I'm OK with that.

Assuming arguendo that you are in fact offended (rather than more realistically that you're trolling), it's not that you're culpable for being offended, but rather that your sense of being offended over my statement is not something I'm going to strive to avoid.

Well, reading the words of the woman in question directly, it seems pretty clear that she was disgusted with the way the name issue played out.

If your goal is to build a community to develop software, doing things which drive people from the community tend to be counterproductive. If, in the alternative, your goal is to establish a community for the purpose of being antisocial jerks, then doing things which drive people who don't like antisocial jerks from the community would be worthwhile, I suppose.

I had thought the goal of this Python community had more to do with the former than the latter, but I could be wrong.

Hell, even without the sexual harassment issues, the fact that a native speaker of English decided to humiliate a non-native speaker through a name suggestion would seem to indicate that we're not exactly dealing with the nicest people ever,

Easiest way to avoid a slippery slope is to build a fence. Establish guidelines, enforce them, and suddenly your slippery slope becomes quite navigable.

How exactly is the person who is offended to blame for being offended? Also, just how far does that reasoning stretch?

And that's exactly what the developer who was trolled into using the name did - she's not developing in the community anymore.

This situation couldn't be further from what happened in New Orleans. The current flooding seems to be an example of a flood control system working as intended, albeit with unintended consequences. In New Orleans, the Corps' system of protection was undermined by the Corps' actions in maintaining MRGO; while the Corps could not be held liable for its negligent maintenance of the levies, it could be (and was) held liable for its negligent maintenance of the channel (ruling available at local news site http://www.wdsu.com/r/21668365/detail.html ), given that the channel increased the power of the storm surge into New Orleans.

Congress isn't allowed to totally delegate it's legislative powers; however, it is permitted to direct the Executive in a general direction through an enabling statute, so long as there's an intelligible principle guiding action. However, Congress retains its authority - anything a regulator does can be undone by an act of Congress. In this specific instance, the regulator (FCC) is doing exactly what Congress demanded, by implementing the Truth in Caller ID Act in the FCC's rules.

Rather than parsing a sparse recitation of a press release, people wanting more information could always read the actual document justifying and implementing the new rules:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-100A1.pdf

Yes, having read the law, I'm aware that the individual mandate was referred to as a "penalty" rather than a tax for PR purposes. I'm also aware that there is no "clear statement" rule in the Constitution requiring Congress to spell out the source of its power for adopting any given proposal into law.

Further, I'm even aware that the Constitution did not "get us out of slavery"; as originally written, it preserved slavery.

Congratulations; you said something stupid and accurately predicted that people would point it out.

In the abstract, yes, a sovereign entity has to consent to being sued in its courts. However, there are many statutes which provide broad consent for most claims against the government, including the Federal Tort Claims Act and 42 USC 1983 (which covers constitutional violations).

It's a tax. Congress can levy taxes.
It's also regulating interstate commerce. Congress can regulate interstate commerce.

If the individual health insurance mandate were overturned as unconstitutional, that would be evidence of the manipulation of the Constitution, not the lack thereof.

Reread the Fourth Amendment; it doesn't say that searches have to be accompanied by a warrant, only that searches and seizures must be reasonable, and that, when warrants are issued, they must be supported by probable cause:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

That "web of laws and rulings" you so despise is what requires, as a general principle, a warrant in order for a search to be reasonable.

As for the rest of your post, it's clear you haven't thought through the implications of having each case turn on a blank-slate interpretation of the Constitution as it applies to a particular set of facts. Instead of having laws and rulings to support one's case, a person would instead only be able to appeal to a particular judge's reading of broad language. Forget uniformity throughout the legal system: you'd be lucky to get uniformity from a single judge.