Actually, their constitutional authority to exist is that the Executive Branch calls them into existence to execute the provisions of laws passed by the Legislative branch.
It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and that amendment has been repealed. This leaves no authority for any branch of the government to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or use of any drug. Any act of the congress that purports to do so is not a law at all, it is as James Madison would describe it, a usurpation.
"how can we even be talking about attacking another nation under the table"
Nations have been attacking one another "under the table" since the dawn of civilization. Some are just better than others when it comes to gathering intelligence and running counter intelligence operations. And foreign intelligence operations are not unconstitutional. The key word being "foreign". The only rule when conducting foreign intelligence operations is don't get caught. That's why everyone's foreign embassies are staffed with intelligence officers who manage and conduct HUMINT operations against the host country. If something goes awry they are covered under diplomatic immunity.
I am 100% against all forms of taxation, have been 100% against all forms of taxation. I am not against charity though and this is charity.
I wonder why you don't see that this type of charity is much better than any form of taxation for the purposes outlined in the story? So if FB had to pay more taxes than it managed to pay (legally, but I don't care, I think everybody needs to hide 100% of their money from all forms of taxation legally or illegally, whatever) why would it be better for your position? Why would it be better to take money from a company and use it for all the things that government uses it instead of using it specifically to attempt some form of charity that government pretends it's doing?
Let's say FB had to pay 10Million USD in income taxes (I don't know the numbers, could be many times that) so why wouldn't it be better to have that money go directly to the cause they are supporting instead of funnelling it through any form of government at all?
Is it because you cannot stand the idea that there is no oppression by the mob involved there?
Capitalism is private ownership and operation of resources, it's not a relationship with an employer.
The problem is that the increased profit goes to the wrong people.
- so the people who come up with ideas that allow them to increase efficiencies and then implement them are the wrong people?
It's not entirely vaporware.
- it's Hydroware.
The US bought Alaska from the Russians for 7.2 million dollars fair and square. Was that not the real estate deal of the century?
Doesn't seem like he was hurting anyone.
Yes, he was. Whoever bought those phones would think they were getting a product that was supported by Apple, and hadn't been through destructive testing.
This means that the Russian banking system is about to crash, and Putin needs to get his cover story "hackers did it" out there better than Hillary did.
After a number of decimal places, nobody gives a damn.