You'll be stone dead in a moment.

The US makes very little in the way of consumer goods. However, that is balanced by the fact they they produced some of the largest, most complex technical machinery made anywhere in the world.

I'm not a fan of off-shoring, but to say the US produces very little is disingenuous at best.

Well, obviously the Commerce Clause explicitly permits everything. Since it permits everything, there's nothing left to reserve to the States or the People.

If it's engaged in commerce, it falls under the Clause. If it's not, the lack of interaction in commerce affects commerce and falls under the Clause. End of story, according to SCOTUS.

The Constitution now begins and ends with the Commerce Clause, with very limited exceptions.

As artificial constructs existing at the pleasure of the State, their protections and obligations should be spelled out differently from those of natural people. I understand that, for the most part, they are not, and this is simply a question of my belief on what should be theoretically.

They are legal persons as a matter of expediency for the purposes of enforcing the law. There's no reason that they must be treated as people in areas where it creates impediments to the goals corporations were established to further.

People like to argue that making such changes would violate the rights of actual people in certain regards. This could not be further from the truth. Incorporation is but one of a number of options for collective operation, and is only really required as a means of legal protection for the principles in an operation they cannot reasonably oversee all of (thus legitimately having a reason to limit their liability for actions performed by others). Organizations created for the purpose of engaging in protected activities collectively could easily have other guidelines for operation, but being able to limit liability legally is an enormous legal advantage that individuals do not easily have access to in engaging in their own private, protected activities.

Granted, I have not explored some of the more complex intricacies of the "collective rights" arguments, so it's entirely possible there are important points I have not considered. I have a hard time believing that reasonable compromises could not be made which protect individual rights, assembly rights, and prevent wholesale purchasing of political power by massive entities. Who knows though, I could be entirely wrong and such changes could make things worse.

Well yes, the summary did get that wrong. I meant the spirit, even if the letter wasn't exactly accurate.

No, obviously they would be provided and paid for by the UK as a result of contractual provisions in London hosting agreement. Don't tell me there's no Drone Strike Clause. How could the IOC overlook that?

Originally the States were intended to be nearly completely separate sovereign entities, with a Federal government providing a limited role in dealing with external entities and mediating internal disputes. With the way the Supreme Court has expanded certain clauses in the Constitution, modern government bears little resemblance to what the intended balance of power was, which is why a bicameral legislature seems redundant today.

It was a way to slow government down, and while many of the "fast-forwards" happened to correct abuses they also set the precedent that it was alright to ignore process in favor of expediency. As a result, few respect the process anymore. Some don't because they believe it was a failure to use it as intended. Some don't because they recognize it frequently has been ignored, rather than being used as intended. Some don't because they conflate the way the process has been used with the way the process is supposed to be used.

In the end, I'm inclined to agree that there should be a unicameral legislature and a referendum process nationally.

Normally I'm so far onto the side of privacy where technology is concerned I'm about to fall off the edge of the board (in relation to what are legitimate uses of it by law enforcement to pursue investigations). However, after reading the article, and assuming the system cannot be triggered manually or by non-gunshot events (it apears the false positive rate is very low), there's no expectation of privacy and the exigent circumstances surrounding the legitimate belief any recording involves discharge of a firearm should make any other recorded sound admissible.

This should be a non-issue.

Well, there's a difference, but it's slight. Since the moon's orbital distance increases, the difference between a modern surf and a medieval surf is the medieval surf would have been a bit better. Well, except for the lack of decent surfboards, but let's not nitpick minor details like that. :)

Yes, the quoted figure was obviously a gross overestimation regarding the percentage of a typical President which could be considered human.

I demand drone strikes on the laboratory!

Yeah really. I read the headline and the thought which immediately sprang to mind turned out to be the third sentence of the summary.

He actually said he didn't know who the non-incumbent was, so the implication would be limited to the fact that he might know who the incumbent was. It's a stretch to read that as an implied link any more than I'm linked by a single degree to Kevin Bacon simply by fact that I recognize a reference to him.

Hey, I think I enjoyed your drivers license story more than you did.

If you enjoyed it at all, you enjoyed it more than I did.

Here on Slashdot, we try to help people learn to be logical and live to a higher standard.

Sadly, even on Slashdot that "we" seems to be nearly as small a minority as it is elsewhere.

No fort saves in '81. :)