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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Racial discrimination? (Score 1) 283

More like Nationality instead of race. However, Foreign nationals are not typically privileged to all aspects of US law.

Besides, a previous law cannot bar a future law from being passed if they are on the same legislative hierarchy (State verses state, federal verses federal). Only a constitutional amendment can do that and it is limited insofar as another constitutional amendment can undo it. The courts will likely ignore it.

Comment Re:I don't know if Obama planned it this way... (Score 1) 668

I think you are confused a bit. The interstates were originally funded by taxes on fuel purchased. This tax money is now spent on other things as well so from time to time money from outside funds need to be allotted.

As for the speed, the federal government has absolutely no authority to pass a law concerning the speed limits. The interstates were turned over to the states during the construction and outside certain dimensions and load bearing requirements required for military use and interstate commerce (tanks and trucks baby), the only way the feds can require something is by withholding funding. Of course this gets even more difficult since the supreme court rules that the feds couldn't withhold existing funding based on a state's willingness to adopt or implement something, they would have to withhold additional funding to do so. They really were upset about Montana not having a specific speed limit for the longest of time. It wasn't until recently it was more then "reasonable and prudent". Kind of like the American autobahn.

Oh, the feds can regulate the speed limits of trucks engaged in interstate commerce to a degree. But that's more of an exception then a rule.

Comment Re:I don't know if Obama planned it this way... (Score 1) 668

Planned or not is pretty important. What happens when the government controls your health care or your insurance company's ability to pay for it and another tantrum goes into effect. Will an administration restrict health care in order to get their point across and demonize those that disagree with them?

Law will not go away if the organization enforcing them does. It takes an act of congress to remove laws. To think they would automagically disappear with a smaller government is silly. All those agency regulations would remain without the agency. The difference is that Congress would have to actually pass laws concerning what they regulate instead of bucking it off to a political appointee under the control of only one branch of government.

Comment Re:many gov sites down but (Score 1) 193

If refusing to fund it- to the point of shutting down the government creates action on it, then maybe so.

However, the government remains shut down largely due to Democrats refusing to take up individual spending bills and refusing to concede on very minor points in the law. The republicans have decreased their demands from de-funding it to removing the medical device tax which is also popular with a few democrats, to removing the special subsidy that Obama somehow created for congress and it's staff that the regular citizens don't get and paring the individual mandate with the exemption Obama gave to large businesses. They essentially want congress to live by the same means the people who use the exchange will have to and either delay the mandate for as long as the executive order allows Big business to ignore it, or force big business to play on the same terms as the citizens. The democrats are not being reasonable on this.

So if I adopt the "it is a stupid thing to do" approach, I would be hard pressed to claim those who started it remain the ones acting stupid if it is still a stupid thing. If I kept the "something needs to be done" approach, given the insistence to keep the law intact without any changes- even if it is simply applying it equally to big business, government, and citizens alike, it seems to be the only way.

Comment Re:"Financial Sense" (Score 1) 668

He didn't misread, you are saying the same thing although you are saying more. The workers who work during the shutdown are by default considered essential as it is illegal and unconstitutional for them or the government to claim they are donating their time or the government to not compensate them for work done (unless it is a bona fide volunteer position established well before the shutdown and would most likely be non-essential).

The problem is that their paychecks will not be sent (deposited) out until funding is restored. So they are essentially working without pay if the shutdown lasts longer then the pay cycle and the pay is missed.

I understand that people need money, but I am completely against this bill, as it basically means that federal workers get a paid vacation while congress fights. We want federal workers to be afraid of losing money so they will lobby their representatives to get this fixed.

I understand what your sentiment is saying but I have to disagree. Too often congress does something because it is popular (this shut down happened because it was popular with certain portion of the country) or makes people angry. Hate crime for instance is one of those, you violently murder a person and face life in prison or the death penalty, yell an inflammatory racial slur in the process and you face life in prison or the death penalty. Then politicians say, see- we fixed the problem. Too much pressure ends up with bad law, ineffective law, or overly strict law. If you don't believe me, look at the patriot act and how it is applied today.

I do think that contractors should be paid provided they pay their employees too. I think a government shut down should have to cost the government money so it isn't used often.

Comment Re:many gov sites down but (Score 1) 193

Democracy would seem to require the input of all involved. Not negotiating would literally be the end run around democracy. Perhaps you meant an end run around what you want?

Calling the republicans terrorist because they are using valid and existing tools of the trade to participate within this republic- and those tools have been used by democrats in the past 40 years as well, is just another symptom of a mindset that doesn't jive with reality.

In the last 40 years, there have been 17 shut downs, Of the 17 shutdowns in, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight. Five shutdowns happened when the democrats controlled the house, senate, and presidency. This isn't anything new, it just seems that way because even though G.W Bush was hated, he never got a shutdown (most likely because he never passed an opportunity to spend more).

You can validate those numbers here and here.+

This first link I suspect is a bit sided, but the second is wikipedia and I looked over the edits for the last 3 days only to find wording issues being changed (tonal and grammar)

So please stop with the Rhetoric about terrorist. It is untrue unless you want to call all the democrats who many are still in office terrorist too. This is the problem with government- when party politics come into play, one party does something, it's all puppies and kittens frolicking in a sunny field. When the other does the same things, it is terrorist and evil dead part 99.

Comment Re:many gov sites down but (Score 1) 193

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. There's nowhere to go after the Supreme Court.

No they did not. They ruled the ACA is not unconstitutional based on the arguments presented to them. The Supreme court does not deem anything constitutional, it determines if something violates the constitution and infers the constitutionality of it when it is not unconstitutional. Don't let the wording trip you up. When a court's opinion says something is constitutional, it is only in reference to the arguments of it not being constitutional that was presented to it.

The distinction there is that a law or aspects of a law found to not be unconstitutional under one set of arguments can be unconstitutional under another. For instance, segregation and the voter rights act have been in front of the supreme court several times and by the same mentality *deemed constitutional* but ultimately were found unconstitutional. The supreme court is only supposed to decide on the issue in front of it, not the entirety of a law or the policy within the law. Stop and Frisk has been deemed constitutional but the way New York is applying it, it will likely be determined unconstitutional. The DC gun ban is also an example of this where certain aspects of the law were perfectly legit and even if implemented and enforced differently would have remained so but according to the court but it was ultimately unconstitutional.

You're saying that they ruled it a "tax". That's not their ruling. If they ruled that way, that would imply they could make a law constitutional, but by ruling in such a way, the law is then unconstitutional. They cannot make up a paradox like that, that's not how the court works. Especially not the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.

Boy, you sound just like the dissenting opinion on the Obamacare case. You should actually pick up the opinions and read them- they are available from the Supreme court's website.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

It clearly states in the opinion around page 58 of the PDF,

The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congressâ(TM)s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congressâ(TM)s power to tax.

In the dissenting opinion by SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ, it clearly says

In answering that question we must, if âoefairly possible,â Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than un- constitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. âoeââoe[A]l- though this Court will often strain to construe legis- lation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . .â or judicially rewriting it.â(TM)â Commodity Futures Trading Commâ(TM)n v. Schor, 478 U. S.

Congress passed it. The president signed it. It went before the Supreme Court and passed judicial review. It's the law, designed and built by democracy. The Republican party should respect that.

No future government will ever be constrained by a previous government unless it passed and ratifies an amendment of the US constitution and to that end, the limitation only exists insofar as the inability to further amend the Constitution. This entire congress made it law and the courts said it was constitutional argument neglects history and common sense. Clinton raised taxes, Bush lowered them. The supreme court upheld slavery and forcing the free states to return the escaped slaves to the owners in the slave state and that has gone away. At one time, drinking alcohol was constitutionally forbidden but now it isn't. There are plenty of other examples of when congress or the states have changed their minds. I'm not even going to get into the entire how this thing passed through tricks and legal maneuvers rather then how it is presented because the argument you made fails just on the premise that nothing can be changed due to one time support for a law.

Comment Re:Imagine the parks or museums were left open (Score 1) 193

But unattended.

Homeless people, drunks, addicts and hippies will be able to move in because there's nobody to clear them out.

Meanwhile, everyone there is walking on the grass, throwing rubbish about and vandalising stuff.

And when they are close and unattended, the same is true. However, being guarded is also the same as being open and attended minus the ability to actually be on site.

And because there's nobody paid to clean up or look after the place, it gets worse and worse.

Which is why those being paid to clean up the place are still coming in with the parks closed down- they are just doing it less and with less of them. But the increase in guards and installation of gates and barricades at a lot of these places is costing more then a skeleton staff that could keep them open.

Imagine the vet memorial were left open. Lots of antiques to nick in there. Easy money. Nobody looking after the place. Nice target.

What? IT is a memorial, not museum. It would take a truck and about 10 guys to move the smallest objects from them. You have the nerve to claim I'm a dumbass and you didn't even bother doing a cursory google search to learn what you were talking about? I can see why you posted AC. Let me ask you something, are you a paid troll or do you actually think you are helping?

Comment Re:many gov sites down but (Score 1) 193

When the opposite is I will work with you as long as you want to do everything I want to do is often the only other option, I can understand why some republicans thought this might be a good idea. I don't think it was the best idea ever, but it isn't crazy or moronic like the GP implied.

Ultimately, the best option would be for the senate to take up an actual budget and pass it, work with the house to agree on one, and go at it. The continuing resolutions come around every 6 months specifically because the senate refuses to do so and it seems to be the only time the republicans get real input to meaningful and important legislation.

As for damaging the US economy, that might be true, but the republican's position is that the ACA is doing so also and will do it a lot more in the coming years. A lot of businesses said they were going to reduce hours, restructure to get under 49 employees, or change benefits available to employee's spouses when the mandate hits them. The president knows this and delayed the implementation of the mandate for large businesses for a year specifically to avoid this clashing with the opening of the Obamacare.

It is interesting that you bring up Putin, it seems that the president has to stand solid on this red line because of how he caved to Putin on the last red line. Perhaps he is thinking it is safer to deal with a couple pissed off rednecks with sporting riffles then to deal with a pissed off Russia.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The sixties were good to you, weren't they?" -- George Carlin

Working...