I remember Archie. And Veronica. And I just got the references after all these years.

So I take it the charade of rule by law is supposed to stabilize things while the most corrupt among us increasingly centralize power and so marginalize the rest of us that we are demographically replaced by a new people?

Oh I forgot the clause in the Constitution that says yet another way it may be amended is by a majority vote of the Supreme Court!

So, now that the Supreme Court has wadded up the Constitution and tossed in on the trash heap of history -- essentially making everything a political fight at the Federal level -- when does someone in the military realize their oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic basically requires them to nuke Washington DC?

If the animal products cross state lines, that is the point where the Interstate Commerce Clause kicks in -- not at the brewers who are selling inside the State to animal producers.

Very well -- so where is their authority to regulate animal feed that doesn't cross state lines?

If all it takes to avoid the expensive retooling is restricting the sale of the animal feed to within the State of origin, it seems that would provide an option a lot of these brewers would choose.

Somehow I suspect that the Feds don't _really_ care about the Constitution. Moreover, I suspect that puts me on their "watch" list.

Weed that doesn't cross state lines you mean.

OK, so tell me where in the Constitution I should look for Federal power to regulate beer that doesn't cross state lines.

I bought one. A week later my wife spilled soda on it. Turned out it was pretty much impossible to salvage. I was disappointed by it's lack of servicability vs. a real Model M. You spend that kind of money on a keyboard you might expect it to survive a soda or at least be repairable.

I can confirm from experience that an IBM 3270 terminal is practically indestructable. Standing on a loading dock I picked one up over my head and threw it as hard as I could down into an empty metal dumpster at ground level. The result? A small crack in the housing.

someone else answered about OSX. NT, based on the MACH kernel, has been fully re-entrant and multi-threaded for a looong time. also, given that the service control manager (which is a parallelised start/stop daemon service) is fully parallelised i'd be incredibly surprised if the same attention to detail wasn't also carried through on device-driver initialisation as well. although.... the only evidence against that is the "Debug Startup" mode, which initialises drivers in sequence (and shows you the sequence), but that could well be due to the request for "Debug Mode" rather than an underlying design. honest answer: don't know.

Thus far my comments have been regarding a hypothetical "treasonous" government -- leaving the definition of that to the reader. However, even if the government isn't "treasonous" it may be that a substantial number of its citizens wish to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness -- even if the government is operating entirely within the law.

The question then becomes less about "Constitutionality" and more about exactly how many people want to depart from the existing form of government and its principles.

What if 30% so intensely object to the present form of government that they advocate armed rebillion toward the end that they might institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?

Is that enough for the more conscientious of the military to stand down as that 100 million citizens seek to leave what they must see as the moral equivalent to a plantation?

A little anecdote: The wife of a friend of mine, on the morning of 9/11/2001, was watching the news reports come in and the moment the attack on the Pentagon came in, she blurted out "That was the Israelis."

Your little "lesson" about not attacking the military is such common sense that even some housewives consider it incredible that any but a false flag op would do it.

History would tell us that asymmetric war isn't fought the way you portrayed in your prior comment -- hence my comment on your ignorance. It is fought precisely to garner public support.

If you had argued that hotheads, loose cannons and false flag ops are not practically soluble by freedom fighters, then I might have asked you to expand your comment.

I don't know but Piglet was quoted as saying "This thing is the poo-poo!"