Favorite electronics movies

I'm still waiting for someone, ANYONE, to show me the congressional resolution that declares the United States to be at war.

But, as we all know, the neocons have been wiping their ass with the Constitution for some years now.

Thanks, Rich

I like movies like "Hardware", "The space hunter: tales from the forbidden zone" and "The ice pirates", that leave you wondering how you're going to build that stuff.

Not quite. George claims that he is not violating the 4th amendment. Many others, including members of congress and the courts (including the FISA court) disagree.

Everyone awaiting trial claims that "they didn't do it". Protestations of the accused carry very little weight.

That doesn't make it right. We had to apologize for the internment. And then there was General LeMay, who admitted that, had we lost the war, we would have been tied and found guilty of war crimes.

This is a society of laws. Someone getting away with something doesn't create legal precedent justifying it.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com:

NONSENSE;we did NOT -have to- apologize at all.

And of course,you don't comment on the mail monitoring and censorship,of our own troops communication with our own citizens;not even communication with foreign suspected terrorists.

DUH,losers always get tried for "war crimes". Sometimes,they even use a real court of law,too. Usually,they are kangaroo courts,especially in the case of Communist or fascist governments.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

ISTR some Judge stating that.

As I said before,the author of that article knows far more than you -or I- about Constitutional matters and war powers.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com:

Except for the FACT that there's ample precedent. (on BOTH Repub and Democrat sides/administrations)

Precedent sure does.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com:

I guess that you also believe that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of citizens(the People) to keep and bear ALL forms of arms? (literal reading/interpretation)

That the 1934 NFA,and many other gun control laws are unconstitutional,because they conflict with the 2nd Amendment?

Requiring permits to carry concealed handguns would be unconstitutional;an infringement on the RKBA.

I also guess that you believe DUI roadblocks are unconstitutional;no probable cause or warrant,despite the manner of transportation?? (after all,DRUG roadblocks already have been ruled unconstitutional)

Then there's the Eminent Domain seizures recently ruled to be permissible for transfer of private property to another private person,as long as the increased tax revenues benefit the People.(however indirectly)

I remember hearing that arguemnt back when I was in grammar school - "You gotta trust the government - they know more than you do."

I didn't buy it then either.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't forbid states from restricting firearms from their residents, so long as they apply the same restrictions to their 'militias' (police departments, sheriffs, etc.).

The Constitution restricts the right to arm militias to the US Congress. The only way a local government can organize any kind of armed law enforcement is by employing individuals who already have that right.

Any laws which restrict firearm types from the general public which are not typically used by their militias would probably not be found unconstitutional. Unfortunately, this position has only been referenced indirectly by the Supreme Court, so we haven't seen a comprehensive decision supporting this.

Nope. The local cops have to have permits (even if they carry them openly). The states can impose any regulations they want, so long as they don't arm their militias by selectively restricting all but the members from their rights.

They have been held as unconstitutional by the courts in many cases. The conditions under which such sweeps are allowed are highly restricted.

The US Constitution (wisely?) left the definition of 'public good' up to the states. If you don't like it, take it up with your state legislature. I'd like to see a case where property was seized within one state where it was owned by residents of other states. Think about the seizure of corporate property and whose jurisdiction applies. Elliot Spitzer has made a career out of pursuing cases based upon the rights of stockholders that live within New York State.

The NFA of 1934, limiting and regulating the power of the people to own and use firearms, is constitutional.

The FISA of 1978, limiting and reguqlting the power of the executive branch to conduct domestic wirretaps, is constitutional.

There's Jim Thompson, right on the Bush admin' talking points.

Oops, time to review -- U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment:

"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."

The Bush administration has testified before congress, saying the Fourth Amendment does *not* require "probable cause," despite the phrase sitting right there, to protect all we U.S. Citizens, as has been ruled upon by the courts many times. So I'd say, yes he has egregiously violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com:

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? It doesn't matter what limits a state places on it's employees.That would be like a State limiting employees free speech or religion,and claiming that they cound then limit the citizens rights to match. The 2nd should be treated no differently than any other amendment. All of the so-called "Bill of Rights" should be equally in force in all states,seeing as they agreed to abide by the Constitution when they joined the United States.The "incorporation" argument is not Constitutional itself.

BTW,after the infamous N.Hollywood Bank Robbery,many police departments obtained surplus full-auto M-16s to issue to their officers. The "same restrictions" were NOT applied.In fact,most states and the Federal govt EXEMPT LEOs from gun laws like the 1934 NFA. Most police SWAT teams use full-auto HK MP-5's.(machine guns)

WRONGO!! it's the "right of the PEOPLE",not of "the militia" or "of the States".

Hmm;youused a double negative here,so I'm guessing you mean to say that arms used by militias would not be prohibited from citizens,that such laws would be unconstitutional? No.Militias get full-auto M-16's,use anti-tank rockets,recoilless rifles,all sorts of prohibited arms.

BTW,the 2nd uses the word "arms",which is not limited to firearms. Other weaponry would also be protected,if the 2nd were obeyed as well as the 1st or 4th Amendments.

The USSC one said it was OK to own slaves,too.

Wrong again;many jurisdictions REQUIRE off-duty police to carry a gun,concealed,of course.You might be surprised at how many exemptions gov't employees get from laws the rest of use have to follow. Retired police have to get permits,if they are offered in their state,which is not always the case.

DUI roadblocks,no. DRUG roadblocks were ruled to be unconstitutional. DUI roadblocks were ruled to be OK.

You can smirk all you want, but there were a lot of "tekkies" watching BG. The local rep (Tek's top rep) at the time told me to watch for it and that they'd paid much money for that product placement.

Dig into the Congressional Record. As I remember reading, Kucinich introduced a resolution and it was voted down. So a Declaration of War was deliberatly rejected by the Republicans. (Should make for an interesting war crimes trial).

Mark Zenier snipped-for-privacy@eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)