Angry

Steven P. McNicoll opined

"sfb" wrote in message news:dHxsf.27020$x%2.1088@trnddc06...

Ill advised: maybe. Illegal: no.

The Constitution gives the power to sign legislation passed by Congress
(Article I) to the President (Article II). The courts (Article III)
determine the constitutionally of the law.


What branch does the Constitution give the power to pass laws abridging the
freedom of speech to?

Congress, of course. With the help of the Supreme Court.

Don't believe me? Just consider McCain-Fiengold and the rest of the campaign
finance legislation.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
...

Congress, of course. With the help of the Supreme Court.


In what article would that power be found?



Don't believe me? Just consider McCain-Fiengold and the rest of the
campaign
finance legislation.


McCain-Feingold and the rest of the campaign finance legislation do not
amend the Constitution.

On 28 Dec 2005 14:11:08 -0800, "Flyingmonk" wrote
in .com::

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous
provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at
the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel
Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the
Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case
that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's
just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they
all confirm that the President of the United States called the
Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."


The Genesis of Big Brother

In the beginning, the GOP political machine found the people's rights
guaranteed by the nation's Constitution of the United States of
America a hindrance to their tacit agenda. They sought power, through
the Bush administration, to enable them to acquire wealth beyond that
readily obtainable through noble statesmanship and moral purpose. To
raid the nation's coffers, indeed, plunder the world's wealth, before
detonation of the "Population Bomb"1, they summoned all their
intellect, and conceived the Orwellian incarnation cloaked in a Trojan
Horse: The Patriot Act.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051222/...iot_act_glance
Sixteen provisions of the USA Patriot Act are set to expire December
31, 2005 if not renews. The house and Senate voted Thursday to
extend the anti=terrorism law until February 3, 2005. The provisions
a

Section 202 - Gives federal officials the authority to intercept
[domestic] wire, spoken and electronic communications relating to
terrorism.

Section 202 - Gives federal officials the authority to intercept
[domestic] wire, spoken and electronic communications relating to
computer fraud and abuse offenses.

Subsection 203(b) - Permits the sharing of grand jury information that
involves foreign intelligence or counterintelligence with federal law
enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense
or national security officials

Subsection 203(d) - Gives foreign intelligence or counterintelligence
officers the ability to share foreign intelligence information
obtained as part of a criminal investigation with law enforcement.

Section 204 - Makes clear that nothing in the law regarding pen
registers - an electronic device which records all numbers dialed from
a particular phone line - stops the government's ability to obtain
foreign intelligence information.

Section 206 - Allows federal officials to issue roving "John Doe"
wiretaps, which allow investigators to listen in on any telephone and
tap any computer they think a suspected spy or terrorist might use.

Section 207 - Increases the amount of time that federal officials may
watch people they suspect are spies or terrorists.

Section 209 - Permits the seizure of voicemail messages under a
warrant.

Section 212 - Permits Internet service providers and other electronic
communication and remote computing service providers to hand over
records and e-mails to federal officials in emergency situations.

Section 214 - Allows use of a pen register or trap and trace devices
that record originating phone numbers of all incoming calls in
international terrorism or spy investigations.

Section 215 - Authorizes federal officials to obtain "tangible items"
like business records, including those from libraries and bookstores,
for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations.
Section 217 - Makes it lawful to intercept the wire or electronic
communication of a computer hacker or intruder in certain
circumstances.

Section 218 - Allows federal officials to wiretap or watch suspects if
foreign intelligence gathering is a "significant purpose" for seeking
a Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act order. The pre-Patriot Act
standard said officials could ask for the surveillance only if it was
the sole or main purpose.

Section 220 - Provides for nationwide service of search warrants for
electronic evidence.

Section 223 - Amends the federal criminal code to provide for
[weakened] administrative discipline of federal officers or employees
who violate prohibitions against unauthorized disclosures of
information gathered under this act.

Section 225 - Amends FISA to prohibit lawsuits against people or
companies that provide information to federal officials for a
terrorism investigation.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536838.stm

Senator Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and
another Republican, said "there is no doubt that this is
inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early
next year as "a very, very high priority".

"This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic
Senator Edward Kennedy, while his colleague Russell Feingold
called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down
the spine of every senator and every American".



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041100879.html

"Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
said in interviews that they want to know why the administration
believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading
e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal.
Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that
information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may
have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their
court. . . .

"Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown
into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity,
also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of
the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the
court."


What exactly is the government doing so secretly? And why was
judicial oversight -- even with the granting of retroactive
approval -- apparently too limiting? Different theories are
emerging. One is that the secret program is some sort of giant
high-tech fishing expedition.




1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
The Population Bomb (1968) is a book written by Paul R. Ehrlich. A
best-selling work, it predicted disaster for humanity due to
overpopulation and the "population explosion". The book predicted that
"in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to
death." This prediction did not come true, due for the most part to
the efforts of Norman Borlaug's "Green Revolution" of the 1960s.
Although the book is primarily a repetition of the Malthusian
catastrophe argument, that population growth will outpace agricultural
growth unless controlled, it expressed the possibility of disaster in
broader terms.
A "population bomb," as defined in the book, requires only three
things:
" A rapid rate of change
" A limit of some sort
" Delays in perceiving the limit




Enron Lay's trial set for January 2006:
http://www.apfn.org/enron/whitehouse.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/081903G.shtml

--

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public. -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)


The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to
power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary
government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the
clergy. -- David Hume

It isn't a simple as just print a receipt. If you print before the
voter presses the final button and the voter changes their mind, the
receipt and the machine do not agree. If you print a second receipt then
you have two receipts for one voter. If the receipt and the machine
disagree and the voter presses the final button anyway, which one is the
true vote?

There is no way to count the receipts by hand so now you need a entire
new set of machines to count receipts which brings you back to many of
the problems with punch cards.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message news_Psf.48165

I agree with you. Further, the percentage of sampled machines should
not
be "small", as in 1 or 2%, but significant, as in at least one machine
from each precinct. The paper proofs should be printed at the same
time,
with the voter inspecting both for accuracy, and then give one copy to
the
registrar (or designated official). That copy would be used to verify
the
electronic tally. The question becomes, what to do if there is a
discrepancy?

It really angers me that such basic and simple methodology is not even
being discussed, much less that Diebold is pawning off an approach
that is
completely unverifiable, and that politicians are buying into it.

Neil

"Hilton" wrote in message
k.net...


CHANGE THE F&$*#ING CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S ON

Matt Barrow wrote:

CHANGE THE F&$*#ING CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S ON.

But then we'd have to post a lot of OT pilot and aviation stuff in
alt.politics.childish.assholes in order to balance USENET properly.


Jack

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:43:31 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote in ::


"Hilton" wrote in message
nk.net...


CHANGE THE F&$*#ING CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S ON


I didn't think an airman was capable of such inane rudeness. Your
boorish behavior reflects badly on us all. Please consider an
objective self-assessment and tendering an apology.

"Jack" wrote in message
. com...
Matt Barrow wrote:

CHANGE THE F&$*#ING CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S ON.

But then we'd have to post a lot of OT pilot and aviation stuff in
alt.politics.childish.assholes in order to balance USENET properly.


Ya know...it sounds like elementary school hallway monitors when people try
to lord it over others in the group and play netcop.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:11:59 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote in ::

Ya know...it sounds like elementary school hallway monitors when people try
to lord it over others in the group and play netcop.

Ya know... such an onerous outburst in response to a polite request
sounds like a rebellious child acting out for attention.

Recently, sfb posted:

It isn't a simple as just print a receipt. If you print before the
voter presses the final button and the voter changes their mind, the
receipt and the machine do not agree. If you print a second receipt
then you have two receipts for one voter. If the receipt and the
machine disagree and the voter presses the final button anyway, which
one is the true vote?

Why would a receipt *ever* be printed before the "final" button is
pressed? At that point, printing them in duplicate is not a problem.

There is no way to count the receipts by hand so now you need a entire
new set of machines to count receipts which brings you back to many of
the problems with punch cards.

Why couldn't receipts be counted by hand? As a method of verification, the
task isn't all that large. Still, if the receipts followed a standard
layout, they could be counted by machine quite easily.

Regards,

Neil