The point is that Fukushima's location isn't very good. Ocean cooling might be easier, but finding another cooling solution is a better answer than risking a tsunami. It's unclear whether we knew that before or after the disaster. As for sea walls, I don't think they work - Tsunamis wrap around whole islands, I'm reasonably sure the generators would have been useless with or without a seawall.

I get that Fukushima isn't as bad as Chernobyl, but you can't look at the damage it has caused and say that everything worked as intended, or that this was an acceptable risk. There's a lot more to worry about from Fukushima than just medical problems, including serious economic disruption. There is a 12 mile exclusion zone - how many people have been displaced, and how long before they can return. What's the clean up cost? And probably most significant, there is the social impact - I'm all for education, and actual information on the scope of the medical risk from this radiation release can only be helpful, but if you ever want to see another nuclear power plant built in your lifetime, the message can't be that the disaster wasn't that bad, so we don't need to take any remedial actions. And for whatever reason, people just won't believe you if you tell them that the above-background Cs-137 in their spinach isn't a health risk - I don't care how many toxicological studies you have.

We have to take something away from this, people in policy positions need to be communicating that this won't happen again. From what I've read, the most sensible thing to do is explain that Fukushima was struck by two disasters, either of which it could have withstood, but together overwhelmed the safeguards. Therefore, now that we've recognized this failure mode, we are taking safeguards to prevent it from happening again. That means (1) designing/retrofitting reactors in seismic areas to withstand 9.0 magnitude quakes, (2) not building reactors in areas that can be struck by both large magnitude quakes and tsunamis, and (3) changing SOP so that if the reactor needs to be vented, it will be vented directly into the atmosphere and not into the containment building (and explaining that the N-13 that spiked the radiation detector is of no risk to anyone who isn't sitting on top of the vent pipe.)

If the tsunami hadn't washed away the generators this would be almost a non-issue. Just don't build plants on tsunami prone sea shores. Had Fukashima been one mile inland, it would have been much more manageable.

They screwed up venting the the reactor into the containment building because they were afraid of needles moving on radiation detectors half a mile away. They though they were doing good PR, buying time for very short half-life isotopes to decay, but instead they got an explosion. From a structural point of view it doesn't matter, but from a practical point of view it is harder to work in a building in which there has been a recent explosion than one that hasn't. Oh, and the PR backfired, explosions suck more than temporary radiation spikes.

The pressure had to be vented, and they made the wrong call.

The story of Fukashima is don't build nuclear plants in places that can get hit by both an earthquake and a tsunami. Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe in theory, where all the jurors are rational actors who carefully weigh the evidence.

In reality, where things like race play a major part in jury votes, you're asking for majoritarian tyranny.

In a large portion of trials, especially high profile cases, there will be some evidence that the average person would not understand. That's what expert witnesses are for, not jury selection.

If you are charged with insider trading, you're not entitled to a jury of accountants, MBAs, and I-bankers. You get the same "average" jury as everyone else. Then both sides call experts who explain the technical details in a way a lay person can understand. There is an art to presenting the "right" amount of technical information so that the jury understands the crime, without becoming bored. So, consequently experts who can explain complicated material to lay persons who may or may not have any interest in the topic without sounding condescending, boring, over the top command very high fees.

Even in mundane cases like "possession with intent to distribute" the words don't always comport to a lay understanding. E.g. "Intent" has very little to do with future plans.

So ... is civil rights legislation constitutional? What about privacy based legislation? Under what enumerated power? Do you want privacy and civil rights legislation to be enacted? Do you want your congresscritter weighing his salary against the likelihood that Scalia will be able to round up 4 other Justices to say that the government can extrodiarily render you unto Algeria? That the police can scan your house with FLIR? That they can attach a GPS to your car w/o a warrant?

As a practical matter, no one has ever taken "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" absolutely. As evidence, see the Alien and Sedition Act which (was almost certainly unconstitutional) was passed and signed by a substantial number of framers, and the universally (in legal circles at least) accepted position that Congress can make laws abridging things like libel, slander, fighting words, and obscenity.

Also, unless you're standing next to Ayn Rand you look like the biggest fool in the room if you stake out the position that congress cannot regulate the disclosure of classified information. There are legitimate debates that can be had of the extent and type of material the gov't can classify, but under any serious analysis, Diplomatic Cables will be covered.

Next, this bill tries to avoid the ex post facto problem by claiming to "clarify" existing law. A court will have to decide whether existing law could plausibly be read to include what this bill says it included. I'd put my money on the fact that existing espionage statutes always have extended this far.

Finally, and most importantly, is the question of who disclosed the information. There is a very, very solid argument that under the Pentagon Papers case the the gov't won't be able to meet its burden of proof against Assange, but it is important to note that (a) Pentagon Papers did NOT say that classified information can published with impunity, and (b) the Roberts court is very different from the Burger court. There can be no (serious) doubt that the gov't can bring down the hammer on whoever leaked these documents, the only question is if they can go after the publisher.

The CRA governs Fannie and Freddie, which I'm not denying are problematic, but it doesn't govern Countrywide financial, New Century, Morgan Stanley, HSBC, and H&R block, and all those other private companies that accounted for the vast majority of the sub-prime mess.

Here are some quick numbers. The maximum notional value of the subprime market was ~$1.3 trillion in March 2007.
Fannie and Freddie combined held a maximum of ~$350 billion in subprime mortgage assets.
This means that entities not governed by the CRA held ~$1 trillion in sub-prime assets.

Also realize that if the US mortgage market had only lost $1 - 1.5 trillion in value, we'd be in pretty good shape right now. What really happened is that through a series of clever investments wall street turned a $1.3 trillion market into a $10 trillion market by packaging, selling, repackaging, and reselling bad loans. If you want to know who'd fault the current fiasco is, I suggest you look for the guy who placed a $10 trillion bet on a $1.3 trillion dollar market.

The problem with that sentiment is that the wars have actually helped technology evolve

Not exactly. It can be argued that the threat of war or the buildup to war spurs technological advancement, but war itself tends to shift all resources to production. The most notable exception is of course the a-bomb, but there's a couple of big caveats on that. First E=mc^2 predated WWII be a bit and presaged the era of nuclear power. Second a-bombs are of dubious value to society, and third, actual nuclear power only got off the ground after the war.

Now the cold war moved technology along at quite a pace, but again, I'd call that preparation or build-up. If it became a hot war, we'd be less interested in sending a man to the moon, and more interested in building tanks and planes that we had already developed.

I don't have the context, so I'm half guessing here, but what I think she means by "choices made by the American people" is legislative choices made by popularly elected representatives." In other words stock boilerplate I won't be an activist judge (whatever that means).

They are both rather broad powers that gives Congress a central power to pass laws in accordance to the constitution. It basically does as it says, lets Congress regulate trade and let congress pass laws needed at the time in accordance to the constitution.

Those two powers by themselves can be read to give congress such sweeping authority as to render the 10th amendment moot. It can quite reasonably be argued that the line the founders intended to draw in the 18th century is not the law that they would have intended to draw today, after all the key word, commerce, has been completely revolutionized since then. So no points for "plain meaning" here, and sorting out where the line ought to be is complicated and does a fantastic job of negating your original point, that the meaning of the constitution is "clear." For instance, does a commodity like corn (or marijuana) that is grown, sold and consumed all in one state effect interstate commerce and hence fall under federal purview? Well it certainly effects the price of that commodity not just locally, but internationally.

The Constitution provides several limits on the government's power collectively they form a right to privacy. There is no listed "right" of anonymity, but when the rest of the constitution is preserved, the ability to be anonymous is also preserved.

Your explanation already doesn't seem clear. Is my choice of birth control protected by constitutional guarantees of privacy? What about a woman's right to seek an abortion? Can I (a white man) marry a black woman? Have sex with a man? Were all of these things "clear" in the meaning of the constitution?

Then there's the minutia. What exactly is a "naturally born citizen?"

Someone born in the US or to people of US decent.

Really? So if a couple emigrated to China, lived there for decades, had a child there, raised him there, and he returned at age 30, he'd be eligible to be president at age 44? I don't think so. In reality "natural born citizen" is one of the most ill defined phrases in the entire document.

I think when it comes to the marriage issue we have to step back and really wonder why the hell the state is defining our relationships in the first place. And then determine that question later :P

I agree with the sentiment, but states have been recognizing and awarding benefits to marriage since before this nation's founding, and I don't think it's about to change any time soon. With that in mind, it seems "clear" to me that the full faith and credit clause mandates all states to recognize all marriages legally granted by any state, the federal defense of marriage act notwithstanding. On the other hand, I'm afraid I'm in the minority on that position, so maybe it isn't as "clear" as it ought to be.

Yeah?

(establishment)
Can congress give money to a religiously run school?
Can you have public prayer in public schools? How about moments of silence for religious reflection?
Can a public school teach creationism?
Is congress allowed to authorize the placement of a christian cross on public land? If they do, do they have to authorize the placement of a summum pyramid?

(free exercise)
Can congress mandate that women aren't allowed to wear face-coverings in government jobs generally? What about jobs that require interaction with the public? What about jobs involving the use of heavy machinery? What about soldiers?

(press)
Can congress force journalists to reveal their sources in testimony?
Can congress forbit the publication of details sensitive to national security? Troop movements?

(assembly)
Can congress mandate that your demonstration requires a permit?
Can they give permits to some groups but not others?
What kind of fee can be charged for a permit?
How close to private property can I assemble?
Can I obstruct through traffic? For how long?

(speech - my favorite)
Can congress ban dangerous speech?
Libelous speech?
Obscene speech?
Fraudulent speech?
Deceptive commercial speech?
Corporate political speech?
The speech of members of the armed services?
Speech carried over public airwaves?
Speech in public schools?
Is wearing a black armband speech? What about carrying a poster?
Does the right of free speech extend to public areas of privately property?

Hey - what's that thing called that a judge/justice issues that explains how they decided a case before them?

I'm having an awful hard time figuring out what your beef with that quote is (it is a quote right?)

She doesn't say anything about limited or expansive government (here) and sentence one of the two sentence quote directly addresses your concern over tyranny.

Right...

The constitution is deliberately ambiguous on a number of extremely important points, because like all other political things the constitutional congress passed the buck on the hard issues of the day.

Do you really think that the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause are clear? Because if you do you'd be the only one.

Does the second amendment guarantee a individual or collective right to keep and bear arms?
Does the constitution grant a right to privacy? What about anonymity?
Can a state secede from the union? (I think this was a pretty big deal a while ago)

Then there's the minutia. What exactly is a "naturally born citizen?"
On which side of the cruel and unusual line does prison overcrowding fall?
Does full faith and credit mean that Utah has to recognize gay couples married in California?