OT: I'm really not anti-American, just fed up with stupidity...

[Pete Dashwood]

http://www.webpronews.com/snopa-is-one-internet-bill-worth-rooting-for-2012-04

Please see my comment, and the comments on my comment, about this subject...

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

[HeyBub]

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> http://www.webpronews.com/snopa-is-one-internet-bill-worth-rooting-for-2012-04
>
> Please see my comment, and the comments on my comment, about this
> subject...

From the employer's perspective, he would want to know as much about a
prospective employee as possible. Suppose the applicant bragged on his
social media page: "I got questioned today about the fire at my previous
place of employment. Not to worry, though. They'll have about as much
success pinning this on me as they did the other three!"

If, on the other hand, a prospective employer sees a Facebook page with
references to how active the applicant is in his church, the charitable
activities in which he participates, the minority children he mentors, the
picture of the no-longer-hungry African child he sponsors, how he's doing in
his on-line course in Mandarin, etc., then the hiring office will come to
two simultaneous conclusions:

1. The applicant is a prince among men, or
2. The applicant had the foresight to dummy up an entry that makes him LOOK
like a prince among men,

either of which should make him a swell employee.

[Pete Dashwood]

HeyBub wrote:
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> http://www.webpronews.com/snopa-is-one-internet-bill-worth-rooting-for-2012-04
>>
>> Please see my comment, and the comments on my comment, about this
>> subject...
>
> From the employer's perspective, he would want to know as much about a
> prospective employee as possible.

Only if he is a nosey busybody.

All he NEEDS to know is whether the person will be a worthwhile employee.

During my lifetime I have employed dozens of people.

I never wanted to pry into their private lives and I never needed to. I knew
after talking to them whether they had the right stuff or not and i have
never been disappointed.

>Suppose the applicant bragged on his
> social media page: "I got questioned today about the fire at my
> previous place of employment. Not to worry, though. They'll have
> about as much success pinning this on me as they did the other three!"
>

Social media are largely for enterntainment purposes. Would you believe
everything you read on a Facebook site?

> If, on the other hand, a prospective employer sees a Facebook page
> with references to how active the applicant is in his church,

I know pillars of several different Churches who are unmitigated villains
and rapscallions. It means no more than claiming to have gotten away with
arson... ANYTHING posted on a Facebook page is subject to question and
should not be a serious part of a job interview.

> the
> charitable activities in which he participates, the minority children
> he mentors, the picture of the no-longer-hungry African child he
> sponsors, how he's doing in his on-line course in Mandarin, etc.,
> then the hiring office will come to two simultaneous conclusions:
>
> 1. The applicant is a prince among men, or
> 2. The applicant had the foresight to dummy up an entry that makes
> him LOOK like a prince among men,

...OR... that Social media are not to be trusted when it comes to assessing
people for a job and it might be better to ask some searching questions of
your own and judge the responses...

>
> either of which should make him a swell employee.

No more swell than if he boasted of committing arson. The data has no
credibility whether it is good or bad, unless you know the person
personally. As you generally DON'T know a job applicant personally (if you
did, and they were suitable you probably would have approached them, instead
of vice versa), you need to back your judgement by assessing them in an
interview.

But the REAL point of my frustration here was that a LAW has to be passed to
PROTECT people.

(Except that it DOESN'T protect them because it can be easily circumvented
unless people stand up for themselves and their rights.)

What's next? A law to say that you mustn't speak to strangers? Or wear a
loud tie in public? Or drive a green car if you are wearing a blue suit?

I was somewhat relieved by the fact that not all of the population are happy
with this trend; the guy who wrote "Pete for President" is obviously an
intelligent and discerning man, so they are not all locked up yet. :-)

[Alistair Maclean]

On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 11:53:10 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Social media are largely for enterntainment purposes. Would you believe
> everything you read on a Facebook site?
>

> > the
> > charitable activities in which he participates, the minority children
> > he mentors, the picture of the no-longer-hungry African child he
> > sponsors, how he's doing in his on-line course in Mandarin, etc.,
> > then the hiring office will come to two simultaneous conclusions:
> >
> > 1. The applicant is a prince among men, or
> > 2. The applicant had the foresight to dummy up an entry that makes
> > him LOOK like a prince among men,
>
> ...OR... that Social media are not to be trusted when it comes to assessing
> people for a job and it might be better to ask some searching questions of
> your own and judge the responses...
> >

Or, maybe, that s/he is the victim of identity theft.

> I was somewhat relieved by the fact that not all of the population are happy
> with this trend; the guy who wrote "Pete for President" is obviously an
> intelligent and discerning man, so they are not all locked up yet. :-)
>

Or, maybe, they hypothesise that you are young and hip and unlikely to pop your clogs any time now (unlike most US presidents of the past).

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <a09tkm...@mid.individual.net>,

Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>HeyBub wrote:
>> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>>
>http://www.webpronews.com/snopa-is-one-internet-bill-worth-rooting-for-2012-04
>>>
>>> Please see my comment, and the comments on my comment, about this
>>> subject...
>>
>> From the employer's perspective, he would want to know as much about a
>> prospective employee as possible.
>
>Only if he is a nosey busybody.

Mr Dashwood, I can't recall where I read it, long ago, but it was
something to the effect that no policeman (yes, it was written that long
ago) wants to see increased evidentiary exclusion based on the Right
codified in the IVth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America.

>
>All he NEEDS to know is whether the person will be a worthwhile employee.

The Despot shrieks 'WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE?!?', the Free Person replied
'I choose not to tell you.'

Some people take what I see as an inherently slavish attitude of 'being
given a job' as opposed to 'being paid for work from which another expects
to achieve a greater profit.'

I've turned down contracts because a urine test was required. The
response to my refusal has always been a shocked 'But *all* of our
employees do this!' and there's greater shock when I smile and reply 'All
of your employees receive (benefit), too.'

DD

[Charles Hottel]

"Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a09tkm...@mid.individual.net...

<snip>

When I was young, had a new baby to provide for, and I needed a job, I
applied at 7-11 for a job as a clerk in one of their stores. After my
initial interview they sent me to a motel over in Virgina for a "personal
interview". It turned out to be a polygraph examination. The reason they
sent me to Virginia was because it was not legal for them to test me in my
home state of Maryland. This was how they got around the Maryland law. I
needed the job so I went through with the test. Because of the economic
climate today I am sure many people looking for jobs feel great pressure to
do what is needed to obtain a job.

[Pete Dashwood]

docd...@panix.com wrote:
> In article <a09tkm...@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>>>
>> http://www.webpronews.com/snopa-is-one-internet-bill-worth-rooting-for-2012-04
>>>>
>>>> Please see my comment, and the comments on my comment, about this
>>>> subject...
>>>
>>> From the employer's perspective, he would want to know as much
>>> about a prospective employee as possible.
>>
>> Only if he is a nosey busybody.
>
> Mr Dashwood, I can't recall where I read it, long ago, but it was
> something to the effect that no policeman (yes, it was written that
> long ago) wants to see increased evidentiary exclusion based on the
> Right codified in the IVth Amendment of the Constitution of the
> United States of America.
>

Sorry, Doc, not being American I would have to look that up. I believe the
Vth one is the right to silence without being incriminated by it (I only
know that one from the common expression, "to take the fifth..."); I have no
idea what the IVth one is.

>>
>> All he NEEDS to know is whether the person will be a worthwhile
>> employee.
>
> The Despot shrieks 'WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE?!?', the Free Person
> replied 'I choose not to tell you.'
>
> Some people take what I see as an inherently slavish attitude of
> 'being given a job' as opposed to 'being paid for work from which
> another expects to achieve a greater profit.'
>
> I've turned down contracts because a urine test was required. The
> response to my refusal has always been a shocked 'But *all* of our
> employees do this!' and there's greater shock when I smile and reply
> 'All of your employees receive (benefit), too.'

Yeah, I'd draw the line at a urine test unless it was a medically related
test. If they were simply checking for drug use I'd say:"No." (Not that I
have anything to hide as far as that goes, but, as you noted above, I
exercise my prerogative not to tell them (because, unless it interferes with
my work, it is none of their bloody business...))

I once worked for Auckland Hospital and all employees, as part of the
induction, were given a full health check which included a urine test. I
don't recall thinking it unusual at the time (it was over 30 years ago), so
perhaps the context of a request has a bearing on whether you'd comply or
not.

As for "ALL of our employees..." I have a tendency to read contracts before
signing them and I cross out any bits that are blatantly unfair and/or
stupid.

(The assignment of intellectual property rights is one of my favourites; I
always cross it out and tell them they can own what I do and get full use of
it to their advantage but they cannot have an excusive intellectual property
right (what they are actually getting is a non-exclusive right to the work I
do for them), as that would stop me making a living. There is usually a look
of consternation on the Pimp's face then the impassioned: "But it's a
standard contract, EVERYBODY signs it!". I remain unmoved and they send for
the Boss who realises I am not going to bend and who also sees large sums of
money being generated by placing me on site. It ends with a handshake and we
part friends with me starting on Monday... :-))

I think a lot of it is about perception.

If you are really desperate for a job you'll probably jump through any hoop
they set you. The secret is not to be desperate for a job. You covered it
well with the subtle difference between "being given a job" and "offering a
service that can benefit both parties".

[Pete Dashwood]

Alistair Maclean wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 11:53:10 UTC+1, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> Social media are largely for enterntainment purposes. Would you
>> believe everything you read on a Facebook site?
>>
>>> the
>>> charitable activities in which he participates, the minority
>>> children he mentors, the picture of the no-longer-hungry African
>>> child he sponsors, how he's doing in his on-line course in
>>> Mandarin, etc., then the hiring office will come to two
>>> simultaneous conclusions:
>>>
>>> 1. The applicant is a prince among men, or
>>> 2. The applicant had the foresight to dummy up an entry that makes
>>> him LOOK like a prince among men,
>>
>> ...OR... that Social media are not to be trusted when it comes to
>> assessing people for a job and it might be better to ask some
>> searching questions of your own and judge the responses...
>>>
>
> Or, maybe, that s/he is the victim of identity theft.

Good point. There is an increasing amount of that going on and people have
applied for jobs using completely false credentials and qualifications, that
actually belong to someone else.

>
>> I was somewhat relieved by the fact that not all of the population
>> are happy with this trend; the guy who wrote "Pete for President" is
>> obviously an intelligent and discerning man, so they are not all
>> locked up yet. :-)
>>
>
> Or, maybe, they hypothesise that you are young and hip and unlikely
> to pop your clogs any time now (unlike most US presidents of the
> past).

Well, I'd like to think that, Alistair, but I don't honestly believe it is
the case. I have a fairly medium profile on the web and there are appalling
pictures of me in several places (I honestly don't photograph well...), that
would immediately dispel such an illusion... :-)

[Doug Miller]

"Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in news:a0ah6jFt1pU1
@mid.individual.net:

> docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> Mr Dashwood, I can't recall where I read it, long ago, but it was
>> something to the effect that no policeman (yes, it was written that
>> long ago) wants to see increased evidentiary exclusion based on the
>> Right codified in the IVth Amendment of the Constitution of the
>> United States of America.
>>
>
> Sorry, Doc, not being American I would have to look that up. I believe the
> Vth one is the right to silence without being incriminated by it (I only
> know that one from the common expression, "to take the fifth..."); I have no
> idea what the IVth one is.

Amendment IV prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. By the *government*.
Being asked by a private employer to take a drug test as a condition of employment is not
prohibited under Amendment IV, but being asked to by an agency of government is, unless
they have a valid reason. It often falls to the court system to determine what is reasonable
and what is unreasonable.

[HeyBub]

See imbedded comments

>>
>> From the employer's perspective, he would want to know as much about
>> a prospective employee as possible.
>
> Only if he is a nosey busybody.

## Uh, that's his job.

>
> All he NEEDS to know is whether the person will be a worthwhile
> employee.

## And that worthwhileness is often determined by facts gleaned outside the
employment application. An application, by the way, often asks questions
that have, in your judgement, no bearing on whether the prospect would be a
good employee: work history, education, etc.

## For many jobs, the outside information may involve personal interviews
with everybody the prospect ever knew, going back as far as primary school
teachers (think sensitive government service).

>
> During my lifetime I have employed dozens of people.
>
> I never wanted to pry into their private lives and I never needed to.
> I knew after talking to them whether they had the right stuff or not
> and i have never been disappointed.
>
>> Suppose the applicant bragged on his
>> social media page: "I got questioned today about the fire at my
>> previous place of employment. Not to worry, though. They'll have
>> about as much success pinning this on me as they did the other
>> three!"
>
> Social media are largely for enterntainment purposes. Would you
> believe everything you read on a Facebook site?

## In law, there is a concept called "declaration against interest," which
is accorded the highest believability. If a person says "I killed her too.
She's buried in the backyard," trust me, the cops are going to start
digging. This concept, "declaration against interest," has proven to be
reliable over literally thousands of years.

## To answer your question, if an applicant claimed, on his social media
site, that he was discharged from his former place of employment for hitting
his boss in the mouth or (worse still) voted for a Democrat, I would
certainly believe it! It would be criminally foolish of me not to do so.

>
>
>> If, on the other hand, a prospective employer sees a Facebook page
>> with references to how active the applicant is in his church,
>
> I know pillars of several different Churches who are unmitigated
> villains and rapscallions. It means no more than claiming to have
> gotten away with arson... ANYTHING posted on a Facebook page is
> subject to question and should not be a serious part of a job
> interview.

## I sort of agree. Positive claims ("I trained as an astronaut," etc.)
should be viewed with skepticism. Conversely, claims that can be viewed as
disgusting ("I'm an assistant Grand Dragon in KKK lodge #23"), can be taken
as God's Own Truth. Even if the hateful claim turns out to be a complete
lie, just making such a claim is illuminating - and disqualifying.

>>
>> 1. The applicant is a prince among men, or
>> 2. The applicant had the foresight to dummy up an entry that makes
>> him LOOK like a prince among men,
>
> ...OR... that Social media are not to be trusted when it comes to
> assessing people for a job and it might be better to ask some
> searching questions of your own and judge the responses...

## That too. But if you ignore a source of information, any source, you'll
miss out on the prospect's obvious untruths that he invented e-commerce or
needs only one pencil to do engineering work.

>>
>> either of which should make him a swell employee.
>
> No more swell than if he boasted of committing arson. The data has no
> credibility whether it is good or bad, unless you know the person
> personally. As you generally DON'T know a job applicant personally
> (if you did, and they were suitable you probably would have
> approached them, instead of vice versa), you need to back your
> judgement by assessing them in an interview.

## Wrong. If someone admits, or brags, about an unlawful act (among others),
his statement can legitimately be accorded the HIGHEST credibility.

>
> But the REAL point of my frustration here was that a LAW has to be
> passed to PROTECT people.
>
> (Except that it DOESN'T protect them because it can be easily
> circumvented unless people stand up for themselves and their rights.)

## To what "rights" are you referring?

>
> What's next? A law to say that you mustn't speak to strangers? Or
> wear a loud tie in public? Or drive a green car if you are wearing a
> blue suit?

## Heh! I once saw a cartoon of a rabbi standing outside the synagogue
talking to a hippie. The caption read: "Of course you can pray in jeans and
a T-shirt. You just can't pray HERE in jeans and a T-shirt!"

## I do, however, agree with your disgust and opposition to such a law! The
more opportunities for fools to demonstrate their self-developed social
retardation, the less chance I'll have of walking into a disaster.

[HeyBub]

Doug Miller wrote:
>
> Amendment IV prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. By the
> *government*.
> Being asked by a private employer to take a drug test as a condition
> of employment is not prohibited under Amendment IV, but being asked
> to by an agency of government is, unless they have a valid reason. It
> often falls to the court system to determine what is reasonable and
> what is unreasonable.

Nope. The government can ASK, but there is no legal sanction for declining.
In fact, the government can insist on a drug test for employment or any
other government benefit. For example, some jurisdictions require a drug
test to remain free on bond or parole or to receive public assistance.

[Doug Miller]

"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in news:OLmdnTYF1cl1-j3SnZ2dnUVZ_j-
dn...@earthlink.com:

I guess you missed the part where I said "unless they have a valid reason".

[Pete Dashwood]

Thanks Doug. Didn't know that one, although I now remember reading it. I
have nothing but the utmost respect and regard for the Bill of Rights and
the Constitution. Now relics of a bygone age when people actually thought
about stuff and took responsibility for it.

[Pete Dashwood]

HeyBub wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> Amendment IV prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. By the
>> *government*.
>> Being asked by a private employer to take a drug test as a condition
>> of employment is not prohibited under Amendment IV, but being asked
>> to by an agency of government is, unless they have a valid reason. It
>> often falls to the court system to determine what is reasonable and
>> what is unreasonable.
>
> Nope. The government can ASK, but there is no legal sanction for
> declining.

So if an officer of the Law (for example) asks you, you cannot decline, even
if you think his grounds are unreasonable?

I think I'd decline and then argue in Court my reason for believing there
were no reasonable grounds. I've been stopped on a number of occasions and
breath tested (in various countries). On most of these occasions, there were
no reasonable grounds for stopping me (I wasn't driving dangerously or
weaving all over the place...). Because I'm never too sure of exactly what
the Law is regarding this in different jurisdictions, and because I believe
a Policeman has a bigger gang than I've got, I usually acquiesce. I have
always passed (I don't believe in social irresponsibility and I don't drive
after drinking - somethng I learned in Germany and am grateful to that
culture for it; in New Zealand, even now, there are a diminishing number of
people who thiink it is fine to drink and drive. Partly because in rural
communities it can be a long way home from town and on a deserted road the
risk seems small, but the message is gradually getting through and young
people in particular are being heavily targeted by some very effective TV
advertising.

Writing this made me think. I have no problem with a breath test, or even
going to the station for a blood test, but I would refuse a urine test. I
wonder if it is something to do with perceived dignity?

>In fact, the government can insist on a drug test for
> employment or any other government benefit. For example, some
> jurisdictions require a drug test to remain free on bond or parole or
> to receive public assistance.

I s'pose that's fair. While you can expect your rights to remain intact, you
can't reasonably expect to have all the privileges of a decent citizen, if
you have demonstrated anti-social behaviour.

[Pete Dashwood]

Charlie, I found that shocking. (Thanks for posting it...)

It perfectly demonstrates what I have been saying: The bad guys will
(especially if they are in a position of power) ALWAYS find a way to bend
the Law.

It's like trying to legislate against racial or any other prejudice. Unless
you can change the minds of people, such Laws are really only a band-aid
that shows the establishiment is opposed to it and would rather it didn't
happen, but they are powerless to do anything abut it.

I honestly DO know what it is like to need a job and I have been on the
bones of my arse several times in my life. But that is my point. Even if you
ARE desperate you have to change your mind about being desperate. If you
come across as desperate, or TOO willing to please, a bullying prospective
employer will make you dance. (A decent and fair employer, who is not just
taking the chance to use power, won't do that; they will keep things fair
and reasonable, ask pertinent questions and let you express yourself. I can
remember coming out of some interviews being very impressed by the quality
of the interviewer, and I can remember other times where I wasn't...)

I can't help wondering about the mentality of a company that thinks a
lie-detector test is a good idea. Can you imagine what their "corporate
culture" must be like? There are bullies at all levels of the corporate
hierarchy and that doesn't exclude HR. Usually they are powerless,
ineffective people who, when given the chance to exercise some authority,
milk it for all it is worth. It's like the old saying that if you give a
beggar a horse, he will ride it to death. Sadly, there are also people with
a "victim" mentality. They are really enjoyed by the bullies...

The only defence we really have is the one we use against all bullies; make
it clear you are not a pushover and, even though they may have superiority,
you will inflict serious damage on them before you are taken down. If you
keep your nerve, they will look for easier prey.

Even when you ARE desperate, remember there is advantage to them in
employing you too. Doc is completely right about this, but they know that
they have the "upper hand" because you are on their turf and they have other
applicants. Your task is to NOT be intimidated and simply present what you
can bring to the table. Remember that even if you jump through all their
hoops, there is still a good chance they will give the job to some other
applicant, so you might as well take a stand and present yourself as best
you can, without meeting unreasonable demands. What's the worst that can
happen? You won't get the job. No worse off than when you entered their
little charade. If they are a good company you will get points for character
and integrity; if they are not a good company, you probably shouldn't be
working for them anyway.

It is all about perception.

Pete.

BTW, sometimes desperation can be a catalyst. I started working for myself
because I was in a strange land, flat broke and with no friends or assets.
Prior to that time I had always believed that free-lancing was pretty
insecure and best avoided. Again, it is perception.

[Clark F Morris]

On Tue, 1 May 2012 22:53:10 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>HeyBub wrote:
>> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>> http://www.webpronews.com/snopa-is-one-internet-bill-worth-rooting-for-2012-04
>>>
>>> Please see my comment, and the comments on my comment, about this
>>> subject...
>>
>> From the employer's perspective, he would want to know as much about a
>> prospective employee as possible.
>
>Only if he is a nosey busybody.
>
>All he NEEDS to know is whether the person will be a worthwhile employee.
>
>During my lifetime I have employed dozens of people.
>
>I never wanted to pry into their private lives and I never needed to. I knew
>after talking to them whether they had the right stuff or not and i have
>never been disappointed.
>

My attitude would be that I would login and let them look at what they
wanted but no way would they get my password unless they certified in
writing by a company officer with company seal that they would take
all responsibility for my site and anything on it since they would
have write access. To my mind they are requesting a security breach.

Given some of the dumb things people have done on Facebook, etc. there
are legitimate concerns and depending on the responsibility needed by
the position, the amount of investigation may be appropriate given
concerns in North America about cyber-bullying and harassment.

In regard to Doc Dwarf's comment about urine tests for drugs, I think
they are mandated by US law for safety critical positions (truck
driver, locomotive driver, air traffic controller, etc.) and maybe in
some industries. While I personally believe that the war on drugs
violates both the Bill of Rights in the US constitution and the
Charter of Rights in Canada, that view is not held by those in power.

Clark Morris

[Pete Dashwood]

HeyBub wrote:
> See imbedded comments
>
>

Thanks for the response, Jerry.

I believe our respective positions are clear so I won't labour this.

Some very quick comments below...

>>>
>>> From the employer's perspective, he would want to know as much about
>>> a prospective employee as possible.
>>
>> Only if he is a nosey busybody.
>
> ## Uh, that's his job.
>

No, that isn't his job. His job is to ensure that the best applicant
available for the job is selected. Sometimes that is impossible and even the
most promising candidates prove to be unsuitable once they have worked on
site for a while. Assessing people is not an exact science. It can be done
to the degree required for making an employment decision, without invading
their privacy unnecessarily, and gratuitously.

>>
>> All he NEEDS to know is whether the person will be a worthwhile
>> employee.
>
> ## And that worthwhileness is often determined by facts gleaned
> outside the employment application. An application, by the way, often
> asks questions that have, in your judgement, no bearing on whether
> the prospect would be a good employee: work history, education, etc.

How would work history and education not be relevant to an employment
application? You misjudge "my judgement".

>
> ## For many jobs, the outside information may involve personal
> interviews with everybody the prospect ever knew, going back as far
> as primary school teachers (think sensitive government service).
>

Yes, that happened to me once when I was required to work for DOD. They did
interview people who were at school and university with me and whom I had
not seen for years. I didn't see it as an invasion of my privacy; just due
diligence in the defence of our nation :-)

What they DIDN'T do was look at my Facebook entry or any other similar
trivial and unreliable source. They interviewed people with first hand
knowledge of me. It wasn't like they got the neighbours together for a
kaffeeklatsch...

>>
>> During my lifetime I have employed dozens of people.
>>
>> I never wanted to pry into their private lives and I never needed to.
>> I knew after talking to them whether they had the right stuff or not
>> and i have never been disappointed.
>>
>>> Suppose the applicant bragged on his
>>> social media page: "I got questioned today about the fire at my
>>> previous place of employment. Not to worry, though. They'll have
>>> about as much success pinning this on me as they did the other
>>> three!"
>>
>> Social media are largely for enterntainment purposes. Would you
>> believe everything you read on a Facebook site?
>
> ## In law, there is a concept called "declaration against interest,"
> which is accorded the highest believability.

Not by me.

>If a person says "I
> killed her too. She's buried in the backyard," trust me, the cops are
> going to start digging. This concept, "declaration against interest,"
> has proven to be reliable over literally thousands of years.

And nobody has ever confessed to something they didn't do, in order to
protect someone else?

I have no problem with such statements being checked out (as long as it
isn't me who has to wield the shovel)
; I DO have a problem with them being accepted as true, WITHOUT any shovel
wielding.

>
> ## To answer your question, if an applicant claimed, on his social
> media site, that he was discharged from his former place of
> employment for hitting his boss in the mouth or (worse still) voted
> for a Democrat, I would certainly believe it! It would be criminally
> foolish of me not to do so.

It would appear that some of your beliefs ARE criminally foolish,
nevertheless I shall defend to the death your right to hold them. :-)

In the situation above, I would simply be aware of the social media claim. I
would neither believe it nor disbelieve it until there was corroborating
evidence that had more credibility.

>
>>
>>
>>> If, on the other hand, a prospective employer sees a Facebook page
>>> with references to how active the applicant is in his church,
>>
>> I know pillars of several different Churches who are unmitigated
>> villains and rapscallions. It means no more than claiming to have
>> gotten away with arson... ANYTHING posted on a Facebook page is
>> subject to question and should not be a serious part of a job
>> interview.
>
> ## I sort of agree.

Thank you (sort of...)

> Positive claims ("I trained as an astronaut,"
> etc.) should be viewed with skepticism. Conversely, claims that can
> be viewed as disgusting ("I'm an assistant Grand Dragon in KKK lodge
> #23"), can be taken as God's Own Truth. Even if the hateful claim
> turns out to be a complete lie, just making such a claim is
> illuminating - and disqualifying.

No, it isn't. People make mischievous claims all the time. It doesn't mean
we must immediately evaluate them and mark them as TRUE or FALSE. (Maybe you
have been working with computers too long? In the real world there are
shades of grey and there are probabilities. The probability function doesn't
have to be immediately collapsed on the flimsiest of evidence. We can
"reserve judgement" until there is more evidence. The key here is to be
aware of something without actually ACTING on it. It's like gossip; you hear
it but you don't need to act on it or propagate it until such time as it is
confirmed (or denied) by better evidence.)

>
>>>
>>> 1. The applicant is a prince among men, or
>>> 2. The applicant had the foresight to dummy up an entry that makes
>>> him LOOK like a prince among men,
>>
>> ...OR... that Social media are not to be trusted when it comes to
>> assessing people for a job and it might be better to ask some
>> searching questions of your own and judge the responses...
>
> ## That too. But if you ignore a source of information, any source,
> you'll miss out on the prospect's obvious untruths that he invented
> e-commerce or needs only one pencil to do engineering work.

As they are indeed "untruths" missing out on them does no harm.

>
>>>
>>> either of which should make him a swell employee.
>>
>> No more swell than if he boasted of committing arson. The data has no
>> credibility whether it is good or bad, unless you know the person
>> personally. As you generally DON'T know a job applicant personally
>> (if you did, and they were suitable you probably would have
>> approached them, instead of vice versa), you need to back your
>> judgement by assessing them in an interview.
>
> ## Wrong. If someone admits, or brags, about an unlawful act (among
> others), his statement can legitimately be accorded the HIGHEST
> credibility.

Only by a fool. (Or someone incredibly gullible...) People are innocent
until proven guilty. Fortunately, there is no actual NEED for people to make
half-assed judgements based on the flimsiest of evidence. Judgement can be
reserved until it HAS to be made and a decision can be "not proven" just as
well as "guilty" or "not guilty".

>
>>
>> But the REAL point of my frustration here was that a LAW has to be
>> passed to PROTECT people.
>>
>> (Except that it DOESN'T protect them because it can be easily
>> circumvented unless people stand up for themselves and their rights.)
>
> ## To what "rights" are you referring?

The right to privacy for a start...

>
>>
>> What's next? A law to say that you mustn't speak to strangers? Or
>> wear a loud tie in public? Or drive a green car if you are wearing a
>> blue suit?
>
> ## Heh! I once saw a cartoon of a rabbi standing outside the synagogue
> talking to a hippie. The caption read: "Of course you can pray in
> jeans and a T-shirt. You just can't pray HERE in jeans and a T-shirt!"

That's not quite the same thing. (But it IS amusing... :-))

>
> ## I do, however, agree with your disgust and opposition to such a
> law! The more opportunities for fools to demonstrate their
> self-developed social retardation, the less chance I'll have of
> walking into a disaster.

Apart from any moral objections I have, it is just a stupid waste of time
and money when legislators could be doing much more necessary things.

[Rick Smith]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 8:50:18 PM UTC-4, Pete Dashwood wrote:
[snip]

> I can't help wondering about the mentality of a company that thinks a
> lie-detector test is a good idea. Can you imagine what their "corporate
> culture" must be like?

While attending a computer school, after separation from
the military, I worked part-time as a security guard.
In that capacity, I carried a S&W 38 caliber pistol.
I underwent a polygraph and background check; both of
which seems to fit the criteria "due diligence".

< http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due%20diligence >
the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm
to other persons or their property

[Doug Miller]

"Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in news:a0bckkF8j9U1
@mid.individual.net:

> HeyBub wrote:
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> Amendment IV prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. By the
>>> *government*.
>>> Being asked by a private employer to take a drug test as a condition
>>> of employment is not prohibited under Amendment IV, but being asked
>>> to by an agency of government is, unless they have a valid reason. It
>>> often falls to the court system to determine what is reasonable and
>>> what is unreasonable.
>>
>> Nope. The government can ASK, but there is no legal sanction for
>> declining.
>
> So if an officer of the Law (for example) asks you, you cannot decline, even
> if you think his grounds are unreasonable?

Ahh, isn't English wonderful?

He meant sanction in the sense of penalty.

[Charles Hottel]

"Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message

news:a0bema...@mid.individual.net...

What really got me at the time was that I did not know it would be a
polygraph test until I actually got to the 8interview location. They should
have been more upfront and honest about it. Of course once I was already
there I felt pressure to proceed.

[Arnold Trembley]

Here's the actual text of the Fourth Amendment, just for reference:

Amendment IV [1791]

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.

With apologies to DocDwarf, I don't think the fourth amendment prevents
a prospective employer (even a government employer) asking for your
facebook password or a urine sample as a condition of employment.

It can be hard to just say No, if you need the job...


--
http://www.arnoldtrembley.com/

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <a0ah6j...@mid.individual.net>,

Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <a09tkm...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>http://www.webpronews.com/snopa-is-one-internet-bill-worth-rooting-for-2012-04
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see my comment, and the comments on my comment, about this
>>>>> subject...
>>>>
>>>> From the employer's perspective, he would want to know as much
>>>> about a prospective employee as possible.
>>>
>>> Only if he is a nosey busybody.
>>
>> Mr Dashwood, I can't recall where I read it, long ago, but it was
>> something to the effect that no policeman (yes, it was written that
>> long ago) wants to see increased evidentiary exclusion based on the
>> Right codified in the IVth Amendment of the Constitution of the
>> United States of America.
>>
>
>Sorry, Doc, not being American I would have to look that up. I believe the
>Vth one is the right to silence without being incriminated by it (I only
>know that one from the common expression, "to take the fifth..."); I have no
>idea what the IVth one is.

The IVth is the one that asserts that the people have the right to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures. In practise it binds only the Government, which
must obtain warrants based on probable cause.

The latent jackbootist, of course, will shrill about how this Amendment
applies only to the actions of Government and how nothing prevents human
beings from basing their interactions on various kinds of snooperies. I,
on the other hand, see it as an instruction for a sort of code of
interaction, a 'you don't come in unless you are asked'.

Evidence in criminal cases which would have proven a person's guilt has
been dismissed because courts have determined that IVth Amendment
procedures were not followed and the evidence is to be considered a 'fruit
of a poisonous tree'.

When it comes to employer/employee relations the force of law is different
but the concept of 'you don't come in unless you are invited' still holds,
or at least I try to make it hold in my interactions. A urine test (which
can provide an entire genetic profile) is one example but, in general, it
shows a shift away from 'are you able to do the job' to 'what kind of
on-camera personna can you maintain'.

[snip]

>If you are really desperate for a job you'll probably jump through any hoop
>they set you.

I believe it was Jay Gould, one of the 'Robber Barons' of the Guilded Era
of railroad construction, when asked how the Working Class would respond
to his tactics snorted 'The working class? I can hire half the working
class to kill the other half.'

>The secret is not to be desperate for a job. You covered it
>well with the subtle difference between "being given a job" and "offering a
>service that can benefit both parties".

A matter of perception, Mr Dashwood, and similar to 'I'm given a paycheck'
and 'I earn my salary'.

DD

[HeyBub]

> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (Except that it DOESN'T protect them because it can be easily
>>>> circumvented unless people stand up for themselves and their
>>>> rights.)
>>>
>>> ## To what "rights" are you referring?
>>
>> The right to privacy for a start...
>>>
>

There is NO right to privacy to be found explicitly in the U.S.
Constitution. What "right" there is was discovered in the "penumbras and
emanations*" of the Bill of Rights. Interestingly, the U.S. Supreme Court
has found that a right to privacy exists only in cases involving sex:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 (contraception)
Roe v. Wade, 1973 (abortion)
Lawrence v. Texas, 2003 (homosexuality)

------
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

[Pete Dashwood]

Thanks, Doug.

(Well spotted...:-))

[Pete Dashwood]

Thanks for the clarification, Doc.
>
<snip>

Pete

[Pete Dashwood]

I think the whole episode you described is appalling. Polygraphs can be
fooled and they can give wrong signals. In the job Rick described, where he
carried a gun and implicitly had the power of life and death, I suppose you
could make the due diligence argument, but even there I think it is a very
sticky wicket. The danger is that people will rely on the Polygraph (the
media is the message) and it would affect their judgement. At least in
Rick's case it was backed with other checks.

One of my objections to the original legislation is that people simply
abnegate responsibility and say: "Well, the Law forbids you to ask me
that..." as if they have no power to respond. It's like HeyBub's synagogue
story;" ...ask all you like but I won't be telling you anything I don't want
to."
Exactly the same applies to the Polygraph use.
"Hey, how was I to know he was a raving lunatic who would go on a spree and
shoot everyone in sight? He passed the Polygraph...".

Pete.

[Pete Dashwood]

Thanks Arnold. Very interesting.

I liked the "oath or affirmation" bit. You are expected to be honourable and
your word is worth something. I wonder how true that is in actuality,
nowadays?

> With apologies to DocDwarf, I don't think the fourth amendment
> prevents a prospective employer (even a government employer) asking
> for your facebook password or a urine sample as a condition of
> employment.

It certainly looks like it doesn't from the text above, but I think Doc was
considering the "spirit" of the text.

That is always the problem with Laws, no matter how carefully they are
couched. The "spirit" which caused the Law to be drawn up in the first place
is always open to interpretation. Yet, if the spirit of the particular Law
is NOT considered, it is hard for Justice to be done.

>
> It can be hard to just say No, if you need the job...

Yes, I know...

Discussed in my response to Charles.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <OPidnXV-cshwgzzS...@earthlink.com>,
HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> There is NO right to privacy to be found explicitly in the U.S.
>Constitution. What "right" there is was discovered in the "penumbras and
>emanations*" of the Bill of Rights.

From
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html :

--begin quoted text:

Article III

Section.2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution...

--end quoted text

Unlike a supermarket the Constitution of the United States of America does
not allow all shoppers to determine what to pick up and what to leave out.
When a question arises under the Constitution (as stated explicitly above)
the judicial power over said question belongs to the Supreme Court.

(I believe this is a demonstration of what members of the bar call
'black-letter law'.)

When the Supreme Court decides a case which has arisen under the
Constitution the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional.

DD

[HeyBub]

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>> Here's the actual text of the Fourth Amendment, just for reference:
>>
>> Amendment IV [1791]
>>
>> 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.
>
> Thanks Arnold. Very interesting.
>
> I liked the "oath or affirmation" bit. You are expected to be
> honourable and your word is worth something. I wonder how true that
> is in actuality, nowadays?
>
>
>> With apologies to DocDwarf, I don't think the fourth amendment
>> prevents a prospective employer (even a government employer) asking
>> for your facebook password or a urine sample as a condition of
>> employment.
>
> It certainly looks like it doesn't from the text above, but I think
> Doc was considering the "spirit" of the text.
>
> That is always the problem with Laws, no matter how carefully they are
> couched. The "spirit" which caused the Law to be drawn up in the
> first place is always open to interpretation. Yet, if the spirit of
> the particular Law is NOT considered, it is hard for Justice to be
> done.

It's interesting to note that the 4th Amendment, indeed ALL of the Bill of
Rights, provides no penalty for violation. In that regard, the Bill of
Rights is similar to the Ten Commandments.

[HeyBub]

There's no need to be redundant - that's what I said.

Further, there is no explicit authority for the courts to decide what is
constitutional and what is not. That aspect, too, was "discovered," in 1803.

And it's not just the Supreme Court that decides whether a law or regulation
is constitutional; that authority extends down to the district court level.

[Pete Dashwood]

Sorry Doc, now I'm confused.

Are you saying there IS a right to privacy? Can you elucidate? (perhaps an
example?)

Thanks,

Pete

[Doug Miller]

"Pete Dashwood" <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in news:a0e1g1FfvrU1
@mid.individual.net:

> Arnold Trembley wrote:
>> Here's the actual text of the Fourth Amendment, just for reference:
>>
>> Amendment IV [1791]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Thanks Arnold. Very interesting.
>
> I liked the "oath or affirmation" bit. You are expected to be honourable and
> your word is worth something. I wonder how true that is in actuality,
> nowadays?

"Supported by Oath or affirmation" puts the application for a warrant on the same footing as
testimony in court: false statements can be prosecuted as perjury.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <FfGdnTIBPpj0bzzS...@earthlink.com>,

That might be for our Dear Readers to decide for themselves.

>
>Further, there is no explicit authority for the courts to decide what is
>constitutional and what is not. That aspect, too, was "discovered," in 1803.

In the same way , perhaps, that Rights which could be listed in a Bill
were 'discovered' two years after the Supreme Law of the Land had been
written (and required another three years for full adoption). A fair
number of the Founders were still kicking around in 1803 and it might not
be unreasonable to conclude that their intentions were reflected in the
decision.

>
>And it's not just the Supreme Court that decides whether a law or regulation
>is constitutional; that authority extends down to the district court level.

My memory is, admittedly, porous... what happens when a district court
decides that a law or regulation is Constitutional and the Supreme Court
says 'No, it isn't'?

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <a0eahv...@mid.individual.net>,

>Sorry Doc, now I'm confused.

Mr Dashwood, you find a point of United States Constitutional Law to be
confusing? Just as any other legal matter they are as clear as mud; this
might be cause for Very Good Minds to debate them for centuries.

>
>Are you saying there IS a right to privacy? Can you elucidate? (perhaps an
>example?)

It has been argued both ways, Mr Dashwood, and the wording adopted by the
Supreme Court allows for continued discussion. Serious reading may be
found at
http://www.law.louisville.edu/library/collections/brandeis/node/225 . It
was written in 1890 by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis (Mr Bradeis was
elevated to the Supreme Court in 1916).

Equally serious counter-reading may be started at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3478805 but completing it might be another
matter. This article was written in 1960 - a mere seventy years later! -
by William Prossner, Dean of the College of Law at the University of
California Berkeley campus. Dean Prossner was never elevated to the
Supreme Court.

DD

[Robert Wessel]

The higher court "wins." Precedents are binding only on lower courts
within the hierarchy. There are, for example, 89 district courts,
each within one of 13 circuit courts (aka "Courts of Appeal"). A
ruling by (say) the 7th circuit requires that the Northern District of
Illinois (which is under the 7th), follow the 7th's interpretation.
Across the lake, the Eastern District of Michigan, does *not* have to
follow that ruling, since it's part of the 6th circuit.

The courts often do show a fair bit of deference to each others
rulings, so if there's not ruling on a particular issue by the 6th
circuit court, the E.D. Mich. will often follow a ruling by another
circuit court (if one exists), or consider a ruling by another
district court.

So you can, in fact, have something declared as constitutional in one
part of the country, and not constitution in another. Resolving such
conflicts is a prime function of the Supreme Court.

As a general comment, while district courts *can* rule on issues of
constitutionality (and do on occasion), their general purpose is being
the trial courts of the federal system, and most district court judges
try fairly hard to punt questions of constitutionality to the
appellate courts.

[Rick Smith]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 9:31:10 PM UTC-4, docd...@panix.com wrote:
[snip]

> When the Supreme Court decides a case which has arisen under the
> Constitution the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional.

In United States v. Butler,
< http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0297_0001_ZO.html >
=====
There should be no misunderstanding as to the function of this court in such a case. It is sometimes said that the court assumes a power to overrule or control the action of the people's representatives. This is a misconception. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land ordained and established by the people. All legislation must conform to the principles it lays down. When an act of Congress is appropriately challenged in the courts as not conforming to the constitutional mandate, the judicial branch of the Government has only one duty -- to lay the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former. All the court does, or can do, is to announce its considered judgment upon the question. The only power it has, if such it may be called, is the power of judgment. This court neither approves nor condemns any legislative policy. Its delicate and difficult office is to ascertain and declare whether the legislation is in accordance with, or in contravention of, the provisions of the Constitution; and, having done that, its duty ends.
=====

In the exercise of its 'power of judgment', the Court relies on
evidence and testimony. It follows, that if either are faulty,
the Court may err in 'Its delicate and difficult office'. It is
not uncommon for some issues to be raised repeatedly with new
evidence and testimony in attempts to reverse such perceived
errors.

The bottom-line is that the best that may be achieved is to
bring Government, closer and closer to that which is
Constitutional; even if the goal of absolute compliance with
the Constitution is never reached.

My study suggests that Congress has not been in compliance
with Constitution since, at least, 1830.

[HeyBub]

No, he's not saying there's a general rule of privacy to be found in the
Constitution (if he did say that, he'd be wrong). In only three sex-related
cases has the highest court found a right to privacy to exist. Specifically:

The "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the U.S. Constitution.

Even if such a right did exist, it would apply only to government functions,
not private ones.

[Pete Dashwood]

Thanks Doc.

I am now better informed (though, sadly, very little wiser... :-))

Pete.

[Pete Dashwood]

Thanks Rick.

I found that very interesting (and beautifully expressed).

[Fritz Wuehler]

"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> No, he's not saying there's a general rule of privacy to be found in the
> Constitution (if he did say that, he'd be wrong). In only three sex-related
> cases has the highest court found a right to privacy to
> exist. Specifically:

SCOTA is not the final authority on the Constitution. The Constitution
itself says that.

>
> The "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the U.S. Constitution.

It certainly does. The Bill of Rights was ratified and it is part of the

Constitution.

>
> Even if such a right did exist, it would apply only to government functions,
> not private ones.

You are really lost. The Constitution doesn't grant the government any
rights, rights apply to The People or the States. The Constitution grants
authority to the federal government and every authority not specifically
granted is reserved to The States or To the People. Either you are totally
lost or a huge fat fascist. The Constitution is "chains around government"
as Jefferson wrote. To view it as anything else is to totally miss the
point, but it does explain why your country is such a fascist shitpile of
manifest destiny today.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <m2e5q7htosud6e3tb...@4ax.com>,

Robert Wessel <robert...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 3 May 2012 16:28:07 +0000 (UTC), docd...@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>In article <FfGdnTIBPpj0bzzS...@earthlink.com>,
>>HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>And it's not just the Supreme Court that decides whether a law or regulation
>>>is constitutional; that authority extends down to the district court level.
>>
>>My memory is, admittedly, porous... what happens when a district court
>>decides that a law or regulation is Constitutional and the Supreme Court
>>says 'No, it isn't'?
>
>
>The higher court "wins."

I would say that the Constitution 'wins' and that the Supreme Court
fulfills its function as stated in Article III, Section 2... which states
that 'The judicial power shall extend to all cases (etc)' as quoted
previously.

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <y6qdnTrOI-B_cj_S...@earthlink.com>,
HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>The "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the U.S. Constitution.

I have no idea how people may differentiate between the right to privacy
and the "right to privacy" (as stated above); the right of the the people
to be secure in their persons, house, papers and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, most certainly *does* exist,
explicitly, in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Anyone who believes their conclusions about how those three relate are of
greater weight than the rulings of the Supreme Court might find themselves
to be proven wrong.

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <26971909.501.1336065279225.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd9>,
Rick Smith <rs84...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>My study suggests that Congress has not been in compliance
>with Constitution since, at least, 1830.

There are people whose study suggests that nothing but gold or silver is
money, Mr Smith.

DD

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:44:19 +0200, Fritz Wuehler

<fr...@spamexpire-201205.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:

>> The "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the U.S. Constitution.
>
>It certainly does. The Bill of Rights was ratified and it is part of the
>Constitution.

Please quote the explicit "right to privacy" part.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[HeyBub]

Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, he's not saying there's a general rule of privacy to be found in
>> the Constitution (if he did say that, he'd be wrong). In only three
>> sex-related cases has the highest court found a right to privacy to
>> exist. Specifically:
>
> SCOTA is not the final authority on the Constitution. The Constitution
> itself says that.
>

What's SCOTA? If you mean the Supreme Court, you are correct; the
Constitution does not invest supreme authority for interpretation with the
Supreme Court. That is a function they assumed by fiat (see Marbury v.
Madison).

>>
>> The "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the U.S.
>> Constitution.
>
> It certainly does. The Bill of Rights was ratified and it is part of
> the Constitution.
>

Let me rephrase: A "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the Bill
of Rights or, indeed, anywhere in the Constitution.

>>
>> Even if such a right did exist, it would apply only to government
>> functions, not private ones.
>
> You are really lost. The Constitution doesn't grant the government any
> rights, rights apply to The People or the States. The Constitution
> grants authority to the federal government and every authority not
> specifically granted is reserved to The States or To the People.
> Either you are totally lost or a huge fat fascist. The Constitution
> is "chains around government" as Jefferson wrote. To view it as
> anything else is to totally miss the point, but it does explain why
> your country is such a fascist shitpile of manifest destiny today.

I misspoke. What I intended was that a right guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights applies only to actions by the government. These enumerated rights
are not involved in private transactions.

The limitations listed in the Bill of Rights apply only to limitations on
the government and not to individuals or other non-governmental entities.
Even then, some limitations on the government apply only to the federals and
not to the states or local government. For example, the excessive bail
prohibition of the 8th Amendment applies only to the federal government, not
to the states. Likewise the entire 3rd Amendment and the right to an
indictment by a grand jury of the 5th Amendment.

"Fascist shitpile of manifest destiny"? Would you care to elaborate and tell
us how you really jealous you are?

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <LZKdnZtZ9oaPSjjS...@earthlink.com>,

HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, he's not saying there's a general rule of privacy to be found in
>>> the Constitution (if he did say that, he'd be wrong). In only three
>>> sex-related cases has the highest court found a right to privacy to
>>> exist. Specifically:
>>
>> SCOTA is not the final authority on the Constitution. The Constitution
>> itself says that.
>>
>
>What's SCOTA? If you mean the Supreme Court, you are correct; the
>Constitution does not invest supreme authority for interpretation with the
>Supreme Court.

Article III, Section.2. 'The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in
law and equity, arising under this Constitution...'

Now how it can be that the Supreme Court's power extends to all cases, in
law and equity, and some other institution has 'supreme authority for
interpretation' might be an interesting thing follow.

>That is a function they assumed by fiat (see Marbury v.
>Madison).

The proximity of Marbury v Madison to the enacting of the Constitution was
sufficient to allow for a few of the Founders to comment. Some liked it,
some didn't; to expect the Founders to be monolithic and simple-minded in
their conclusions might cause some subtlety to be missed.

From
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/bc4c30e08a87974e?dmode=source>

--begin quoted text

I tend to feel that, since this decision was promulgated in February 1803,
since a reasonable percentage of the signators to the
then-fourteen-year-old Constitution and other Founding Fathers were still
alive and kickng and presumably reading the news of the day, and since
they do not seem to have raised a significant hue and cry about the
violence this decision did to the Constitution and the balance of powers
so carefully crafted into it, they must not have found the idea all that
repugnant at the time.

--end quoted text

... and this seems a good place to begin a reasoned discussion of the
matter.

DD

[Fritz Wuehler]

"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> "Fascist shitpile of manifest destiny"? Would you care to elaborate and tell
> us how you really jealous you are?

I got 3 words for you: TSA

Answer: not at all

[SkippyPB]

On Sat, 5 May 2012 20:42:42 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

>Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, he's not saying there's a general rule of privacy to be found in
>>> the Constitution (if he did say that, he'd be wrong). In only three
>>> sex-related cases has the highest court found a right to privacy to
>>> exist. Specifically:
>>
>> SCOTA is not the final authority on the Constitution. The Constitution
>> itself says that.
>>
>
>What's SCOTA? If you mean the Supreme Court, you are correct; the
>Constitution does not invest supreme authority for interpretation with the
>Supreme Court. That is a function they assumed by fiat (see Marbury v.
>Madison).
>
>>>
>>> The "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the U.S.
>>> Constitution.
>>
>> It certainly does. The Bill of Rights was ratified and it is part of
>> the Constitution.
>>
>
>Let me rephrase: A "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the Bill
>of Rights or, indeed, anywhere in the Constitution.
>

Not explicitely. But implied in multiple amendments. See
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
for a definitive look at this including legal precedents.

>>>
>>> Even if such a right did exist, it would apply only to government
>>> functions, not private ones.
>>
>> You are really lost. The Constitution doesn't grant the government any
>> rights, rights apply to The People or the States. The Constitution
>> grants authority to the federal government and every authority not
>> specifically granted is reserved to The States or To the People.
>> Either you are totally lost or a huge fat fascist. The Constitution
>> is "chains around government" as Jefferson wrote. To view it as
>> anything else is to totally miss the point, but it does explain why
>> your country is such a fascist shitpile of manifest destiny today.
>
>I misspoke. What I intended was that a right guaranteed by the Bill of
>Rights applies only to actions by the government. These enumerated rights
>are not involved in private transactions.
>
>The limitations listed in the Bill of Rights apply only to limitations on
>the government and not to individuals or other non-governmental entities.
>Even then, some limitations on the government apply only to the federals and
>not to the states or local government. For example, the excessive bail
>prohibition of the 8th Amendment applies only to the federal government, not
>to the states. Likewise the entire 3rd Amendment and the right to an
>indictment by a grand jury of the 5th Amendment.
>
>"Fascist shitpile of manifest destiny"? Would you care to elaborate and tell
>us how you really jealous you are?
>

Regards,
--

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"Son, when you participate in sporting events, it's
not whether you win or lose: it's how drunk you get."
Homer J. Simpson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 13:05:32 -0400, SkippyPB
<swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:

>>>> The "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the U.S.
>>>> Constitution.
>>>
>>> It certainly does. The Bill of Rights was ratified and it is part of
>>> the Constitution.
>>>
>>
>>Let me rephrase: A "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the Bill
>>of Rights or, indeed, anywhere in the Constitution.
>>
>
>Not explicitely.

So in other words, it certainly doesn't.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <ldjdq71a6k1gb7ijr...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 May 2012 13:05:32 -0400, SkippyPB
><swie...@Nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> The "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the U.S.
>>>>> Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> It certainly does. The Bill of Rights was ratified and it is part of
>>>> the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Let me rephrase: A "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the Bill
>>>of Rights or, indeed, anywhere in the Constitution.
>>>
>>
>>Not explicitely.
>
>So in other words, it certainly doesn't.

Mr Brazee, it might be wise to recall that Constitutional Law is a subset
of law. Those who interpret laws for a living - ie, lawyers - may
frequently begin a response to a question of law with 'That depends...'.

(I attempted to point this out to Mr Dashwood earlier. What is being
dealt with here is an immense, ponderous, ancient set of works; some folks
prefer the Oldene Dayse when police could subject citizens to all manner
of indignities simply because the constable 'didn't like the way he
looked' while other folks prefer more Modern Times.)

DD

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 13:15:27 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>

wrote:

>>>>> The "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the U.S.
>>>>> Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> It certainly does. The Bill of Rights was ratified and it is part of
>>>> the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Let me rephrase: A "right to privacy" does not exist explicitly in the Bill
>>>of Rights or, indeed, anywhere in the Constitution.
>>>
>>
>>Not explicitely.
>
>So in other words, it certainly doesn't.

One would think that an implied right to privacy would have ended drug
prohibition. Are there other things that used to be illegal which
are now legal because of the Supreme Court ruling on our right to
privacy?

[Howard Brazee]

That is true. The word here in question though is "explicit", which
puts the argument into our domain.

[HeyBub]

Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> One would think that an implied right to privacy would have ended drug
> prohibition. Are there other things that used to be illegal which
> are now legal because of the Supreme Court ruling on our right to
> privacy?

Yes, three things:
1. Contraception (Griswold v Connecticut)
2. Abortion (Roe v Wade)
3. Crimes against nature (Lawrence v Texas)

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <nn2eq7d7g08q1mrhl...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 6 May 2012 21:23:53 +0000 (UTC), docd...@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>In article <ldjdq71a6k1gb7ijr...@4ax.com>,
>>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

[snip of uncertain provenances]

>>>So in other words, it certainly doesn't.
>>
>>Mr Brazee, it might be wise to recall that Constitutional Law is a subset
>>of law. Those who interpret laws for a living - ie, lawyers - may
>>frequently begin a response to a question of law with 'That depends...'.
>>
>>(I attempted to point this out to Mr Dashwood earlier. What is being
>>dealt with here is an immense, ponderous, ancient set of works; some folks
>>prefer the Oldene Dayse when police could subject citizens to all manner
>>of indignities simply because the constable 'didn't like the way he
>>looked' while other folks prefer more Modern Times.)
>

>That is true. The word here in question though is "explicit", which
>puts the argument into our domain.

Mr Brazee, I find it often the case that those who yammer about the
'explicit Constitutional right to privacy' (or lack thereof) are
frequently those who are attempting to foist off some manner of hidden
moral or social agenda under the guise of 'Constitutional Originalism'.

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <h46dnVJKCIlnIzrS...@earthlink.com>,

On the other hand it is Constitutional for an officer of the law to order
citizens to remove all their clothing to make sure said citizens aren't
bringing contraband into prisons.

That, most certainly, was Founder's Intent... and I am the King of
England.

DD

[HeyBub]

docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> Yes, three things:
>> 1. Contraception (Griswold v Connecticut)
>> 2. Abortion (Roe v Wade)
>> 3. Crimes against nature (Lawrence v Texas)
>
> On the other hand it is Constitutional for an officer of the law to
> order citizens to remove all their clothing to make sure said
> citizens aren't bringing contraband into prisons.
>
> That, most certainly, was Founder's Intent... and I am the King of
> England.
>

I know of no prison or jail where visitors are asked to disrobe inasmuch as
they never come into direct contact with the inmates.

Inmates are, of course, required to strip nekkid so the staff can make fun
of them.

As for "Founder's Intent," there weren't many jails or prisons back then.
Malefactors were lashed or placed in the stocks for minor offenses, hanged
for major ones.

Some, today, agitate for a return to our founding principles.

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 19:54:01 +0000 (UTC), docd...@panix.com () wrote:

>>That is true. The word here in question though is "explicit", which
>>puts the argument into our domain.
>
>Mr Brazee, I find it often the case that those who yammer about the
>'explicit Constitutional right to privacy' (or lack thereof) are
>frequently those who are attempting to foist off some manner of hidden
>moral or social agenda under the guise of 'Constitutional Originalism'.

I suppose I've found the same thing, under one guise or another. Most
people who argue Constitutionality seem to be wanting a reading that
supports their pre-determined wants.

But I have a characteristic (not unuseful for a programmer), of
responding to literalness whether or not that word or phrase is
supporting my basic ideals.

[Rick Smith]

On Friday, May 4, 2012 8:03:58 PM UTC-4, docd...@panix.com wrote:
> In article <26971909.501.1336065279225.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd9>,

> Rick Smith <rs847...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >My study suggests that Congress has not been in compliance
> >with Constitution since, at least, 1830.
>
> There are people whose study suggests that nothing but gold or silver is
> money, Mr Smith.

Whether they are correct depends upon interpretation, but that
question is of no immediate interest to me.

Had it not been for my experience working with the COBOL 2002
standard, with all its nested references, I may not have found
the patience to pursue my study of the Constitution to the
depth required.


US Constitution from
< http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html >

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: "To make all Laws which shall
be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer
thereof."

Article I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Article II, Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in
a President of the United States of America."

Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States
shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts
as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."


Point 1: The Constitution classifies "the foregoing powers" and
certain unidentified powers as GOVERNMENTAL powers, and
the legistative, executive, and judicial powers as
DEPARTMENTAL powers.

Point 2: By definition, a power to make law is a LEGISLATIVE power
and applies only to Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 and
a few other Articles in the Constitution.


< http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html > is used for
reference to the Federalist Papers. (References are abreviated
herein.)

In Fed41 through Fed44, Madison describes his view of the powers.

"That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be
proper to review the several powers conferred on the government
of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they
may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the
following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint
of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for
giving due efficacy to all these powers." [Fed41]

"THE SECOND class of powers, lodged in the general government,
consists of those which regulate the intercourse with foreign
nations, to wit: to make treaties; to send and receive ambassadors,
other public ministers, and consuls; to define and punish piracies
and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the
law of nations; to regulate foreign commerce, ..." [Fed42]

"The SIXTH and last class consists of the several powers and
provisions by which efficacy is given to all the rest. 1. Of these
the first is, the "power to make all laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and
all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of
the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." [Fed44]

"4. Among the provisions for giving efficacy to the federal powers
might be added those which belong to the executive and judiciary
departments: but as these are reserved for particular examination
in another place, I pass them over in this. We have now reviewed,
in detail, all the articles composing the sum or quantity of power
delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government,
and are brought to this undeniable conclusion, that no part of the
power is unnecessary or improper for accomplishing the necessary
objects of the Union." [Fed44]


Point 3: Madison is consistent with both points 1 and 2.


Article II, Section 1: "[The President of the United States] shall
have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to
make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, ..."


Point 4: Madison identifies the power "to make treaties; to send and
receive ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls;
..." [Fed42] as a GOVERNMENTAL power.


Hamilton's view is presented, in part, in Fed33.

"The last clause of the eighth section of the first article of the
plan under consideration authorizes the national legislature 'to
make all laws which shall be NECESSARY and PROPER for carrying into
execution THE POWERS by that Constitution vested in the government
of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof"; ..."
[Fed33]

[NOTE that Hamilton reworded the referenced clause, which though is
correct in effect, it obscures the items comprising GOVERNMENTAL
powers, that is "the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers".]

"What is a power, but the ability or faculty of doing a thing? What
is the ability to do a thing, but the power of employing the MEANS
necessary to its execution? What is a LEGISLATIVE power, but a power
of making LAWS? What are the MEANS to execute a LEGISLATIVE power
but LAWS? What is the power of laying and collecting taxes, but a
LEGISLATIVE POWER, or a power of MAKING LAWS, to lay and collect
taxes? What are the propermeans of executing such a power, but
NECESSARY and PROPER laws?" [Fed33]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, ..."


Point 5: As one of "the foregoing powers", the power to "lay and
collect taxes" is a GOVERNMENTAL power. [Point 1][Fed41]
However, Hamilton incorrectly, and without any
constitutional basis, identifies it as a LEGISLATIVE power.


"I have applied these observations thus particularly to the power
of taxation, because it is the immediate subject under consideration,
and because it is the most important of the authorities proposed to
be conferred upon the Union. But the same process will lead to the
same result, in relation to all other powers declared in the
Constitution." [Fed33]


Point 6: Under Hamilton's view, the GOVERMENTAL power "to make
Treaties, ... ; and ... appoint Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, ..." is a LEGISLATIVE power. This
is absurd since the House of Representatives does not
participate in the making of treaties or appointments and
LEGISLATIVE powers are "vested in a Congress of the United
States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives."


"But SUSPICION may ask, Why then was it introduced? The answer is,
that it could only have been done for greater caution, and to guard
against all cavilling refinements in those who might hereafter feel
a disposition to curtail and evade the legitimatb authorities of the
Union. The Convention probably foresaw, what it has been a principal
aim of these papers to inculcate, that the danger which most threatens
our political welfare is that the State governments will finally sap
the foundations of the Union; and might therefore think it necessary,
in so cardinal a point, to leave nothing to construction. Whatever
may have been the inducement to it, the wisdom of the precaution is
evident from the cry which has been raised against it; as that very
cry betrays a disposition to question the great and essential truth
which it is manifestly the object of that provision to declare." [Fed33]


Point 7: Hamilton has no clue why the clause was introduced.


"Without the SUBSTANCE of this power, the whole Constitution would be
a dead letter." [Fed44]


Point 8: Madison knew why it was introduced.


While no explanation is given, why it was introduced is easily
ascertained. Under the Articles of Confederation, the was no
separation of powers; that is, the expression "The United States,
in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and
power ..." was the authority.
< http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=129 >

Under the Constitution, powers were separated into three departments.
Without the clause, there would be no definite LEGISLATIVE power and
that would either make the Constitution a "dead letter" or leave
open the interpretation to Congress, the President, and the Supreme
Court.

With the clause, the restrictive phase "which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into execution" is a limitation on the authority
of Congress to make laws. A clause, in effect, ordered by the people.

One other point, for which I have yet to see any explanation, is the
part which states "or in any Department or Officer thereof." The 18th
clause is the only place where the authority to make law intesects
with the legislative, executive, and judicial powers vested by the
Constitution. In effect, this is the sole authority, to make laws
governing the legislative, executive, and judicial departments. It
follows that the clause is the sole authority to fix the compensation
for members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and Federal
judges; to appropriate money to pay that compensation, and to raise
cash to make those appropriations. It applies, as well, to all other
expenses (and other laws) for these departments.


[Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story, as DANE PROFESSOR OF
LAW IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY wrote his "COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES; ... in 1833.]

< http://www.constitution.org/js/js_314.htm > analyses Article I,
Section 8, Clause 1, of the Constitution.

"§ 976. But the most thorough and elaborate view, which perhaps has
ever been taken of the subject, will be found in the exposition of
President Monroe, which accompanied his message respecting the bill
for the repairs of the Cumberland Road, (4th of May, 1822.) The
following passage contains, what is most direct to the present
purpose; and, though long, it will amply reward a diligent perusal.
After quoting the clause of the constitution respecting the power to
lay taxes, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare,
he proceeds to say,

§ 977. 'That the second part of this grant gives a right to
appropriate the public money, and nothing more, is evident from the
following. considerations: (1.) If the right of appropriation is not
given by this clause, it is not given at all, there being no other
grant in the constitution, which gives it directly, or which has any
bearing on the subject, even by implication, except the two following:
first, the prohibition, which is contained in the eleventh of the
enumerated powers, not to appropriate money for the support of armies
for a longer term than two years; and, secondly, the declaration in
the sixth member or clause of the ninth section of the first article,
that no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence
of appropriations made by law. ...'"

It is clear that President Monroe (sucessor to Madison), having
placed the appropriation of money in the first clause, and Justice
Story (appointed by Madison), by supporting the claim, did not
understand that the sole authority for appropriating money for
their own compensation was the 18th clause. Furthermore, neither
understood that the first clause is a GOVERNMENTAL power and, since
a law is required to make appropriations, only the 18th clause
could be used to make such law.

[A thorough reading of <js_314.htm> reveals that Story never
understood Madison's view. This is evidenced by his repeated
quotation and subsequent rejection of Madison's comments.
Quite frankly, after ignoring extensive quotes from Hamilton,
speculation about President Washington's opinion, a
misunderstanding of Jefferson, his own opinion, etc., there is,
in my opinion, little left that is worthwhile in the more than
100 pages of the document.]


Point 9: Presidents and Supreme Court Justices did not understand
the Constitution by the 1830's.


United States v. Butler (1936)
< http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0297_0001_ZO.html >
"Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion
have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison
asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers
enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as
the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers,
the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare
must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to
the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for
taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of
the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton,
on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate
and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in
meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a
substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the
requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general
welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support
of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed
the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is
the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries,
espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the
writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative
practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading
advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore,
the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause
which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the
legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of
Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes
is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the
Constitution."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The phase mentioned in the first sentence of the quote from Butler
is "to ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the
United States". The sharp "diffences of opinion", not recognised by
the Court, was the distinction between Hamilton's LEGISLATIVE and
Madison's GOVERNMENTAL powers.

The assertion attributed to Madison, in the second sentence, is a
misunderstanding of Madison and conflation with Hamilton's view.
Madison did not consider the first clause to be a LEGISLATIVE power
and thus it would not be a "power to tax and spend for the general
national welfare"; but rather a GOVERNMENTAL power to tax, qualified
by the attached phrases. "But what color can the objection have,
when a specification of the objects [GOVERNMENTAL powers] alluded to
by these general terms [common defence and general welfare] immediately
follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?"
[Fed41] But Madison new that the power to make treaties was also
a GOVERNMENTAL power and that it was not in the "same section". "For
what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted,
if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding
general power?" [Fed41] In effect, "these and all others", being a
reference to powers, maps to "the foregoing powers and all other
powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United
States, or in any department or officer thereof".

Having previously explained my objections to both Hamilton and Story,
I will skip to the last sentence which I will rephrase as "It results
that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys
for public purposes is limited by the direct grant of legislative
power found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, of the Constitution."


Point 10: The Supreme Court didn't understand the Constitution in 1936.


I have yet to see a simple explanation of the term "the common defence
and general welfare of the United States", but Madison provides hints.
"We have now reviewed, in detail, all the articles composing the sum
or quantity of power delegated by the proposed Constitution to the
federal government, and are brought to this undeniable conclusion,
that no part of the power is unnecessary or improper for accomplishing
the necessary objects of the Union." [Fed44] This and other statements
suggests, to me, the explanation: The common defence and general
welfare of the United States consists of those powers the delegates
determined were necessary and proper for cooperation of the states
in military and civil matters. This explanation being applicable to
both the the Constitution and, with the sustitution of 'states' for
'delegates', the Articles of Confederation.


In summary, Alexander Hamilton made a mistake. James Madison then
spent more than 40 years, likely without understanding the mistake,
trying to explain what happened in the Second Constitutional
Convention and why "to provide for the common defence and general
welfare" wasn't a substantive power. A letter dated Nov 27, 1830, to
then Speaker Andrew Stevenson, appears to be Madison's last try before
his death. Thus by 1830, Congress and the Courts were expanding and,
since, continued to expand the powers of government beyond that ever
intended by the Constitution.


Finally, in keeping with the subject of the thread, "I'm really not
anti-American, just fed up with stupidity..."

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <3OWdneLojrvJ2DXS...@earthlink.com>,

HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, three things:
>>> 1. Contraception (Griswold v Connecticut)
>>> 2. Abortion (Roe v Wade)
>>> 3. Crimes against nature (Lawrence v Texas)
>>
>> On the other hand it is Constitutional for an officer of the law to
>> order citizens to remove all their clothing to make sure said
>> citizens aren't bringing contraband into prisons.
>>
>> That, most certainly, was Founder's Intent... and I am the King of
>> England.
>>
>
>I know of no prison or jail where visitors are asked to disrobe inasmuch as
>they never come into direct contact with the inmates.

Unless the sentence is 'until death' anyone in a prison might be seen as a
visitor.

>
>Inmates are, of course, required to strip nekkid so the staff can make fun
>of them.
>
>As for "Founder's Intent," there weren't many jails or prisons back then.
>Malefactors were lashed or placed in the stocks for minor offenses, hanged
>for major ones.
>
>Some, today, agitate for a return to our founding principles.

I am capable of conceiving of things with which I disagree... and I could
conceive a granting of such a petition if all who agitated for it were
given 3/5ths status.

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <30767662.2456.1336431524231.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbs30>,

Rick Smith <rs84...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, May 4, 2012 8:03:58 PM UTC-4, docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <26971909.501.1336065279225.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncd9>,
>> Rick Smith <rs847...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >My study suggests that Congress has not been in compliance
>> >with Constitution since, at least, 1830.
>>
>> There are people whose study suggests that nothing but gold or silver is
>> money, Mr Smith.
>
>Whether they are correct depends upon interpretation, but that
>question is of no immediate interest to me.

The ability to see beyond the immediate is said by some, Mr Smith, to be a
sign of maturity.

[snip]

>In summary, Alexander Hamilton made a mistake. James Madison then
>spent more than 40 years, likely without understanding the mistake,
>trying to explain what happened in the Second Constitutional
>Convention and why "to provide for the common defence and general
>welfare" wasn't a substantive power. A letter dated Nov 27, 1830, to
>then Speaker Andrew Stevenson, appears to be Madison's last try before
>his death. Thus by 1830, Congress and the Courts were expanding and,
>since, continued to expand the powers of government beyond that ever
>intended by the Constitution.
>
>
>Finally, in keeping with the subject of the thread, "I'm really not
>anti-American, just fed up with stupidity..."

If it is stupidity, Mr Smith, then tracing it back to the Founders
certainly gives it a pedigree.

DD

[Rick Smith]

On Monday, May 7, 2012 9:08:06 PM UTC-4, docd...@panix.com wrote:
> In article <30767662.2456.1336431524231.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbs30>,

> Rick Smith <rs847...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> >Finally, in keeping with the subject of the thread, "I'm really not
> >anti-American, just fed up with stupidity..."
>
> If it is stupidity, Mr Smith, then tracing it back to the Founders
> certainly gives it a pedigree.

At the end of the Second Constitutional Convention, James Madison
was known as "The Father of the Constitution", while Alexander
Hamilton was known as a delegate who submitted 50 proposals for
inclusion in the Constitution, all of which were rejected.
After ratification, Alexander Hamilton was considered 'correct'
and Madison, by default, 'mistaken'.

It certainly has the appearance of stupidity.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <5633219.2972.1336493540384.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj16>,

The appearance might depend on the observer, Mr Smith. There might more
than one time in human history where one group at one time was considered
one way and later, another way.

I recall being taught that the Democratic and Republican parties kind of
switched sides with each other during the latter part of the 19th
century... but perhaps things are no longer seen that way.

DD

[HeyBub]

You must know, then, that the 3/5ths rule was a Northern artifice to deprive
blacks of their representation in Congress.

[HeyBub]

Rick Smith wrote:
>
>
> US Constitution from
> <
> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
> >
>

[...]

Nice try, but you completely missed the obvious. The Constitution is much
like the Bible: it is almost irrelevant what the Bible SAYS; what is
important is what the Bible MEANS.

The only institution that can definitively tell us what the Constitution
means is the Supreme Court. Your belief, my opinion, majority vote, and the
rest of the nation's mechanisms don't mean squat. And I include amongst that
number the intentions of our ancestor betters.

[Rick Smith]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 3:42:33 PM UTC-4, HeyBub wrote:
> Rick Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> > US Constitution from
> > <
> > http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
> > >
> >
>
> [...]
>
> Nice try, but you completely missed the obvious. The Constitution is much
> like the Bible: it is almost irrelevant what the Bible SAYS; what is
> important is what the Bible MEANS.

As a non-believer, I can't relate.

How about: The Constitution is like the COBOL standard.

Both were written by committees.

Each has a specific requirements for its interpretation. For
the Constitution, it is Article VI, Clause 3, which requires
that certain people "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,
to support this Constitution". While the COBOL standard has
requirements for claiming conformance to the standard.

The failure to support the Constitution will injure the
people, who depend on the obligation to support the
Constitution. The failure to conform to the COBOL standard
will injure users who depend on that conformance.

> The only institution that can definitively tell us what the Constitution
> means is the Supreme Court. Your belief, my opinion, majority vote, and the
> rest of the nation's mechanisms don't mean squat. And I include amongst that
> number the intentions of our ancestor betters.

definitive: (of a conclusion or agreement) Done or reached
decisively and with authority.

It sometimes happens that the Supreme Court tells us
definitively that what it definitively meant before is
not definitively what it means now. It is hardly befitting
'definitively' when dissenting opinions are given.

[Pete Dashwood]

Doesn't that make the Supreme Court a Priesthood? :-)

I am always worried when there is only ONE body that has the right to ponder
and consider something which is not beyond Human understanding.

It seems to stifle and suppress the nature of Humans to think about stuff
and form an opinion on it.

While I agree, that when it comes to the Law of the Land you can't have
everybody running around interpreting it to suit themselves, isn't that why
precedent is so important? You have to ensure that under the same
circumstances the same verdict is returned.

Obviously, the simpler and more unequivocal a Law is in the first place,
the less chance there is of it being misunderstood by either the Priests or
the People.

Sadly, after two hundred odd years, the mass of situations and judgements
becomes pretty unmanageable and provides a lucrative living for people who
choose to specialise in a particular aspect of it.

This Topic was prompted not because I think the Laws of the United States
are stupid, but because I believe that people who want more Laws and,
indeed, would like to see EVERYTHING legislated, to the point where there is
no longer any need for personal responsibility or even personal
consideration about what is good or bad or fair or just (just obey the Law
and it is covered by that...), are stupid.

Making a Law that someone cannot ask you a question because you have lost
the ability to say "No", is patently stupid.

(Any attempt by the State to decide what people can talk about has to be
resisted in the strongest possible terms.)

Furthermore, my objection (and what prompted this thread in the first
place...) is that such a Law is UNENFORCEABLE.

Passing a Law that is unnecessary (if people take some responsibility) AND
unenforceable, is, in my opinion, terminally stupid.

But, it is not the Law or the Law Makers who are stupid, it is the people
who REQUIRE such a Law.

Pete.

PS Responses to the original post indicate there are many Americans who feel
the same way I do about this. Why then, is it being mooted? The only
reasonable conclusion I can come to is that there is either a strong vested
interest in "Legislation for its own sake" (how many Lawyers per head of
population in the US?), or the general public have become so inured to
pointless legislation and litigation that they just shrug and voice no
protest, or a combination of both these factors.

--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

[Pete Dashwood]

It's a very good response, Rick, and your comparison between the US
Constitution and the COBOL standard is a whimsical one.

I noticed you avoided the comparison between the Bible and the COBOL
standard. :-)
Still, on reflection, I guess there are similarities....:

1. They both mean well.
2. They are both impossible to implement in the real world and even if you
could, it wouldn't make much difference.
3. They are both too long winded for a modern audience.
4. They both came out of a time when things were much different, and the
World has moved on.
5. They both lay down rules that have no relevance in modern society. (I
don't have neighbours who keep an ass so there is little danger of me
coveting it...neither do I employ overlaying in COBOL so I don't need
SEGMENT-LIMIT, but it hasn't been dropped from COBOL 2002)
6. They are both important for people who live in Glory Days, rather than
the present.
7. They both employ an authoritative style of writing, but the Bible reads
better than the COBOL standard...
8. Neither of them can be easily understood by the mind of mortal man
(which is, unfortunately, what I am equipped with...)
9. They both seem to spawn fanatical devotees who defend them fiercely if
challenged. This provides spin-off businesses that support both documents.
10. Finally, they can both be safely ignored without it affecting your life.
(For the Bible: If you are of a wicked disposition, it won't matter whether
you read it or not, your mind won't be changed, but you may find a number of
passages that give you a salacious thrill; if you are of a kind and decent
disposition, it won't matter whether you read it or not, although there is
some entertainment value in some of the stories. For the COBOL standard:
Until some vendor implements it (and 10 years on, nobody has...) it is more
important to pay attention to the rules your vendor has specified for his
compiler than it is to know the 2002 standard, if you are serious about
getting modern systems to bend to your will, you probably will have moved
off COBOL anyway...)

Having now offended both COBOL fanatics and the God Squad may I just ask you
to take a line ticket for the tarring and feathering... My address is in the
phone book, probably best on a "Holy day"...Sunday or Saturday might be
appropriate; I leave you to argue the details amongst yourselves... (We
should all play to our strengths...)

Pete.

[Rick Smith]

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 12:37:19 AM UTC-4, Pete Dashwood wrote:
[snip]
> [...] neither do I employ overlaying in COBOL so I don't need

> SEGMENT-LIMIT, but it hasn't been dropped from COBOL 2002)

SEGMENT-LIMIT was classed as obsolete in COBOL 85
and has been removed from COBOL 2002.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <PfqdnWnzINts6DTS...@earthlink.com>,

HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <3OWdneLojrvJ2DXS...@earthlink.com>,
>> HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>>> Some, today, agitate for a return to our founding principles.
>>
>> I am capable of conceiving of things with which I disagree... and I
>> could conceive a granting of such a petition if all who agitated for
>> it were given 3/5ths status.
>>
>
>You must know, then, that the 3/5ths rule was a Northern artifice to deprive
>blacks of their representation in Congress.

That would not change the conception I stated above... but I'm uncertain
of the intention of this fatum of provenance you see as worthy of mention.
Does the artifice of any particular rule make it have greater or lesser
Constitutionality?

DD

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <a0u60h...@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>While I agree, that when it comes to the Law of the Land you can't have
>everybody running around interpreting it to suit themselves, isn't that why
>precedent is so important? You have to ensure that under the same
>circumstances the same verdict is returned.

Or... not, Mr Dashwood. In the case of Lawrence v Texas - one which
involved something so simple as 'the government should stay out of the
bedrooms of consenting adults - the Supreme Court overturned its own
precedent of a mere seventeen years prior (Bowers v Hardwick).

(funny how nobody ever referred to Bowers v Hardwick as a decision
favoring 'natural acts'... but again, there may be clues to the social
agendae of a speaker in the language used)

DD

[Rick Smith]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 11:18:39 PM UTC-4, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
[snip]

> > Nice try, but you completely missed the obvious. The Constitution is
> > much like the Bible: it is almost irrelevant what the Bible SAYS;
> > what is important is what the Bible MEANS.
> >
> > The only institution that can definitively tell us what the
> > Constitution means is the Supreme Court. Your belief, my opinion,
> > majority vote, and the rest of the nation's mechanisms don't mean
> > squat. And I include amongst that number the intentions of our
> > ancestor betters.
>
> Doesn't that make the Supreme Court a Priesthood? :-)
>
> I am always worried when there is only ONE body that has the right to ponder
> and consider something which is not beyond Human understanding.

Mr. Robert Yates of New York expressed such concerns in 1788
in < http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus12.htm >. Some of
what Mr. Yates wrote appears to have come true.

"What the principles are, which the courts will adopt, it is
impossible for us to say; but taking up the powers as I have
explained them in my last number, which they will possess
under this clause, it is not difficult to see, that they may,
and probably will, be very liberal ones.

We have seen, that they will be authorized to give the
constitution a construction according to its spirit and reason,
and not to confine themselves to its letter."

[Rick Smith]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 2:55:17 PM UTC-4, docd...@panix.com wrote:
[snip]

> I recall being taught that the Democratic and Republican parties kind of
> switched sides with each other during the latter part of the 19th
> century... but perhaps things are no longer seen that way.

From my perspective they are both on the wrong side of
the Constitution. But, here is another view.

< http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/t/thecountrysintheverybestofhandslilabnerthemusical.shtml >
"Them GOP's and Democrats each hates the other one.
They's always criticizing how the country should be run.
But neither tells the public what the other's gone and done.
As long as no one knows where no one stands,
The country's in the very best of hands."

Video at < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwqPBlSxb-0 >

[Pete Dashwood]

Well, I believe you Rick as I know you worked on it. However, I understand
(actually, I was led to believe...) that it compiles OK with the 2002
standard in effect on Micro Focus.

I'll refer your comments back to the person who told me this.

I'm sure you understand that my post was largely tongue-in-cheek, anyway.

[Rick Smith]

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 11:16:57 AM UTC-4, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Rick Smith wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 12:37:19 AM UTC-4, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> [...] neither do I employ overlaying in COBOL so I don't need
> >> SEGMENT-LIMIT, but it hasn't been dropped from COBOL 2002)
> >
> > SEGMENT-LIMIT was classed as obsolete in COBOL 85
> > and has been removed from COBOL 2002.
>
> Well, I believe you Rick as I know you worked on it. However, I understand
> (actually, I was led to believe...) that it compiles OK with the 2002
> standard in effect on Micro Focus.
>
> I'll refer your comments back to the person who told me this.

Not having a recent compiler from Micro Focus, I did some
checking at their web site 'documentation.microfocus.com'.

It appears that the directive 'flag"iso2002"' is sufficient
to catch any code not conforming to COBOL 2002. This should
create a file containing warnings for each instance.

> I'm sure you understand that my post was largely tongue-in-cheek, anyway.

Well, yes. But I am one of those COBOL fanatics! <g>

[Pete Dashwood]

Thanks for the note.

I suspect compiles were done without the flag being set... :-)

And there are a lot worse things to be fanatical about than COBOL... :-)

[Pete Dashwood]

I never knew there was a musical of Li'l Abner, though I remember reading
the comics many years ago, as a quite young child (around 5 or 6). At the
time, the political satire would have been lost on me.

As always, America produces amazing musicals.

I thoroughly enjoyed this video and it is as apposite today as it was when
it was written; I guess nothing changes much in politics.

Thanks for posting the link, Rick.

[SkippyPB]

Some info: Annie is a Broadway musical based upon the popular Harold
Gray comic strip Little Orphan Annie, with music by Charles Strouse,
lyrics by Martin Charnin, and the book by Thomas Meehan. The original
Broadway production opened in 1977 and ran for nearly six years,
setting a record for the Alvin Theatre (now the Neil Simon Theatre).
It spawned numerous productions in many countries, as well as national
tours, and won the Tony Award for Best Musical. The musical's songs
"Tomorrow" and "It's the Hard-Knock Life" are among its most popular
musical numbers. And it is coming back to Broadway this year Check
out http://www.anniethemusical.com/

Regards,
--

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"He's not dead, he's electroencephalographically challenged."
-- Unknown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

[Rick Smith]

On Monday, May 14, 2012 9:36:18 PM UTC-4, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Rick Smith wrote:

[snip]

> > Video at < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwqPBlSxb-0 >
>
> I never knew there was a musical of Li'l Abner, though I remember reading
> the comics many years ago, as a quite young child (around 5 or 6). At the
> time, the political satire would have been lost on me.

Also true of me, though I recall being somewhat older. Finding
the song from the musical was serendipitous. I was channel
surfing the music channels on cable TV and happened to hear
the song. In total, I was aware of the musical less than 30
minutes before posting the link to the lyrics and video.

> As always, America produces amazing musicals.
>
> I thoroughly enjoyed this video and it is as apposite today as it was when
> it was written; I guess nothing changes much in politics.

To paraphrase Leonard Hofstadter ("The Big Bang Theory"), what
changes are those individuals or groups who get 'attached to
another object by an inclined plane, wrapped helically around
an axis'.

> Thanks for posting the link, Rick.

You are welcome.

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <6302024.63.1337102177397.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbdl3>,

Rick Smith <rs84...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 14, 2012 9:36:18 PM UTC-4, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>> Rick Smith wrote:
>[snip]
>> > Video at < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwqPBlSxb-0 >
>>
>> I never knew there was a musical of Li'l Abner, though I remember reading
>> the comics many years ago, as a quite young child (around 5 or 6). At the
>> time, the political satire would have been lost on me.
>
>Also true of me, though I recall being somewhat older.

I don't talk much about being old... isn't it fascinating how they managed
to get people to talk along with those moving pictures?

(E'en more odd... Mr Smith, your original posting was in response to one I
made and for reasons I do not understand it was blocked by my ISP's news
software. This one, however, made it through as usual.)

[snip]

>In total, I was aware of the musical less than 30
>minutes before posting the link to the lyrics and video.

I've been aware of it for a goodly while... and the version that was made
of it with Buster Keaton as the native American character, him talk-um
like stereotypes not talk-um now, how!

(It is also my opinion that the more modern version is superior to the
earlier... Jubilation T. Cornpone, he really saves the day!)

DD

[Pete Dashwood]

I remember the song about Jubilation T. Cornpone ("...Old
toot-your-own-horn pone... who burned the crops and left us nothing to
eat.).

Haven't heard it for a very long time.

Is that also from Li'l Abner?

[docd...@panix.com]

In article <a1g36b...@mid.individual.net>,

Pete Dashwood <dash...@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article
>> <6302024.63.1337102177397.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbdl3>,
>> Rick Smith <rs84...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 14, 2012 9:36:18 PM UTC-4, Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>>> Rick Smith wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>> Video at < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwqPBlSxb-0 >

[snip]

>> (It is also my opinion that the more modern version is superior to the
>> earlier... Jubilation T. Cornpone, he really saves the day!)
>>
>

>I remember the song about Jubilation T. Cornpone ("...Old
>toot-your-own-horn pone... who burned the crops and left us nothing to
>eat.).
>
>Haven't heard it for a very long time.
>
>Is that also from Li'l Abner?

Wonderful thing, this InterWeb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuWRh-lZicg

DD

[Rick Smith]

On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:36:43 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
[snip]

> (E'en more odd... Mr Smith, your original posting was in response to one I
> made and for reasons I do not understand it was blocked by my ISP's news
> software. This one, however, made it through as usual.)

Mr Dashwood mentioned the problem in another thread, but his
ISP blamed Google.

[snip]

> (It is also my opinion that the more modern version is superior to the
> earlier... Jubilation T. Cornpone, he really saves the day!)

Well, if it comes to a television in front of me, I'll
watch the whole movie. The short pieces on YouTube are
not enough.

[SkippyPB]

The song was made famous in Lil Abner when sung by Stubby Kaye. The
lyrics were written by the late, great Ray Charles.