I've heard of this happening as well. It's why I believe that the most important election anyone can vote in is for Judges. Judges decide what police are allowed to do and that will affect your life more than any Federal and even most State policies.
They tried this in Florida for DUI checkpoints. Refusing a search was sufficient to make you "suspicious". They have a judge on site and everything.
Depends on how silly the charge is. In the case in the article, it wasn't silly. Even if they threaten to arrest you, then you should still deny permission because a search can only hurt you.
The only real question remaining is whether to rely on the courts or vigilante justice to correct the police.
There's no right to view a video on the internet.
"It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."
-- James Madison
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Plenty of countries would destroy the US in a direct war. North Korea, China, Iran are the three most prominent. Your statement should be "the US will never go to with a country that can defend itself." Which is why we will never go to war with the above countries.
It's not even fair to call what the US has been doing "war". When the other side doesn't hit back, it's just bullying. You can claim the US is a war when you have to worry about dying while eating dinner with your family. If the US were to attack a country that is willing to fight back, the illusion would end very quickly and be replaced with panic.
But this tends to be the result of people needed alpha leaders and looking for a singular scapegoat. It wouldn't have been any better if they had picked anyone else, it is simply away to avoid reasoning.
This story has been making the rounds since the weekend, and now slashdot gets around to it?
No wonder this site is going into the toilet and readership drying up.
If that's what it takes to get the "gotta have the latest news RIGHT NOW!" crowd to leave, then I'm all for it.
Do you think slaves were happy?
Slaves aren't free to change jobs, so they aren't a counter example.
What about feudal serfs?
Feudal serfs aren't free to own land, so they aren't a counter example.
Or pre-unionized steel workers?
Steel was a monopolized industry (as are many natural resources), so steel workers aren't free to start their own steel industry, so they aren't a counter example.
Or the children working in textile factories?
Most of the countries you speak of, to start a factory you have to be friends with the local authorities, so there isn't freedom of competition there either. And an aside, we happen to have the highest (or close to it) teenage unemployment rate in the history of the world.
There are good counter examples to some common libertarian arguments, especially such as the scarcity of natural resources becoming more and more significant. However, the general libertarian argument that greater prosperity comes from greater freedom is still so historically well observed that counter-examples like the above fall apart after even the smallest amount of consideration.
With regard to this specific thread, placing more and more regulatory burdens on employers only serves to reduce the number of employers, which reduces the choices of the employees. Yes, it is possibly that there may be other artificial restrictions, such as the government-born monopolies that were mentioned above, on employers that make individual regulatory burdens less significant. But the better policy is to remove both obstructions, not to impose more.
The universe is most likely infinite.
Unless you consider Olber's Paradox, which is asks the question "why is it dark at night?". The simplest explanation is that the universe is finite. If it were in fact infinite, it would have to be decreasing in density faster than n^-1 (if my quick estimate of exponents is correct).
It still remains to establish that the California State Constitution enumerates the powers of regulation of education, which it almost certainly does. The tenth amendment doesn't enumerate state powers, it merely reserves them for the states to enumerate if they decide to.
There are something like 300mil+ people in the US. If Bush and Obama had never existed, 2 others who are exactly like them would have been voted into office and done the same thing.
The problem isn't Bush or Obama; keep looking.
What this person did doesn't require a lab, or anything that any of us don't have available. A strange sound was heard, and instead of going "hey I wonder what's on TV", the signal was sanitized, it's purpose guessed and then verified to be something understandable by anyone.
This isn't awesome because it accomplishes something. It's great because it was done for no reason at all. More stories like this please, and anyone who doesn't like it should find one of the million other websites that don't appreciate aimless-but-interesting tinkering.
... areas uninhabited and consisting of inhospitable jungle that were used by the NVA to move men and materiel.
...who were not a threat to the US at all...
If we lived in a police state - they wouldn't be allowed to talk about the requests at all.
Well, since the requests come with gag orders, what's your next rationalization?
Judges rule on matters of law, juries on facts of the case. If it's overturned by a judge, that means there was some legal problem with the first trial.
That depends on what State you are in. For example, in the State Georgia, it is explicitly written into the State Constitution that jurors may rule on matters of law as well.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
