matismf said, "EVERY 'Law Enforcement' officer has sworn an oath to the Constitution"

NO....many current police officer/sheriff/deputy oaths do NOT include any reference to the US Constitution, nor even reference their state constitution. Some city police websites that used to include a copy of the oath they DO take, have removed the copy from their official taxpayer-provided website in the past few years.

In other cases, the terms of their employment CONTRACT supercede any "oath" or commitments they may have taken or will take, and some terms simply include that they must obey the commands of their superiors...period (similar to the oath taken by NON-officers in the US military).

Search the internet for your local law enforcement officer oaths, academy oaths, etc.

Try calling your city's police public information office to talk to them about any oath(s) the police take. I've encountered those that are immediately suspicious and want personal info from you before "sharing"...if they share at all. Even if all you want is to know WHERE you can find a copy, some will only provide the information if you are a member of the "qualified" media...never mind that you are a citizen they supposedly "protect and serve".

Then try to find out who is responsible for maintaining/revising the oath(s)...if there is even a law that defines the oath(s), and who if anyone is responsible for oversight, etc.

Just because people choose to not follow a specific article of their faith, it does NOT mean they therefore choose to ignore the U.S. Constitution or somehow "empower" Congress or the President to ignore the constitutional restriction(s).

The Constitution is THE supreme law of the United States. It limits what powers are granted by the People to the federal government.

Even IF most people don't agree with a given restriction(s) on the powers granted to the federal government by the people of the U.S. via the Constitution it does NOT mean it's therefore OK for Congress and/or the President to disregard the restriction(s) on those powers. The ONLY legal way to remove/modify the restriction(s) is to pass an amendment to the Constitution...and there are clearly defined ways to do that.

It seems you don't know that companies are trying to "re-license" out of copyright (e.g. long been in public domain in the US) music, video, books, etc. This is a growing area of aggressive copyright pursuit. Mostly this is to apply to IP "copyrighted " in other countries and supposedly simply trying to do nothing more than make the US law comply with international laws, with Obama once again BYPASSING/ignoring need for Congress' approval of the treaty. However, I suspect a deeper agenda. Also check out ACTA articles.

Might be just the reporting, but I suggest the technology of the SCREEN itself may have a significant role in this...perhaps moreso than the "case" design. Yet, the ergonomics study doesn't even seem to consider that? Huge variable and huge omission if they did in fact ignore that factor.

My tablet's screen is designed such that optimal viewing is about 5 degrees ABOVE horizontal (with the screen perfectly vertical). That means when placed in your lap you tend to "hunch over" more than you do for a screen that has a 0 degree optimum viewing angle. While display screens may CLAIM to provide a 170 degree "viewing angle" (+85/-85 degrees from horizontal), the actual brightness and quality of the displayed image can still vary considerably depending on the actual viewing angle.

It's more like.........(ribbit)

or maybe even bzzzit

But it sure isn't RIBBIT!

@Kermit Stalin

Compromise is not always for the greater good, and it should NEVER be THE goal.

Passing bills "just to do something...ANYthing" is usually wasteful and buyer's remorse can be ruinously expensive (in multiple ways) when it comes to bad laws.

Compromise for the sake of compromising is often simple political expedience to cut a deal on legislator X's bad "Bill-abc" now so your equally bad "Bill-xyz" will be supported later. It is also tempting to compromise to reduce one's workload and/or to be reported upon more favorably in the media...which equals votes...regardless of the actual merits of the compromise, or even when the underlying legislation is actually harmful (to fiscal health, to a constitutional republic, to States, communities, individuals, etc)
-------------------------------------------

Kermit Stalin said, "Well, I interpreted this as him saying Republicans and Democrats should put aside their respective differences and agendas and come to a compromise for the greater good."

It also has the potential to keep the cost of hyper-inflated/bloated cast salaries down, as the series matures. One downfall of some long-term shows is that the contractual salaries of the stars become so high that the producers have to cut the number of shows per "season", and/or add more advertisements and/or reduce budgets of sets, special effects, stunts, and writing staff. Stars also begin to gain asymmetrical leverage and can threaten to "walk-off" and disrupt the show...to the detriment of the fans...to demand a higher salary per episode.

Because of this salary bloat, we've all seen reduced quality AND the definition of a "season" reduced from (what used to be the NORMAL) dozens of episodes per year to perhaps a dozen episodes, and even as few as 5 or 6 new episodes per year. What used to be 5 or 6 DVD sets for a "season" are now 2 DVDs...including the now obligatory "filler" (and often unwanted) behind-the-scenes material.

Because of costs, some series are either simply terminated with NO ending, or they are brought to an accelerated illogical and unsatisfying end, with the given reason being "we can't afford to keep producing the show".

Part of the perception problem is the "Hard-Left" think it is ONLY "their" country.

The opinions, hopes, philosophies and dreams of no other citizens matter...at all (except as they clearly need to be "educated" on the "correct" positions to take)...and that the US Constitution is irrelevant as it for all practical purposes can be bypassed by asymmetrically applied judicial, regulatory, educational, and economic activism.

So...is that the 11th hour, 11th minute here....or the 11th hour, 11th minute a few miles to the West...or Pacific Standard Time...or Greenwich Mean Time (aka Coordinated Universal Time)...or was that back a foot to the East or West of the International Date Line???

WHICH 11th day, 11th hour, 11th minute is it?

I just get SO confused when it comes to planning my secret rituals!

The Administration will almost certainly spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making sure that NO Christmas trees are "allowed" to be placed on public property.

"We can create a tax to promote them...as long as we don't let people publicly enjoy them." Dysfunctional.