Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Irony (Score 1) 246

If I were demeaning to people, as you are, I'd probably be posting anonymously as well.

Rather than leaping to the conclusion that I "don't understand how U.S. law works" and spewing basic reiterations of the legal system at me, try addressing the actual content of my post.

What do you mean by "The Court"?

Well, what I'd written was:

The court in Oregon where he did it ruled that it was protected speech.

And what I'd meant by it was: The court that ruled on it. Which was located in Oregon. Which is where he did it. They ruled that it was protected speech.

Then I went on to make my point regarding that. How are you able to give me a remedial summary of U.S. court jurisdiction when English poses such a problem for you?

Comment Re:Ok, so... (Score 1) 246

Right, I keep forgetting not everyone is current on the same things I am. There's a growing trend for Americans to take a more active role in upholding the law, and working with LEO's and even the FBI to make citizens' arrests. Thousands of them are learning the laws of their own country again, and what to do when public officials (including judges) aren't upholding their oaths. It's only been the lack of law knowledge of most of the citizenry, and the lack of inclination to uphold our founding principles, that has enabled courts to become so very slipshod in their decisions of late. And that trend is on its way out, it's just not being reported by the mainstream news yet.

So what I'd meant was, using the courts is going to become a viable strategy again because the People are starting to once again use them collectively. Class actions against those who've enacted un-Constitutional legislation, not to mention the bottom-rung lackey manning the backscatter scanner, are going to be quite feasible and effective.

Comment Re:Uhm, so we're at war now with Iran? (Score 1) 415

Which is completely unconstitutional and displays profound ignorance about the constitution.

Only the House of Representatives can impeach a president. Them and only them.

From the bill (and the linked page):

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Comment Re:Of course it's silly, BUT... (Score 1) 241

You're describing what used to be recognized as "obreption" and "subreption", two crimes under American Common Law. The terms come from the Latin "reptis" (as in "reptile") and refer to crawling towards one thing, or away from another. The crimes have to do with gradual, deliberate efforts to migrate away from the tenets of an established government, and toward another, not-yet-established political system, through the use of social networking. When deliberate, this is likely a form of treason. It's interesting that today most people are unaware of these crimes - only a few historians, and the Vatican, seem to remember them as crimes. The Vatican certainly ought to; it was how they made their initial inroads into the pagan communities when they spread across medieval Europe popping up Gothic cathedrals like McDonald's franchises.

Anonymous is a less mature, less cohesive, less dangerous version.

What makes Anonymous dangerous - and I hesitate to use those two words together, because many of them would take it as an ego-boost - is the ignorance of much of the public. When most people today don't have an understanding of the rights and values that founded the Union, let alone how they work, a group of script kiddies with a quasi-anarchic approach is going to seem like a valid thing to join up with. It even has an air of mystique to it, combined with a heady rush that comes with convincing people that they're "doing something meaningful" and "smashing the system".

News flash: Twelve years of Bush smashed our system. Reagonomics smashed our system. The Kennedy assassination really smashed our system. Want to "do something meaningful"? Make it work again. Learn your rights and how the law actually works, not what the status quo has tried to tell you. Assert your rights, and those of others, using the very structure that was built and put into place to uphold those rights. Gather others together with healthy, unifying philosophies that they can all buy into and support, and which lead to upholding a structure of law and rights that a country needs to have in order to function. The current basis of the system doesn't work for you? Gather people together and patch the system - but make sure you know you and others know what you're doing, and why you're doing it. Make sure your revisions are well-documented so that others may clearly understand them. This is basic coding standards, applied to revising our system. Because to be honest, if the system were code-based, Anonymous would be less a group of script kiddies and more a loose collection of people releasing borked code and malware, and calling it good.

Slashdot Top Deals

The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!

Working...