I understand wanting to regulate full-sized military-style drones, but going after small commercial entities flying go-pro carrying quad-copters is a bit much.
One of two possibilities:
1) The FAA does not understand the difference between a drone (which does not require visual contact with the operator to be flown) and a toy airplane (which cannot be controlled out of sight of its operator).
2) The FAA is trying to consolidate more power to government by conveniently misinterpreting the rules to give them the ability to ensnare model airplane owners in a tangled web of onerous regulation and raise more money.
My vote is on #2.
it solves the upskirt issue, the paparazzi problem, and ends those annoying red light cameras.
It also solves the problem of security cameras if you're a burglar and prevents cops from being worried about recordings of police brutality. Neat!
The actual power given to them by the constitution is the usual judicial power. Or in other words: guilty, not guilty, adjudication withheld, case dismissed, etc. They have original jurisdiction in cases that involve the states, ambassadors and so forth. Nowhere does the constitution say or imply they can declare a law unconstitutional. That is done by the constitution itself. That's the whole damned point of it.
You need to really read Marbury v. Madison (1803). The Court really lays out the reason why they have to. The judges must hold every law up to the standards of the Constitution, if they do not judge the Constitutionality of laws, then the Constitution has no meaning, because Congress can pass any law they feel like, and there is no one else who can say, "Hey, I don't think that law is actually legal."
Without anyone to actually enforce the Constitution, it's a meaningless piece of paper.
The constitution is written in plain English.
That's actually, in many ways, the problem. If the Constitution were written out in far more formal language, there would be less wiggle room and thus less need for interpretation.
This theory that the Supreme Court somehow wields exclusive power to interpret the Constitution is a throwback to the oracles of ancient mysticism.
They have no such authority either implied or exclusive.
Well, there's the Court's appellate review power in Article III, Section 2. You know, in the Constitution itself. Then there's Marbury v. Madison (1803) which solidly lays out the reasons for judicial review and points out that the Constitution has absolutely no force if the courts are not bound by it and that being bound by it requires them to interpret it when laws are in conflict.
Also, you have to understand that the Constitution didn't appear out of a vacuum and set the starting point from which an entire legal system would sprout. The Constitution was written in context of an existing English common law legal system used across the 13 colonies and uses terms that would have been well understood in that context and did not need specific definition, as you would see in a modern contract or statute.
For example, what is "corruption of blood" in Article III, Section 3? If you aren't an 18th century lawyer, you probably would have no idea since it isn't defined. A much bigger definition problem: What exactly is "due process?" It's not explained anywhere in the Constitution itself and is defined solely through court decisions.
But the ninth amendment does, and the combined weight of the ninth and tenth amendments draws a very clear dark line around the limited powers of a limited government and says in a very clear and unambiguous voice: "this far, and no further."
Doubtful. It's highly unlikely that the framers who wrote Article I intended to immediately neuter all powers Congress had at the time of ratification and to toss everything out. The intention was simply to state the the Constitution didn't grant the government the power to take away all rights not covered by the Bill of Rights and that it was limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution.
Of course, the problem here is that the ability to regulate interstate commerce is enumerated in the Constitution. You can't really get around that fact.
It is NOT solely up to the Supreme Court to make the kinds of decisions you claim they have the authority to make. Rights retained by the people (9th Amendment), by definition, are retained by the people, and it is up to the people -- not the government -- to decide what those rights are.
So, who gets to interpret that Amendment? Might it be the same people who interpret the rest of the Constitution? Why, it turns out that it is, especially since the question of the Supreme Court's power of review was settled during the lifetimes of the framers.
By the way, here's the full text of the 9th and 10th Amendments:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of Article I, defining the powers delegated to Congress by the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment explicitly does not trump those powers defined in the main body of the Constitution, because that is the document which defines the powers delegated to the United States. Both amendments are catch-all clauses for "things we didn't think of," and not a negation of the things they did think of.
There's been a website emulating an Acorn Archimedes for ages. Which is a far more interesting machine IMHO.
Than an Amiga? Come now, the Archimedes was pretty vanilla hardware for its day -- it was basically a glorified Apple II with an ARM chip in terms of capability. In comparison, the Amiga's hardware was a generation leap ahead, and its OS was far more modern.
If ITER ultimately leads the way to a marketable fusion reactor I am sure we can either licenses the tech or let foreigners build the plants - far cheaper for the tax payer while supporting our own alternative research.
Two problems with that:
1) How is ITER going to succeed if one of its major contributors pulls out?
2) Are there any domestic programs with a better chance of success and a more concrete plan? (I'm not aware of any.)
I never said anything about anyone's sister; you have confused and blurred people together in your head by not paying close attention. You know, kind of like your entire generalization of women.
Ok! Ok! I must have, I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Shit. I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail.
No. They don't. The Interstate Commerce clause does not give the federal government the authority to mandate the process of manufacturing a product. They can only regulate its sale and only if it crosses state lines.
Yeah, find that in the Constitution. The actual text of the clause is "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
You'll note that there is no definition of "regulate" that limits them to only the powers you ascribe. It isn't defined at all, leaving it up to the Supreme Court to decide, like the vast majority of the Constitution, which was written for a common law system in which courts had long held the role of statutory interpretation. Reasonable readings of the word "regulate" includes far more than just a simple "thumbs up/down for all cell phones." It includes the ability to regulate the types of phones being sold, and that includes mandating certain features -- like requiring seat belts in cars.
For that matter, "Commerce" is not defined anywhere either. The Court has sensibly held that the ability to regulate commerce that crosses state lines must also include the ability to regulate (a) products made from components that cross state lines, (b) the methods of production of a product intended to be sold across state lines, and (c) instances of a product that does not cross state lines if the same product is also sold across state lines by the seller.
So, unless cell phone manufacturers intend to set up an entire supply chain and factory to make a phone which will never be sold outside the state in which it is completely and wholly manufactured from scratch, then interstate commerce applies to it under even a restricted reading. (And it certainly applies the majority of phones made in China and shipped across the country.)
Basically, what it comes down to is that, you don't seem to respect the Court's authority to define words in the Constitution that are ambiguous in nature when they don't come to a conclusion that you like. Who exactly does have the right to define "Commerce" and "regulate," then?
Really? So, how many women do you know, how many of the women you know are like you, and how many are like your sister? I would be very interested in an honest answer. But, I have a feeling any answer I get will be as honest as what women say when asked what they want in a man.
Besides being patronizing and insulting, your response is essentially, "Counter my generalizations based on anecdotes with anecdotes of your own. Which I won't believe anyway. Because you're a woman, and women lie, in my anecdotal experience."
Misogyny, circular logic, and bad statistics, ho!
It's not the government's job the educate children, even less so when the funds used to do so are extorted essentially at gunpoint from people who don't even have children or whose children are not using the public schools.
Oh, hey look. A conservative expressing an opinion that their money is better spent on things other than keeping people from being pig-ignorant and dependent on others to tell them what to believe and trapped into their social strata by their parents' poor decision-making skills and lack of money.
It would be adorably naive if it wasn't so sociopathic.