British tanks since the Centurion[1] all contain kettles or boiling vessels for tea. Don't mess with their tea, even in the heat of battle!
305 karma · joined July 2, 2013
First, many didn't know that they were doing it. Second, as an American citizen I surely don't agree that it should be doing it as a matter of policy. This is another situation where the government does things in my name that I disapprove of. Third, nice American Exceptionalism, bro!
If the point of a system is process then you have the classic "the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the bureaucracy" situation. At some point you need to look at output.
That said, in spite of my (probably uninformed) opinion, the courts in New York think that this family is better together in this shelter, so what do I know anyway?
Okay, not to victim blame, but eight children when her parents can't even support themselves?
Part of the reason that this line of bullshit needs to be criticized is so that nobody else falls for it. Only be criticizing it can we start to look for alternatives.
The House of Representatives is apportioned by population, and its job is to represent the interests of the people. A more populous state has more representatives so that (theoretically) each representative represents an equal portion of the American population. This is also why spending bills must originate in the House as the money spent is derived from the people.
Each state receives an equal number of Senators. The Senate is responsible for representing the interests of the states. That is why Senators were originally appointed by the state legislature [2] instead of directly elected. A federal republic, such as the United States, is built upon each state have its interests represented equally, and that is why each state receives an equal number of Senators.
I believe that the direct election of Senators undermines the original intent of the Senate and that the 17th Amendment should be repealed.
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvii [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section3
bzzt!, oh, sorry, that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is set out in the oath that all US Senators take upon being sworn into office[1] which reads:
>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
So no, sorry, the first priority is to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which includes the NSA. Their oath says nothing about terrorism.
>"If government agencies identify a suspected terrorist, they should absolutely go to the relevant phone companies to get that person’s phone records."
Are you done supplicating yourself fully before the police state? My copy of the Constitution (which does not contain the root password "thinkofthekids" or "terrorism") says you need not just suspicion, but probable cause for a warrant.
>"When the Bill of Rights was adopted, it established that Americans’ papers and effects should be seized only when there was specific evidence of suspicious activity."
bzzt!, again, so close! Let's look at what it really says[2], shall we (emphasis mine):
>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.
Not only do you need suspicion, but you need probable cause for a warrant or the search needs to be reasonable some other way (border crossing, subject gave consent, search subject to arrest, etc).
>Our bill would prohibit the government from conducting warrantless “backdoor searches” of Americans’ communications — including emails, text messages and Internet use — under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Again, so close! Read the fourth amendment again. Nowhere does it say "The right of US Citizens". It says "The right of the people". That means all people - citizens and non-citizens, and that distinction is important. The protections afforded under this amendment apply to everyone in the country and extend to those parties being contacted by someone from this country, otherwise the wording would be different.
[1] http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/...
[2] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...