Was going to say the same: internet services will need to block all access to/from France. Microsoft, Google, Twitter, etc. should put out an immediate press-release to that effect, and let the backlash do its work.
"It would increase the amount of power in the hands of the unelected bureaucrats that don't have terms at all."
I don't see how that follows. There would be no overall reduction in the amount of power that Congress wields, just a shorter duration for any particular person to wield it. Less time worrying about re-election campaigns. Less time redrawing district maps. In general, less time to get up to the shenanigans that has essentially broken our method of government.
I have to disagree: first, there wouldn't be any more congress critters, the way you and I mean it. No more professional politicians. Just people that come in, do a job for a short while, and then go back to their own job. I also think it would reduce the effect of lobbying, in that the good ol' boys network would not have enough time to grow strong.
I have a simpler idea: congressional term limits. Three terms, lifetime total, per person. That is, John Doe can only ever have up to three combined (not necessarily back to back) terms in the Senate and House of Representatives. This one simple change would eliminate vast swaths of corruption and hypocrisy. And please, no one spout that crap about not having enough time to "learn the job", you see what happens when they have enough time to learn the job... they never leave! This is not what our founding fathers intended. In fact, serving in Congress was supposed to be an obligation similar to jury duty, not seen as a benefit or plus in any way.
I'm going to join your partial derailment here. I too support jury nullification. However, there are a couple of major problems with the concept.
First, judges hate it. They won't discuss it, they won't allow it to be discussed, and in fact most judges' instructions could be read to deny the very existence of jury nullification.
Second, it takes a pattern of nullification for a particular law to be seen as needing change. How many cases have you heard of lately that were resolved on the basis of jury nullification? None? Yeah, me too.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that jury nullification is one of the best kept secrets of judiciary, and is likely to remain that way.
Mike, the proof is right there in front of your eyes. How can you say that the NSA's surveillance is not working? Have we had another 9/11 since 9/11? No. Was there a terrorist attack in the US yesterday or the day before? No. Clearly the surveillance is working.
Also, I have not been attacked by a tiger, not even ONCE, since I started carrying around this anti-tiger rock.
This is not rocket surgery folks, just look at the proof!
Mike, you should know as well as anyone the power of weasel words, and "may" is one of the worst. By definition, Hoyer doesn't have to "believe" that every American may be in contact with a turrist. He could state as fact that every American may be in contact with a turrist, and it is a true statement. Of course, another fact is that they may not be as well. Who knows? Who cares? Better safe than sorry, right?
For those linguists out there, I do not support the use of the word "may" in statements of fact, just pointing out that this is a common political loophole.