NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: How close are you to being eligible for the US Supreme Court? Give us some cogent answers to these questions which will probably be asked of Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts. Let's see how YOU do!


The Supreme Court Ink-Blot Test!

By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
Published: September 12, 2005

1. The Ninth Amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that this language binds federal courts, or do you believe - as Robert Bork does - that it is an indecipherable "inkblot?" If the former, how are federal courts to determine what rights are retained by the people? On the other hand, if the Ninth Amendment does not create enforceable rights, what is it doing taking up one-tenth of the Bill of Rights?

2. Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that "since the American Revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A and transfer it to B by a mere legislative act." Was Story wrong? Or was the Supreme Court wrong this year when it ruled in Kelo v. the City of New London that a government had the right to take property for the use of private developers?

3. Could a human-like artificial intelligence constitute a "person" for purposes of protection under the 14th Amendment, or is such protection limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States?"

4. Does a declaration of war by Congress have the effect of suddenly making proper actions by the executive and Congress that would otherwise have been beyond their constitutional powers?

5. Is scientific research among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment? If not, is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing?

1. Sounds like someone didn't think what they were writing.

2. The supreme court bollocked up. Either we have the right to property or we don't. We do not get the right of property made subordinate to the economy.

3. If it can go through the process of naturalization then it;'s a citizen. Whatever happens it is sentient life and should be treated with respect.

4. I'll get back later.

5. Science is not a means of expression. It may discover some means of expression but of itself it is not a means of expression, it is a means of exploration. However, legislation to restrict such exploration should only be made where injury to persons other than the scientists fooling with it is inevitable (so research into biological weaponry and the like would be outlawed, research into nuclear fusion is not).

I find the American Constitution to be poorly written and the American system of government to be lacking, so I'll refrain from answering the pointless questions. :p

I find the American Constitution to be poorly written and the American system of government to be lacking, so I'll refrain from answering the pointless questions. :p
[ bitch-slaps Fass ] :D

[ bitch-slaps Fass ] :D

I knew you had a limp wrist (among other things). :)

I'm not an American, so I think I can't become member of the US Suprem Court. ;) I answer the questions anyway.

1. By being not a native english speaker I had my problems with understanding this text, so please forgive me if I missunderstood something or used the wrong words.
In my eyes this passage merly ensures that laws contradict each other. This is nessessary for a constitutional state to prohibit arbitrary decisions. Provided that the US Constution is accepted by all federal states it binds federal courts. The nature of the rights retained by the people have to be decided by the judges of the federal courts in consideration of the constitution. The airiness of the passage ensures IMO the autonomy of the federal adjudication. This is of course a difficult task, but thats why judges are high paid, well trained specialists.

2. The goverment has never the right to take away private property.

3. If an AI passes the Turing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test) it has to be considered a person. It has now to be considered what "born" means. When we take the term "born" as "came into live" and can't, because of the passed Touring test, rule out that this AI is a living, sentinent being and therefore can be considered a person, it has to be protected under the 14th Amendment.

4. No. Even though it is tempting in times of crisis, this can be employed for dictatorial means.

5. No. Science is not an expressive activity, but any goverment is well advised not to bar research.

1. By being not a native english speaker I had my problems with understanding this text, so please forgive me if I missunderstood something or used the wrong words.
In my eyes this passage merly ensures that laws contradict each other. This is nessessary for a constitutional state to prohibit arbitrary decisions. Provided that the US Constution is accepted by all federal states it binds federal courts. The nature of the rights retained by the people have to be decided by the judges of the federal courts in consideration of the constitution. The airiness of the passage ensures IMO the autonomy of the federal adjudication. This is of course a difficult task, but thats why judges are high paid, well trained specialists.

I think you completely misunderstood what the passage is about: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What it basically means is "just because we listed a few rights in the Constitution does not mean that these are the only rights that people have, and we want to make clear that they are entitled to these rights even though we have not enumerated them".

At least, that's what it seems to mean. The American Constitution is no paragon of clarity and sensibility.

I think you completely misunderstood what the passage is about: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What it basically means is "just because we listed a few rights in the Constitution does not mean that these are the only rights that people have, and we want to make clear that they are entitled to these rights even though we have not enumerated them".

At least, that's what it seems to mean. The American Constitution is no paragon of clarity and sensibility.
Perhaps so, Fass, but there are reasons it was written that way, the primary one being that the entire document was negotiated among highly contentious representatives from the original thirteen colonies. Much of the language was left deliberately vague so the representatives would have fewer problems reaching agreement.

Perhaps so, Fass, but there are reasons it was written that way, the primary one being that the entire document was negotiated among highly contentious representatives from the original thirteen colonies. Much of the language was left deliberately vague so the representatives would have fewer problems reaching agreement.

And as any such compromise it ended up lacking to the extent that you still have people, two centuries on, unable to agree on what it means, and an entire constitutional court that has to spend its time deciphering the document.

I think you completely misunderstood what the passage is about: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What it basically means is "just because we listed a few rights in the Constitution does not mean that these are the only rights that people have, and we want to make clear that they are entitled to these rights even though we have not enumerated them".

At least, that's what it seems to mean. The American Constitution is no paragon of clarity and sensibility.
Well, I wrote that I didn't really understand the passage. I think that most of my statement is still true with your interpretation. The federal states still have to decide about the nature of this retained rights.

Well, I wrote that I didn't really understand the passage. I think that most of my statement is still true with your interpretation. The federal states still have to decide about the nature of this retained rights.

A federal court, which the question touched on, is not the same thing as a state court. Also, your answer made no sense.

A federal court, which the question touched on, is not the same thing as a state court. Also, your answer made no sense.
You could have told me earlier. The federal court are the people who decide if the goverment or laws interfere with the constitution?

You could have told me earlier. The federal court are the people who decide if the goverment or laws interfere with the constitution?

No, that's the Supreme Court (in the end - regular courts can rule in a similar fashion, but it's the Supreme Court that is, well, supreme). A federal court is just a regular court that is federal, and is thus a part of the federal governing organisation, as apposed to a state court.

And as any such compromise it ended up lacking to the extent that you still have people, two centuries on, unable to agree on what it means, and an entire constitutional court that has to spend its time deciphering the document.
Better a vague document that can be interpreted to fit current circumstances than a strictly worded document that would fall apart whenever it encounters something new.

No, that's the Supreme Court (in the end - regular courts can rule in a similar fashion, but it's the Supreme Court that is, well, supreme). A federal court is just a regular court that is federal, and is thus a part of the federal governing organisation, as apposed to a state court.
Such a court shoul be disbanded. The judiciary should be in the hands of the federal goverments. But comming back to the original issue. This federal court is of course binded by the constitution in that way, that it has to decide about issues which are connected to laws, of which the Supreme Court ensures their conformity with the constitution.
That means that not the federal courts decide about the rights retained by the people but a combination of the legislature and the Supreme Court.

Better a vague document that can be interpreted to fit current circumstances than a strictly worded document that would fall apart whenever it encounters something new.

A lack of vagueness would cause nothing like that, and doesn't in properly written constitutions.

Disclaimer: I'm not a U.S. citizen and am not familiar with the U.S. constitution.

1. Yes, the federal courts are bound by this language. The 9th amendment is the reason for the rest of the constitution (apart from the Bill of Rights) to exist. In a wider sense, it clarifies that the courts have a duty to uphold the supremacy of natural rights over constitutional rights, in case the two were found to be contradictory. Natural rights are those rights which are understood by commonsense and illuminated by the spirit, rather than the word of the constitution.

2. Yes and No. Neither is wrong. By the supreme court's decision, it is clear that the federal government has implicitly delegated its right to take the property to the state government.

3. No, such protection is limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States.

4. Yes, a declaration of war by Congress does have the effect of suddenly making proper actions by the executive and Congress that would otherwise have been beyond their constitutional powers.

5. Yes, scientific research is among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment.
And no, Congress is not free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing.

3. If an AI passes the Turing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test) it has to be considered a person.

not everybody in the field agrees that the turing test is enough to discriminate between machines and persons (as can be read even in that wikipedia article)

consider a computer with Lots of memory and an AI programmed to simulate the behavior of a specific human being, with some reasoning ability, but mostly with a Big database of real answers from the said being.

It would pass the Turing test, but should it be considered a person? Should it be allowed a vote? Wouldn't it be like giving two votes to the original human?

*sniped*

3. No, such protection is limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States.

*sniped*

But what does "born" mean. I think it is one of the many words which are often used but poorly defined.

Such a court shoul be disbanded. The judiciary should be in the hands of the federal goverments.

That makes no sense. There is only one federal government, and I mentioned several courts, so you will have to be more clear as to which one you are referring to.

But comming back to the original issue. This federal court is of course binded by the constitution in that way, that it has to decide about issues which are connected to laws, of which the Supreme Court ensures their conformity with the constitution.

Yes, but the passage has nothing to do with that, and the question wasn't about that either.

That means that not the federal courts decide about the rights retained by the people but a combination of the legislature and the Supreme Court.

That's not how the American system works, and that's not what the passage is about. I think you have been confused by the wording of the question (the binds federal courts part). The person asking the question wants to know if the passage applies to federal courts in having them recognise rights not enumerated by the constitution.

To summarise, you don't seem to be well-versed in how the American system is set up, and you seem to have completely misunderstood the question as well as the passage, seeing as your answers have been non-nonsensical in relation to them.

That makes no sense. There is only one federal government, and I mentioned several courts, so you will have to be more clear as to which one you are referring to.

Sorry, poor spelling. I meant goverment of course .

Yes, but the passage has nothing to do with that, and the question wasn't about that either.



That's not how the American system works, and that's not what the passage is about. I think you have been confused by the wording of the question (the binds federal courts part). The person asking the question wants to know if the passage applies to federal courts in having them recognise rights not enumerated by the constitution.

To summarise, you don't seem to be well-versed in how the American system is set up, and you seem to have completely misunderstood the question as well as the passage, seeing as your answers have been non-nonsensical in relation to them.
That may very well be. As I stated before, I had difficulties with this passage.

Not being an American or native English speaker either, as far as I know not only the letter but also the spirit of the law and common practice can be valid legal sources for a judge (as someone else already pointed out more or less).

As I see it upon reading this, the 9th amendment is a kind of " disclaimer", one could say, preventing the abuse of the enumerated rights to take away other rights that may exist in other legal documents or habit. It's a more convoluted way of saying "Your rights include, but are not limited to, the above listed"

1. Makes perfect sense. The Constitution outlines some rights, but others which are not touched upon by the Constitution are not affected by it. Basically, what it says is that while some rights are spelled out, others that are not mentioned are not meant to be considered disallowed simply because they are not specifically mentioned. Where there is a dispute about rights not specifically mentioned, the issue must be decided by the courts.

2. I have not read the legal brief associated with the case in question, but I think the Supreme Court was wrong, based soley on the information provided by the question.

3. Interesting question, but I would think that it also refers back to question 1. There is no specific mention of AI rights in the Constitution, as it is an issue that could not have been concieved of by our forefathers. It seems as though the issue of what constitutes "human-like" to the degree where it qualifies for human rights would need to be carefully decided by the courts. Once the guidelines have been set, and assuming that the courts agree that a certain level of Artificial Intelligence qualifies as human, then yes, such an intelligence should be granted 14th amendment protections.

4. There is not enough information here to answer the question. In some cases, an action must be taken promptly, and there are provisions for doing so and following such action with a declaration of war. In others, the president chooses to abuse those provisions and attempt to legitimize his actions after the fact. Each case must be decided individually on its merits. For the most part, however, if a president does not follow proper proceedure as laid out in constitutional code and decides to commit our forces to a war without proper authorization, then seeks complicancy of the Congress in such acts by asking them to provide a declaration of war after the troops have been irrevocably committed, then no, such actions of the executive and Congress are not legitimized after the fact, and those branches should be held accountable for any such acts that were improper before such declaration was made.

5. Scientific research does not fall under freedom of expression. Writing generated about such research does, but the actual research is not expressive. That being said, the Congress should not be the arbiter of what we are "better off not knowing", as this does infringe on free expression. While the government does ban research that is harmful, they cannot ban the flow of information about such research that may be performed elsewhere. Here we run into a different issue. The question should rather be "Should the Congress be allowed to ban research that is harmful?" This is a more difficult question to answer, as the definition of harm is subjective. Currently, the bans on stem cell research could be said to be harmful to persons with muscular dystrophy, spinal cord injuries, alzheimers, parkinsons and many other diseases that stem cell research has been seen to have hopes of curing. On the other side of the table, the argument goes that stem cell research is dependent upon material from an aborted fetus, which is harmful to the fetus. These are the issues that should be discussed in the decisions about banning scientific research, and freedom of expression does not relate.


So, do I get the job? Can I be Chief Justice?

I think you completely misunderstood what the passage is about: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What it basically means is "just because we listed a few rights in the Constitution does not mean that these are the only rights that people have, and we want to make clear that they are entitled to these rights even though we have not enumerated them".

At least, that's what it seems to mean. The American Constitution is no paragon of clarity and sensibility.

That is correct.... In light, the US Constitution is derived from powers and authority (as well as the past documents of the Confederation and Declaration) from English Common Law.... under the entire system laws enumerate Common Law concepts, but do not negate the original "unwritten" commonlaw.... Which is what this Amendment deals with.

FYI: for all

The US Constitution is a document which defines specified powers to government. It is definitive only, granting the government certain powers, all other powers laying with the people at large. When enumerating rights, they are listing specfic rights; technically the Bill of Rights is not "needed" but was added purely for clarification purposes, this includes expansive amendments such as the 9th and 10th, which clarify, again, that the "posession of rights" extends past the few which are enumerated. Thus, the court does not "create" new rights.... and neither does the law, it "clarifies" them.

1. The Ninth Amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that this language binds federal courts, or do you believe - as Robert Bork does - that it is an indecipherable "inkblot?" If the former, how are federal courts to determine what rights are retained by the people? On the other hand, if the Ninth Amendment does not create enforceable rights, what is it doing taking up one-tenth of the Bill of Rights?

It is rather obvious, if a bit unnecessary. The list of rights in the Constitution are not the only rights we have. Considering the way our legal system works, this is fairly obvious - anything not prohibited is allowed, and that is the way it works. However, it is always good to be absolutely clear about it.

In the end, what it boils down to is that a citizen has the right to do anything not enumerated - that doesn't harm another person.

2. Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that "since the American Revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A and transfer it to B by a mere legislative act." Was Story wrong? Or was the Supreme Court wrong this year when it ruled in Kelo v. the City of New London that a government had the right to take property for the use of private developers?

Anyone who asks this question is an idiot who hasn't bothered to read the Kelo decision. I hope one of the Senators does ask it, so the part of the country that can actually read can bitch slap him or her. The Kelo decision made it exceptionally clear that the government cannot use eminent domain to take the property of A and transfer it to B by a mere legislative act - holding completely with what Story said.

3. Could a human-like artificial intelligence constitute a "person" for purposes of protection under the 14th Amendment, or is such protection limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States?"

As soon as we have an adequate definition of a human person, I'll get back to you.

4. Does a declaration of war by Congress have the effect of suddenly making proper actions by the executive and Congress that would otherwise have been beyond their constitutional powers?

No.

5. Is scientific research among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment? If not, is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing?

I wouldn't say that scientific research is protected by the First Amendment, although publishing/sharing of scientific research certainly would be. I would say that the government can and should regulate research - but should be very careful in how, when, and why they do it. They should also make at least a cursory attempt to understand the science they are attempting to regulate - something the majority of Congress (and our chief of state) don't ever bother to do.

This is a more difficult question to answer, as the definition of harm is subjective. Currently, the bans on stem cell research could be said to be harmful to persons with muscular dystrophy, spinal cord injuries, alzheimers, parkinsons and many other diseases that stem cell research has been seen to have hopes of curing. On the other side of the table, the argument goes that stem cell research is dependent upon material from an aborted fetus, which is harmful to the fetus.

Yeah, the argument of the ignorant goes that way. People who are at all informed are aware that embryonic stem cells don't even come from a fetus, much less an aborted one.

So, do I get the job? Can I be Chief Justice?

Due to your obvious lack of knowledge about a matter that might come before the court at some point in time, I would say no.

not everybody in the field agrees that the turing test is enough to discriminate between machines and persons (as can be read even in that wikipedia article)

consider a computer with Lots of memory and an AI programmed to simulate the behavior of a specific human being, with some reasoning ability, but mostly with a Big database of real answers from the said being.

It would pass the Turing test, but should it be considered a person? Should it be allowed a vote? Wouldn't it be like giving two votes to the original human?
The point is that we can't decide that it is not a person. We don't even know if we are not just huge databases. So when we are in doubt we have to act as it is sentinent.

But what does "born" mean. I think it is one of the many words which are often used but poorly defined.

The keyword here is not "born", but "those", which is implied to mean humans, humans as in homosapiens. "Born" is pretty clear in its definition. It signifies the act of biological birth (the actual delivery by the pregnant mother), not biological conception of the embryo inside the mother's womb. Any discussion about abortion and cloning is irrelevant here.

The keyword here is not "born", but "those", which is implied to mean humans, humans as in homosapiens. "Born" is pretty clear in its definition. It signifies the act of biological birth (the actual delivery by the pregnant mother), not biological conception of the embryo inside the mother's womb. Any discussion about abortion and cloning is irrelevant here.
1. Cloning wasn't my point. I wanted to reflect about the connection of birth and biological life forms (I know that actually all life forms are by definition biological, because biology translates into "the science of life", but you know what I mean). Are chickens born? I think so, even if it's not born by a pregnant mother. Is a plasmodium born? Maybe, but it is surely alive. Is an AI born? Maybe, at least out of the mind of its creator.
2. Why does "those" implies only the species Homo sapiens?

1. It is the former. Federal government decides rights retained by the people as those rights come to the forefront through litigation, public outcry, etc.

2. The Supreme Court was totally, 100% wrong in their decision this year.

3. Limited to those born/naturalized US Citizens. If a human like AI is ever able to demonstrate true sentience and pass the naturalization requirements independently, then it could be considered a person. Independent thought is the key.

4. No. Declarations of war, as a legal writ, are outdated. Wars no longer exist in the traditional thoughts of the world. More and more, wars are indescribably by traditional thought, as major conflicts switch to technological attacks and individual cell structure organizations carry out hit and run tactics with no real military presence/occupation.

5. Scientific research is not specifically protected under the First Amendment. Scientific research can and should be limited based on legal/moral ramifications. Otherwise, conduct of Nazi Germany could be considered fair and legal scientific research, as could the psychological/physiological research tie-in of the late 1700 and 1800's sanitariums. Neither are acceptable forms of research, regardless of the "potential" lifesaving measures.

1. I favor the inkblot approach myself. My legal theories hold that the amendment is binding upon the legislatures and requires them to make thier laws in accordance with the rights not enumerated. The judicairy can only overrule on consitutional grounds when an act is clearly in violation of the Constitution, since the legislature and executive are bound by the constitution their acts are presumed to be in accordance with the constitution. The ninth amendment by itself provides no guidance to which unenumerated rights are retained by the citizens, it can only be clearly violated by the legislature making a law that only those rights enumerated exist.

2. While Justice Story's commentaries provide a good source on a variety of issues I find Lewis a much better source for the analysis of the proper approach to the takings clause. With regards to Kelo while I believe based upon the superficial review I have made of the facts that the Court may have been mistaken in it's analysis of the facts, I cannot fault it's legal reasoning.

3. Before adressing the intended question I have to point out two flaws in the question; first, the question is not a proper either/or question as presumably an artificial-intelligence could be naturalized and thus qualify for both conditions, and ; second, the 14th amendment language refers not to persons and the rights and immunities of personhood but to citizens. As to the question intended, I am unaware of any absolute prohibition of defining person in such a manner as to include artificial intelligences. As the laws stand currently, it would be impossible for a court to rule an artificial intelligence to be a person in any manner beyond those already estabished for "artifical persons" however there is no absolute constitutional ban on legislative defintions of personhood including artificial intelligences. Without an actual case before me I cannot expand any further.

4. Most certainly, I refer the questioner to the 3rd and 5th amendments.

5. Research as act is protect by the first ammendment association rights, research as knowledge is protected under the first amendment expression rights. Scientific research does not warrent any different protection from the first amendment than other forms of speech or assemebly.

2. Why does "those" implies only the species Homo sapiens?
1. Are chickens born? I think so, even if it's not born by a pregnant mother. Is a plasmodium born? Maybe, but it is surely alive. Is an AI born? Maybe, at least out of the mind of its creator.


2. The constitution is there to delineate the rights of people who are U.S. citizens. People not machines or animals. Machines and animals are properties of human beings individually, or collectively. Machines and animals are not people. Even those laws which are created to prevent cruelty to animals or preserve bio-diversity were created with primarily human interest in mind. Likewise sentient beings other than human beings, like for example machines having AI capability, don't have any inherent rights themselves unless individual or collective human interest is expressly involved.

1. Since, we are discussing only humans, the word "birth" should only refer to biological birth at the time of delivery by the mother.

1. The Ninth Amendment.
The 9th Amendment does bind federal courts. It is a tool for further amendment based on common law and common practice. The concept of other unenumerated but presumed rights supports the enumerated rights, such as the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure (the 9th allows a judge to define “unreasonable” in the context of common practice). It also allows later amendments such as universal sufferage and abolition of slavery. It may also be a recognition of the compromises that created the Constitution. If the Electoral College was a sop to the slave states, then the 9th Amendment may be taken as a sop to the anti-slave states, leaving open the door to revisit the issue later, which was eventually done.

2. Property Rights.
The Supreme Court was wrong in Kelo. The concept of emminent domain makes clear that the taking must be for the public good, and the common practice has been that land may be taken for such things as roads, sewers, wetlands preservation, and other public works. In such cases, private land is usually converted to public land (as in the case of highways). In Kelo, the City of New London seized private lands but did not keep them for public use. Rather, they handed the lands over to a private developer for a commercial use that would be privately owned. This is an obvious violation of property rights, and the City’s arguments that the future tax and parking fee income would bring enough benefit to the public to make it worthwhile is, imo, ridiculous. It should be noted that Kelo was only one such case being heard in courts around the country, and the SCOTUS decision was a disturbing setback to property rights.

3. AI Rights.
HAHAHAHA. You don’t honestly expect a country that can’t even come up with a workable immigration policy or figure out what to do with the poor, other than jail them or leave them to drown, to judge whether a machine can be sentient, do you?

4. Declaration of War.
This is a technical issue that is unclear. Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War is still being debated. IMO, a declaration of war does not give carte blanche to the executive and legislative branches, and this is perhaps why US administrations have shown a fondness for undeclared military actions, which they conceitedly have decided don’t trigger the legal limitations of a formal declaration. Weasels.

5. Scientific Research as Free Speech.
I agree with the person who said that publishing of research is protected as speech/press, but actual lab/field research is not. This is because, like medecine and industry, scientific research can have physical, environmental, and economic consequences that speech is unlikely to have. Papers about experimental drugs don’t cause birth defects.

A few more notes on this:

I don’t think the authors/signers of the Constitution had any idea that it was finished. Most of them were accomplished lawyers and knew full well that there would be problems for future generations, as indicated in their later writings. But they were under extreme pressure to produce a document. The former colonies were losing confidence in the Continental Congress and threatening to start fighting with each other. If they had worked on it any longer, there might not have been a nation to apply it to.

According to The US Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It (Oak Hill Publishing Co.), a handy little book containing the full text of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, plus many, indeed, fascinating facts:

“Of the forty-two delegates who attended most of the meetings, thirty-nine actually signed the Constitution. Edmund Randolph and George Mason of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts refused to sign due in part to the lack of a bill of rights.”

“When it came time for the states to ratify the Constitution, the lack of any bill of rights was the primary sticking point.”

“September 17, 1787: All 12 delegations approve the Constitution. 39 delegates sign it...”

“June 8, 1789: James Madison introduces the proposed Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives.”

“December 15, 1790: Virginia ratifies the Bill of Rights and 10 of the 12 proposed amendments become part of the US Constitution.”

If you look at the Amendments, particularly I (regarding speech, press, and assembly), II, IV, V, VI, VIII, and IX, they seem to me to be a list of all the tools necessary to foster dissent, forestall tyranny, and in extreme cases, allow the people to keep and use the tools for revolution. Combine this with the quotes above and draw your own conclusions as to the intent of the Bill of Rights.

2. Property Rights.
The Supreme Court was wrong in Kelo. The concept of emminent domain makes clear that the taking must be for the public good, and the common practice has been that land may be taken for such things as roads, sewers, wetlands preservation, and other public works. In such cases, private land is usually converted to public land (as in the case of highways). In Kelo, the City of New London seized private lands but did not keep them for public use. Rather, they handed the lands over to a private developer for a commercial use that would be privately owned. This is an obvious violation of property rights, and the City’s arguments that the future tax and parking fee income would bring enough benefit to the public to make it worthwhile is, imo, ridiculous. It should be noted that Kelo was only one such case being heard in courts around the country, and the SCOTUS decision was a disturbing setback to property rights.

Wow, another person who didn't bother to read the decision itself, or the precedent for it.

The courts have held for well over 100 years that property could be taken and then used for private purposes, as long as such purposes still served the public good. Railroads (which are privately owned) were built this way. In this way, Hawii broke up a situation in which slumlords owned too much of the property. In this way, blighted neighboorhoods have been redeveloped.

The only difference between Kelo and the precedent was that, in Kelo, the current use of the property was not, in and of itself, harmful to the community. The government argued that it would be better used in another way. I do agree that this is overstepping the bounds, but it is hardly as large a leap as people would have you think.

Meanwhile, the property involved in Kelo was not "handed over to a private developer." As per eminent domain rules, the people who previously owned the property were to be paid for it, and whatever private contracter later buys it will pay for it. One of the main points that the decision cited over and over and over again was the fact that New London did not have any particular private company already chosen. The area was to be used for a particular purpose, but no private entities had yet been chosen to buy the land. If they had been chosen ahead of time, the court would have ruled differently.

Nor was the argument, "taxes and parking will make up the difference to the public good." The argument was that the property in question was on its way to becoming blighted, the economic situation of the area was very undesireable, and it could be improved.

Seriously, you people should actually look into something, instead of making your decisions based on news outlets and blogs. The decision, and all of the precedent, are readily available for public review.

Wow, another person who didn't bother to read the decision itself, or the precedent for it.

The courts have held for well over 100 years that property could be taken and then used for private purposes, as long as such purposes still served the public good. Railroads (which are privately owned) were built this way. In this way, Hawii broke up a situation in which slumlords owned too much of the property. In this way, blighted neighboorhoods have been redeveloped.

The only difference between Kelo and the precedent was that, in Kelo, the current use of the property was not, in and of itself, harmful to the community. The government argued that it would be better used in another way. I do agree that this is overstepping the bounds, but it is hardly as large a leap as people would have you think.

Meanwhile, the property involved in Kelo was not "handed over to a private developer." As per eminent domain rules, the people who previously owned the property were to be paid for it, and whatever private contracter later buys it will pay for it. One of the main points that the decision cited over and over and over again was the fact that New London did not have any particular private company already chosen. The area was to be used for a particular purpose, but no private entities had yet been chosen to buy the land. If they had been chosen ahead of time, the court would have ruled differently.

Nor was the argument, "taxes and parking will make up the difference to the public good." The argument was that the property in question was on its way to becoming blighted, the economic situation of the area was very undesireable, and it could be improved.

Seriously, you people should actually look into something, instead of making your decisions based on news outlets and blogs. The decision, and all of the precedent, are readily available for public review.
Actually, I did read the entire decision. I also read the dissenting opinion. They were both widely published in legal journals in Boston, where I work in a law office and have access to them and plenty of time. I paid only slight attention to general media coverage, but did give weight to direct quotes from the various parties, and I happen to know people with connections in New London. And though I can't quote chapter and verse off hand, I do have a passing familiarity with emminent domain as I work for real estate attorneys who deal with Orders of Taking all the time. And wonder of wonders, I reached a different conclusion than you. Now you know why there are so many lawyers in the world.

EDITS: BTW, it is already known who will be developing that property and for what purpose, so my characterization of the deal as a hand-over is appropriate, imho. My criticism of the reasons for the taking is that it will *not* promote the public good. And finally, "on its way to becoming blighted" is not the same as blighted, and forgive me if I think that it is a weak justification for forcing property owners to sell against their will.

COMMENTARY: How close are you to being eligible for the US Supreme Court? Give us some cogent answers to these questions which will probably be asked of Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts. Let's see how YOU do!


The Supreme Court Ink-Blot Test!

By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
Published: September 12, 2005

1. The Ninth Amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that this language binds federal courts, or do you believe - as Robert Bork does - that it is an indecipherable "inkblot?" If the former, how are federal courts to determine what rights are retained by the people? On the other hand, if the Ninth Amendment does not create enforceable rights, what is it doing taking up one-tenth of the Bill of Rights?

2. Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that "since the American Revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A and transfer it to B by a mere legislative act." Was Story wrong? Or was the Supreme Court wrong this year when it ruled in Kelo v. the City of New London that a government had the right to take property for the use of private developers?

3. Could a human-like artificial intelligence constitute a "person" for purposes of protection under the 14th Amendment, or is such protection limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States?"

4. Does a declaration of war by Congress have the effect of suddenly making proper actions by the executive and Congress that would otherwise have been beyond their constitutional powers?

5. Is scientific research among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment? If not, is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing?
1. Yes, it is binding, and as I read it, grants all non-enumerated rights in the constitution to the people. Including gay marriage, abortion, etc

2. I disagree with Kelo on a personal level, however I find nothing explicitly restricting the right to eminent domain, and as such it is a matter for the states and the federal government to legislate.

3. If and only if it is a cognent person. If it has thoughts and a rational decision making process, yes, it has rights.

4. No, not in and of itself. A pressing interest must exist (strict scrutiny test must be applied constantly) for any right of the constitution to be violated, and I wouldn't even go that far.

5. Yes, scientific research is free speech.

the people who previously owned the property were to be paid for it
Except the that concept of fair market value is neither fair, nor the market value of some properties. The gov't now has the ability to buy all the land around a certain spot to destroy property values and thereby screw the local property owners out of the value of their property.

Also, read the dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas. Precedent, IMO, is a bad way to rule. Just because X said something was right before doesn't mean Y should *have* to follow X's decision. X's decision may well have been wrong. Jim Crow, "separate but equal," outlawed abortion all come to mind as bad decisions that were then overthrown, and not upheld through precedent. In this case, the gov't should *never* have the power to suck up private land and turn it over to private property, unless through extraordinary means (foreclosure, lapsed property taxes) they can demonstrate that property owners no longer have a valid stake in their property. The very idea that the gov't now has the legal ability to come and buy my house, just so they can make a profit selling it to Walmart scares the crap out of me. And all they need to prove is that by having a Walmart open it will be better for the public than my property. That's easy to prove - higher property taxes = increased revenue; hiring local citizens promotes employment; increased commerce = increased revenue through sales taxes; increased revenue = increased program funding = better for the "public" and all because they now have the unrestrained ability to screw me out of my house, and pay me "fair market value" by using an assessor that consistently assesses property at 10-15% less than what I can get for it myself.

It's crap, pure and simple.

Except the that concept of fair market value is neither fair, nor the market value of some properties. The gov't now has the ability to buy all the land around a certain spot to destroy property values and thereby screw the local property owners out of the value of their property.

Also, read the dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas. Precedent, IMO, is a bad way to rule. Just because X said something was right before doesn't mean Y should *have* to follow X's decision. X's decision may well have been wrong. Jim Crow, "separate but equal," outlawed abortion all come to mind as bad decisions that were then overthrown, and not upheld through precedent. In this case, the gov't should *never* have the power to suck up private land and turn it over to private property, unless through extraordinary means (foreclosure, lapsed property taxes) they can demonstrate that property owners no longer have a valid stake in their property. The very idea that the gov't now has the legal ability to come and buy my house, just so they can make a profit selling it to Walmart scares the crap out of me. And all they need to prove is that by having a Walmart open it will be better for the public than my property. That's easy to prove - higher property taxes = increased revenue; hiring local citizens promotes employment; increased commerce = increased revenue through sales taxes; increased revenue = increased program funding = better for the "public" and all because they now have the unrestrained ability to screw me out of my house, and pay me "fair market value" by using an assessor that consistently assesses property at 10-15% less than what I can get for it myself.

It's crap, pure and simple.
And then they get voted out of office the next year, and a government that respects property rights gets voted in. That's how democracy works. The supreme court wasn't saying the states have an unalienable right to eminent domain, only that they have a right to it, subject to restrictions as passed by the government.

In this way, Hawii broke up a situation in which slumlords owned too much of the property.

you know, i can imagine what people like the cato institute would have to say about hawaii's land reform act.

Except the that concept of fair market value is neither fair, nor the market value of some properties. The gov't now has the ability to buy all the land around a certain spot to destroy property values and thereby screw the local property owners out of the value of their property.

Also, read the dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas. Precedent, IMO, is a bad way to rule. Just because X said something was right before doesn't mean Y should *have* to follow X's decision. X's decision may well have been wrong. Jim Crow, "separate but equal," outlawed abortion all come to mind as bad decisions that were then overthrown, and not upheld through precedent. In this case, the gov't should *never* have the power to suck up private land and turn it over to private property, unless through extraordinary means (foreclosure, lapsed property taxes) they can demonstrate that property owners no longer have a valid stake in their property. The very idea that the gov't now has the legal ability to come and buy my house, just so they can make a profit selling it to Walmart scares the crap out of me. And all they need to prove is that by having a Walmart open it will be better for the public than my property. That's easy to prove - higher property taxes = increased revenue; hiring local citizens promotes employment; increased commerce = increased revenue through sales taxes; increased revenue = increased program funding = better for the "public" and all because they now have the unrestrained ability to screw me out of my house, and pay me "fair market value" by using an assessor that consistently assesses property at 10-15% less than what I can get for it myself.

It's crap, pure and simple.
Good point. In my neighborhood, a new school was built, for which the City bought up private properties with houses on them, which were razed. One owner apparently refused to sell, and rather than strong arm this person, the City simply built the school and grounds around that single house. You can imagine what the traffic and noise have done to the property value. When the current owner leaves or dies, I won't be surprised if the City buys it for less than market after all.

And if the neighborhood in New London was not yet fully blighted, couldn't the City have found other ways to bring in development that would have preserved and revitalized a long-established neighborhood, which would also have been a public good? The City apparently does not feel any responsibility towards its residents.

My point is that Kelso permits an abuse of power by undermining private property rights.

Good point. In my neighborhood, a new school was built, for which the City bought up private properties with houses on them, which were razed. One owner apparently refused to sell, and rather than strong arm this person, the City simply built the school and grounds around that single house. You can imagine what the traffic and noise have done to the property value. When the current owner leaves or dies, I won't be surprised if the City buys it for less than market after all.

And if the neighborhood in New London was not yet fully blighted, couldn't the City have found other ways to bring in development that would have preserved and revitalized a long-established neighborhood, which would also have been a public good? The City apparently does not feel any responsibility towards its residents.

My point is that Kelso permits an abuse of power by undermining private property rights.
Then elect people who won't allow that to happen. Elect people who will elect to waive that right. Don't sit on your ass and expect the supreme court to be your mother.

And then they get voted out of office the next year, and a government that respects property rights gets voted in. That's how democracy works. The supreme court wasn't saying the states have an unalienable right to eminent domain, only that they have a right to it, subject to restrictions as passed by the government.
By then it will be too late for the people who had their properties taken unfairly. I refer you back to the 9th Amendment and ask if there is not a presumed right in the US to private ownership of property. Isn't that how we built this country? I'm thinking of the 19th century land rushes. I don't think all those settlers would have been in such a hurry to freeze their asses off in sod huts just the hold a place until the government thinks of something it would rather do with that land.

Then elect people who won't allow that to happen. Elect people who will elect to waive that right. Don't sit on your ass and expect the supreme court to be your mother.
I don't expect the Supreme Court to do a damned thing for me. I stay the hell out of court, don't own property, don't borrow money, and otherwise try to keep my affairs as untangled as possible. And yes, I vote in every election I can, and consider issues such as this. So there. ;)

By then it will be too late for the people who had their properties taken unfairly. I refer you back to the 9th Amendment and ask if there is not a presumed right in the US to private ownership of property. Isn't that how we built this country? I'm thinking of the 19th century land rushes. I don't think all those settlers would have been in such a hurry to freeze their asses off in sod huts just the hold a place until the government thinks of something it would rather do with that land.
Do I think so? Sure, but standing case law doesn't. The current reading of the 9th amendment is that it doesn't in actually say anything. Eminent domain, however, is a right enshrined in the constitution, and so long as it serves the public, the government has the right to take it, unless it waives that right. I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but I understand their logic. They basically said they are not our mothers, and the voters have to step up and take action. Get used to it, with a Roberts court there is going to be a whole lot more deferral to the congress and states.

Here's the way I read the Constitution:

1. The Ninth Amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that this language binds federal courts, or do you believe - as Robert Bork does - that it is an indecipherable "inkblot?" If the former, how are federal courts to determine what rights are retained by the people? On the other hand, if the Ninth Amendment does not create enforceable rights, what is it doing taking up one-tenth of the Bill of Rights?

As I understand it, the Ninth Amendment is binding, and the "other [rights] retained by the people" are those not given to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution, or to the state in the state constitution.

2. Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that "since the American Revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A and transfer it to B by a mere legislative act." Was Story wrong? Or was the Supreme Court wrong this year when it ruled in Kelo v. the City of New London that a government had the right to take property for the use of private developers?

Kelo v. New London is wrong. The Constitution is clear when it says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation," and New London can't get around that by letting private developers carry out their development plan.

3. Could a human-like artificial intelligence constitute a "person" for purposes of protection under the 14th Amendment, or is such protection limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States?"

This was a tough one, but I'll say yes, provided it can be naturalized under the rule of naturalization established by Congress.

4. Does a declaration of war by Congress have the effect of suddenly making proper actions by the executive and Congress that would otherwise have been beyond their constitutional powers?

No. All powers necessary for warmaking are available to the executive and Congress under the Constitution.

5. Is scientific research among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment? If not, is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing?

Scientific research is not protected by the First Amendment, but the only power Congress has with respect to scientific research is the power to grant scientists the exclusive right to their discoveries.

Then elect people who won't allow that to happen. Elect people who will elect to waive that right. Don't sit on your ass and expect the supreme court to be your mother.

The Court's supposed to be the check on exactly such acts. You may as well say, "Well if the government outlaws free speech, vote a different government in next time." Or how about "Well, if the government outlaws elections, vote for different people next time." Such acts are not powers granted to the government, so the responsibility for them does not devolve to the people. Even if we elect the Nazi candidate, he can't start rounding up the Jews. That's what the whole point of the Constitution is, guy.

Do I think so? Sure, but standing case law doesn't. The current reading of the 9th amendment is that it doesn't in actually say anything. Eminent domain, however, is a right enshrined in the constitution, and so long as it serves the public, the government has the right to take it, unless it waives that right. I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but I understand their logic. They basically said they are not our mothers, and the voters have to step up and take action. Get used to it, with a Roberts court there is going to be a whole lot more deferral to the congress and states.
There are 9 judges on the Supreme Court for a reason, and that's because not everyone, including legal professionals, agrees as to the meaning of all these amendments. Don't presume that a selection of precedents represents an actual conclusion. Every case must be argued on its own merits, regardless of precedent, and that's why "readings" of the law tend to change.

But you're right about the Roberts SC -- another good reason to stay out of court.

3. If an AI passes the Turing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test) it has to be considered a person. It has now to be considered what "born" means. When we take the term "born" as "came into live" and can't, because of the passed Touring test, rule out that this AI is a living, sentinent being and therefore can be considered a person, it has to be protected under the 14th Amendment.




Unless I'm mistaken, the AI program in the game Black & White passed the turing test.

*hijack*

Sweden sucks balls. :D

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,1309874,00.html

There are 9 judges on the Supreme Court for a reason, and that's because not everyone, including legal professionals, agrees as to the meaning of all these amendments. Don't presume that a selection of precedents represents an actual conclusion. Every case must be argued on its own merits, regardless of precedent, and that's why "readings" of the law tend to change.

But you're right about the Roberts SC -- another good reason to stay out of court.
I don't think the reading of the 9th amendment is going to change any time soon, and that's why I don't think you can read in an explicit right to property from the ninth.

1. The Ninth Amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that this language binds federal courts, or do you believe - as Robert Bork does - that it is an indecipherable "inkblot?" If the former, how are federal courts to determine what rights are retained by the people? On the other hand, if the Ninth Amendment does not create enforceable rights, what is it doing taking up one-tenth of the Bill of Rights?
This does not "create enforceable right," it binds the hands of the government. The phrase "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" seems crystal clear to me that the government cannot create rights that are counter to rights already given to the people.

2. Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that "since the American Revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A and transfer it to B by a mere legislative act." Was Story wrong? Or was the Supreme Court wrong this year when it ruled in Kelo v. the City of New London that a government had the right to take property for the use of private developers?
Technically, the Supreme Court of the United States is not a "state government" and can overrule previous precedent anyway therefore the question and thus argument is moot.

3. Could a human-like artificial intelligence constitute a "person" for purposes of protection under the 14th Amendment, or is such protection limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States?"
If said AI is created within the borders of the United States and is well-developed enough to be humanesque, it constitutes a person.

4. Does a declaration of war by Congress have the effect of suddenly making proper actions by the executive and Congress that would otherwise have been beyond their constitutional powers?
Under no circumstances does the government have the right to disregard the Constitution.

5. Is scientific research among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment? If not, is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing?
If the basis for the banning is "there are things better left unknown," the government has delved into, at the very least, mysticism and thus the activities become a protected act by the First Amendment.

The Court's supposed to be the check on exactly such acts. You may as well say, "Well if the government outlaws free speech, vote a different government in next time." Or how about "Well, if the government outlaws elections, vote for different people next time." Such acts are not powers granted to the government, so the responsibility for them does not devolve to the people. Even if we elect the Nazi candidate, he can't start rounding up the Jews. That's what the whole point of the Constitution is, guy.
Except when the constitution explicitly allows something except when the right is waved. Have you even read the majority opinion of kelo?

Except when the constitution explicitly allows something except when the right is waved. Have you even read the majority opinion of kelo?

No, and frankly, I don't need to. Precedent is meaningless in judging the Constitution; all you need is the original text. All one needs to judge Kelo is the result of that decision: private property was taken and paid for by the local government, then sold to private developers for private property. That's "public use" the same way that a shopping mall is, which is to say, marginally so. This makes the taking explicitly prohibited, rather the opposite of being 'explicitly allowed.'

O'Connor was dead on in her evaluation of the decision: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." Have fun when Donald Trump gets the local government to evict you from your house with the promise of increased tax revenue and more jobs. It's happened before and is usually stopped only when people make noise to the media or the courts. Apparently the latter avenue of protection is now gone.

[QUOTE=Eutrusca]COMMENTARY: How close are you to being eligible for the US Supreme Court? Give us some cogent answers to these questions which will probably be asked of Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts. Let's see how YOU do!
QUOTE]


I don't know how well I'll do, but here goes:

1.) First you have to realize that there was no Bill of Rights when the costitution was first ratified, they came 2 years later. The 9th Amendments simply states that these new Bill of Rights do not take away any right already held by the people under the constiution. The 9th does not create any new rights and the courts can not deny any rights that have not been listed, Maddison called these "natural rights."

2.) Kelo v. the City of New London is a travesty against our rights. There is a huge differenc between emminent domain and what occured in this case. The transfer of property was soley determined on which party would provide more revenue to the city.

3.) I would argue that the word "born" means to come from the body or the womb of a parent. I could not make a determination on wether an AI is a sentient being until the time there was a case before me.

4.) No, declaring war is a prerogative of Congress and when it is declared, congress and the executive are still bound by their constitutional limitations.

5.)Only if said research infringes upon the rights that are protected by the constitution.

Actually, I did read the entire decision.

Then you should not have grossly mischaracterized in and made false statements that the taking of property for private purposes was new.

EDITS: BTW, it is already known who will be developing that property and for what purpose, so my characterization of the deal as a hand-over is appropriate, imho.

If it is now, it was not at the time of the decision, uness every single Supreme Court Justice that wrote an opinon lied outright.

My criticism of the reasons for the taking is that it will *not* promote the public good.

Something that the court has long held that they are not in the business of deciding.

And finally, "on its way to becoming blighted" is not the same as blighted, and forgive me if I think that it is a weak justification for forcing property owners to sell against their will.

I agree. Like I said, I don't agree with the cawse, I just think that there is also no justification for people to mischaracterize the decision. Personally, I lean towards O'Connor's dissent.

And if the neighborhood in New London was not yet fully blighted, couldn't the City have found other ways to bring in development that would have preserved and revitalized a long-established neighborhood, which would also have been a public good? The City apparently does not feel any responsibility towards its residents.

You do have to understand that we aren't talking about a neighboorhood. We are talking about a huge amount of land that included a decommissioned military base, with only about 6 people opposing the planned use of the land. Now, could the government of New London planned around these people? Possibly. Even probably. But the court is not in the business of checking the particular plans - only the purpose of the takings.


No, and frankly, I don't need to.

To have an opinion worth listening to, yes, you do.

Precedent is meaningless in judging the Constitution; all you need is the original text.

Of course! We should all bow to your personal interpretation!

All one needs to judge Kelo is the result of that decision: private property was taken and paid for by the local government, then sold to private developers for private property.

Damn. Guess we should pull up all the railroads then and find the people that property once belonged to (or their descendants, as it were). Guess we should take homes away from a bunch of people in Hawii and give them back to the slumlords that used to own them. Guess we should leave blighted areas laying around.

Again, the only new thing in the Kelo case is that it allows takings of a property that is not currently being used in a way that is, in and of itself, harmful.

O'Connor was dead on in her evaluation of the decision

Considering that much of what she said disagreed with you, I find this comment surprising. But then again, you haven't read it all the way through, right?

Have fun when Donald Trump gets the local government to evict you from your house with the promise of increased tax revenue and more jobs.

If you had bothered to read the decision, you would know that such a use would not be allowed under the Kelo decision, which specifically stated that, had the private developers already been decided before eminent domain was used, the takings would not have been allowed.

See how you have to actually read something to know what it says? Go figure!

To Dempublicents and CSW:

I enjoy the sneering tone some people assume when others disagree with them. It's always fun to be attacked without provocation.

Speaking only for myself, I did read the decision and dissent, which Dempublicents would know if he had "bothered to read" previous posts. I have already stated my position that, in the law, it is perfectly possible to agree on facts but disagree on interpretation. If it were not so, there would be no adversarial trial system. I am offended by your insistence that I am "grossly mis-characterizing" the decision. My interpretation of Kelo is shared by many people, including competent legal professionals. It seems to me that both Dempublicents and CSW are just trying to insult people who disagree with them.

I also note that, while everyone in this thread is expressing at least 5 opinions on interesting subjects, you two seem hung up on this one. What, are you real estate developers or something? Maybe you should give someone else a chance, eh? Because you're failing to make me doubt my opinion.

Yours,
M

EDIT: PS: I don't agree with you on all the facts, but I don't intend to participate in hijacking this thread.

Here's the way I read the Constitution:
Scientific research is not protected by the First Amendment, but the only power Congress has with respect to scientific research is the power to grant scientists the exclusive right to their discoveries.

I agree and the only basis for a question like this is to feel out how a potential Justice would side on the subject of embryonic stem cell research.

I agree and the only basis for a question like this is to feel out how a potential Justice would side on the subject of embryonic stem cell research.I disagree with this, I believe it applies to Biological and Nuclear weapons research as well. Unlike embryonic stem cell research, these are two areas where the government currently does bar research.

I disagree with this, I believe it applies to Biological and Nuclear weapons research as well. Unlike embryonic stem cell research, these are two areas where the government currently does bar research.

The government doesn't ban nuclear weapon research. Just testing.

COMMENTARY: How close are you to being eligible for the US Supreme Court? Give us some cogent answers to these questions which will probably be asked of Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts. Let's see how YOU do!


The Supreme Court Ink-Blot Test!

By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
Published: September 12, 2005

1. The Ninth Amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that this language binds federal courts, or do you believe - as Robert Bork does - that it is an indecipherable "inkblot?" If the former, how are federal courts to determine what rights are retained by the people? On the other hand, if the Ninth Amendment does not create enforceable rights, what is it doing taking up one-tenth of the Bill of Rights?

The 9th Amendment means exactly what it says: if there is a question as to whether or not a right is retained by the people, irrespective of whether or not that right is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then it should be assumed to be a right retained by the people. This includes the right to privacy, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to an attorney, etc.


2. Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that "since the American Revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A and transfer it to B by a mere legislative act." Was Story wrong? Or was the Supreme Court wrong this year when it ruled in Kelo v. the City of New London that a government had the right to take property for the use of private developers?


He is both correct and incorrect, but I need to elaborate my point to make myself clear.

Simply put, eminent domain is a necessary and proper function of the government, and is a required tool for the government to be able to do its job. That being said, the specific intent of eminent domain was to the common good. The good that was being served in the Kelo decision was not common; the real-estate developer benefitted by recieving cheap land, and the government benefitted by receiving additional tax funds from the new use of the land. Every other citizen, however, did not benefit, because the fairly small increase in the tax base was grossly outweighed either by the direct consequence of losing their land, or by the indirect consequence of destroying the trust that is required between the citizens and the state for the state to function and to maintain legitemacy in the eyes of the people. As such, Kelo needs to be reconsidered.

Before I move on to the next point, however, a word about activism and interpretivism: the point I just made, while popular, was in fact a flagrantly activist role for the bench to take. I just used the power of the bench to strike down an existing law which might in many ways be interpreted as none of the court's business by virtue of the X Amendment. As such, I believe it imperative for people to reevaluate exactly what they want from the Supreme Court. Activism is not simply when the SC rules in a way you don't like, and by extension, if you really want us to interpret law and not legislate it, as the old saw goes, then you should be first in line to defend Kelo's reasoning, which states that this is not a matter for the SC to decide, and instead left it up to state legislatures.


3. Could a human-like artificial intelligence constitute a "person" for purposes of protection under the 14th Amendment, or is such protection limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States?"

This might seem like a cop-out, but in order to determine whether or not AI constitutes a person depends greatly upon whether it can be deemed "intelligent". Thus far, there has been no effective measure for defining machine intelligence; the Turing Test, as well as many other measures, have not held up to philosophical scrutiny. As such, I would be inclined to wait and see whether or not they can determine what machine intelligence is before I can decide whether or not that intelligence grants it status as a person under the Constitution.


4. Does a declaration of war by Congress have the effect of suddenly making proper actions by the executive and Congress that would otherwise have been beyond their constitutional powers?

No.


5. Is scientific research among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment? If not, is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing?

No, but Congress has only a limited ability to restrict freedom of enquiry as provided under the IX Amendment, just as it has only limited ability to restrict other rights afforded to the people by the Constitution. As such, the bar is not whether or not "there are some things we're better off not knowing", but whether or not the knowledge in and of itself poses a demonstrable harm to the continuance of the Republic and to the common good. That, I believe, is quite a bar indeed.

I disagree with this, I believe it applies to Biological and Nuclear weapons research as well. Unlike embryonic stem cell research, these are two areas where the government currently does bar research.

A Flintoff beat me to it, but Biological and Nuclear research is not barred by the government. The use of this research to be used as a weapon is a matter of engineering not science. Embryonic stem cell research is almost a daily issue in our papers and the President has already made his stand on the issue so with legislation in the works on both sides of this issue I would think it to be a very important question to ask a potential Justice.

Then elect people who won't allow that to happen. Elect people who will elect to waive that right. Don't sit on your ass and expect the supreme court to be your mother.
The point is that the constitution, in its plainest reading, should never have had the definition of public use stretched so far. Reading the Kelo decision, it relied on Berman, and on Midkiff, which first changed the reading from "public use" to "public benefit". SCOTUS has now stretched it even further, to mean "perceived public benefit".

Why should we have to make a law for something that is already plainly in the law? And what good would it do, if the courts continue to twist definitions beyond all common-sense meaning?

A Flintoff beat me to it, but Biological and Nuclear research is not barred by the government. The use of this research to be used as a weapon is a matter of engineering not science. Embryonic stem cell research is almost a daily issue in our papers and the President has already made his stand on the issue so with legislation in the works on both sides of this issue I would think it to be a very important question to ask a potential Justice.nuclear research is allowed, nuclear weapons research is only legal for those under contract to the US government. The US had a problem a few years back with some kid building a nasty little device from smoke detectors and changed the rules so that even using unclassified information in nuclear weapons research is illegal, thus ending nuclear weapons research. Biological weapons research is probably legal, my bad, I was going through the triangle and intended to type chemical but put biological in instead. the restriction on chemical weapons research goes way back and has an exemption for those under contract to the US government.

As for embryonic stem cell research, I am unaware of any law proposed to bar embryonic stem cell research in the US. perhaps you could direct me to one, but the president has not proposed a bar on embryonic stem cell research and as far as I know no one else in the US government has proposed one. I also doubt one has the much chance of coming into existance in the US, but I've been wrong on these things often enough before to take my own jusgement with a grain of salt.

nuclear research is allowed, nuclear weapons research is only legal for those under contract to the US government. The US had a problem a few years back with some kid building a nasty little device from smoke detectors and changed the rules so that even using unclassified information in nuclear weapons research is illegal, thus ending nuclear weapons research. Biological weapons research is probably legal, my bad, I was going through the triangle and intended to type chemical but put biological in instead. the restriction on chemical weapons research goes way back and has an exemption for those under contract to the US government.

As for embryonic stem cell research, I am unaware of any law proposed to bar embryonic stem cell research in the US. perhaps you could direct me to one, but the president has not proposed a bar on embryonic stem cell research and as far as I know no one else in the US government has proposed one. I also doubt one has the much chance of coming into existance in the US, but I've been wrong on these things often enough before to take my own jusgement with a grain of salt.

You can do nuclear weapons research on a laptop these days. As far as I knew the only restriction was on testing, not research per se. Though perhaps I have misunderstood the situation.

2. The goverment has never the right to take away private property.


I presume by "never", you mean "always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

Kelo v. New London is wrong. The Constitution is clear when it says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation," and New London can't get around that by letting private developers carry out their development plan.


I disagree with Kelo, but it's not a question of land being taken without just compensation. The landowners in Kelo were compensated.

No, and frankly, I don't need to. Precedent is meaningless in judging the Constitution; all you need is the original text. All one needs to judge Kelo is the result of that decision: private property was taken and paid for by the local government, then sold to private developers for private property. That's "public use" the same way that a shopping mall is, which is to say, marginally so. This makes the taking explicitly prohibited, rather the opposite of being 'explicitly allowed.'



Actually, no. Taking for public use without compensation is disallowed. But the fact that something is not mentioned in the constitution doesn't disallow a state from doing it. In fact, the 10th Amendment says exactly the opposite.

Then elect people who won't allow that to happen. Elect people who will elect to waive that right. Don't sit on your ass and expect the supreme court to be your mother.
Better yet, lobby for state laws (or a state constitutional amendment)limiting the state's right to invoke eminent domain in these circumstances. I think it's wrong to expect the Supreme Court, especially the current one, to do all your sticking up for you.

I enjoy the sneering tone some people assume when others disagree with them. It's always fun to be attacked without provocation.

It has nothing to do with disagreement. You point-blank stated that the decision said something that it point-blank denied. This would be exactly like the following conversation:

Supreme Court: "We think that ice cream is good."
Muravyets: "In the Ice Cream decision, the Supreme Court said they hated ice cream!"
Dempublicents1: "No, if you had read the decision, you would know that they explicitly said that ice cream was good."
Muravyets: "HOW DARE YOU ATTACK MY OPINION?!?!?!? MY OPINION IS THAT THE COURT SAID THEY HATED ICE CREAM!!!!!!!"

Speaking only for myself, I did read the decision and dissent, which Dempublicents would know if he had "bothered to read" previous posts.

You either didn't read them, or lied about them, one or the other. The court decision explicitly stated that the private entities that would buy the property were not known - something you stated was untrue. The court decision explicitly went over the precedent, which very clearly allowed for ED to be used to transfer property between private citizens, something you said was new to Kelo.

These are not opinions - they are facts presented in the case and in the decision. Either you didn't read it, or your "opinions" are simplly lies.

I have already stated my position that, in the law, it is perfectly possible to agree on facts but disagree on interpretation.

This is absolutely true. However, we are talking about facts and you are trying to pretend that facts can be interpretation.

The facts that you have disputed in this thread were not dipsuted in either dissent. O'Connor, who I very much agree with, did not claim that the private entities who would buy the property were already known, nor did she claim that the precedent for transferring property between private entities did not exist. In fact, she said exactly what I have said - that the problem with Kelo was that it allowed takings in such a case where the current use of the property was not, in and of itself harmful. She did not at all disupte the existence of the precedents - she simply said that they did not apply in this case.

I am offended by your insistence that I am "grossly mis-characterizing" the decision. My interpretation of Kelo is shared by many people, including competent legal professionals.

Your interpretation may be, your lies about the facts are not. I doubt that many legal professionals would claim that takings being used for private development is new - considering that the precedent quite clearly says otherwise. I also doubt that many legal professionals would claim that the private entities that would by the New London lands were known, considering that the fact that they were not known was a key determinate in the case.

As for embryonic stem cell research, I am unaware of any law proposed to bar embryonic stem cell research in the US. perhaps you could direct me to one, but the president has not proposed a bar on embryonic stem cell research and as far as I know no one else in the US government has proposed one. I also doubt one has the much chance of coming into existance in the US, but I've been wrong on these things often enough before to take my own jusgement with a grain of salt.

They have been proposed. Various states have proposed laws to ban all stem cell research, as a matter of fact. Flat-out bans on such research have not gotten far in Congress. Instead, they simply ban any federal government funding of most research, effectively banning open research. Private companies can continue, and do - but private research doesn't help much in true scientific development.

Meanwhile, Congress has proposed bans on therapeutic cloning, a form of embryonic stem cell research. They also have not been passed, but not for lack of trying. It is incorporated into a large ban on all cloning - including reproductive cloning. Interestingly enough, because the fundamentalists in Congress won't make the two separate issues, although they quite obviously are, it is currently perfectly legal, should one find a way to do it, to reproductively clone a human being in the US.

They have been proposed. Various states have proposed laws to ban all stem cell research, as a matter of fact. Flat-out bans on such research have not gotten far in Congress. Instead, they simply ban any federal government funding of most research, effectively banning open research. Private companies can continue, and do - but private research doesn't help much in true scientific development.

Meanwhile, Congress has proposed bans on therapeutic cloning, a form of embryonic stem cell research. They also have not been passed, but not for lack of trying. It is incorporated into a large ban on all cloning - including reproductive cloning. Interestingly enough, because the fundamentalists in Congress won't make the two separate issues, although they quite obviously are, it is currently perfectly legal, should one find a way to do it, to reproductively clone a human being in the US.I disbelieve that private reseach doesn't help much in true scientific development, but that may be due to a differing definition of "much" or "true scientific development".

None of the laws proposed or the South Dakota law on the books make research into embryonic stem cells illegal (in the manner people have been trying to use it in this thread), they only make using embryonic stem cells themselves (or embryos) in research illegal. While I agree that the result can be an effective prohibition against research ( a de facto prohibition as opposed to a de jure prohibition), such a prohibition falls outside the scope of the question ("is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing?"). The prohibitions are not aimed at maintianing a lack of knowledge about stem cells but are instead aimed at regulating how embryonic stem cells are treated. Without an actual case before me, I cannot go any further.

Human cloning bans are a red herring, the proposed bans are not on research into human cloning and do not even raise to the level of effectively being a ban on research into human cloning, they are aimed at making illegal the act of cloning humans not research into the act. At some nebulous future point in time a ban on the act of human cloning may amount to an effective ban on research into human cloning, at which time the issue would be mature enough to consider, but to consider the effects of hypothethical laws on hypothetical research is really just too distant to speak about meaningfully.

I disbelieve that private reseach doesn't help much in true scientific development, but that may be due to a differing definition of "much" or "true scientific development".

Private research is generally considered the property of the private company - and they hold onto it very strongly. Scientific advancement relies upon collaboration and reporting of findings. Private companies are generally very, very careful not to share data or report anything but the conclusions they have come to. Thus, there is very little advancement that comes out of it.

None of the laws proposed or the South Dakota law on the books make research into embryonic stem cells illegal (in the manner people have been trying to use it in this thread), they only make using embryonic stem cells themselves (or embryos) in research illegal.

This is like saying, "We haven't made it illegal for you to shoot off fireworks, we have just made it illegal for you to buy, own, transport, or look at fireworks."

If you cannot use embryonic stem cells in research, you cannot research embryonic stem cells.

Human cloning bans are a red herring, the proposed bans are not on research into human cloning and do not even raise to the level of effectively being a ban on research into human cloning, they are aimed at making illegal the act of cloning humans not research into the act.

Again, a completely illogical statement. You cannot research human cloning without attempting human cloning.

At some nebulous future point in time a ban on the act of human cloning may amount to an effective ban on research into human cloning, at which time the issue would be mature enough to consider, but to consider the effects of hypothethical laws on hypothetical research is really just too distant to speak about meaningfully.

We aren't talking about hypothetical research. Therapeutic cloning is a reality. It is already being carried out in Korea, where they have cloned blastocysts and created embryonic stem cell lines from them. This is technically legal, at the moment, in the US, although public funds cannot be used to do it. However, any of the proposed bans that went through which include therapeutic cloning would ban research into this technique.

I disbelieve that private reseach doesn't help much in true scientific development, but that may be due to a differing definition of "much" or "true scientific development".

science is a community project. one that requires free and open exchange of ideas, data, methods, and results in order to even exist. private for-profit research is absolutely at odds with scientific advancement, as it is aimed at keeping knowledge out of the hands of others through the use of trade secrets contract law or government-granted monopoly privileges.

It has nothing to do with disagreement. You point-blank stated that the decision said something that it point-blank denied. This would be exactly like the following conversation:

Supreme Court: "We think that ice cream is good."
Muravyets: "In the Ice Cream decision, the Supreme Court said they hated ice cream!"
Dempublicents1: "No, if you had read the decision, you would know that they explicitly said that ice cream was good."
Muravyets: "HOW DARE YOU ATTACK MY OPINION?!?!?!? MY OPINION IS THAT THE COURT SAID THEY HATED ICE CREAM!!!!!!!"



You either didn't read them, or lied about them, one or the other. The court decision explicitly stated that the private entities that would buy the property were not known - something you stated was untrue. The court decision explicitly went over the precedent, which very clearly allowed for ED to be used to transfer property between private citizens, something you said was new to Kelo.

These are not opinions - they are facts presented in the case and in the decision. Either you didn't read it, or your "opinions" are simplly lies.



This is absolutely true. However, we are talking about facts and you are trying to pretend that facts can be interpretation.

The facts that you have disputed in this thread were not dipsuted in either dissent. O'Connor, who I very much agree with, did not claim that the private entities who would buy the property were already known, nor did she claim that the precedent for transferring property between private entities did not exist. In fact, she said exactly what I have said - that the problem with Kelo was that it allowed takings in such a case where the current use of the property was not, in and of itself harmful. She did not at all disupte the existence of the precedents - she simply said that they did not apply in this case.



Your interpretation may be, your lies about the facts are not. I doubt that many legal professionals would claim that takings being used for private development is new - considering that the precedent quite clearly says otherwise. I also doubt that many legal professionals would claim that the private entities that would by the New London lands were known, considering that the fact that they were not known was a key determinate in the case.
Now I'm a liar??? Okay, now you're officially flaming me for no damned good reason so this is the last time I'll respond to anything you have to say.

1. You're misrepresenting what I said. I, as well as others in this thread and elsewhere, was saying that the City taking non-public land so it could be used for another non-public use with only indirect "benefit" to the public, i.e., taxes and fees, was against common practice. I never said it was new. I said it was wrong.

2. The fact that something may be allowable under law doesn't make it right. Once upon a time it was allowable under law to force black people to sit at the back of the bus. Guess what, that changed.

3. The fact that a bunch of lawyers say something is allowable (and the SC are nothing but promoted lawyers), doesn't make it actually legal, either. Go sue somebody and watch lawyers in action if you don't believe me. (And I'm not flaming lawyers; it's a game and they play by the rules.) In litigation, I've seen opposing lawyers use the same quotes from the same precedents to support totally opposite arguments. I'll bet you $10 right now that a future SC will overturn Kelo, with no new legislation required.

4. You are an incredibly rude and hostile person.

I disagree with Kelo, but it's not a question of land being taken without just compensation. The landowners in Kelo were compensated.
Except that their compensation was less than the value of the property in question. The key is "just" compensation and if the money the gov't offers is less than what a person can sell it for, then it is fair to say that the gov't has violated the constitution.

Also, to the extent the what the gov't offers is "fair" is highly questionable. Their assessors traditionally set market values based on their priorities. If the gov't wants to assess higher taxes to gain more money for education initiatives, they will send in assessors to specifically raise the market value of the houses in question. When they need to buy up the land for kickbacks to corporations, they send out assessors who lower property values, until homeowners are given way less than the market value the house was assessed at before.

It's a scam, and a way for the gov't to send kickbacks to their corporate sponsors. Buying up condemned slums to create a rec center funded by the public, open to the public, and specifically has a public use, then emminent domain would be acceptable. Coming into a populated neighborhood, buying up surrounding houses, lowering property values and then forcing holdouts from their homes with less than just compensation, just to in turn give the property Trump to build a casino is not acceptable. And the faulty justification that it will bring money to the local public, constituting public "benefit" (which was not how emminent domain was justified in the beginning), is an unacceptable answer.

Private research is generally considered the property of the private company - and they hold onto it very strongly. Scientific advancement relies upon collaboration and reporting of findings. Private companies are generally very, very careful not to share data or report anything but the conclusions they have come to. Thus, there is very little advancement that comes out of it. I have to question whether this is based on any evidentuary analysis or is just a suposition. Most government funded research is considered proprietary to the researcher (or company/institution doing the research) and seems on its face to be subject to outside review in roughly the same level as non-government funded research. I am not discounting that publicly funded research may be more effective than privately funded research but the major advances made by private research into electronics are a prima facie argument against private research not advancing science. Without evidentary proof of the proposition I have to reject it when it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. sotto voice: if you had said "pure science" instead of "true science" I would have not objected to it

This is like saying, "We haven't made it illegal for you to shoot off fireworks, we have just made it illegal for you to buy, own, transport, or look at fireworks."

If you cannot use embryonic stem cells in research, you cannot research embryonic stem cells. I agree, that is why I presented the idea of de facto banning as well as de jure banning. I point out, again, that I did not raise the argument that research which is technically permitted but which is effectively banned through other means is to be considered unbanned (vis, nuclear weapons research and chemical weapons research is actually banned de jure, while biological weapons research is only banned de facto).

However the question as originally presented included the rational for banning which could only apply to de jure banning. Since the proposed bans on using embryonic stem cells in reseach, which may amount to a de facto banning of research, are based upon regulating the use of stem cells and not upon preventing the acquistion of knowledge, such a de facto ban is beyond the scope of the question.

Again, a completely illogical statement. You cannot research human cloning without attempting human cloning. see nextWe aren't talking about hypothetical research. Therapeutic cloning is a reality. It is already being carried out in Korea, where they have cloned blastocysts and created embryonic stem cell lines from them. This is technically legal, at the moment, in the US, although public funds cannot be used to do it. However, any of the proposed bans that went through which include therapeutic cloning would ban research into this technique. At this point in time there seems to be no necessity to clone humans to research human cloning. While it is technically possible to clone human cells, the science is still young enough that useful research can conducted without cloning human cells. At ths point in time there is no evidence that cloning human cells will provide any more information on how cloning works than cloning non-human cells will. In the future it may be that research into cloning will advance to the point that only tests using human cells will suffice, however it may very well be that studying cloning using animals will produce a situation where cloning humans is unnecessary to research human cloning. Until (and if) the science of cloning has advanced to the point where using human cells for research is necessary, it remains that research into human cloning is not stopped by a ban on human cloning.

Except that their compensation was less than the value of the property in question. The key is "just" compensation and if the money the gov't offers is less than what a person can sell it for, then it is fair to say that the gov't has violated the constitution.
not a relevant argument in Kelo, both sides stipulated that the compensation offered was "fair".

COMMENTARY: How close are you to being eligible for the US Supreme Court? Give us some cogent answers to these questions which will probably be asked of Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts. Let's see how YOU do!


The Supreme Court Ink-Blot Test!

By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
Published: September 12, 2005

1. It hardly binds courts. It simply means that just because a right has not been enumerated, it does not mean that one does not have it. There may be a right to privacy, there may be a right to happiness, there may be a right to drinkable water, there may be a right to have one's vote counted. These questions were not addressed at the Framing, and the Constitution makes clear that it cannot be appealed to and the issues around them are subject to debate. The Amendment empowers all branches of government. It is not an inkblot, it's an escape clause.

2. The 10th amendment relagates all powers, not specifically granted to the Federal government, to the states. The Constitution grants the Federal government the power of eminent domain. Eminent domain is not a power of the states.

3. Hypothetically, if a corporation constitutes a person, then a well designed robot certainly could, but if you're asking me how I intend to rule on matters of science fiction I'd rather start with whether or not Federal juristiction extends to interplanetary colonies."

4. It makes certain actions proper, certainly. Actions such as invading the country upon which war has been declared, but the phrasing of the question implies carte blanche authority to exceed the bounds of the Constitution that would otherwise be in place. That is a thesis I would refute.

5. Freedom of the press is, more than anything else, freedom of information. The right of the public to be informed. This is at least as important with scientific matters as it is with political ones. And if Congress maintains the authority to intervene in scientific matters, then they become political. Congress is entitled to great latitude in regulating how scientific inquiry may proceed, but not it determining what may be learned.

2. The 10th amendment relagates all powers, not specifically granted to the Federal government, to the states. The Constitution grants the Federal government the power of eminent domain. Eminent domain is not a power of the states.



The constitution only limits eminent domain. It does not grant it. Eminent domain is an old common law concept (although it's gone by several different names) and every common law state has the right of eminent domain. This analysis would be very strange to the states that have been excercising eminent domain rights since the beginning.

This is like saying, "We haven't made it illegal for you to shoot off fireworks, we have just made it illegal for you to buy, own, transport, or look at fireworks."




I see an insane amount of fireworks that are Illegal to buy, own or shoot off going off here every fourth of July.

1. The Ninth Amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that this language binds federal courts, or do you believe - as Robert Bork does - that it is an indecipherable "inkblot?" If the former, how are federal courts to determine what rights are retained by the people? On the other hand, if the Ninth Amendment does not create enforceable rights, what is it doing taking up one-tenth of the Bill of Rights?
It is language that is binding on the courts and not an "inkblot" and stands for the proposition that just because a right is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that such is right is protected from unreasonable government infringement. It is up to a litigant in a particular case to get the courts to recognize the existence of an un-enumarated right or up to the legislature to recognize it and pass a law protecting it. An example would be the "right to privacy." No such right is explicitely mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has determined that such a right does in fact exist and has premised several holding, not the least of which is Roe v. Wade upon that finding.

2. Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that "since the American Revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A and transfer it to B by a mere legislative act." Was Story wrong? Or was the Supreme Court wrong this year when it ruled in Kelo v. the City of New London that a government had the right to take property for the use of private developers?
However, Judge Story did recognize the legitmate right of a state government to take private land for "public use." The question is what is "public use." In Kelo the Supreme Court found that turning the land over to developers for re-development in such a way that it would enhance tax revenues and enable the city to provide enhanced services to the citizens, was, in fact, a "public use." Whether that is a proper interpretation of the phrase "public use" can be debated all day though.

3. Could a human-like artificial intelligence constitute a "person" for purposes of protection under the 14th Amendment, or is such protection limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States?"
Interesting question - Assuming the AI could demonstrate it possessed those immutable characteristics that make a person sentient, then I would say yes, it could qualify as a "person." The issue would be how it would demonstrate sentience. The Turing test would be a starting point, but I don't think it would be the be all/end all of tests.

4. Does a declaration of war by Congress have the effect of suddenly making proper actions by the executive and Congress that would otherwise have been beyond their constitutional powers?
No. Even under a declaration of war, the legislative and executive branch are bound to adhere to the Constitution. However, it could be argued that a declaration of war expands the powers granted under the constitution - i.e. no declaration of war, action "X" is unconstitutional, with such a declaration, action "X" becomes constitutional. There is where the crux of the issue will lie - did the declaration of war expand upon an existing constitutional power or "trigger" another portion of the Constitution.

5. Is scientific research among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment? If not, is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing?
Pure research is not an expressive activity. Discussing, writing about, proposing, etc. research is. Congress, however, cannot bar research unless the constitution gives it a right to do so under, say, the Commerce Clause. Congress could, however, effectively "ban" research by shutting off federal money to entitities/states that supported the research.

In the alternate to all of the above, I think I'd have to say:
I'm sorry, I can't comment on a question that might come before the court during my term as a justice thereon.

I have to question whether this is based on any evidentuary analysis or is just a suposition.

I work as a scientist, I see how things work. I have been to numerous conferences in which corporations gave "presentations". This is in quotes becaues they were incredibly careful not to give any actual information about their methods or data. All they talk about is hype about their product.

Most government funded research is considered proprietary to the researcher (or company/institution doing the research) and seems on its face to be subject to outside review in roughly the same level as non-government funded research. I am not discounting that publicly funded research may be more effective than privately funded research but the major advances made by private research into electronics are a prima facie argument against private research not advancing science.

You are making a distinction here that I was not making. There is a difference between privately funded research, like that funded by the Whitaker Foundation, and private research. My comments have been about private research - and that funded by for-profit private entities. Foundations such as the Whitaker Foundation were created solely to fund scientific enquiry and are, for all intents and purposes, the same as public funding. However, such foundations are not numerous enough to give nearly as much funding as public funding. On top of that, as much as people like to act like it is easy, it is almost impossible in a lab to keep all finances separate. Thus, if a lab receives any public funding at all, chances are that they cannot do research that is not approved for public funding.

Without evidentary proof of the proposition I have to reject it when it flies in the face of conventional wisdom.

To anyone familiar with the processes, it doesn't fly in the face of any wisdom.

I agree, that is why I presented the idea of de facto banning as well as de jure banning. I point out, again, that I did not raise the argument that research which is technically permitted but which is effectively banned through other means is to be considered unbanned (vis, nuclear weapons research and chemical weapons research is actually banned de jure, while biological weapons research is only banned de facto).

You are ignoring the fact that the research is not "banned through other means." It is physically and logically impossible to study human embryonic stem cells without possessing embryonic stem cells. Thus, if one bans possession, on has banned said research. If I write a law that says, "One cannot be in possession of a vehicle," I have banned driving.

At this point in time there seems to be no necessity to clone humans to research human cloning. While it is technically possible to clone human cells, the science is still young enough that useful research can conducted without cloning human cells.

No, it really isn't. At this point, we have gone far enough in other types of cells to realize just how big the differences are. For instance, most embryonic stem cell research has been done in mice and rats. A compound called LIF1 (IIRC) can keep these cells undifferentiated indefinitely. This has been known for quite some time. This compound does not work in human cells. Thus, to look at what types of things keep human cells undifferentiated, we need human cells.

Meanwhile, the research is now to the point where we are trying to begin research into therapeutic uses. To do so, we have to use human cells and determine how to grow and differentiate them in the way we want. We cannot, after all, put mouse cells into human beings in a therapeutic manner.

If you followed this research, you would know that we are much further ahead than you seem to think. In some countries, embryonic stem cells have already been used in human clinical cardiac research.

At this point, we can do some things with animal cells, but some things are purely masturbatory if we don't use human cells.

At ths point in time there is no evidence that cloning human cells will provide any more information on how cloning works than cloning non-human cells will.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. Cloning of human cells requires techniques that cloning of other types does not. Thus, it is obvious that the processes are different , at least to an extent. The only way that you could make the statement that cloning human cells will not provide more information on cloning human cells than, for instance, cloning mouse cells, would be to state that humans are mice.

Until (and if) the science of cloning has advanced to the point where using human cells for research is necessary, it remains that research into human cloning is not stopped by a ban on human cloning.

Until is already here, my dear. We cannot research clinical uses of therapeutic cloning without carrying it out - with human beings. We cannot determine how to keep cells growing undifferentiated and how to differentiate them to the necessary cell types - something that is largely species-specific, without human cells. The research in animals to give a basic idea of these things, for many issues, has already been done. The next step is to figure out how to do it with human cells.

I see an insane amount of fireworks that are Illegal to buy, own or shoot off going off here every fourth of July.

Well, making something illegal doesn't necessarily stop it from happening. it isn't physically impossible to break the law. of course, it is much easier to buy, own, and shoot off fireworks without getting caught than it is to buy, own, and experiment on banned materials in a lab.

As for embryonic stem cell research, I am unaware of any law proposed to bar embryonic stem cell research in the US. perhaps you could direct me to one, but the president has not proposed a bar on embryonic stem cell research and as far as I know no one else in the US government has proposed one. I also doubt one has the much chance of coming into existance in the US, but I've been wrong on these things often enough before to take my own jusgement with a grain of salt.


Well as you guessed, you wer wrong. The house voted on legislation to support stem cell research...This was from a quick search on google. (http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/pressrel/2005/050524.htm)
And the President vows to veto any such legislation... which is a serious question of his motives to nominate a Right-leaning Justice to the highest court in our land....Another quick search for the presidents vow to veto. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052000482.html) So try a little google before you try to argue things you have no clue on.

It is language that is binding on the courts and not an "inkblot" and stands for the proposition that just because a right is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that such is right is protected from unreasonable government infringement. It is up to a litigant in a particular case to get the courts to recognize the existence of an un-enumarated right or up to the legislature to recognize it and pass a law protecting it. An example would be the "right to privacy." No such right is explicitely mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has determined that such a right does in fact exist and has premised several holding, not the least of which is Roe v. Wade upon that finding.

<snip>
Very well said. Beats my version. I'll use yours, if I may.

<snip>
However, Judge Story did recognize the legitmate right of a state government to take private land for "public use." The question is what is "public use." In Kelo the Supreme Court found that turning the land over to developers for re-development in such a way that it would enhance tax revenues and enable the city to provide enhanced services to the citizens, was, in fact, a "public use." Whether that is a proper interpretation of the phrase "public use" can be debated all day though.

<snip>
It has been. Makes me glad I rent. :rolleyes:

Very well said. Beats my version. I'll use yours, if I may.
sure

*snip*

Can I just say that I really like your name?

hehe.

sure
Why, thanks, ever so. :)

And as any such compromise it ended up lacking to the extent that you still have people, two centuries on, unable to agree on what it means, and an entire constitutional court that has to spend its time deciphering the document.

It being to rigid and clear however creates the problem of people trying to change it to be less rigid. You must understand there is always a flex and unflexing change in political ideologies within a culture and time changes the pendulum.

It is GOOD that the Constitution is vague and short. Those traits prevent it from becoming something utterly useless such as the Texas Constitution with 200+ goddamned ammendments no one ever reads. The US Constituiton however is a MUCH better designed document. I doubt you could even concieve of anything remotely as well written that to this day is followed for 200+ years.

Basicly what it boils down to is (Men from two centuries ago >>>>>>>> your lack of insight and understanding)

1. The Ninth Amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that this language binds federal courts, or do you believe - as Robert Bork does - that it is an indecipherable "inkblot?" If the former, how are federal courts to determine what rights are retained by the people? On the other hand, if the Ninth Amendment does not create enforceable rights, what is it doing taking up one-tenth of the Bill of Rights?

2. Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that "since the American Revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A and transfer it to B by a mere legislative act." Was Story wrong? Or was the Supreme Court wrong this year when it ruled in Kelo v. the City of New London that a government had the right to take property for the use of private developers?

3. Could a human-like artificial intelligence constitute a "person" for purposes of protection under the 14th Amendment, or is such protection limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States?"

4. Does a declaration of war by Congress have the effect of suddenly making proper actions by the executive and Congress that would otherwise have been beyond their constitutional powers?

5. Is scientific research among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment? If not, is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing?

1. It binds federal courts and presents a position or argument for arguing one's case against prosecution if it violates a "natural right" that simply wasn't covered such as privacy. If you take into perspective what the founders believed a classical liberalist government was intended to ensure, is that it doesn't abuse its citizens' natural ability to live good lives and be productive American citizens. If an abuse is however presented such as in the case with the government infringing on the privacy of its citizens, we can use this ammendment of the bill of rights to take the federal government to trial.

2. It was a violation of established precedent on behalf of the corporate machine. Though Congress DOES have the power to create a statutory law to do something like this, it is a SERIOUS violation of rights. In otherwords, it better be a DAMNED good reason. This is why we allow our citizens to be armed to negotiate with pricks in a manner that even the truely dense can understand.

3. As mentioned by others any sentient creatures as long as they are able to apply and follow US laws and be US citizens have the right to equal protection under Constitutional law.

4. This is rather difficult for me to give a complete yes or no answer. I'm going to have to say they can not do it to cover an overstepping of power by another branch. A violation of the checks and balance system must be addressed as a serious violation of the Constitution. In the case of Iraq, Congress might have essentially declared war on terror, and the idiot in chief simply used Iraq as some sort of blunderous strategy against political change in the mideast.

5. Article 1 addresses this as Congress' power. This is NOT a bill of rights issue to begin with. If someone is doing particular science research, it first falls under the local state they are working under. The federal level doesn't come in unless they are really doing something serious in which there IS or isn't legislation created. At that point, Article 1 gives congress the power to legislate the issue. Not the President, or the Supreme Court.

1. The Ninth Amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that this language binds federal courts, or do you believe - as Robert Bork does - that it is an indecipherable "inkblot?" If the former, how are federal courts to determine what rights are retained by the people? On the other hand, if the Ninth Amendment does not create enforceable rights, what is it doing taking up one-tenth of the Bill of Rights?

It limits the government. That a particular proposition does not violate one of the enumerated rights does not mean that it is ok. The court must strike down any government acts that go beyond what the constitution grants to the government, not just those that violate enumerated rights.

2. Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that "since the American Revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A and transfer it to B by a mere legislative act." Was Story wrong? Or was the Supreme Court wrong this year when it ruled in Kelo v. the City of New London that a government had the right to take property for the use of private developers?
I do not know if story was right. The constitution is intended to be about the federal government. It might not be relevant to state governments. Kelo v. the City of New London was wrong according to the federal constitution. But it should have been determined by New England law, and I do not know if that allows the state government to take private land for any reason.

3. Could a human-like artificial intelligence constitute a "person" for purposes of protection under the 14th Amendment, or is such protection limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States?"
It is limited to those who are born or naturalised. At least that is what it looks like to me. But what prevents an AI from being naturalised, assuming that the government makes suitable laws for that.

4. Does a declaration of war by Congress have the effect of suddenly making proper actions by the executive and Congress that would otherwise have been beyond their constitutional powers?

With the original constitution the president may only deploy the army after war has been declared or congress has given him order about it. That means the president got more power after war was declared. Today that difference is a lot smaller, because congress has given the president a lot of slack to do what he wants in any case.

5. Is scientific research among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment? If not, is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing?
Writing about science is. Doing experiments does not give you the right to break laws, so obviously not all scientific activities are protected.

Well as you guessed, you wer wrong. The house voted on legislation to support stem cell research...This was from a quick search on google. (http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/pressrel/2005/050524.htm)
And the President vows to veto any such legislation... which is a serious question of his motives to nominate a Right-leaning Justice to the highest court in our land....Another quick search for the presidents vow to veto. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052000482.html) So try a little google before you try to argue things you have no clue on.
First I made no statment about any law [b]encouraging[/i] stem cell research, in fact I could point to that one, California's creation of a special research fund just for stem cell research, a Massachuttes lawencouraging stem cell research and several others. A law supporting or encouraging stem cell research has nothing to do with a law banning stem cell research. As for Bush's veto (threat), vetoing an law which encourages stem cell research is not the same as banning stem cell research, it does not even create an effective ban on research by indirect action. A veto merely maintains the status quo, so read before you write and think before you criticise someone else for not knowing what they are talking about.

I should make a snide comment about getting a clue but it is not worth the effort, you shot yourself in the foot.

work as a scientist, I see how things work. I have been to numerous conferences in which corporations gave "presentations". This is in quotes becaues they were incredibly careful not to give any actual information about their methods or data. All they talk about is hype about their product. And I've seen research funding "presentations" which were no better. Both are aimed at the same thing, convincing the audience to chose them over someone else. SOme do some don't, but with all the regualatory agencies in existance today if the scientific research behind private research is not disclosed before it comes on the market, it is soon afterwards. Goodness, in the pharmacutical industry knock-offs are sometimes available before the proprietary version. Intel's pentium chip and all the research that went into it was freely avaible within 6 months of it's hitting the market. The research that the tobaco industry did which showed smoking unhealthy is now freely available and they spent tremendous amounts of money and effort to keep them concealed. The worst that can be said for private research (as a whole) is that it makes it into the universe of freely available knowledge slower than publicly funded research.You are making a distinction here that I was not making. There is a difference between privately funded research, like that funded by the Whitaker Foundation, and private research. My comments have been about private research - and that funded by for-profit private entities. Foundations such as the Whitaker Foundation were created solely to fund scientific enquiry and are, for all intents and purposes, the same as public funding. However, such foundations are not numerous enough to give nearly as much funding as public funding. On top of that, as much as people like to act like it is easy, it is almost impossible in a lab to keep all finances separate. Thus, if a lab receives any public funding at all, chances are that they cannot do research that is not approved for public funding.I'm not certain where this is leading. I know that there has been a push to make labs more accountable for how funds are distributed across multiple research projects. I also feel that actually managing a lab with this accountability in practice is not worth the effort. I also know that despite the increased interest in accountability, it is still only in the exploratory stage and may never result in any type of increased regulation, and that further at this point no one but a few anal administrators really care if you borrow growth serum from a government project as long as you bill it to your project or use another projects test equipment (as a former anal administrator myself, despite what we say we don't care as long as we can straighten the paperwork out and no one complains to us about how your "theft" or "take over" ruined their schedule, but we do care about the extra work it gives us to figure out undocumented "borrowings"). I am however worried about the growing trend in pushing for accountability and it's potential for creating stupid rules as a matter of policy, but that's far afield.You are ignoring the fact that the research is not "banned through other means." It is physically and logically impossible to study human embryonic stem cells without possessing embryonic stem cells. Thus, if one bans possession, on has banned said research. If I write a law that says, "One cannot be in possession of a vehicle," I have banned driving. Yes, I am ignoring it because it has no relevance to the question asked. The question specifically asks about research bans based upon the concept: there are questions we should not ask. This does mean any and all restrictions on research. With regards to a potential ban on using stem cells in research, it is not likely to be based upon a fear of what we might discover, none of the current restrictions on use of stem cells are.
No, it really isn't. At this point, we have gone far enough in other types of cells to realize just how big the differences are. For instance, most embryonic stem cell research has been done in mice and rats. A compound called LIF1 (IIRC) can keep these cells undifferentiated indefinitely. This has been known for quite some time. This compound does not work in human cells. Thus, to look at what types of things keep human cells undifferentiated, we need human cells.

Meanwhile, the research is now to the point where we are trying to begin research into therapeutic uses. To do so, we have to use human cells and determine how to grow and differentiate them in the way we want. We cannot, after all, put mouse cells into human beings in a therapeutic manner.

If you followed this research, you would know that we are much further ahead than you seem to think. In some countries, embryonic stem cells have already been used in human clinical cardiac research.

At this point, we can do some things with animal cells, but some things are purely masturbatory if we don't use human cells. The argument is about cloning not stem cell research, and I have been following cloning. As for stem cell research there is no necessity for cloning human stem cells except for that created by regulations. (the limitation of federal funding to certain stem cell lines means that those doing federally funded embryonic stem cell research are reduced to using cloned stem cells, go figure). Which leads me to: Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. Cloning of human cells requires techniques that cloning of other types does not. Thus, it is obvious that the processes are different , at least to an extent. The only way that you could make the statement that cloning human cells will not provide more information on cloning human cells than, for instance, cloning mouse cells, would be to state that humans are mice. if you are up on the research the wall we have hit with cloning is the fact that when cloning primates the centromere does not seem to come through intact. Primate clones suffer from aneuploidy (incorrect number of chromosomes). There are strong indications that whatever the cause for this is, it is universal for all primates. The "gentle squeeze" technique described by the "private for profit" Korean enterprise has not been the dreamed of panacea for this. Until this problem can be solved for primate cloning, there is no necessity for human cloning to advance the research.

COMMENTARY: How close are you to being eligible for the US Supreme Court? Give us some cogent answers to these questions which will probably be asked of Supreme Court nominee Judge Roberts. Let's see how YOU do!


The Supreme Court Ink-Blot Test!

By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
Published: September 12, 2005

1. The Ninth Amendment provides that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Do you believe that this language binds federal courts, or do you believe - as Robert Bork does - that it is an indecipherable "inkblot?" If the former, how are federal courts to determine what rights are retained by the people? On the other hand, if the Ninth Amendment does not create enforceable rights, what is it doing taking up one-tenth of the Bill of Rights?

Equal protection under the law. You can't "ink blot" that. So yes, the constitution guarantees certain rights that can't be denied or be used to remove other rights from other people *generally.* Amendmants may be made with intense and indepth debate and study, this is the only exception.


2. Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833 that "since the American Revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A and transfer it to B by a mere legislative act." Was Story wrong? Or was the Supreme Court wrong this year when it ruled in Kelo v. the City of New London that a government had the right to take property for the use of private developers?
The supreme court was intensely wrong. The only place you could possibly override personal property rights is the in the case of imminent domain for *public works*. Never ever ever for a private project regardless of the increase in tax revenues.


3. Could a human-like artificial intelligence constitute a "person" for purposes of protection under the 14th Amendment, or is such protection limited, by the 14th Amendment's language, to those who are "born or naturalized in the United States?"

If it possessed the ability to learn and develop its own personality, ie sentience, yes. Language is restricted by the year it was written in, you can't possibly expect the framers of the constitution to know the future thus they put it to the most general term. A computer AI that had human sentience would be considered born or naturalized, (perhaps even undergoing a naturalization test) to get its green card.


4. Does a declaration of war by Congress have the effect of suddenly making proper actions by the executive and Congress that would otherwise have been beyond their constitutional powers?

A "state" of emergency does, in general, past wars were fought in defense of the homeland with a real and imminent threat of attack. Terrorism, since the obvious attack on the 11th of September would thus constitute a state of emergency where executive powers beyond normal could be flexed. But in an event such as Kosovo, no, as there was no imminent threat to the US by Slobodan Milosevic.


5. Is scientific research among the expressive activities protected by the First Amendment? If not, is Congress free to bar research based solely on its decision that there are some things we're better off not knowing?
[/quote]
Scientific research by its general description is not expression, however, research can not be blocked without a reason, either a reason stated in the constitution such as equal protection. Without a constitutional guideline, the decision must be left up to a vote among legal citizens accompanied with non-partisan reports on exactly what the research entails and what it could be used for, and what it would cost, and thus the tyranny of the majority would rule, as was intended.

The constitution is intended to be about the federal government. It might not be relevant to state governments.

Is that why it delineates the functions of the state governments and how they interact? Is that why the 14th Amendment clearly applies the restrictions the constitution places upon the federal government to the state governments as well?

The Constitution is most clearly intended to be about the workings of the US government. Because the US government includes federal and state governments, the roles of both are delineated within the constitution. If it was meant to apply only to the federal government, it wouldn't lay out any duties and restrictions placed upon state governments.

And I've seen research funding "presentations" which were no better. Both are aimed at the same thing, convincing the audience to chose them over someone else.

Yes, but the purpose of a scientific presentation is to present one's methods and findings, and to open one's conclusions up for criticism and discussion. Thus, like I said, private research doesn't do much to advance science.

The worst that can be said for private research (as a whole) is that it makes it into the universe of freely available knowledge slower than publicly funded research.

If it becomes available to the scientific community slower, then it is not aiding the scientific community. At that rate, chances are that someone else has already repeated the exact same research by the time private research is made available. Thus, it does not advance anything, other than to make everyone go, "Damn, if we had known that a couple of years ago, we could be much further along now..."

I'm not certain where this is leading. I know that there has been a push to make labs more accountable for how funds are distributed across multiple research projects. I also feel that actually managing a lab with this accountability in practice is not worth the effort. I also know that despite the increased interest in accountability, it is still only in the exploratory stage and may never result in any type of increased regulation, and that further at this point no one but a few anal administrators really care if you borrow growth serum from a government project as long as you bill it to your project or use another projects test equipment (as a former anal administrator myself, despite what we say we don't care as long as we can straighten the paperwork out and no one complains to us about how your "theft" or "take over" ruined their schedule, but we do care about the extra work it gives us to figure out undocumented "borrowings"). I am however worried about the growing trend in pushing for accountability and it's potential for creating stupid rules as a matter of policy, but that's far afield.

You completely missed the point. If a lab gets funding from public sources and from private sources, and certain types of research are banned from using public funding, then that lab either has to essentially have the banned research going on in another facility, without any shared reagents, equipment, etc. Otherwise, they are risking prosecution or, at the very least, a loss of that public funding.

The argument is about cloning not stem cell research, and I have been following cloning.

No, the argument is specifically about therapeutic cloning - which is stem cell research. I mentioned reprodctive cloning, but have made it quite clear that my discussion has been limited to therapeutic cloning.

As for stem cell research there is no necessity for cloning human stem cells except for that created by regulations. (the limitation of federal funding to certain stem cell lines means that those doing federally funded embryonic stem cell research are reduced to using cloned stem cells, go figure).

Actually, it means that they are limited to using cells owned by others, all of which have been grown in animal products and improper growth conditions. In other words, the approved cell lines are not nearly as useful as a new cell line which would be maintained in growth conditions that did not promote chromosomal damage, with animal products not used. As it is, none of the currently approved lines could be used in any type of therapeutic research. They have all been exposed to animal cells and products. Every one of the lines has been demonstrated to have problems with chromosomal abnormalities, although some have less than others. On top of that, most of the lines are privately owned - and to use them one must agree to large fees and whatever intellectual property rules the private entity places upon you.

if you are up on the research the wall we have hit with cloning is the fact that when cloning primates the centromere does not seem to come through intact. Primate clones suffer from aneuploidy (incorrect number of chromosomes). There are strong indications that whatever the cause for this is, it is universal for all primates. The "gentle squeeze" technique described by the "private for profit" Korean enterprise has not been the dreamed of panacea for this. Until this problem can be solved for primate cloning, there is no necessity for human cloning to advance the research.

The Korean team, unless I am mistaken, did not report any chromosomal anomalies within their stem cell lines.

The supreme court was intensely wrong. The only place you could possibly override personal property rights is the in the case of imminent domain for *public works*. Never ever ever for a private project regardless of the increase in tax revenues.

Really? So should we tear down all the railroads and give all the land to the descendents of those who once lived there? Should we take homes away from Hawiian citizens and give them back to the slumlords that once owned them? Should we take a revitalized neighboorhood in DC and re-blight it?

If it becomes available to the scientific community slower, then it is not aiding the scientific community. At that rate, chances are that someone else has already repeated the exact same research by the time private research is made available. Thus, it does not advance anything, other than to make everyone go, "Damn, if we had known that a couple of years ago, we could be much further along now..."
So apparently we've gone from public funding of research is necessary because otherwise research will grind to a halt, to public research duplicates private research but makes it availible faster. ::sotto voice :: really should have been pure science instead of true science. private research concentrates on commercially viable stuff, sure there is some money spent pure science, but the concentration is on commercially viable research. whole regions of enquiry get abandonded due to lack of private funds for research with no immediate commercial applications. A very good argument to made there.You completely missed the point. If a lab gets funding from public sources and from private sources, and certain types of research are banned from using public funding, then that lab either has to essentially have the banned research going on in another facility, without any shared reagents, equipment, etc. Otherwise, they are risking prosecution or, at the very least, a loss of that public funding.I didn't miss it, but at this point in time there is really no risk of prosecution and a minimal risk of losing funding. What is troublesome is that there is a growing movement to hold labs accountable for research funding allocation, which could very easily get to the point where labs actually are running the risk of prosecution. The US has not reached that point yet, and may never reach that point, but if it does then research will suffer greatly. (I know labs can actually bill projects strictly correctly, I've worked with that sort of thing. They would wind up spending as much time on paperwork as they do on research if not more, but it is possible. If the bad case happens and strict accountably does come into existance, here is a piece of advice - when the prick responsible for supplies looks at your request for materials from another project and tells you to take what you need, tear up your request and he'll report it lost or damaged, do not attempt to fill the request through channels just take it and be quiet.) No, the argument is specifically about therapeutic cloning - which is stem cell research. I mentioned reprodctive cloning, but have made it quite clear that my discussion has been limited to therapeutic cloning. Therapeudic cloning has not reached the point where we need to implant cloned embryonic stem cells. We are still working out the effects of adult stem cell transfer (gene therapy). We still need to work out how to activate the differentation mechanism for embryonic stem cells. We still need to find a way to get a higher yield than 4 per thousand sucessful (?) transfers of nuclear material for primates. We need to be sure that those transfers are actually sucessful. Research has not reached the point where the only thing we can do is to clone some embryonic stem cells from someone and implant them into that person (the only reason one has to use cloned stem cells), there is still a lot to be done before we reach that point. There is a lot to be done even with therapuedic cloning before we need to clone humans.

Can I just say that I really like your name?

hehe.

Sure :cool:

First I made no statment about any law [b]encouraging[/i] stem cell research, in fact I could point to that one, California's creation of a special research fund just for stem cell research, a Massachuttes lawencouraging stem cell research and several others. A law supporting or encouraging stem cell research has nothing to do with a law banning stem cell research. As for Bush's veto (threat), vetoing an law which encourages stem cell research is not the same as banning stem cell research, it does not even create an effective ban on research by indirect action. A veto merely maintains the status quo, so read before you write and think before you criticise someone else for not knowing what they are talking about.


I think you missed the point as it relates to this thread. Though many states and much of congress do support stem cell research, there are a few states that are alligned with the Presidents view on the subject and would ban or restrict the research further than the President did in 2001.

California's embrace of stem cell science has triggered strong reactions elsewhere:

• New Jersey, Wisconsin and Illinois are budgeting taxpayer dollars or proposing California-style initiatives to try to prevent a brain drain of biomedical researchers to the West Coast. (Advanced Cell Technologies, a Worcester, Mass., company, is shopping for land in Northern California to build a branch facility.)

Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, a Democrat, will ask the Legislature next year to place on the ballot a proposal to grant researchers $1 billion. The money would be raised by a new tax on Botox injections, liposuction and other "vanity" treatments.

In Texas, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison has asked the govoner to do what it takes to prevent California from stealing scientific luminaries from medical research centers in Houston. Pro-research bills are likely to be considered next year by legislatures in Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire and Washington state.

• Social conservatives in several other states are fighting embryonic stem cell research. Eight states — Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia — now ban or limit such research. All but one, Michigan, were "red states" that backed Bush in the elections. South Dakota passed the most recent ban, in February.

Legislators in Missouri, Kansas and Louisiana will consider barring at least some types of embryonic stem cell research.

Now if such bans come into play at the state level, can you see how this will trigger law suits that will certainly appeal to the supreme court. And that having a Right-leaning Justice that supports the presidents views could set precedent detrimental to the research.

So apparently we've gone from public funding of research is necessary because otherwise research will grind to a halt, to public research duplicates private research but makes it availible faster.

If it isn't available fast enough, research will essentially grind to a halt, as everyone will be doing exactly the same thing, instead of building upon what others will do. Sure, if you only had one guy trying to run an entire assembly line, it might eventually get done, but it would be so slow it wouldn't matter anymore.

::sotto voice :: really should have been pure science instead of true science. private research concentrates on commercially viable stuff, sure there is some money spent pure science, but the concentration is on commercially viable research. whole regions of enquiry get abandonded due to lack of private funds for research with no immediate commercial applications. A very good argument to made there.

Research into commercial applications is completely dependent upon basic science research. If the "pure science" as you call it isn't getting done and progressing, there is no commercial research to do.

I didn't miss it, but at this point in time there is really no risk of prosecution and a minimal risk of losing funding.

Really? Nothing at all happens to you if you break the law? Funny, that's not how they tell it to us. Please do spread the word to everyone that you can break the law without consequences.

Meanwhile, the idea of whether or not you think prosecution or loss of funding would actually occur - the threats are on the table. A prudent scientist is not going to take that risk.

What is troublesome is that there is a growing movement to hold labs accountable for research funding allocation, which could very easily get to the point where labs actually are running the risk of prosecution.

In this case, labs are already expected to be accountable for funding allocation. It isn't "growing". It is there. The embryonic stem cell section at the institution I work at is completely separate. We cannot use the same reagents - in fact, we have a different freezer specifically for the reagents to be used with the stem cells. We have a different lab space to be used, with different hoods and water baths and incubators that cannot be used for anything else. The room in question is locked with only 3 or 4 of us knowing the combination to get in.

And hell, this is actually using the approved lines! Imagine what we would have to do if we were to create our own.

Therapeudic cloning has not reached the point where we need to implant cloned embryonic stem cells.

Really? So the clinincal trials already ongoing with stem cells that are not autologous simply aren't happening? Gotcha.

Of course, while we may not need to implant them, we do need to experiment on them. Experimenting on cells with karyotype problems that have been grown from the inception of the cell line in a harmful atmosphere is not going to produce the same results as creating a cell line that is better treated and using that.

We are still working out the effects of adult stem cell transfer (gene therapy).

You are a bit confused here. Gene therapy and stem cell transfer are two very different things.

We still need to work out how to activate the differentation mechanism for embryonic stem cells.

And to do this, we need human embryonic stem cells. I have already pointed out that the stem cells of other species differentiate in response to different mechanisms.

We still need to find a way to get a higher yield than 4 per thousand sucessful (?) transfers of nuclear material for primates.

The Korean team already beat that mark.

Research has not reached the point where the only thing we can do is to clone some embryonic stem cells from someone and implant them into that person (the only reason one has to use cloned stem cells),

No, it hasn't reached the point where that is all we have to do. But it is damn near the point where that is something we can begin to do. Of course, if we can't experiment with human cells, it won 't get any closer.