A fair point. The government is hardly a monolith. Although I think there are larger problems than Rumsfeld's infamous "few bad apples," you are absolutely correct that it is not worth condemning the entire institution.

While I agree with you that "evil" is overused, I do think that certain US policies such as "targeted killings" that kill multitudes of civilians and target United States citizens, the propping up of Saleh in Yemen, and the torture both carried out at our military prisons and contracted out to third party countries such as Syria constitute "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked." It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose I am just more damning than you.

Well said, sir!

The obvious logical fallacy with your statement is that, just because other regimes may be evil and corrupt, it does not mean that the US is not.

They are not doing micropayments for BF3. It is a normal BF game; you must be confusing it with Heroes or something. There will be exclusive preorder content, though.

Jurisdiction comes from the Alien Tort Statute. There have been a number of recent cases of aliens suing corporations in the US because of violations of international law. Whether what Cisco did in China was legal under Chinese law does not matter; the ATS is all about whether norms of customary international law have been violated. Torture is the primary example. This is not some crazy lawsuit; it is a tried and true method of punishing corporations for their complicity in human rights violations.

Well, technically this is not true. What is true is that SCOTUS has, through the doctrine of incorporation, incorporated most of the BoR against the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm quite happy that they did, although it was, and still is, a bit of a legal stretch. And not all of the amendments, as someone else said, have been incorporated. The 2nd likely will after McDonald v. Chicago. Other rights, such as the right to trial by jury in civil cases over $20, from the 7th Amendment, has also not been incorporated. Oh, and interestingly, it is pretty widely assumed that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to be used as a tool of incorporation, but SCOTUS gutted this in the Slaughterhouse Cases, so that the clause has no power.

Well, unlike other posters, I am a lawyer; The Bill of Rights begin "Congress shall make no law," and it has always been held that the Bill of Rights are a purely a restriction upon government action. A cursory reading of the history surrounding the BoR, or the manner in which they have always been applied, will show that you are really missing the point.

Hey. I have a Vostro 1500 and managed to get the touchpad and video card working. You can e-mail me at: andb52 AT gmail DOT com if you want any input!

Well, in Ex parte Merryman, Lincoln was ordered by a federal court to stop the suspension of habeas corpus and he did ignore it. I assume this is the case to which you are referring, as it affirmed that a president does not have the power to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus. But the Constitution explicitly gives the power to Congress, anyway. And in 1863 Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act which effectively legalized what Lincoln had already ordered. The point is that Congress can legally suspend habeas corpus. So if the president, in such a scenario, had the support of Congress, as Lincoln eventually did, then de facto martial law could be quite easily effected.

Perhaps it would be a bit of a stretch, but (and I certainly do not endorse this point of view!) the Constitution does give Congress the ability to suspend habeas corpus in times of invasion or rebellion. If habeas corpus is suspended, then it would seem logical that the government could effectively force everybody to remain inside their homes and do whatever the government says. One way to think about it is that the entire country could be, effectively, under house arrest. Thus, you have de facto martial law. Anyway, just the ramblings of a law student.