That's why you see so many security forces on US streets

Hmm, I've seen two cops this week. One traffic stop, one driving through the neighborhood. Hardly "so many security forces on US streets"....

And... what exactly is this means you're thinking they'll have?

Well, one obvious way to do it would be to set up a pricing structure for designer babies such that the babies with the Politically Correct genome (whatever that is conceived to be) waaay cheaper than the non-PC genomes.

I mean, something as simple as "white babies 1/2 off this month only!" would be vile beyond belief, and almost certainly done if it were possbile.

You could also look for genetic defects common to [minority you despise] and offer to "fix" them, along with a "few other [unspecified] improvements" that might not be seen as "improvements" by the prospective parents....

There is no genuine reason for publishing emails that were exchanged whilst the creation of regulations was still in progress.

Hmm, wouldn't you want to see an email by a Senator saying "Bloomberg really wants this, and he's promising all of us on the Committee $3 million for our campaign warchests if we make it so"?

Or if you think Bloomberg walks on water, replace "Bloomberg with "Koch Bros" or whoever your favorite bogeyman is....

Preventing lifeforms to be patented would solve most of the problems.

Yep, sure would.

Because noone would bother to develop new plants when they can't even recover the cost of development....

Your state level issue is largely handled by the Federal Preemption clause in Article VI, clause 2.

Hmm, you might want to reread that clause. it establishes the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land".

It does NOT say that a State can't do something that is specifically forbidden to Congress.

Now, the 14th Amendment DOES pretty much accomplish your objective. Of course, there were 75 years or so between the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, during which, by your logic the "much stronger" "Congress shall make no laws" could have been overridden by State laws. Or local laws.

Personally, I still find "shall not be infringed" to be stronger than "Congress shall make no law". But YMMV....

They power nuclear subs, nuclear icebreakers etc. Stick a transformer on it and connect it to the grid, Bingo, floating nuclear power plant.

More to it than that. The overwhelming majority of the power for a nuclear sub/icebreaker/etc is used to make the props go roundy-roundy.

Only a very small part of that power goes to drive the generators (note that nuclear powered ships/subs HAVE been used to provide emergency power to shore installations, by the by).

And since the generators are sized for the amount of power needed by the boat/ship, you can't just push more steam through them to get more power.

I'm guessing you're heterosexual then?

Please point out the part of the US Constitution that says the Federal Government can't spy on foreign countries, then justify Snowden's leaking of intelligence methods and sources that had nothing whatsoever to do with American domestic civil liberties.

Put his actions before a jury of his peers, like the numerous whistle-blowers who came before him, none of whom fled to hostile countries? Restrict his leaks to pertinent information, rather than dumping EVERYTHING? Attempt to work within the system before trying to blow it up? Leak the information without outing yourself, remaining anonymous like Deep Throat did?

You'd probably have a different perspective on that if you lived in the Baltic States, Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Finland, Georgia, or any of the Central Asian Republics.

It'd make more sense to play the realpolitik game: "Put Mr. Snowden on a flight to New York and we'll quietly acquiesce to your annexation of Crimea."

Unfortunately realpolitik is not something the current administration is very good at. They're very good at making promises they can't keep, and threats they won't follow up on, but making cold calculations to further American interests in a dangerous world? Not so much.

500 ly away...

Sounds like we have 350-400 years before they start hearing our radio noise. After that, we might need to worry....

I'm afraid the standard definitions do not support your interpretation of infringe:

to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

Hmm, I'll see your Meriam-Webster and raise you an OED:

Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

And here's another:

Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.):

And here's another from your friend Meriam-Webster:

to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

1: Campaign donations are forbidden. Each candidate for an elected office will get an equivalent place to state their platform. Advertising anything election related on a commercial (paid) basis will be a crime.

So, basically we give the various newspaper editors the privilege of deciding who gets to be President/Senator/Congresscritter? Or were you planning on forbidding newspapers from mentioning political candidates?

If they use them in criminal investigations the usage eventually becomes part of the public record when entered into evidence. Using them for search and rescue ought to be non-controversial enough. "National Security" is of course the grey area, though there's a fair amount of overlap between National Security and criminal prosecutions, for offenses like espionage or terrorism, so a lot of that use would eventually make it into the public record as well.