"Would you really start at step 1 when this is an issue which has been happening with other officers "

I'd say that "step 1" should have started a long time ago and that discipline really hasn't been enforced, so yes.

If the problem doesn't go away, then start disciplining their supervisors.

The answer isn't to go from zero to "jail" in 15 seconds for something that is most likely due to piss-poor training.

"Has anyone ever been convicted of the crime of violating the 4th Amendment? Ever?"

It doesn't really work that way. Actions taken by the government which violate the 4th amendment can be reversed and penalties applied via civil law suites. Has that happened? Yes. Countless times. If you pay federal taxes, you are helping to pay for those "mistakes".

I disagree. There should be an elevation of discipline that should start with a written warning and ending with suspension and/or loss of their job should the issue be repeated. The loss of their pension and benefits will be intensive enough to keep it from happening.

"Yeah, what it actually does is permit the flyover states to leech money from the populated states, and also permit gaming the vote."

Of course you would like to dictate cookie-cutter one-size fits all laws and regulations that would alienate that segment of the population right? Laws that dont line up with their economic/ethnic/religious interests? It's also known as a tyranny and will make governing a nation that is spread over a wide geographic area and has a varied population impossible. We're already seeing the effects in CONGRESS being locked and indecisive and you are beginning to hear the non-wack-job rumblings of session talk.

"Oh yeah, they were so against tyranny that they left back doors in the constitution that let them write new laws at will in the future."

It's statements like this which demonstrate your ignorance of the history the US and of the Constitution. Claiming you are ignorant isn't an insult -- that can be fixed. Read.

"My argument is that it worked as designed, and the design was not to prevent mob rule, but to prevent the popular vote from ruling."

Which is wrong. It was designed so that states like New York or Virginia and THEIR interests did not dominate the union over the interests of the smaller states. The interest was how to govern a varied population (both economically, ethnically and religiously) without creating a tyranny.

Again, I recommend A Constitutional Journal. Its fairly short and the author does an excellent job presenting the information to the average layman.

Why be a prat? You asked a truly irrelevant question which I ignored (rather than ridicule). I, however, corrected a factual error of yours and provided you with a suggestion to follow up should you be so inclined.

BTW, there's a strong argument argument that Nixon actually one the popular vote in the 1960 election against Kennedy -- so your answer should have an "*" by it to include that little factoid.

And why was your question irreverent? Because the system was designed so that the STATES choose a President (by popular vote), not people directly. When a candidate wins the popular vote (say, like Gore in 2000), all that means is states like California wanted him by a large percentage which over-shadowed the wins of other states.

That it worked as designed isn't interesting or useful in your argument.

"Yeah, a serious threat to their wealthy, racially privileged position at the top of the pyramid."

While there may have been a few present at the constitutional convention with that rationale, they were very few. Most representatives were much more altruistic than that. The argued reasons were that PASSIONS were a threat to the stability of any government. The sudden swings and moods of the people can destroy a country. Read Federalist 10.

To get a better understanding of what transpired I would highly recommend A Constitutional Journal (by St. John). It's an excellent laymens account. I prefer the notes of Madison as well as various journal entries and letters from the members, but St John is not only informative, it's entertaining.

Another serious thread was noted by Franklin: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."

"Democracy means any government the people vote on. "

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Democracy is a form of government where those ELIGIBLE can vote. And my point about this (the US) *NOT* being a democracy is accurate. While most offices/posts are filled democratically, not all are -- and each of those posts are for representatives who will decide upon the direction government takes. The people take no direct roll in the direction of government.

What actually weakens the "vote" are uninformed and irresponsible voters.

" If you don't have a job, I guess you have a lower threshold for crime. "

I've been homeless and I've been jobless and I cannot disagree with you more. I think the reason it MIGHT appear that way is that people are willing to risk potential punishment for quick rewards rather than put in the work necessary to earn them. It's really as simple as that. There is virtually no place in the US where someone who is homeless and jobless cannot get enough assistance from city/state/private agency to change their situation. The exceptions are those in similar circumstance who are UNABLE to work or manage their own care/life due to mental illness or substance abuse.

" It's a fundamental right to participate in democracy, "

Two points... (1) The US isn't a democracy. It's a republic ("...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."). (2) Voting isn't a "right" in the US. It's a privilege.

" Stroke of fucking genius."

I think we're on the same page as this being a bad idea -- but I'm no where near as far along that page as you.

They most likely won't be able to read/write CURSIVE. They'll be able to read JUST fine. They'll be able to WRITE (print little letters that look like the letters they read). Will they be able to write quickly? Probably not, but they'll be able to write just fine.

"I haven't read how they know it's from Mars, just how exactly do they know?"

When they turned it over, there was a little sticker that said "Made on Mars".

I read the article. The rock didn't leave Mars 4.4 billion years ago.

"It began its journey to Earth more than 5 million years ago, about the time humans and chimpanzees were splitting from a common ancestor. That is when an asteroid struck Mars, catapulting the rock into space. "

5 million years is still a long time but is really a drop in the bucket and I doubt the rocks would have changed much.

Kind of a cross between "Transcendence" and "Limitless".

What could go wrong?

"And states should be allowed to legalise (sp) slavery. Because that worked so well the last time."

Sigh... Why not look at the history of the world as a whole. What nation ever fought itself over the issue of slavery? To the tune of over 600k dead?

Many of our abolitionist founders believed that slavery was a dead end doomed to end in the near future but elected to allow the south to maintain it for the interest of the union. It was essentially the cotton gin's invention which allowed slavery to remain economically viable far longer than they expected.

Without that economic leep after the 1790s, attitudes would have changed in the south as much they had in the north regarding slavery and it would have ended -- WITHOUT bloodshed. You've effectively made my point -- when a powerful central government makes a uniform law across a heterogeneous population, someone's rights are going to feel violated and they could very well go the route of the US in 1776 or the South in 1862.

I'm not saying that slavery or the south was in any way honorable. That war needed to be fought and is an exception brought on be a dramatic and swift economic change..