4 ms·

Pardon me for interrupting the debate between you gentlemen. I thought I'd toss in a couple cents. The constitution was never fully agreed upon in spirit. It w

Pardon me for interrupting the debate between you gentlemen. I thought I'd toss in a couple cents. The constitution was never fully agreed upon in spirit. It was "these are the rules we agree upon in TEXT", but each man had his own ideas, and they figured it'd be better to let it slide and figure out the meanings later. However, I'm pretty sure, given they were fighting a revolution, the founding fathers had no intention of letting in too much federal government control. They would be appalled by what they see today. Remember that they chose the Articles of Confederation first. In short, nobody - even the founding fathers - have ever fully agreed upon the meaning of the Constitution. So to say, "The Constitution only limits federal powers, but not state powers." is just as much opinion as "The 10th amendment limits both state and federal powers". However, in response to you're arguments specifically, eesmith: Given that the average demographic on HN tends to oppose government surveillance, it seems rather nonsequitor that they would continue to give the gov power over such necessary things as maps, esp considering what the gov could do with that. The fact is, if you don't draw the line of power somewhere, it'll continue to be pushed back for further loss of liberty for the AVERAGE individual. Also, "Native Americans" were not American citizens, so they weren't entitled to the same treatment under law. No offense, but law isn't "fair to all people".

eesmith 7y ago
I don't understand your second paragraph. The Treaty of Paris (1783) ended the revolutionary battle. The first draft of the Constitution wasn't until 1787, so none of the framers or signers of the Constitution were fighting a revolution at that time. (Also: "Founding Father" is an ambiguous term, and I dont see the relevancy.") Nor do I understand your third paragraph. Barron v. Baltimore (1833) established that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments. This wasn't changed until the incorporation of the Bill of Rights starting with the 13th Amendment, in 1865. Thus, the pre-1865 interpretation of the Constitution was, from what I understand, almost exactly what I wrote, at least as regards the hypothetical creation of an authoritarian state government. Nor do I understand your 4th paragraph vis-a-vis 'power over such necessary things as maps'. My view is that of asark, many levels up: "The data and basic API should at least come from a government source, I'd say. Let companies but whatever sugar they want on top of that". That is, there's NOAA and there are private meteorology companies. Regarding Native Americans, I'll point to how the Commerce Clause could have defined Indian Tribes as being foreign states. Instead, in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Court decided that the correct Constitution interpretation was as a "domestic dependent nation[s]" ... "Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian." So no, they weren't entitled to the same rights as US citizens. But they also weren't entitled to the same rights as foreign countries. How does that result in the sorts of self-governance that syshum desires? And it's not like the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made all of these issues disappear.
- nercht12 7y ago
  > The Treaty of Paris (1783) ended the revolutionary battle. You took me literally there. I meant the PAST tense, but it seems I wrote the present active tense of "fight". > Nor do I understand your third paragraph It's opinion. That's my point. Nothing more. > Nor do I understand your 4th paragraph vis-a-vis 'power over such necessary things as maps'. ... "The data and basic API should at least come from a government source, I'd say. Let companies but whatever sugar they want on top of that". No, this is a bad idea. Sugar is just sugar, it's not control. When the government has control over access to information or channels to information, they get to manipulate the flow of info. For the sake of over simplicity (to make my point VERY clear), we might have an API that looks like this: - getKey() - getWeather(Key) - getNewWeather(Key) Now suppose everyone knows function "getWeather" is more accurate than "getNewWeather". Naturally, they want to use "getWeather". But then some bureaucrat decides they need to manipulate the weather forecast to explain the downing of a helicopter (shot down by secret forces) or divert people away from driving near a secret airplane part that landed in the road. In other words, the gov would like to control what kind of weather people receive, so they tell everyone that getNewWeather is now an alias for getWeather and getKey now only returns a valid key for getNewWeather. Congratulations, the gov now controls the weather. > Regarding Native Americans.... So no, they weren't entitled to the same rights as US citizens. But they also weren't entitled to the same rights as foreign countries. How does that result in the sorts of self-governance that syshum desires? That's not what I was interpreting you arguing for. You said, "When did the Constitution ever respect the individualism and liberty of Native Americans?" Which I was saying, "It doesn't," and which you seem to agree with me by saying "they weren't entitled to the same rights as US citizens". The fact that some judge muddied the waters of "citizen" and "foreigner" is some leftover problem from a bygone era. At this point, I think we have different understandings as to what we're arguing. I wanted to reply (as anyone likes to do), but perhaps it's best to stop. My fault for butting in.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    "It's opinion. That's my point. Nothing more." My point is that the opinion of the US Supreme Court has far more of an impact than simply saying it's an opinion. "When the government has control over access to information or channels to information, they get to manipulate the flow of info." And when private industry has control over access it's better? In any case, I am describing what we have now, with public service and private services. The private services are able to use the public information, and add their own observations, modeling, etc. I can't think of any system which could prevent your (IMHO movie) scenarios. I mean, in real cases where secret planes crash and parts are everywhere, they don't do that now. And it seems pointless as most people don't drive/navigate that way. "some leftover problem from a bygone era." Recall that syshum wrote "it is sad we as a society has lost respect for indivualism and liberty". I wanted to know which era that was.

eesmith 7y ago

I don't understand your second paragraph. The Treaty of Paris (1783) ended the revolutionary battle. The first draft of the Constitution wasn't until 1787, so none of the framers or signers of the Constitution were fighting a revolution at that time. (Also: "Founding Father" is an ambiguous term, and I dont see the relevancy.") Nor do I understand your third paragraph. Barron v. Baltimore (1833) established that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments. This wasn't changed until the incorporation of the Bill of Rights starting with the 13th Amendment, in 1865. Thus, the pre-1865 interpretation of the Constitution was, from what I understand, almost exactly what I wrote, at least as regards the hypothetical creation of an authoritarian state government. Nor do I understand your 4th paragraph vis-a-vis 'power over such necessary things as maps'. My view is that of asark, many levels up: "The data and basic API should at least come from a government source, I'd say. Let companies but whatever sugar they want on top of that". That is, there's NOAA and there are private meteorology companies. Regarding Native Americans, I'll point to how the Commerce Clause could have defined Indian Tribes as being foreign states. Instead, in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Court decided that the correct Constitution interpretation was as a "domestic dependent nation[s]" ... "Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian." So no, they weren't entitled to the same rights as US citizens. But they also weren't entitled to the same rights as foreign countries. How does that result in the sorts of self-governance that syshum desires? And it's not like the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made all of these issues disappear.

nercht12 7y ago
> The Treaty of Paris (1783) ended the revolutionary battle. You took me literally there. I meant the PAST tense, but it seems I wrote the present active tense of "fight". > Nor do I understand your third paragraph It's opinion. That's my point. Nothing more. > Nor do I understand your 4th paragraph vis-a-vis 'power over such necessary things as maps'. ... "The data and basic API should at least come from a government source, I'd say. Let companies but whatever sugar they want on top of that". No, this is a bad idea. Sugar is just sugar, it's not control. When the government has control over access to information or channels to information, they get to manipulate the flow of info. For the sake of over simplicity (to make my point VERY clear), we might have an API that looks like this: - getKey() - getWeather(Key) - getNewWeather(Key) Now suppose everyone knows function "getWeather" is more accurate than "getNewWeather". Naturally, they want to use "getWeather". But then some bureaucrat decides they need to manipulate the weather forecast to explain the downing of a helicopter (shot down by secret forces) or divert people away from driving near a secret airplane part that landed in the road. In other words, the gov would like to control what kind of weather people receive, so they tell everyone that getNewWeather is now an alias for getWeather and getKey now only returns a valid key for getNewWeather. Congratulations, the gov now controls the weather. > Regarding Native Americans.... So no, they weren't entitled to the same rights as US citizens. But they also weren't entitled to the same rights as foreign countries. How does that result in the sorts of self-governance that syshum desires? That's not what I was interpreting you arguing for. You said, "When did the Constitution ever respect the individualism and liberty of Native Americans?" Which I was saying, "It doesn't," and which you seem to agree with me by saying "they weren't entitled to the same rights as US citizens". The fact that some judge muddied the waters of "citizen" and "foreigner" is some leftover problem from a bygone era. At this point, I think we have different understandings as to what we're arguing. I wanted to reply (as anyone likes to do), but perhaps it's best to stop. My fault for butting in.
- eesmith 7y ago
  "It's opinion. That's my point. Nothing more." My point is that the opinion of the US Supreme Court has far more of an impact than simply saying it's an opinion. "When the government has control over access to information or channels to information, they get to manipulate the flow of info." And when private industry has control over access it's better? In any case, I am describing what we have now, with public service and private services. The private services are able to use the public information, and add their own observations, modeling, etc. I can't think of any system which could prevent your (IMHO movie) scenarios. I mean, in real cases where secret planes crash and parts are everywhere, they don't do that now. And it seems pointless as most people don't drive/navigate that way. "some leftover problem from a bygone era." Recall that syshum wrote "it is sad we as a society has lost respect for indivualism and liberty". I wanted to know which era that was.