)"

Well, it's now off topic, but still equally detached from the statement that followed.


I could say "because kids sports helps child development, the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to bear sports equipment".

So, would it then be that only sports teams can have sports equipment? Only children? Only young children?
Or how about people (i.e. multiple persons) can bare sports equipment, just so if/when they want to teach their kids to play and put them on a team, they have that ability?

Honestly, it sounds more like a rule that is in place to preserve a specific capacity, and less like a rule in place to assign a restricted use.
Otherwise, it would make more sense to replace 'the people' with 'kids sports teams' and make it particular to a restricted use. There's no need to even mention the people.




Ok, I think we read around each other.

I though that earlier you had said that Hamilton was in opposition to the idea of the lesser "1-2x a year assembly instead of military style education" - which confused me because I thought that Hamilton was in favor of a "1-2x a year assembly instead of military style education".
And now I see you actually meant the same thing I wrote.

-scheherazade

Note that the only reason to include the "motivation" at all is for it to be used to interpret the "rule".

"to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions (read evaluations), as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"

So even those dissenting were fairly clear that to be "well regulated" in the popular parlance of the day requires training and at least twice yearly evaluations....and for that, regulations governing and delineating that training and evaluating.
Hamilton was dissenting, saying 1) that in his opinion EVERY citizen would be in the militia 2) that making that militia 'well regulated' was too much of a burden if it fell on every citizen and 3) that he thinks gun owners should have to assemble twice a year (at least) to prove that they are properly armed and equipped (and tested for basic proficiency), NOT be forced to be "well regulated" which would mean MORE training and testing than only twice a year. SO, if you used his more lax criteria (and we don't) there would be bi-yearly proficiency testing and firearm inspections for EVERY gun owner. I think people would LOVE that to be the case, but his idea didn't rule the day, so it's not law.

(I edited, and some stuff pertains to your reply)

Regarding well regulated, here's the sauce :
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment is 2 part.
1st the motivation for why the rule exists, 2nd the rule.

The rule exists, whether or not the motivation is provided (and it's nice of them to provide context - but not necessary).

Even if regulation was meant in the modern sense, it would not change the fact that the rule does not depend on the motivating factors.

But if you insist on motivational prerequisite, here's Hamilton regarding individual right to bear :

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "
[etc]

(That last sentence - there's your training requirement, tee hee. Not only that, but that they should assemble people 1-2 times a year to make sure that everyone is armed and equipped. That's more than an individual right to bear, that's an individual requirement to bear. Let's just be happy with it being a right.)


Laws are supposed to be updated by new laws via representative legislators (who may need to be coerced via protest facilitated by freedom of assembly).
Or challenged by juries (i.e. citizens, i.e. members of the state) via jury nullification (i.e. direct state democracy). That's why there are juries. You need direct state involvement so that the legal system can not run amok independent of state sanction. It's not just for some group consensus.
The system was architected to give the state influence, so that government can't run off and act in an independent non-democratic manner.

-scheherazade

The role is to interpret whether or not actions are in compliance with the written law - not to interpret new meanings/definitions of the law.

Changing definitions within a law alters the law, rewrites it, which makes it legislative activity. That's outside of judicial scope.

You can summarize the thought pattern as : "We know the law says this one thing, but we think this other thing should apply, so instead of waiting for a change to the law [so that it will apply], we will just say it applies already, even though it's not written."

It's sheer laziness, complacency, and acceptance that allows that sort of activity to be. It also creates a minefield of possible offenses that are not created by elected representatives, and are not documented in any way that would allow a person to avoid violation.




You are forgetting the current laws that restrict gun ownership. Not anyone can own a gun - even though the 2nd makes no exceptions. Laws that violate constitutional law are left to stand all the time, simply because people are ok with it.



The constitution also denies the government the authority to limit assembly - but that freedom has been interpreted to be secondary. It is in practice restricted by a permit process that makes any non-approved assembly subject to government disbandment.
It's supposed to allow people (i.e. the state) to communicate, organize, and form a disruptive group that is able to cause enough disruption to the government that the state can force a disobedient government to behave - without having to resort to violence.
But, because people are universally inconvenienced by folks that are protesting about things they don't care about, they would rather the government keep those folks out of their way. So freedom of assembly goes to the wayside.


Basically, the 'system' takes the law only as seriously as is convenient. When it's useful to be literal, it's treated literal. When it's useful to be twisted, it's twisted. It's just whatever is useful/convenient/populist/etc to the people executing the process.




Eminent is not a word you would use on today's parlance to say that something is obvious.

Ask most people what eminent domain is, and they will recite a legal concept. Ask them what the words themselves mean, and most will draw a blank. Few will say 'it is a domain that sticks-out'.

The point was just to illustrate how things change regarding how people express themselves. It's not strange to hear someone describe something as 'well adjusted'. But if they said 'well regulated' instead, you would think they mean something else. You wouldn't think that they are just speaking in 1700's English.

Imagine writing a law that states that only 'well adjusted' people are allowed to drive cars. Then imagine 200 years from now, 'adjustment' is a reference to genetic engineering. You'll end up with people arguing that only well genetically engineered people can drive.

-scheherazade

@ahimsa

seriously?
quoting to rebutt an obvious sarcastic comment?
is it that hard to even attempt to be even a tad original?
do you REALLY think i am promoting actual violence?
really?
and you respond with a level of pretentious twattery that you should be ashamed of.

are you even remotely aware you literally made my point on how some vegans lack the basic self-awareness to realize they are being massive hypocrites and tools?

you trot out those tired,and boring,self-effacing morality/ethics tropes as if they were written on mount sinai,and then have the audacity to not even own your own egocentric bullshit.

jesus..vegans are such intolerable pussies.

because YOUR vegan philosophy is egocentricism on narcissistic steroids,and you lack the basic self-awareness to even have the skills to acknowledge that you are literally smelling your own farts,and calling it wisdom.

there is another vegan on this site that i really wish would put his two cents in,because he at least is aware of the hypocrisy and is an absolute delight to engage with.

but YOU...
self-awareness may be too tall an order it seems.
as you rant and rail against the inhumanity and suffering of the agri-animal on a fucking machine that 10 yr olds assembled to put together in a country where they dont even have the most basic of necessities met.

sitting at a desk dressed in clothes that ANOTHER 8 yr old sewed together,working 18 hr days at 23 cents an hr and is beaten if she slacks,is late..or complains.

the list of human oppression,slave labor and human trafficking that YOU benefit from is legion,and your lack of your own hubris,privilege and hypocrisy is,quite frankly,offensive.

so you can sit there in your own little smug fart cloud and self-righteously condemn the rest of us for choosing to enjoy bacon and convince yourself of your own superior morality and purity of ethics,but the reality is this:

you don't give two fucks.
you are an over-privileged,over indulged little shit and is no better nor worse than the rest of who travel through this life..making our own choices and being responsible for them.

the ONLY thing you truly care about is your little habitat and how others behavior affects your tiny,precious little world.so you go ahead an be a vegan for "moral" and "ethical" reasons,because it gives you the "feel goods".

and i say this with all humanity and honesty:
if you are vegan for moral and ethical reasons,then good for you mate.you made a conscious choice and have stuck to it.bravo my friend.

but don't try to push your own little inane philosophy on the rest of us.we may be assholes for eating meat,but at least we are not hypocritical,contradictory assholes.

now if you want to discuss the benefits of a vegan diet.
great...i am down.
if you wish to share why being a vegan for YOU is a philosophy that works for YOU and is a choice YOU made...then great.i love understanding why people chose to do what they do.

but if you keep attempting to make this purely a morality and ethical dilemma,while ignoring YOUR own philosophical and moral inconsistencies.

well..then we have nothing more to speak about.
enjoy the smell of your own farts.

/cockpunched

Oh man, that reminds me of coding EGA and VGA graphics using assembly code back in college! I think I still have a reference book for that somewhere.

Well, it may look more complex than it is.
We made these in my first year 3D Sculpture class in Art school.
We used Foam-core, cardboard and paper, but the concept was the same. Creating a multi-layered image that expands out in 3D but when viewed straight-on can be viewed as 2D.

What he has here is no so much as a puzzle as it is, assembled.

Huh, never thought of that. So true...and I will add to this. In the past jobs in service have been able to absorb people into it to take up the loss of jobs (Say in agriculture and such.) So when Henry Ford made his assembly line, jobs were created pretty much everywhere. Restaurants are but one great example of this.

But with the techno revolution, the service sector was already pretty full. Now it is saturated. If I see one more new gas station down here in Florida, or another restaurant open, it will be too soon. I remember TWO, TWO Starbucks in the same mall. Such a false economy...

Now add automation and boom...

the problem is the primaries. Primaries are just simply a shitty system. End of story. The primaries are run by the RNC and the DNC and they don't give a fuck about your vote. The RNC wants anyone but Trump. Trump will not get the nod unless they make some behind the scenes deal that we never hear about. The DNC wants Hillary and it doesn't matter how popular Bernie is.

The RNC/DNC are private organizations and there is no law whatsoever that they are beholden to us.

As the founders warned...parties are bad. I'm not going to tell you that they're equally bad, because that's stupid...but they are both bad.

Reince Priebus and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are the problem and both organizations need to be dissolved, but the Constitution does protect the right to assemble. The person is supposed to matter..not party..not money. Maybe an amendment could be created banning political parties somehow, but insanely difficult to enforce. A lot of shit would go away if we got rid of money in elections though and made them 100 percent publicly funded. It's so much bullshit that we spend so much money on elections in the Internet age.

Just give each candidate their own website...no fancy ads or graphics..just a fucking open source free wiki site where each candidate can put whatever they want on it so people can visit and judge for themselves. Elections are not fucking reality TV shows. This should be a no-brainer.

Your video, Assembling Transistor Radios 1955, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The show is fake, nobody is being tricked, the people are cast. The "illusions" are assembled from multiple takes by an editor. They don't even hide the cameras.

Oops. I misread that after reading http://videosift.com/video/22x22-final-assembly-livestream-sad-sad-ending#comment-1923846 ... You said SECONDS. I failed. I told Dag and Lucky760 to add non-second YouTube URL parameters.

Thought you might appreciate this guys disgust with this piece of equipments assembly. I got a kick out of it and im not even sure just how doggy it is. It sure does look like a mess. https://youtu.be/2o8MDCIlOEk