http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
rec.arts.books@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Who's in Big Brother's Database? (book review) - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/0b98cb1de08a1561?hl=en
* The book that contains all books - 7 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/1950ed5393c908a7?hl=en
* Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE) - 6
messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/92153a6882249799?hl=en
* Cheaper Kindle - 8 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/83369cb7977feb61?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Who's in Big Brother's Database? (book review)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/0b98cb1de08a1561?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 19 2009 10:29 pm
From: Steve Hayes
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:58:32 -0700 (PDT), Jorge Cruz Rodriguez
<jxrodri@yahoo.com> wrote:
>to a variety of technical collection methods, "the data volumes are
>increasing with a projection that sensor data volume could potentially
>increase to the level of Yottabytes (1024 Bytes) by 2015." Roughly
>equal to about a septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages
I thought 1024 bytes was a Kilobyte, and 1024 Kilobytes was a Megabyte, and
1024 Megabytes was a Gigabyte.
It's a bit like saying that the ocean could potentially increase tro a level
of millilitres by 2015 (as a result of the melting of the popar icecaps,
perhaps).
How long is a piece of string?
Ooh, it's millimetres long, no,. it could even be inches long.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 6:53 am
From: Marko Amnell
On Oct 20, 8:29 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:58:32 -0700 (PDT), Jorge Cruz Rodriguez
>
> <jxro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >to a variety of technical collection methods, "the data volumes are
> >increasing with a projection that sensor data volume could potentially
> >increase to the level of Yottabytes (1024 Bytes) by 2015." Roughly
> >equal to about a septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages
>
> I thought 1024 bytes was a Kilobyte, and 1024 Kilobytes was a Megabyte, and
> 1024 Megabytes was a Gigabyte.
It says 10^24 bytes in the article. It just looks like 1024 because
the superscript font was lost when the OP copy and pasted the text.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 7:45 am
From: Nomen Nescio
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:58:32 -0700 (PDT), Jorge Cruz Rodriguez
<jxrodri@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Who's in Big Brother's Database?
>By James Bamford
>[review of] The Secret Sentry: The Untold History of the National
>Security Agency
>by Matthew M. Aid
>
>Bloomsbury, 423 pp., $30.00
>
>On a remote edge of Utah's dry and arid high desert, where
>temperatures often zoom past 100 degrees, hard-hatted construction
>workers with top-secret clearances are preparing to build what may
>become America's equivalent of Jorge Luis Borges's "Library of Babel,"
>a place where the collection of information is both infinite and at
>the same time monstrous, where the entire world's knowledge is stored,
>but not a single word is understood. At a million square feet, the
>mammoth $2 billion structure will be one-third larger than the US
>Capitol and will use the same amount of energy as every house in Salt
>Lake City combined.
>
>Unlike Borges's "labyrinth of letters," this library expects few
>visitors. It's being built by the ultra-secret National Security Agency
>—which is primarily responsible for "signals intelligence," the
>collection and analysis of various forms of communication—to house
>trillions of phone calls, e-mail messages, and data trails: Web
>searches, parking receipts, bookstore visits, and other digital
>"pocket litter." Lacking adequate space and power at its city-sized
>Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters, the NSA is also completing work on
>another data archive, this one in San Antonio, Texas, which will be
>nearly the size of the Alamodome.
>
>Just how much information will be stored in these windowless
>cybertemples? A clue comes from a recent report prepared by the MITRE
>Corporation, a Pentagon think tank. "As the sensors associated with
>the various surveillance missions improve," says the report, referring
>to a variety of technical collection methods, "the data volumes are
>increasing with a projection that sensor data volume could potentially
increase to the level of Yottabytes (10*24 Bytes) by 2015." Roughly
>equal to about a septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages
>of text, numbers beyond Yottabytes haven't yet been named. Once
>vacuumed up and stored in these near-infinite "libraries," the data
>are then analyzed by powerful infoweapons, supercomputers running
>complex algorithmic programs, to determine who among us may be—or may
>one day become—a terrorist. In the NSA's world of automated
>surveillance on steroids, every bit has a history and every keystroke
>tells a story. ....
>
>more at
>http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23231
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 9:28 am
From: Dave U. Random
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:29:50 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:58:32 -0700 (PDT), Jorge Cruz Rodriguez
><jxrodri@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>to a variety of technical collection methods, "the data volumes are
>>increasing with a projection that sensor data volume could potentially
>>increase to the level of Yottabytes (1024 Bytes) by 2015." Roughly
>>equal to about a septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages
>
>I thought 1024 bytes was a Kilobyte, and 1024 Kilobytes was a Megabyte, and
>1024 Megabytes was a Gigabyte.
10*24 = 10000000000000000000000000
>
>It's a bit like saying that the ocean could potentially increase tro a level
>of millilitres by 2015 (as a result of the melting of the popar icecaps,
>perhaps).
>
>How long is a piece of string?
>
>Ooh, it's millimetres long, no,. it could even be inches long.
.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 1:07 pm
From: Jorge Cruz Rodriguez
On Oct 20, 10:45 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:58:32 -0700 (PDT), Jorge Cruz Rodriguez
>
>
>
> <jxro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Who's in Big Brother's Database?
> >By James Bamford
> >[review of] The Secret Sentry: The Untold History of the National
> >Security Agency
> >by Matthew M. Aid
>
> >Bloomsbury, 423 pp., $30.00
>
> >On a remote edge of Utah's dry and arid high desert, where
> >temperatures often zoom past 100 degrees, hard-hatted construction
> >workers with top-secret clearances are preparing to build what may
> >become America's equivalent of Jorge Luis Borges's "Library of Babel,"
> >a place where the collection of information is both infinite and at
> >the same time monstrous, where the entire world's knowledge is stored,
> >but not a single word is understood. At a million square feet, the
> >mammoth $2 billion structure will be one-third larger than the US
> >Capitol and will use the same amount of energy as every house in Salt
> >Lake City combined.
>
> >Unlike Borges's "labyrinth of letters," this library expects few
> >visitors. It's being built by the ultra-secret National Security Agency
> >—which is primarily responsible for "signals intelligence," the
> >collection and analysis of various forms of communication—to house
> >trillions of phone calls, e-mail messages, and data trails: Web
> >searches, parking receipts, bookstore visits, and other digital
> >"pocket litter." Lacking adequate space and power at its city-sized
> >Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters, the NSA is also completing work on
> >another data archive, this one in San Antonio, Texas, which will be
> >nearly the size of the Alamodome.
>
> >Just how much information will be stored in these windowless
> >cybertemples? A clue comes from a recent report prepared by the MITRE
> >Corporation, a Pentagon think tank. "As the sensors associated with
> >the various surveillance missions improve," says the report, referring
> >to a variety of technical collection methods, "the data volumes are
> >increasing with a projection that sensor data volume could potentially
>
> increase to the level of Yottabytes (10*24 Bytes) by 2015." Roughly
>
> >equal to about a septillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages
> >of text, numbers beyond Yottabytes haven't yet been named. Once
> >vacuumed up and stored in these near-infinite "libraries," the data
> >are then analyzed by powerful infoweapons, supercomputers running
> >complex algorithmic programs, to determine who among us may be—or may
> >one day become—a terrorist. In the NSA's world of automated
> >surveillance on steroids, every bit has a history and every keystroke
> >tells a story. ....
>
> >more at
> >http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23231
10^24, I suppose. (That's supposed to be a caret in there.) or
10 ** 24.
I don't know how meaningful the numbers are. A septillion
pages would be 150 quadrillion pages per person on earth
today (unless I've lost a few digits or marbles), whereas I
think the facts about me could be easily summed up in a
few volumes of a thousand pages or so, if closely printed.
I wonder if we're not witnessing some kind of explosive
hypertophy, as occurs in some plants before they die,
and species before they go extinct. It all sounds like
some kind of apocalyptic orgasm of Security Mind.
How long _is_ a piece of string?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The book that contains all books
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/1950ed5393c908a7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 6:39 am
From: rmak
x-no-archive:yes
On Oct 18, 9:40 pm, rab
<fr...@spamexpire-200910.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
> (Wall Street Journal) - On October 19th, the Kindle 2
> (Amazon.com: http://xrl.us/KindleInternational) will
> become the first e-reader available globally. The only
> other events as important to the history of the book are
> the birth of print and the shift from the scroll to bound
> pages. The e-reader, now widely available, will likely
> change our thinking and our being as profoundly as the two
> previous pre-digital manifestations of text. The question
> is how. And the answer can be found in the history of
> earlier book forms..
>
> Continued: http://xrl.us/KindleReader
Was this Wall Street Journal article written by an Amazon shareholder?
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 6:52 am
From: plausible prose man
On Oct 20, 9:39 am, rmak <rca...@live.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Oct 18, 9:40 pm, rab
>
> <fr...@spamexpire-200910.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
> > (Wall Street Journal) - On October 19th, the Kindle 2
> > (Amazon.com:http://xrl.us/KindleInternational) will
> > become the first e-reader available globally. The only
> > other events as important to the history of the book are
> > the birth of print and the shift from the scroll to bound
> > pages. The e-reader, now widely available, will likely
> > change our thinking and our being as profoundly as the two
> > previous pre-digital manifestations of text. The question
> > is how. And the answer can be found in the history of
> > earlier book forms..
>
> > Continued:http://xrl.us/KindleReader
>
> Was this Wall Street Journal article written by an Amazon shareholder?
"I think so, Brain, but if I called it a fucking piece of shit that
doesn't fucking work, no one would would read my column."
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/sony_releases_new_stupid_piece_of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in_ju2XWn2s
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 8:35 am
From: nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus)
rmak <rca976@live.com> writes:
>Was this Wall Street Journal article written by an Amazon shareholder?
I was thinking of the Stanislaw Lem robot story in which all
possible information, books included, were extracted from the molecular
movement within a cup of tea, myself.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 9:28 am
From: David Mitchell
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:35:23 -0400, Joseph Nebus wrote:
> rmak <rca976@live.com> writes:
>
>>Was this Wall Street Journal article written by an Amazon shareholder?
>
> I was thinking of the Stanislaw Lem robot story in which all
> possible information, books included, were extracted from the molecular
> movement within a cup of tea, myself.
You sure that's Lem? That sounds a lot like Douglas Adams to me...
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 9:45 am
From: Jo'Asia
David Mitchell wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:35:23 -0400, Joseph Nebus wrote:
>> rmak <rca976@live.com> writes:
>>>Was this Wall Street Journal article written by an Amazon shareholder?
>> I was thinking of the Stanislaw Lem robot story in which all
>> possible information, books included, were extracted from the molecular
>> movement within a cup of tea, myself.
> You sure that's Lem? That sounds a lot like Douglas Adams to me...
"The Sixth Sally, or How Trurl and Klapaucjus Created a Demon of the
Second Kind to Defeat the Pirate Pugg" from "The Cyberiad".
But there is no cup of tha involved, the Demon read information from
chaotic movements of the molecules in the air.
Jo'Asia
--
__.-=-. -< Joanna Slupek >----------------------< http://esensja.pl/ >-
--<()> -< joasia @ hell . pl >------< http://bujold.fantastyka.net/ >-
.__.'| -< He's not insubordinate to me. Just to people like yourself.
Saves me the trouble. {Stargate SG-1, Jacob Carter} >-
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 2:07 pm
From: Louann Miller
rmak <rca976@live.com> wrote in news:f313497b-a49f-4cec-b3da-28d5462a1dd1
@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>> (Wall Street Journal) - On October 19th, the Kindle 2
>> (Amazon.com: http://xrl.us/KindleInternational) will
>> become the first e-reader available globally. The only
>> other events as important to the history of the book are
>> the birth of print and the shift from the scroll to bound
>> pages.
> Was this Wall Street Journal article written by an Amazon shareholder?
Perhaps a Jeff somebody?
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 2:33 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
Louann Miller wrote:
> rmak <rca976@live.com> wrote in
> news:f313497b-a49f-4cec-b3da-28d5462a1dd1
> @f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> (Wall Street Journal) - On October 19th, the Kindle 2
>>> (Amazon.com: http://xrl.us/KindleInternational) will
>>> become the first e-reader available globally. The only
>>> other events as important to the history of the book are
>>> the birth of print and the shift from the scroll to bound
>>> pages.
>
>> Was this Wall Street Journal article written by an Amazon
>> shareholder?
>
> Perhaps a Jeff somebody?
One of those Bozos, anyway.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bookstores Around the World (rec.arts.books) (FAQ) (IMPORTANT UPDATE)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/92153a6882249799?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 8:24 am
From: "Stanley Moore"
"Francis A. Miniter" <faminiter@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hbipuh$f44$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> ELF wrote:
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <oaOdndSAGpwTLUrXnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>> "Stanley Moore" <smoore20@comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>> "Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> When doma is struck, any similar state constitutional amendment
>>>>> would also be struck, for the same reason. State constitution
>>>>> can't trump the federal constitution.
>>>> Will it? Texas has a statute forbidding same sex marriage. We then
>>>> passed a constitutional amendment to that same effect. Sort of
>>>> like using a belt and suspenders. The idea was that if the feds
>>>> strick down the statutes then the state constitution would trump
>>>> the issue. I agree if DOMA falls the various state statures will
>>>> be nullified but I am not so sure about the state constitutions.
>>>
>>> There's a particular paragraph in the U.S. Constitution --
>>> specifically the second paragraph of Article VI -- that reads:
>>>
>>> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
>>> be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which
>>> shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
>>> the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall
>>> be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
>>> State to the contrary notwithstanding.
>>>
>>> It's commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause and, well, you can
>>> see what it says about state constitutions.
>>>
>>> -- wds
>>>
>>
>> Except that same constitution also strictly limits the range of
>> federal jurisdiction. In legal speak, the federal government does not
>> have general police power. Family law is not within the purview of the
>> federal government so any laws passed by congress trying to regulate such
>> matters are without legal effect.
>>
>> The Supremacy clause only applies where state and federal systems
>> share jurisdiction.
>>
>> elf
>>
>
>
> Where this gets real tricky is with respect to international treaties!
>
Don't treaties override the Constitution? I notice we do not do many
treaties nowadays. At least I cnnot recall many times in the last 30 years
where the Senate voted on a treaty. I guess NAFTA might be the one that
comes to mind but I can't th9nk of any others. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 9:14 am
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Stanley Moore wrote:
> "Francis A. Miniter" <faminiter@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hbipuh$f44$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> ELF wrote:
>>> William December Starr wrote:
>>>> In article <oaOdndSAGpwTLUrXnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>> "Stanley Moore" <smoore20@comcast.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> "Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> When doma is struck, any similar state constitutional amendment
>>>>>> would also be struck, for the same reason. State constitution
>>>>>> can't trump the federal constitution.
>>>>> Will it? Texas has a statute forbidding same sex marriage. We then
>>>>> passed a constitutional amendment to that same effect. Sort of
>>>>> like using a belt and suspenders. The idea was that if the feds
>>>>> strick down the statutes then the state constitution would trump
>>>>> the issue. I agree if DOMA falls the various state statures will
>>>>> be nullified but I am not so sure about the state constitutions.
>>>> There's a particular paragraph in the U.S. Constitution --
>>>> specifically the second paragraph of Article VI -- that reads:
>>>>
>>>> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
>>>> be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which
>>>> shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
>>>> the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall
>>>> be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
>>>> State to the contrary notwithstanding.
>>>>
>>>> It's commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause and, well, you can
>>>> see what it says about state constitutions.
>>>>
>>>> -- wds
>>>>
>>> Except that same constitution also strictly limits the range of
>>> federal jurisdiction. In legal speak, the federal government does not
>>> have general police power. Family law is not within the purview of the
>>> federal government so any laws passed by congress trying to regulate such
>>> matters are without legal effect.
>>>
>>> The Supremacy clause only applies where state and federal systems
>>> share jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> elf
>>>
>>
>> Where this gets real tricky is with respect to international treaties!
>>
>
> Don't treaties override the Constitution? I notice we do not do many
> treaties nowadays. At least I cnnot recall many times in the last 30 years
> where the Senate voted on a treaty. I guess NAFTA might be the one that
> comes to mind but I can't th9nk of any others. Take care
No. That would amount to an improper way of amending the
Constitution. The difficulty comes where a treaty deals
with matters within the federal power, but ancillary issues
affect state powers. A good example would be a treaty
regarding international crimes that affects the police power
reserved exclusively to the states. The courts make a
general presumption (rebuttable) that the treaty does not
preempt state police powers except where the intent of
Congress to do so is clear and manifest.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 9:16 am
From: Stephen Graham
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> Stephen Graham wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> Stephen Graham wrote:
>>>> ELF wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Except that same constitution also strictly limits the range of
>>>>> federal jurisdiction. In legal speak, the federal government does
>>>>> not have general police power. Family law is not within the purview
>>>>> of the federal government so any laws passed by congress trying to
>>>>> regulate such matters are without legal effect.
>>>>
>>>> Given that the Full Faith and Credit clause is part of the US
>>>> Constitution, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause it overrides any
>>>> state constitutional clause.
>>>
>>>
>>> No. The FF&C Clause operates between states only. The Supremacy
>>> Clause governs state to federal relationship.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you think the FF&C clause over-rides state constitutions if not
>> for the Supremacy Clause?
>
>
> The FF&C clause tells one state that it must recognize the lawful acts,
> etc., of another state. What it generally overrides are failures of one
> state to give effect to the acts of another state. In itself, it does
> not override state constitutions. Except, I suppose, if a state were to
> amend its constitution to say that the state no longer had to give full
> faith and credit to the acts of another state, then the FF&C clause
> would override it. The FF&C clause is one of the basic tenets of
> federalism.
One of the other basic tenets is embodied in the Supremacy Clause, which
gives the FF&C (and any other part of the Constitution) its effect.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 9:28 am
From: "Stanley Moore"
"Francis A. Miniter" <faminiter@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hbknmt$qb6$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Stanley Moore wrote:
>> "Francis A. Miniter" <faminiter@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:hbipuh$f44$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> ELF wrote:
>>>> William December Starr wrote:
>>>>> In article <oaOdndSAGpwTLUrXnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>>> "Stanley Moore" <smoore20@comcast.net> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When doma is struck, any similar state constitutional amendment
>>>>>>> would also be struck, for the same reason. State constitution
>>>>>>> can't trump the federal constitution.
>>>>>> Will it? Texas has a statute forbidding same sex marriage. We then
>>>>>> passed a constitutional amendment to that same effect. Sort of
>>>>>> like using a belt and suspenders. The idea was that if the feds
>>>>>> strick down the statutes then the state constitution would trump
>>>>>> the issue. I agree if DOMA falls the various state statures will
>>>>>> be nullified but I am not so sure about the state constitutions.
>>>>> There's a particular paragraph in the U.S. Constitution --
>>>>> specifically the second paragraph of Article VI -- that reads:
>>>>>
>>>>> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
>>>>> be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which
>>>>> shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
>>>>> the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall
>>>>> be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
>>>>> State to the contrary notwithstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause and, well, you can
>>>>> see what it says about state constitutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- wds
>>>>>
>>>> Except that same constitution also strictly limits the range of
>>>> federal jurisdiction. In legal speak, the federal government does not
>>>> have general police power. Family law is not within the purview of the
>>>> federal government so any laws passed by congress trying to regulate
>>>> such matters are without legal effect.
>>>>
>>>> The Supremacy clause only applies where state and federal systems
>>>> share jurisdiction.
>>>>
>>>> elf
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where this gets real tricky is with respect to international treaties!
>>>
>>
>> Don't treaties override the Constitution? I notice we do not do many
>> treaties nowadays. At least I cnnot recall many times in the last 30
>> years where the Senate voted on a treaty. I guess NAFTA might be the one
>> that comes to mind but I can't th9nk of any others. Take care
>
>
> No. That would amount to an improper way of amending the Constitution.
> The difficulty comes where a treaty deals with matters within the federal
> power, but ancillary issues affect state powers. A good example would be
> a treaty regarding international crimes that affects the police power
> reserved exclusively to the states. The courts make a general presumption
> (rebuttable) that the treaty does not preempt state police powers except
> where the intent of Congress to do so is clear and manifest.
>
> --
> Francis A. Miniter
There was some recent case in Texas where an illegal alien (or maybe legal
resident) was not informed that he could apply to his consulate for help. I
do not recall the details but a treaty issue entered into it. I think it was
a death penalty case. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 10:00 am
From: "Francis A. Miniter"
Stephen Graham wrote:
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> Stephen Graham wrote:
>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>> Stephen Graham wrote:
>>>>> ELF wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that same constitution also strictly limits the range of
>>>>>> federal jurisdiction. In legal speak, the federal government does
>>>>>> not have general police power. Family law is not within the
>>>>>> purview of the federal government so any laws passed by congress
>>>>>> trying to regulate such matters are without legal effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that the Full Faith and Credit clause is part of the US
>>>>> Constitution, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause it overrides any
>>>>> state constitutional clause.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. The FF&C Clause operates between states only. The Supremacy
>>>> Clause governs state to federal relationship.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you think the FF&C clause over-rides state constitutions if
>>> not for the Supremacy Clause?
>>
>>
>> The FF&C clause tells one state that it must recognize the lawful
>> acts, etc., of another state. What it generally overrides are
>> failures of one state to give effect to the acts of another state. In
>> itself, it does not override state constitutions. Except, I suppose,
>> if a state were to amend its constitution to say that the state no
>> longer had to give full faith and credit to the acts of another state,
>> then the FF&C clause would override it. The FF&C clause is one of the
>> basic tenets of federalism.
>
> One of the other basic tenets is embodied in the Supremacy Clause, which
> gives the FF&C (and any other part of the Constitution) its effect.
That was the case of Medellin v. Texas, 552 U. S. ____
(2008). It is a very complex decision that is 89 pages
long. Roberts delivered the main opinion; Stevens
concurred; Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg dissented. The
following is the syllabus for the opinion:
------------------------
1. The Avena judgment is not directly enforceable as
domestic law in state court. Pp. 8–27.
(a) While a treaty may constitute an international
commitment,it is not binding domestic law unless Congress
has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself
conveys an intention that it be"self-executing" and is
ratified on that basis. See, e.g., Foster v. Neil-son, 2
Pet. 253, 314. The Avena judgment creates an international
law obligation on the part of the United States, but it is
not automatically binding domestic law because none of the
relevant treaty sources—the Optional Protocol, the U. N.
Charter, or the ICJ Statute—creates binding federal law in
the absence of implementing legislation, and no such
legislation has been enacted.
The most natural reading of the Optional Protocol is that it
is a bare grant of jurisdiction. The Protocol says nothing
about the effect of an ICJ decision, does not commit
signatories to comply therewith, and is silent as to any
enforcement mechanism. The obligation to comply with ICJ
judgments is derived from Article 94 of the U. N.Charter,
which provides that "[e]ach . . . Member . . . undertakes to
comply with the [ICJ's] decision . . . in any case to which
it is a party." The phrase "undertakes to comply" is simply
a commitment by member states to take future action through
their political branches. That language does not indicate
that the Senate, in ratifying the Optional Protocol,
intended to vest ICJ decisions with immediate legal effect
in domestic courts.
This reading is confirmed by Article 94(2)—the enforcement
provision—which provides the sole remedy for noncompliance:
referral to the U. N. Security Council by an aggrieved
state. The provision of an express diplomatic rather than
judicial remedy is itself evidence that ICJ judgments were
not meant to be enforceable in domestic courts. See
Sanchez-Llamas, 548 U. S., at 347. Even this
"quintessentially international remed[y]," id., at 355, is
not absolute. It requires a Security Council resolution, and
the President and Senate were undoubtedly aware that the
United States retained the unqualified right to exercise its
veto of any such resolution. Medellín's construction would
eliminate the option of noncompliance contemplated by
Article 94(2), undermining the ability of the political
branches to determine whether and how to comply with an ICJ
judgment.
The ICJ Statute, by limiting disputes to those involving
nations, not individuals, and by specifying that ICJ
decisions have no binding force except between those
nations, provides further evidence that the Avena judgment
does not automatically constitute federal law enforceable in
U. S. courts. Medellín, an individual, cannot be considered
a party to the Avena decision. Finally, the United States'
interpretation of a treaty "is entitled to great weight,"
Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U. S., at
184–185, and the Executive Branch has unfailingly adhered to
its view that the relevant treaties do not create
domestically enforceable federal law. Pp. 8–17.
(b) The foregoing interpretive approach—parsing a treaty's
text to determine if it is self-executing—is hardly novel.
This Court has long looked to the language of a treaty to
determine whether the President who negotiated it and the
Senate that ratified it intended for the treaty to
automatically create domestically enforceable federal law.
See, e.g., Foster, supra. Pp. 18–20.
(c) The Court's conclusion that Avena does not by itself
constitute binding federal law is confirmed by the "post
ratification understanding" of signatory countries. See
Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U. S. 217, 226. There
are currently 47 nations that are parties tote Optional
Protocol and 171 nations that are parties to the Vienna
Convention. Yet neither Medellín nor his amici have
identified a single nation that treats ICJ judgments as
binding in domestic courts. The lack of any basis for
supposing that any other country would treat ICJ judgments
as directly enforceable as a matter of its domestic law
strongly suggests that the treaty should not be so viewed in
our courts. See Sanchez-Llamas, 548 U. S., at 343–344, and n. 3.
The Court's conclusion is further supported by general
principles of interpretation. Given that the forum state's
procedural rules govern a treaty's implementation absent a
clear and express statement to the contrary, see e.g., id.,
at 351, one would expect the ratifying parties to the
relevant treaties to have clearly stated any intent to
giveICJ judgments such effect. There is no statement in the
Optional Protocol, the U. N. Charter, or the ICJ Statute
that supports this notion. Moreover, the consequences of
Medellín's argument give pause: neither Texas nor this Court
may look behind an ICJ decision and quarrel with its
reasoning or result, despite this Court's holding in
Sanchez-Llamas that "[n]othing in the [ICJ's] structure or
purpose. . . suggests that its interpretations were intended
to be conclusive on our courts." id., at 354. Pp. 20–24.
(d) The Court's holding does not call into question the
ordinary enforcement of foreign judgments. An agreement to
abide by the result of an international adjudication can be
a treaty obligation like any other, so long as the agreement
is consistent with the Constitution. In addition, Congress
is up to the task of implementing nonself-executing
treaties, even those involving complex commercial disputes.
Medellín contends that domestic courts generally give effect
to foreign judgments, but the judgment Medellín asks us to
enforce is hardly typical: It would enjoin the operation of
state law and force the State to take action to "review and
reconside[r]" his case. Foreign judgments awarding
injunctive relief against private parties, let alone
sovereign States, "are not generally entitled to
enforcement." Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law
of the United States§481, Comment b, p. 595 (1986). Pp. 24–27.
2. The President's Memorandum does not independently require
the States to provide review and reconsideration of the
claims of the51 Mexican nationals named in Avena without
regard to state procedural default rules. Pp. 27–37.
(a) The President seeks to vindicate plainly compelling
interests in ensuring the reciprocal observance of the
Vienna Convention, protecting relations with foreign
governments, and demonstrating commitment to the role of
international law. But those interests do not allow the
Court to set aside first principles. The President's
authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental
power, "musts tem either from an act of Congress or from the
Constitution itself." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
343 U. S. 579, 585.
Justice Jackson's familiar tripartite scheme provides the
accepted framework for evaluating executive action in this
area. First, "[w]hen the President acts pursuant to an
express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority
is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in
his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."
Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).
Second, "[w]hen the President acts in absence of either a
congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely
upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of
twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent
authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain." Id.,
at 637. In such a circumstance, Presidential authority can
derive support from "congressional inertia, indifference or
quiescence." Ibid. Finally, "[w]hen the President takes
measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of
Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb," and the Court can
sustain his actions "only by disabling the Congress from
acting upon the subject." Id., at 637–638. Pp. 28–29.
(b) The United States marshals two principal arguments in
favor of the President's authority to establish binding
rules of decision that preempt contrary state law. The
United States argues that the relevant treaties give the
President the authority to implement the Avena judgment and
that Congress has acquiesced in the exercise of such
authority. The United States also relies upon an
"independent" international dispute-resolution power. We
find these arguments, as well as Medellín's additional
argument that the President's Memorandum is a valid exercise
of his "Take Care" power, unpersuasive.Pp. 29–37.
(i) The United States maintains that the President's
Memorandum is implicitly authorized by the Optional Protocol
and the U. N. Charter. But the responsibility for
transforming an international obligation arising from a
non-self-executing treaty into domestic law falls to
Congress, not the Executive. Foster, 2 Pet., at 315. It is a
fundamental constitutional principle that " '[t]he power to
make the necessary laws is in Congress; the power to execute
in the President.' " Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557, 591.
A non-self executing treaty, by definition, is one that was
ratified with the understanding that it is not to have
domestic effect of its own force. That understanding
precludes the assertion that Congress has implicitly
authorized the President—acting on his own—to achieve
precisely the same result. Accordingly, the President's
Memorandum does not fall within the first category of the
Youngstown framework. Indeed, because the non-self-executing
character of the relevant treaties not only refutes the
notion that the ratifying parties vested the President with
the authority to unilaterally make treaty obligations
binding on domestic courts, but also implicitly prohibits
him from doing so, the President's assertion of authority is
within Youngstown's third category, not the first or even
the second.
The United States maintains that congressional acquiescence
requires that the President's Memorandum be given effect as
domestic law. But such acquiescence is pertinent when the
President's action falls within the second Youngstown
category, not the third. In any event, congressional
acquiescence does not exist here. Congress' failure to act
following the President's resolution of prior ICJ
controversies does not demonstrate acquiescence because in
none of those prior controversies did the President assert
the authority to transform an international obligation into
domestic law and thereby displace state law. The United
States' reliance on the President's "related" statutory
responsibilities and on his "established role" in litigating
foreign policy concerns is also misplaced. The President's
statutory authorization to represent the United States
before the U. N., the ICJ, and the U. N. Security Council
speaks to his international responsibilities, not to any
unilateral authority to create domestic law.
The combination of a non-self-executing treaty and the lack
of implementing legislation does not preclude the President
from acting to comply with an international treaty
obligation by other means, so long as those means are
consistent with the Constitution. But the President may not
rely upon a non-self-executing treaty to establish binding
rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law. Pp. 30– 35.
(ii) The United States also claims that—independent of the
United States' treaty obligations—the Memorandum is a valid
exercise of the President's foreign affairs authority to
resolve claims disputes. See, e.g., American Ins. Assn. v.
Garamendi, 539 U. S. 396,
415. This Court's claims-settlement cases involve a narrow
set of circumstances: the making of executive agreements to
settle civil claims between American citizens and foreign
governments or foreign nationals. They are based on the view
that "a systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long
pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before
questioned," can "raise a presumption that the [action] had
been [taken] in pursuance of its consent." Dames & Moore
v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654, 668. But "[p]ast practice does not,
by itself, create power." Ibid. The President's Memorandum—a
directive issued to state courts that would compel those
courts to reopen final criminal judgments and set aside
neutrally applicable state laws—is not supported by a
"particularly longstanding practice." The Executive's
limited authority to settle international claims disputes
pursuant to an executive agreement cannot stretch so far.
Pp. 35–37.
(iii) Medellín's argument that the President's Memorandum is
a valid exercise of his power to "Take Care" that the laws
be faithfully executed, U. S. Const., Art. II, §3, fails
because the ICJ's decision in Avena is not domestic law. P. 37.
--------------------------
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 2:24 pm
From: "Stanley Moore"
"Francis A. Miniter" <faminiter@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hbkqd6$jf4$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Stephen Graham wrote:
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> Stephen Graham wrote:
>>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>>> Stephen Graham wrote:
>>>>>> ELF wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that same constitution also strictly limits the range of
>>>>>>> federal jurisdiction. In legal speak, the federal government does
>>>>>>> not have general police power. Family law is not within the purview
>>>>>>> of the federal government so any laws passed by congress trying to
>>>>>>> regulate such matters are without legal effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that the Full Faith and Credit clause is part of the US
>>>>>> Constitution, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause it overrides any
>>>>>> state constitutional clause.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No. The FF&C Clause operates between states only. The Supremacy
>>>>> Clause governs state to federal relationship.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think the FF&C clause over-rides state constitutions if not
>>>> for the Supremacy Clause?
>>>
>>>
>>> The FF&C clause tells one state that it must recognize the lawful acts,
>>> etc., of another state. What it generally overrides are failures of one
>>> state to give effect to the acts of another state. In itself, it does
>>> not override state constitutions. Except, I suppose, if a state were to
>>> amend its constitution to say that the state no longer had to give full
>>> faith and credit to the acts of another state, then the FF&C clause
>>> would override it. The FF&C clause is one of the basic tenets of
>>> federalism.
>>
>> One of the other basic tenets is embodied in the Supremacy Clause, which
>> gives the FF&C (and any other part of the Constitution) its effect.
>
>
> That was the case of Medellin v. Texas, 552 U. S. ____ (2008). It is a
> very complex decision that is 89 pages long. Roberts delivered the main
> opinion; Stevens concurred; Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg dissented. The
> following is the syllabus for the opinion:
>
> ------------------------
> 1. The Avena judgment is not directly enforceable as domestic law in state
> court. Pp. 8-27.
>
> (a) While a treaty may constitute an international commitment,it is not
> binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it
> or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be"self-executing" and
> is ratified on that basis. See, e.g., Foster v. Neil-son, 2 Pet. 253, 314.
> The Avena judgment creates an international law obligation on the part of
> the United States, but it is not automatically binding domestic law
> because none of the relevant treaty sources-the Optional Protocol, the U.
> N. Charter, or the ICJ Statute-creates binding federal law in the absence
> of implementing legislation, and no such legislation has been enacted.
> The most natural reading of the Optional Protocol is that it is a bare
> grant of jurisdiction. The Protocol says nothing about the effect of an
> ICJ decision, does not commit signatories to comply therewith, and is
> silent as to any enforcement mechanism. The obligation to comply with ICJ
> judgments is derived from Article 94 of the U. N.Charter, which provides
> that "[e]ach . . . Member . . . undertakes to comply with the [ICJ's]
> decision . . . in any case to which it is a party." The phrase "undertakes
> to comply" is simply a commitment by member states to take future action
> through their political branches. That language does not indicate that the
> Senate, in ratifying the Optional Protocol, intended to vest ICJ decisions
> with immediate legal effect in domestic courts.
> This reading is confirmed by Article 94(2)-the enforcement provision-which
> provides the sole remedy for noncompliance: referral to the U. N. Security
> Council by an aggrieved state. The provision of an express diplomatic
> rather than judicial remedy is itself evidence that ICJ judgments were not
> meant to be enforceable in domestic courts. See Sanchez-Llamas, 548 U. S.,
> at 347. Even this "quintessentially international remed[y]," id., at 355,
> is not absolute. It requires a Security Council resolution, and the
> President and Senate were undoubtedly aware that the United States
> retained the unqualified right to exercise its veto of any such
> resolution. Medellín's construction would eliminate the option of
> noncompliance contemplated by Article 94(2), undermining the ability of
> the political branches to determine whether and how to comply with an ICJ
> judgment.
> The ICJ Statute, by limiting disputes to those involving nations, not
> individuals, and by specifying that ICJ decisions have no binding force
> except between those nations, provides further evidence that the Avena
> judgment does not automatically constitute federal law enforceable in U.
> S. courts. Medellín, an individual, cannot be considered a party to the
> Avena decision. Finally, the United States' interpretation of a treaty "is
> entitled to great weight," Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457
> U. S., at 184-185, and the Executive Branch has unfailingly adhered to its
> view that the relevant treaties do not create domestically enforceable
> federal law. Pp. 8-17.
>
> (b) The foregoing interpretive approach-parsing a treaty's text to
> determine if it is self-executing-is hardly novel. This Court has long
> looked to the language of a treaty to determine whether the President who
> negotiated it and the Senate that ratified it intended for the treaty to
> automatically create domestically enforceable federal law. See, e.g.,
> Foster, supra. Pp. 18-20.
>
> (c) The Court's conclusion that Avena does not by itself constitute
> binding federal law is confirmed by the "post ratification understanding"
> of signatory countries. See Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U. S.
> 217, 226. There are currently 47 nations that are parties tote Optional
> Protocol and 171 nations that are parties to the Vienna Convention. Yet
> neither Medellín nor his amici have identified a single nation that treats
> ICJ judgments as binding in domestic courts. The lack of any basis for
> supposing that any other country would treat ICJ judgments as directly
> enforceable as a matter of its domestic law strongly suggests that the
> treaty should not be so viewed in our courts. See Sanchez-Llamas, 548 U.
> S., at 343-344, and n. 3.
> The Court's conclusion is further supported by general principles of
> interpretation. Given that the forum state's procedural rules govern a
> treaty's implementation absent a clear and express statement to the
> contrary, see e.g., id., at 351, one would expect the ratifying parties to
> the relevant treaties to have clearly stated any intent to giveICJ
> judgments such effect. There is no statement in the Optional Protocol, the
> U. N. Charter, or the ICJ Statute that supports this notion. Moreover, the
> consequences of Medellín's argument give pause: neither Texas nor this
> Court may look behind an ICJ decision and quarrel with its reasoning or
> result, despite this Court's holding in Sanchez-Llamas that "[n]othing in
> the [ICJ's] structure or purpose. . . suggests that its interpretations
> were intended to be conclusive on our courts." id., at 354. Pp. 20-24.
>
> (d) The Court's holding does not call into question the ordinary
> enforcement of foreign judgments. An agreement to abide by the result of
> an international adjudication can be a treaty obligation like any other,
> so long as the agreement is consistent with the Constitution. In addition,
> Congress is up to the task of implementing nonself-executing treaties,
> even those involving complex commercial disputes. Medellín contends that
> domestic courts generally give effect to foreign judgments, but the
> judgment Medellín asks us to enforce is hardly typical: It would enjoin
> the operation of state law and force the State to take action to "review
> and reconside[r]" his case. Foreign judgments awarding injunctive relief
> against private parties, let alone sovereign States, "are not generally
> entitled to enforcement." Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of
> the United States§481, Comment b, p. 595 (1986). Pp. 24-27.
>
> 2. The President's Memorandum does not independently require the States to
> provide review and reconsideration of the claims of the51 Mexican
> nationals named in Avena without regard to state procedural default rules.
> Pp. 27-37.
>
> (a) The President seeks to vindicate plainly compelling interests in
> ensuring the reciprocal observance of the Vienna Convention, protecting
> relations with foreign governments, and demonstrating commitment to the
> role of international law. But those interests do not allow the Court to
> set aside first principles. The President's authority to act, as with the
> exercise of any governmental power, "musts tem either from an act of
> Congress or from the Constitution itself." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v.
> Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585.
> Justice Jackson's familiar tripartite scheme provides the accepted
> framework for evaluating executive action in this area. First, "[w]hen the
> President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of
> Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he
> possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate."
> Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring). Second, "[w]hen
> the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of
> authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is
> a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority,
> or in which its distribution is uncertain." Id., at 637. In such a
> circumstance, Presidential authority can derive support from
> "congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence." Ibid. Finally,
> "[w]hen the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or
> implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb," and the Court
> can sustain his actions "only by disabling the Congress from acting upon
> the subject." Id., at 637-638. Pp. 28-29.
>
> (b) The United States marshals two principal arguments in favor of the
> President's authority to establish binding rules of decision that preempt
> contrary state law. The United States argues that the relevant treaties
> give the President the authority to implement the Avena judgment and that
> Congress has acquiesced in the exercise of such authority. The United
> States also relies upon an "independent" international dispute-resolution
> power. We find these arguments, as well as Medellín's additional argument
> that the President's Memorandum is a valid exercise of his "Take Care"
> power, unpersuasive.Pp. 29-37.
> (i) The United States maintains that the President's Memorandum is
> implicitly authorized by the Optional Protocol and the U. N. Charter. But
> the responsibility for transforming an international obligation arising
> from a non-self-executing treaty into domestic law falls to Congress, not
> the Executive. Foster, 2 Pet., at 315. It is a fundamental constitutional
> principle that " '[t]he power to make the necessary laws is in Congress;
> the power to execute in the President.' " Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S.
> 557, 591. A non-self executing treaty, by definition, is one that was
> ratified with the understanding that it is not to have domestic effect of
> its own force. That understanding precludes the assertion that Congress
> has implicitly authorized the President-acting on his own-to achieve
> precisely the same result. Accordingly, the President's Memorandum does
> not fall within the first category of the Youngstown framework. Indeed,
> because the non-self-executing character of the relevant treaties not only
> refutes the notion that the ratifying parties vested the President with
> the authority to unilaterally make treaty obligations binding on domestic
> courts, but also implicitly prohibits him from doing so, the President's
> assertion of authority is within Youngstown's third category, not the
> first or even the second.
> The United States maintains that congressional acquiescence requires that
> the President's Memorandum be given effect as domestic law. But such
> acquiescence is pertinent when the President's action falls within the
> second Youngstown category, not the third. In any event, congressional
> acquiescence does not exist here. Congress' failure to act following the
> President's resolution of prior ICJ controversies does not demonstrate
> acquiescence because in none of those prior controversies did the
> President assert the authority to transform an international obligation
> into domestic law and thereby displace state law. The United States'
> reliance on the President's "related" statutory responsibilities and on
> his "established role" in litigating foreign policy concerns is also
> misplaced. The President's statutory authorization to represent the United
> States before the U. N., the ICJ, and the U. N. Security Council speaks to
> his international responsibilities, not to any unilateral authority to
> create domestic law.
> The combination of a non-self-executing treaty and the lack of
> implementing legislation does not preclude the President from acting to
> comply with an international treaty obligation by other means, so long as
> those means are consistent with the Constitution. But the President may
> not rely upon a non-self-executing treaty to establish binding rules of
> decision that pre-empt contrary state law. Pp. 30- 35.
> (ii) The United States also claims that-independent of the United States'
> treaty obligations-the Memorandum is a valid exercise of the President's
> foreign affairs authority to resolve claims disputes. See, e.g., American
> Ins. Assn. v. Garamendi, 539 U. S. 396,
> 415. This Court's claims-settlement cases involve a narrow set of
> circumstances: the making of executive agreements to settle civil claims
> between American citizens and foreign governments or foreign nationals.
> They are based on the view that "a systematic, unbroken, executive
> practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before
> questioned," can "raise a presumption that the [action] had been [taken]
> in pursuance of its consent." Dames & Moore
> v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654, 668. But "[p]ast practice does not, by itself,
> create power." Ibid. The President's Memorandum-a directive issued to
> state courts that would compel those courts to reopen final criminal
> judgments and set aside neutrally applicable state laws-is not supported
> by a "particularly longstanding practice." The Executive's limited
> authority to settle international claims disputes pursuant to an executive
> agreement cannot stretch so far. Pp. 35-37.
> (iii) Medellín's argument that the President's Memorandum is a valid
> exercise of his power to "Take Care" that the laws be faithfully executed,
> U. S. Const., Art. II, §3, fails because the ICJ's decision in Avena is
> not domestic law. P. 37.
> --------------------------
>
> --
> Francis A. Miniter
It certainly sounds complicated. But the news channels have to simplify the
issues for braodcast, Anyway treaties can have far reaching effects. Take
care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheaper Kindle
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/83369cb7977feb61?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 8:43 am
From: "Stanley Moore"
"Kurt Busiek" <kurt@busiek.com> wrote in message
news:hbjeat$t0a$1@solani.org...
> On 2009-10-19 21:01:01 -0700, Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> said:
> "10. There's just something about a dead tree book, isn't there? It's nice
> to pop into the airport news stand and pick up a novel."
>
> The thing I was most surprised about with the Kindle was how little the
> "there's just something about a book" mattered. I expected it to be a
> huge adjustment, and it just wasn't. And no, I'd much rather have the
> ability to browse in Amazon's extensive Kindle store (plus Project
> Gutenberg and other places, with appropriate planning) than be limited to
> the contents of an airport bookstore. Heck, I can go ahead and browse in
> the airport bookstore, and if I find something I want, I can probably buy
> it for the Kindle; I do that in bookstores as is.
I think that issue is a factor of newness. I can imagine a scholar a few
thousand years in the past complaining, "There is just something unique and
substantial about a cuneiform clay tablet that the new fangled papyrus
scroll doesn't have. You can see at the glance what;s written on the tablet
but you have to unroll the papyrus to find anything." <G>
Every new thing has this problem. In a generation or so this will even out.
Reminds me of a version of Hosnd of the Baskervilles I saw last night *Matt
Frewer as SH). Sir Henry moves into Baskerville Hall and asks the butler why
there is no electricity as there is a line just up the lane. The butler
explains the previous baronet wouldn't have the modern service preferring tp
wait a couple of decades to see if it catches on.
I love my Kindle DX mainly because I now get my newspaper on it and I can
enlarge the text for easy reading with my poor eyesight. The DX is large
enough to be just like a book to read. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 9:36 am
From: "Taemon"
Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>>> "10 reasons to buy a Kindle 2...and 10 reasons not to":
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/Kindle10
> "7. Flight attendants will tell you to turn it off on take off and
> landing." This bit's annoying, yes. I can generally find enough in the
> inflight
> magazine to fill my time during those periods, but it's annoying.
I read this as that you can keep it on during the flight, only have to turn
it off on take off and landing.
T.
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 9:59 am
From: Kurt Busiek
On 2009-10-20 09:36:39 -0700, "Taemon" <Taemon@zonnet.nl> said:
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>
>>>>> "10 reasons to buy a Kindle 2...and 10 reasons not to":
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/Kindle10
>
>> "7. Flight attendants will tell you to turn it off on take off and
>> landing." This bit's annoying, yes. I can generally find enough in the
>> inflight
>> magazine to fill my time during those periods, but it's annoying.
>
> I read this as that you can keep it on during the flight, only have to turn
> it off on take off and landing.
You read it correctly, yes.
You have to turn it off when they tell everyone to turn cell phones and
laptops off, and can then turn it on again about ten minutes into the
flight.
At the other end of the flight, you have to turn it off when they tell
everyone to turn off their laptops and put their tray tables up, and
can turn it on again once you're on th ground and they give the
cell-phone all-clear.
That can be about fifteen-to-twenty minutes on takeoff and a briefer
time on landing that could be used for reading but, well, they want you
to turn off the Kindle even though it's not broadcasting anysignal;
it's like asking people to turn off their digital watch. But the
in-flight magazine generally fills the gaps.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 10:29 am
From: "Taemon"
Kurt Busiek wrote:
> On 2009-10-20 09:36:39 -0700, "Taemon" <Taemon@zonnet.nl> said:
>> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>>>>> "10 reasons to buy a Kindle 2...and 10 reasons not to":
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/Kindle10
>>> "7. Flight attendants will tell you to turn it off on take off and
>>> landing." This bit's annoying, yes. I can generally find enough in
>>> the inflight
>>> magazine to fill my time during those periods, but it's annoying.
>> I read this as that you can keep it on during the flight, only have
>> to turn it off on take off and landing.
> You read it correctly, yes.
<snip>
> That can be about fifteen-to-twenty minutes on takeoff and a briefer
> time on landing that could be used for reading but, well, they want
> you to turn off the Kindle even though it's not broadcasting
> anysignal; it's like asking people to turn off their digital watch. But
> the in-flight magazine generally fills the gaps.
Oh, "those" periods. Sorry. I thought you has misunderstood, but I had
misunderstood you :-)
T.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 10:50 am
From: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.com> wrote in
news:hbkq90$7sv$1@solani.org:
> On 2009-10-20 09:36:39 -0700, "Taemon" <Taemon@zonnet.nl> said:
>
>> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "10 reasons to buy a Kindle 2...and 10 reasons not to":
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/Kindle10
>>
>>> "7. Flight attendants will tell you to turn it off on take off
>>> and landing." This bit's annoying, yes. I can generally find
>>> enough in the inflight
>>> magazine to fill my time during those periods, but it's
>>> annoying.
>>
>> I read this as that you can keep it on during the flight, only
>> have to turn it off on take off and landing.
>
> You read it correctly, yes.
>
> You have to turn it off when they tell everyone to turn cell
> phones and laptops off, and can then turn it on again about ten
> minutes into the flight.
>
> At the other end of the flight, you have to turn it off when
> they tell everyone to turn off their laptops and put their tray
> tables up, and can turn it on again once you're on th ground and
> they give the cell-phone all-clear.
>
> That can be about fifteen-to-twenty minutes on takeoff and a
> briefer time on landing that could be used for reading but,
> well, they want you to turn off the Kindle even though it's not
> broadcasting anysignal; it's like asking people to turn off
> their digital watch. But the in-flight magazine generally fills
> the gaps.
>
Digital watches are not known for emitting RF. Pretty much anything
with a screen, especially if it also has a computer CPU, can. It
isn't that they think it does, so much as it hasn't been tested and
proven not to. And even if it were, there's millions of other
devices out there that haven't, and the flight crew doesn't have
time to look for compliance stickers on each and every device. They
would rather annoy you than allow even the remotest avoidable
chance (even an unrealistic one) of interfering with the avionics.
And strictly speaking, if digital watches *had* off switches, they
would probably demand you turn those off, too.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 1:39 pm
From: Mike Ash
In article <Xns9CAA6E3DCA77Btaustingmail@69.16.186.50>,
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
> Digital watches are not known for emitting RF. Pretty much anything
> with a screen, especially if it also has a computer CPU, can. It
> isn't that they think it does, so much as it hasn't been tested and
> proven not to. And even if it were, there's millions of other
> devices out there that haven't, and the flight crew doesn't have
> time to look for compliance stickers on each and every device. They
> would rather annoy you than allow even the remotest avoidable
> chance (even an unrealistic one) of interfering with the avionics.
And of course nobody is ever troubled by the massive contradiction of
the idea that a turned-on cell phone could somehow take down the
aircraft, but enforcement of it is purely voluntary.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 2:33 pm
From: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Mike Ash <mike@mikeash.com> wrote in
news:mike-846614.16392720102009@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <Xns9CAA6E3DCA77Btaustingmail@69.16.186.50>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Digital watches are not known for emitting RF. Pretty much
>> anything with a screen, especially if it also has a computer
>> CPU, can. It isn't that they think it does, so much as it
>> hasn't been tested and proven not to. And even if it were,
>> there's millions of other devices out there that haven't, and
>> the flight crew doesn't have time to look for compliance
>> stickers on each and every device. They would rather annoy you
>> than allow even the remotest avoidable chance (even an
>> unrealistic one) of interfering with the avionics.
>
> And of course nobody is ever troubled by the massive
> contradiction of the idea that a turned-on cell phone could
> somehow take down the aircraft, but enforcement of it is purely
> voluntary.
>
You didn't even read what I wrote, did you?
(There have been tests that demonstrated that certain models of
phone could, possibly even in the real world, affect certain types
of avionics gear, though in both cases the type would be "very,
very old.")
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Oct 20 2009 2:29 pm
From: "Stanley Moore"
"Taemon" <Taemon@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:hbkouk$5la$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>
>>>>> "10 reasons to buy a Kindle 2...and 10 reasons not to":
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/Kindle10
>
>> "7. Flight attendants will tell you to turn it off on take off and
>> landing." This bit's annoying, yes. I can generally find enough in the
>> inflight
>> magazine to fill my time during those periods, but it's annoying.
>
> I read this as that you can keep it on during the flight, only have to
> turn it off on take off and landing.
>
> T.
I believe you have to keep the WhisperNet (cell phone) part off the whole
time as well but you can read it during flight. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.arts.books"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.arts.books+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Has laoreet percipitur ad. Vide interesset in mei, no his legimus verterem. Et nostrum imperdiet appellantur usu, mnesarchum referrentur id vim.
0 comments:
Post a Comment