11–20 of 32 posts
After a quick read of that document, I get the distinct impression that the US government feels it has a fundamental right to control all encryption schemes and to have access to any and all encrypted data. Bollocks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 10th Amendment is largely a fiction today. Instead, the opposite is true: the federal government frequently claims and uses novel powers until a Supreme Court case says it can't. And sometimes those powers get minor modifications to enable their re-use afterwards. The only fundamental force resisting these types of power grabs is a large body of citizens who both know and exercise their rights, and who look at go…
The 10th amendment has no independent significance. It says: > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If an exercise of power can be justified by reference to some Constitutional provision, then it is by definition delegated and the 10th amendment does not apply. If an exercise of power cannot be…
The interpretation of the Tenth Amendment as a tautology—as a uniquely meaningless bit of prose in our constitution—did not exist in the first eleven or twelve decades of our country's history, and it seems to be quite clearly at odds with the explanation of Federalist 45 [1], in which James Madison wrote,
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4948005
1. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendXs4.h...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 10th amendment has no independent significance. It says: > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If an exercise of power can be justified by reference to some Constitutional provision, then it is by definition delegated and the 10th amendment does not apply. If an exercise of power cannot be…
We've had this conversation before [0], and I pointed out then that the tautological interpretation of the Tenth Amendment appeared only in the first decades of the twentieth century, not coincidentally in the jurisprudence of the very judges who started the parade of vast new federal powers rolling. The interpretation of the Tenth Amendment as a tautology—as a uniquely meaningless bit of prose in our constitution—di…
The Federalist quote doesnt pertain to the 10th amendment. It is about the concept of enumerated powers in general. The 10th amendment isn't what makes the federal government one of enumerated powers, which is precisely why its superfluous.
And it is true that the framers envisioned the states having power over ordinary life. They also envisioned the federal government having broad power over interstate commerce. They didn't foresee that technological change would cause the latter to swallow the former.
When was this published? I see the approval for release date, but not the author's publish date.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 10th Amendment is largely a fiction today. Instead, the opposite is true: the federal government frequently claims and uses novel powers until a Supreme Court case says it can't. And sometimes those powers get minor modifications to enable their re-use afterwards. The only fundamental force resisting these types of power grabs is a large body of citizens who both know and exercise their rights, and who look at go…
This is why it's a shame the US doesn't have a Constitutional Court with its sole purpose of filtering out unconstitutional bills signed by the president before they become actual laws. Then bills like the Patriot Act in its current form would have a much smaller chance of becoming laws, and then having the government abuse them for two decades before they are challenged at the Supreme Court.
The right way to keep unconstitutional bills from becoming law is to vote for representatives who won't vote for them and presidents who won't sign them. Hoping a handful of septuagenarians in robes will "do the right thing" is fundamentally an anti-small-d-democratic and anti-small-r-republican notion.
After a quick read of that document, I get the distinct impression that the US government feels it has a fundamental right to control all encryption schemes and to have access to any and all encrypted data. Bollocks.
It would be interesting to see people do the legwork for crypto policies in other European countries. I'd be particularly interested in Germany's policies, and Poland's.
After a quick read of that document, I get the distinct impression that the US government feels it has a fundamental right to control all encryption schemes and to have access to any and all encrypted data. Bollocks.
The US was, of course, not unique in this regard. The UK seriously explored mandatory key escrow, and their equivalent of PATRIOT (ie: their statutory reaction to 2000s terrorism) makes it a felony under some circumstances not to provide requested keys to investigators. It would be interesting to see people do the legwork for crypto policies in other European countries. I'd be particularly interested in Germany's pol…
Do we still have to lie in answering the "have you ever been a gunrunner" question on the form you fill in on entry to the US ?
I don't recall ever being asked that. Is it only for non-citizens?
The language [1] describing visa ineligibility seems much more nuanced now. The last paper form that I filled in asked whether you had been involved in transporting munitions, strong crypto was classified as a munition at the time.
[1] http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/general/inelig...
Little known fact, Mozilla+Netscape fixed the export restriction for open source software which ultimately led to it being eliminated all together.
Actually it was the original openssl developers who created a fork of Mozilla just so you could use 128-bit crypto in the browser overseas.