In theory, this is a great idea, but as a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization, it is unlikely they could enter into a deal like this with a major book retailer and maintain their tax-exempt status. At the very least, doing such a thing would risk a prolonged court battle that they would only have a marginal chance of winning.

Now, in theory, they could adopt this model and simply forfeit their 501(c)3 status (or fight to keep it, but the court battle might actually cost more than simply paying taxes), but they would have to take into account that their donation revenue (I'm not sure just how large it actually is) would be impacted. People who donate the fatter checks to places like Wikipedia do so expecting to be able to receive a tax deduction, which requires that the receiving organization be a 501(c)3 organization.

It means that, in the absence of a definitive ruling from a higher court, the decision of the lower court will stand. So technically the decision is the same as that of the circuit court. The "news", I guess, is the fact that the power of the First-Sale doctrine will stand as diminished.

That can be fixed, all we need is some Tomacco.

The convention which wrote the US constitution was convened over several months and produced a document of only 4543 words. Many clauses had hours or entire days of debate dedicated to them. The idea that any particular clause was "only" intended for one thing is absurd (maybe for any particular delegate it served only one purpose. Furthermore, if a clause is only intended to prevent one or two things, usually it just prohibits said things explicitly (ie - "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."). If your interpretation was right, they likely would have just prohibited trade barriers among the states.

All the more reason to buy a hovercraft.

Hey daid303, is that a black van outside your window? I wonder what it's doing there...

No hostility actually intended, I just swear like a sailor. Apologies if it came off that way.

Okay... Can you explain what about a free market makes me want to buy more random shit? I know there are easy-to-identify differences between free and regulated markets in many areas, but I really don't see how it directly impacts my spending habits (or most other people's).

Nations are an emergent phenomena. It all starts with small tribes of people that are small enough that the leaders know everybody, and then grows as the technology and institutions grow to be able to keep more people under its umbrella. Once the group of nations grow large enough, they then have the choice of either attempting to dominate one another until no others remain or cooperating. The eventual result of either of these paths would probably be one singular world government, assuming that either ultimate victory or complete peaceful cooperation are even possible. If they're not, then we're all just wasting a hell of a lot of time trying.

But really, in answer to your question: You have to start with Nations, and long before they become obsolete they become an entrenched middle-man. Doing away with them is a lot like trying to eliminate any middle-man who wants to keep their job.

This is really all I'm actually trying to get at. Admittedly, I don't think all the back and forth about international law is actually that relevant, and in hindsight it is more distracting than helpful. I find your reasoning more convincing:

Which goes back to one of my original points, a foreign power would be well aware of this and therefore wouldn't send a sub on a mission like this as a demonstration. It would basically be suicide. You can't even win the PR war once you're forced to admit you actually did send a submarine to launch an unannounced missile.

North of Santa Catalina IS Los Angeles. Admittedly, TFA is not really precise on where it was, it was actually right next to Santa Barbara island, which is still US Territory. But either way, it doesn't matter if it were actually between Santa Catalina and Los Angeles, archipelagic waters define your national boundary around the outermost islands. In other words, your 12 miles of federally claimed sea only begin once you're past San Nicholas and San Clemente

Military vessels can also only approach if their mission is innocent (it also doesn't matter what other countries the US Navy approaches, everyone already knows we're hypocrites), an unannounced missile launch, no matter where it's pointed, would not be regarded as innocent.

1) The US has not ratified UNCOLS, it does not care what is considered international waters.

2) Even if the US has ratified it, military would be allowed "innocent passage" subject to local regulations. Launching an unannounced missile is neither innocent nor regulated.

3) The Channel Islands are not international waters, they are archipelagic waters. The location of this thing was even pinpointed by a damn news station, it's right next to Santa Barabara Island. Well within US territory.

4) The trajectory of a weapon is irrelevant. Are you perfectly fine with someone sneaking up behind you and firing a gun in the opposite direction? The trajectory never crossed you, therefore a crazy man with a gun is not a threat? Bull

5) If this was an unannounced demonstration by another country, there is no international convention that would prevent the US from destroying or attempting to capture the ship.

6) If this was an announced demonstration then the ship would have been refused passage due to its non-innocent nature, meaning there is still no international convention keeping it from being destroyed.

7) The premise of this being a demonstration is that it was meant to demonstrate the ability to evade detection (we already know people can hit us with missiles, who would bother to demonstrate that?). That is antithetical to actually launching a missile, which immediately reveals your location. Also, if you REALLY wanted to demonstrate your sneakiness by launching a missile, why use a big expensive rocket? Send up something short-range, cheap, and shiny. The message is the same.

It's a US Missile (or at least US affiliated, either private or an allied country) and the agency which launched it has not been revealed yet, I don't see any other feasible option.

Let's ignore that the US hasn't actually ratified the international treaties that sets those rules, meaning it doesn't really care what China or anyone else thinks it can do 35 miles from US coast.

You're forgetting that this was launched in the middle of the Channel Islands off the California coast, it's considered Archipelagic waters and therefore sovereign US territory.

I somehow doubt that any country would demonstrate some sort of brand new underwater stealth technology by performing the one action that is guaranteed to give away your exact position (launching a missile).

A 'hostile' sub 35 miles away from US Coast wouldn't be met with a slap on the knee and a response of "you totally got us!". It would be destroyed with impunity. Subs are expensive, you don't risk losing them on a mission that amounts to showing off.

It's most definitely a US missile of some sort.