Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Soileau who wrote (78551)	10/16/2001 10:32:57 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116752

Latest News - U.S. Under Attack 17 October 09:50AM -- Singapore Time Taleban offers to hand over Osama: Report LONDON -- A senior minister in Afghanistan's ruling Taleban regime has offered a last-minute deal to hand over suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, The Guardian reported on Wednesday, citing senior Pakistani official sources. The Taleban militia has proposed for the first time to hand over Osama for trial in a country other than the US without asking to first see evidence, in return for a halt to the bombing of Afghanistan, the paper said. -- AFP

To: John Soileau who wrote (78551)	10/16/2001 11:14:36 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116752

Would this be inflationary? Senator Wants $3.5 Billion for Agro-Terrorism Protection By Jason Pierce CNSNews.com Staff Writer October 16, 2001 (CNSNews.com) - While the press and most of the country are focused on the threat of anthrax, farmers around the nation are worrying about the possibility of agro-terrorism hitting their farms. In response, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, Monday introduced legislation that calls for spending more than $3.5 billion to protect the nation's food supply from terrorist attacks. "Our nation's crops and livestock are now at very high risk," Roberts told a meeting of farm groups on Friday. "We must move quickly to prevent attacks on grain and livestock production and we must begin a massive research effort to develop vaccines and antidotes to halt diseases that could damage our food supply in the future." Roberts' bill will spend $1.1 billion in 2002 and $271 million in each of the next 10 years to aid universities doing research on plant and animal diseases, and update and add security to U.S. Department of Agriculture facilities. The immediate effects of the legislation would mean the development of "crash research programs," while USDA facilities were modernized and rapid response teams were trained. The facilities most affected would be The Plum Island Disease Laboratory in New York, the National Animal Disease Center in Iowa, the Southwest Poultry Research Laboratory in Georgia, the Animal Disease Research Laboratory in Wyoming and the Foreign Disease Laboratory at Ft. Detrick in Maryland. Although Roberts stressed that the U.S. has an abundance of food, he added that the country must "ensure that crop and livestock diseases do not find their way to our fields and feedlots, either accidentally or as a result of terrorism." Kathleen Phillips, spokesperson for the agriculture department at Texas A&M University, said Roberts' legislation is a good move because America's farms do potentially stand in harm's way. Phillips said researchers at Texas A&M have been testing systems and using biotechnology to see what options are available to deal with such an attack. "Our farms are right out in the open with little protection, and any sort of agricultural attack would cause human harm and economic devastation and it is so easy to get to," Phillips said. "It could be as simple as a disease that kills the whole wheat crop across the whole country, but those are the things we are interested in, not only to prevent, but to counter should something happen like that." Christopher Noun, spokesman for the American Farm Bureau, said farmers are being advised to take preventive measures in order to protect against any terrorist action. "One of the things we have told producers and producer groups is ... to be aware of their surroundings, especially those who are around you," Noun said. "Overall, we are telling them to be all-around more cautious." Sarah Ross, Roberts' press secretary, said the legislation is not just a knee-jerk reaction to the new war on terrorism, but instead a longstanding plan of action to protect agriculture from all threats. "This is not just about Osama Bin Laden's threat. It is more for anything that threatens agriculture," Ross said. "It's aimed at the security of agriculture, whether it is a threat from abroad or a threat from within own our borders." cnsnews.com\Politics\archive\200110\POL20011016a.html

To: John Soileau who wrote (78551)	10/17/2001 7:44:26 AM
From: The Street	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116752

ca5.uscourts.gov C. Text We begin construing the Second Amendment by examining its text: "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. Const. amend. II. 2. Substantive Guarantee a. "People" The states rights model requires the word "people" to be read as though it were "States" or "States respectively." This would also require a corresponding change in the balance of the text to something like "to provide for the militia to keep and bear arms." That is not only far removed from the actual wording of the Second Amendment, but also would be in substantial tension with Art. 1, § 8, Cl. 16 (Congress has the power "To provide for . . . arming . . . the militia. . ."). For the sophisticated collective rights model to be viable, the word "people" must be read as the words "members of a select militia".(23) The individual rights model, of course, does not require that any special or unique meaning be attributed to the word "people." It gives the same meaning to the words "the people" as used in the Second Amendment phrase "the right of the people" as when used in the exact same phrase in the contemporaneously submitted and ratified First and Fourth Amendments. There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words "the people" have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words "the people" have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And, as used throughout the Constitution, "the people" have "rights" and "powers," but federal and state governments only have "powers" or "authority", never "rights."(24) Moreover, the Constitution's text likewise recognizes not only the difference between the "militia" and "the people" but also between the "militia" which has not been "call[ed] forth" and "the militia, when in actual service."(25) Our view of the meaning of "the people," as used in the Constitution, is in harmony with the United States Supreme Court's pronouncement in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060-61 (1990), that: "'[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the People of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of people who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." (citations omitted) Several other Supreme Court opinions speak of the Second Amendment in a manner plainly indicating that the right which it secures to "the people" is an individual or personal, not a collective or quasi-collective, right in the same sense that the rights secured to "the people" in the First and Fourth Amendments, and the rights secured by the other provisions of the first eight amendments, are individual or personal, and not collective or quasi-collective, rights. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2805 (1992); Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1937 (1977);(26) Robertson v. Baldwin, supra (see quotation in note 17 supra); Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How) 393, 417, 450-51, 15 L.Ed. 691, 705, 719 (1856). See also Justice Black's concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1456 (1968).(27) It appears clear that "the people," as used in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, refers to individual Americans.