Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Just have to Vent

<< < (2/6) > >>

lazygamer:

quote:
Oh when will people realize that the 13th amendment did not abolish slavery, it only changed masters to one big new master (14th amendment) and then the master started collecting money from most everyones paycheck.
--- End quote ---


Hmmmm, well I should look up that 14th amendment.

[ May 19, 2003: Message edited by: lazygamer ]

lazygamer:

quote:Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
--- End quote ---


You whacky Americans... I can't understand wtf you d00dz are talking about! ;

What is a summary of this amendment?


Section 1-Sounds good, understand it.

Section 2-WTF does this mean? It sounds like it's saying something stupid, and also saying that people who are criminals(no concern over what crime was commited) or took part in rebellion, are denied voting rights. About the crime thing though, does this mean criminal record or being in jail?

Section 3-I get it. Basically, if you want to hold civil or military office in the US, you must not of aided or comforted enemies or engaged in rebellion or insurrection. Ok I find it funny that the founding fathers are all concerned about governments being unstopable, and this ammendmant basically says that rebellion is a very bad thing to do. Didn't the founding fathers think that rebellion is a sign of government corruption, and the people have the right to overthrow any government that is corrupt? You also get into the "Who's to say that is rebellion" can of worms. Oh, and by this section, the red cross is comforting the enemy by treating their wounded during a war.  

Section 4-I get this also. Ok so if the US government spends money on aiding insurrection or rebellion against itself, it is illegal to pay it back as the national debt. But spending money on preventing rebellion and insurrection is debt... WTF?! There is no need to spend such money! Preventing rebellion is for dictatorships, not democracy.

Section 5-Oh goody, a vague statement open to interpretation. This would be fine, except 14th amendment is mostly bullshit that should not exsist!


Ok so when was this amendment passed, and why was it allowed to pass? Quite a stupid and terrible amendment...

solo:
From our happy train of Linux/Open Source development we look up to see that not all is right in our world, one of our biggest supporters is being attacked by the owner of a proprietary operating system, saying that they breached their contract and copied code from the Proprietary to the Free, without the permission of the ailing owner. This is laughable to most of us, and it is discussed valiantly by members of the Open Source community. It looks as though, in it's last dying breath, the Lesser Enemy has tried to make one last use of it's Weapon, the rights to the source code of UNIX. This isn't that disturbing past the fact that this could stunt the growth of, or destroy, Open Source adoption rates (which, needless to say, _is_ pretty disturbing). Many of the gifted Seers predict that the Greater Enemy is behind this attack on our humble but growing world. Sure enough the Red Mounded Evil announces it's stock in the dark plan to destroy the pure, moral Linux and it's brethren Open Source projects, great and small. Whether it's part in this battle is direct or caused _by_ the battle is yet to be seen, but it is a disturbing event for the Open Source Community.

And now we speak of the Greater Enemy's involvement here in this place devoted to it's destruction. Yet, we do not speak of ways to destroy the Red Mounded Evil and to shatter the 'Windows' to Hell that it has opened. Valiant projects are trying to promote our Open Source world in general, but our MES is only speaking mildly of the evils it was created to destroy.

It is time for MES to eradicate Microsoft. Here is what I propose:

We create a set of workgroups that will research and plot each part of Microsoft's downfall.
   - Antitrust/OEM Licensing: Research the exact reasons OEMs cannot/have reason to be afraid of Microsoft revoking their Windows licenses, and perhaps investigate how to present this in a court setting to make it obvious that Microsoft is illegally preventing alternative products from gaining ground. Also discuss with any OEMs that are willing to the reasons behind their not supporting Linux/Other OSes (perhaps there are other motives/problems with Linux/Other OSes)
   - Lobbyists: More of a network of people willing to lobby for alternative software style legislation in countries that allow such lobbying. This network should be able to move quickly and have a central elected government that can mobilize the network very quickly
   - Feature Fighters: Another network of people willing to help implement features in Open Source software in a quick manner, so that Feature Fighter troops can be mobilized to implement important features that may be important to obtaining new users on Linux/Open Source platforms, like drivers (provided specs are available)
   - Partner Fighters: A group that works with 3rd party companies to negotiate support for Linux/Other OSes, convince device manufacturers to write drivers for Linux, or to open source drivers they have written but that are inconsistent with the OS's/Xserver's license, thus creating problems.

More ideas later. The idea is that FMS is a big place, why dont we begin actually eradicate MS?

jtpenrod:
To lazygamer:

The 14th Amendment passed in 1868, and was a part of Reconstruction after the "Civil" War. Its intent was to basically dilute States' Rights and consolidate Federal power to attempt to prevent a repeat of seccession amoung the states. The Southern states were essentially blackmailed into voting for it, as that was a condition for re-entry into the Union and the end of the Reconstruction occupation. All references to "rebellion" and "insurrection" are references to participation in the Confederacy. Either in the revolution that led to the Confederacy's establishment, or participation in its government or military.
quote:Section 2-WTF does this mean? It sounds like it's saying something stupid, and also saying that people who are criminals(no concern over what crime was commited) or took part in rebellion, are denied voting rights. About the crime thing though, does this mean criminal record or being in jail?
--- End quote ---
As for what this section means, its intent was to prevent the denial of voting rights to the emancipated Blacks. If any state denied the Blacks the right to vote, that state could not then count those same Blacks as being part of the state's population for tax purposes, nor could they count towards seats in Congress. As for "...excluding Indians not taxed...", this provision existed as various Indian tribes were recognized by treaty as being semi-autonomous national groups. As such, the states had no authority over them. The exclusion from voting for having a criminal record is something left up to the individual state to determine. It refers to conviction in a court of law.
quote:Section 3-I get it. Basically, if you want to hold civil or military office in the US, you must not of aided or comforted enemies or engaged in rebellion or insurrection. Ok I find it funny that the founding fathers are all concerned about governments being unstopable, and this ammendmant basically says that rebellion is a very bad thing to do. Didn't the founding fathers think that rebellion is a sign of government corruption, and the people have the right to overthrow any government that is corrupt? You also get into the "Who's to say that is rebellion" can of worms. Oh, and by this section, the red cross is comforting the enemy by treating their wounded during a war.
--- End quote ---
Here, again, "rebellion" refers to having participated in the Confederacy. Another provision designed to stick it to the Southern states.
quote:Section 4-I get this also. Ok so if the US government spends money on aiding insurrection or rebellion against itself, it is illegal to pay it back as the national debt. But spending money on preventing rebellion and insurrection is debt... WTF?! There is no need to spend such money! Preventing rebellion is for dictatorships, not democracy.
--- End quote ---
Actually, this section is a repudiation of debts the Confederacy racked up. Basically, Southerners were prohibited from suing if they lost slaves, nor could they sue the Federal government to have Confederate bonds honoured: they were just plain SOL on that account. OTOH, the Feds would honor whatever debts it had incurred in order to fight the "Civil" War.
quote:Ok so when was this amendment passed, and why was it allowed to pass? Quite a stupid and terrible amendment...
--- End quote ---
Actually, most of the power of the 14th Amendment was diluted in a series of cases before the Supreme Court in the 1870s. However, this amendment would prove quite useful during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s -- 60s. It served as a basis for the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that put an end to the legalized apartheid "Jim Crow" system, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Voting Rights Act of 1965.

It may sound like so much legalese gobbldy-gook, and be difficult to understand unless you know something about the times, the issues involved during the "Civil" War era. In that context, it does make sense.
____________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux

"There: now you'll never have to look at those dirty Windows anymore"
      --Daffy Duck

lazygamer:
Thanks for clearing that up JT!

I assumed that rebellion and insurrection would refer to a point where the government started to become more corrupt and take away the power of the people. The way you describe it makes this amendment seem more mundane and make alot more sense. But the way the US government is nowadays, such first reactions would make sense.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page