QuoteThis case, however, is about independent expenditures, not soft money. When Congress finds that a problem exists, we must give that finding due deference; but Congress may not choose an unconstitutional remedy. If elected officials succumb to improper influences from independent expenditures; if they surrender their best judgment; and if they put expediency before principle, then surely there is cause for concern. We must give weight to attempts by Congress to seek to dispel either the appearance or the reality of these influences. The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment ; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption.
QuoteBut to return to, and summarize, my principal point,which is the conformity of today's opinion with the original meaning of the First Amendment. The Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers.
A lot about the Citizen's United decision is strange to me. For one, Citizen's United presented the case that "as-applied" to their case McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional. I agree with this. The majority, though, dismissed the "as-applied" argument and declared the law facially unconstitutional. The arguments they present are not without merit. Having to go to the Supreme Court to determine whether speech is constitutional is kind of a big restriction, for instance. What bugs me about this decision is it's absolutely the first time I've ever seen this court answer a broader question than it's asked. In fact, it's disturbingly impressive the lengths this court usually goes to to avoid answering even the narrowest questions it's been asked. Can the military detain U.S. civilians as enemy combatants? Well, yeah, sometimes, but they're not exactly sure how or when since the case wasn't filed in the correct court in the first place. That sort of thing is par for the course. Declaring that the Constitution states that corporations are people with free speech which is also known as money, when they were simply asked if advertising an on-demand political piece is something congress should have the right to restrict, is way out of character. They've ducked gay marriage for eons. Why were they so quick to jump on corporate personhood, without even being asked about it?
Cynicism inducing questions aside, the above quotes, taken from two majority opinions, are something worth thinking about. It's hard to argue against the proposition that more opinions are better than fewer. Speech is the thing. If the speakers are corrupt, if the politicians are corrupt, if people are duped, those are things that should be addressed on their own. Restricting the what, who, when and where of an opinion is a supreme cop-out, really. Also, saying GM can't pay a PAC to do electioneering for them, is saying that GE, or some other corporation entangled with a "legitimate" media outlet is going to be doing all the electioneering. Who has had more influence on U.S. policy, the Koch brothers or William Randolph Hearst? Rupert Murdoch doesn't really need a Super-PAC.
So now that I've played the Devil's Advocate for the Citizen's United decision, what's the alternative? A democracy that is bought and sold by a dozen billionaires instead of just a couple? Doesn't really sound any better to me. I've got some ideas. Let's hear yours.
Ban political advertising, period? Sure, you have media people who have access to an audience, but there are existing measures in place to try to keep that in check. Less goddamn money in campaigning the better, IMO.
General request; can OPs please give a brief overview?
Anything that doesn't have the word 'Rudd' in it isn't getting news time over here ATM.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 24, 2012, 12:18:10 AM
Ban political advertising, period?
That in turn violates two clauses of the first amendment.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on February 24, 2012, 01:08:16 AM
General request; can OPs please give a brief overview?
Anything that doesn't have the word 'Rudd' in it isn't getting news time over here ATM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United
Basically, a PAC made an anti-clinton video too close to the day of the election, violating a provision in the McCain–Feingold Act (which deals with campaign contributions). That provision was overturned by the Supreme Court. The implications of this are that corporations, nonprofit corporations, and unions can legally spend as much as they want, whenever they want, on political advertising; and so Super PACs were born.
So, money is speech, and is protected by the 1st amendment.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 02:22:47 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 24, 2012, 12:18:10 AM
Ban political advertising, period?
That in turn violates two clauses of the first amendment.
"Advertising" is not a function of the press, and can be argued not to be a form of protected speech.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 24, 2012, 04:49:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 24, 2012, 02:22:47 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 24, 2012, 12:18:10 AM
Ban political advertising, period?
That in turn violates two clauses of the first amendment.
"Advertising" is not a function of the press, and can be argued not to be a form of protected speech.
It certainly is a function of the press, as the press cannot exist without advertising.
In addition, if you start banning advertisement of products, services, or candidates that are not themselves illegal, you open the door to all manner of abuse.
I can think of three things off the top of my head that would be targeted immediately by the right wing screwheads alone, once that door is opened.
1. Advertisementa for Gay clubs or dating services.
2. Advertisements for birth control.
3. Advertisements explaining the actual results of a bill in congress (this would be the easiest extension of the rule). SOPA is one example that comes to mind.
It would also utterly prevent the possibility of any other political organization than the so-called "two" parties we have now.
There's only one effective form of regulation of political advertising, and that is libel and slander charges, and courts independent enough to try them.
I'm thinking go with what the court says...more speech, not less. Wanna get money out of politics? Make politics cheaper. Publicly finance elections. Limit per person donations. Lottery off campaign ad slots during the election season...enough so that even if a PAC or Super-Duper-PAC wants to buy ad time to guarantee their ads get shown, they'll be quite unlikely to stand out from the crowd. If the problem is that only the wealthy belong to the Country Club, the answer is not to restrict the amount of dues a member may pay, the answer is to give away a fuck-ton of free memberships. Let's reverse-gentrify the political process.
Remember, the public owns the air-waves. If a network wants to run a 24 hour partisan tug-fest disguised as journalism, let the public get 10 of every 60 minutes to respond to what the network is broadcasting. Do it lottery style. Set up remotes in different cities (so it's not all New Yorkers) and pick 5 names out of a hat, give them each 2 minutes. Set up an impartial grading system, to be displayed as a footer for each particular show. "Truthfulness - F" "Content - C-" "Logic - Il". Two half hour blocks of each news network's programming day set aside for a more detailed reporting of the grades given, along with a short informative segment on rhetorical devices and how to spot some bullshit. Corporate media can promote it's interests regardless of any campaign finance laws, but the first amendment doesn't grant it the right to do so inside an echo chamber.
And yes, as Cain said, start enforcing libel and slander laws--not just as it pertains to speech that defames individuals, but speech that defames facts. After all, if corporations are "legal people", why can't "Truth" be considered "a logical citizen"? Make the pundit in the bow-tie show where he found evidence of the "death panels" in ObamaCare he reported on. If not, he gets sued just as if he accused Romney of huffing freon with girl scouts. A PAC drops some bullshit about a candidate, candidate gets paid. If they drop some bullshit on an issue, public sues and guilty PAC gets to spend their funds taking out ad time to confess their lie and inform the people of the truth.
...and then there's the internet...
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on February 24, 2012, 12:18:10 AM
Ban political advertising, period? Sure, you have media people who have access to an audience, but there are existing measures in place to try to keep that in check. Less goddamn money in campaigning the better, IMO.
Define "Political advertising".
While the exact wording of the First Amendment does not specify to whom it applies:
QuoteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is a proposed Constitutional amendment that would resolve this wiggliness regarding who, exactly, the Constitution protects. http://movetoamend.org/publications-talks/poclad-why-abolish-all-corporate-constitutional-rights
There is another proposed amendment, which has Obama's support, which would enable Congress to limit campaign contributions.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 24, 2012, 02:42:00 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on February 24, 2012, 01:08:16 AM
General request; can OPs please give a brief overview?
Anything that doesn't have the word 'Rudd' in it isn't getting news time over here ATM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United
Basically, a PAC made an anti-clinton video too close to the day of the election, violating a provision in the McCain–Feingold Act (which deals with campaign contributions). That provision was overturned by the Supreme Court. The implications of this are that corporations, nonprofit corporations, and unions can legally spend as much as they want, whenever they want, on political advertising; and so Super PACs were born.
So, money is speech, and is protected by the 1st amendment.
The Super PACs are pretty behemoth in their own right, but in reality they are little more than a shortcut to what could already be accomplished through clever exploitation of loopholes. Every state and McCain-Feingold, allow for contributions from one PAC to another PAC. It may be a bit of a pain in the ass, but without the Super PAC, getting around limits (where they exist), could simply be accomplished by going PAC to PAC to PAC. If a state had a $5000 limit from a corporation to a PAC, for instance, and the same for PAC to PAC contributions, to get a $20k donation, it would just take 4 PACs. Paper "people" are neat that way.
Many states have total contribution limits that cap the amount a person or entity can donate to PACs, Candidates and Other Political Organizations, in sum. This is really the closest the law can come to enacting an effective limit...and given how common sense this solution is, I think it's reasonable to question whether loopholes and exceptions left in legislation that otherwise purport to limit contributions weren't left in by design to favor one class over another. Not that I'd ever be so cynical as to question the pure altruistic motivations that inspired something like McCain-Feingold, or indeed, any other act of congress.
Quote from: Nigel on February 24, 2012, 08:47:18 PM
While the exact wording of the First Amendment does not specify to whom it applies:
QuoteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is a proposed Constitutional amendment that would resolve this wiggliness regarding who, exactly, the Constitution protects. http://movetoamend.org/publications-talks/poclad-why-abolish-all-corporate-constitutional-rights
There is another proposed amendment, which has Obama's support, which would enable Congress to limit campaign contributions.
What grates is that the 14th, just as often cited in "Corporate Personhood" cases, does explicitly state who is a "person"...but that definition just kinda gets ignored, from time to time.
QuoteSection 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.
The first amendment, as applied to corporations, is something that I think bears examination. The first includes the right of assembly and religion and petitioning the government, any and all of which are, at times, certainly applicable to the formation, purpose and functioning of a corporation. Freedoms of Speech and Press could rightfully follow from that.
The equation of money and speech is a bit wonky. But it is important to note that Citizen's United didn't find that limiting political contributions was an infringement on freedom of speech all on it's own, only that limiting corporate donations to an organization engaged in political speech, while allowing unlimited individual donations, was not a justified restriction on the corporation's engagement with that organization. Basically, it just didn't buy the government's case that the size of corporate coffers would place them in an unfair position which could well undermine the citizen's faith in democracy. In fact, the majority opinion actually suggested that corporate money in politics could strengthen citizen's faith in democracy...or humor, depending on your take:
QuoteThe fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials.
The opinion compared the advantage of corporate coffers to that enjoyed by a rich individual in relation to a poor one. They cited another decision on McCain-Feingold that overturned the provision that increased donor limits for one candidate if their opponent exceeded a certain amount of out of pocket campaign expenditures. The finding in that case was that personal wealth is not a legitimate reason to apply the law unequally. This interpretation is tough to refute, but there's nothing in the decision to suggest that the issue couldn't be addressed with legislation alone.
First amendment corporate personhood, though, would probably need a constitutional amendment to address. I can think of a lot of reasons both for and against this--the chief reason *against*, for now, is that limiting the amount of money the Koch Brother's can throw into the fray would accomplish the end of limiting corporate money as well, but de-personifying corporations, ain't gonna do shit to check the Koch's. Spending five years or more to pursue a constitutional remedy while ignoring a legislative problem that could be fixed next month, smells a little shell-gamey to me. The chief reason *for*, is that paper people are terribly easy to conjure and when exploited properly a very useful tool for human people to get extra money/speech into the political process.
The 14th, OTOH, refers to "born" or "naturalized" persons, not "chartered" entities. It's well and truly bastardized when it is applied in any instance other than providing corporations protections equal to other, similarly chartered, corporations (insofar as the legal entity, to a certain extent, represents the interests of an assembly of citizens). Any references to corporate personhood in 14th amendment cases is, to my mind, just a big blatant "fuck you" from SCOTUS. Sure the amendment actually defines "person" so there is absolutely no guess work...but, then again...fuck you. Also, since section 2 of the 14th apportions congressional seats according to the number of "citizens" as defined in section 1, any of the number of decisions that have held corporate citizenship under the 14th, should mean that corporations count in the total population of a state. Defining a corporation as a citizen under one amendment and not another may have some validity, but changing it up in the same amendment is just more "poetry-magnet" jurisprudence. My least favorite kind.
Looks more like it defines "citizen" in terms of "person". I don't see any definition of "person".
A person is a citizen, obviously.
Really? I figured it was trying to draw some sort of distinction along the lines of that I am a person, but not a US citizen.
This makes me wonder, did they ever translate this Bill of Rights into an actual book of law using proper legal language (the kind that uses the same word for the same thing every time and scores no points for literary style)? According to Wikipedia it still "plays a key role in American law and government" so it shouldn't be up for interpretation, like some sort of religious text, what's the use of that? Either it says a corporation is a person, or it says it's not, or it doesn't say anything on the subject, but being vague and up to interpretation about it isn't very useful.
No, not really. I'm not sure exactly where I was going with that (hey, I got woken up at 2am this morning, and woke up at least once every hour since then), but I think I was trying to make a funny.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 26, 2012, 12:57:46 PM
Looks more like it defines "citizen" in terms of "person". I don't see any definition of "person".
Neither do I.
Quote from: Cain on February 26, 2012, 02:57:17 PM
No, not really. I'm not sure exactly where I was going with that (hey, I got woken up at 2am this morning, and woke up at least once every hour since then), but I think I was trying to make a funny.
It read like a joke to me. :lol: A very, very dry joke, and also one that sent chills up my spine because I could definitely see the Right Wing running with that idea.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 26, 2012, 12:57:46 PM
Looks more like it defines "citizen" in terms of "person". I don't see any definition of "person".
d'oh...yeah, it does. I did the thing I was bitching about in the process of bitching about it. I'm recursively embarrassed.
After reading the bit about corporate personhood Telarus posted in another thread, though, it doesn't look like the citizen that is a corporate person for 14th amendment purposes, either relies on or alters any definitions significantly. That is, until "this is a case where a corporation is accepted as a person as defined under the 14th Amendment" is taken to mean "the 14th Amendment says corporations are people"...but when has something like that ever happened about 4 posts ago in this very thread? :crackhead:
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 26, 2012, 02:52:40 PM
This makes me wonder, did they ever translate this Bill of Rights into an actual book of law using proper legal language (the kind that uses the same word for the same thing every time and scores no points for literary style)? According to Wikipedia it still "plays a key role in American law and government" so it shouldn't be up for interpretation, like some sort of religious text, what's the use of that? Either it says a corporation is a person, or it says it's not, or it doesn't say anything on the subject, but being vague and up to interpretation about it isn't very useful.
Were it not for the vague wording in the articles of the Constitution that define the federal government, any vague wording in the Bill of Rights would not be near as troublesome. That's not to say that any statement, however precise, will not always be "up to interpretation" based chiefly on the reader being "up to interpret" it, but a good deal of the fuzziness of separation of powers would not exist were it not for questions like "Is xyz authority an 'implied power' of the Federal Government or a power reserved to the states or people under the 10th amendment?"
On the other hand, being vague on specifics can express an intent that is explicitly broad. The specific protected rights listed in the Bill of Rights, ideally, would just be an "in case of fire, break glass," sorta deal. When shit get's stupid and the only thing limiting the government is what it's been told it can't do, these should be the last rights to go. If you define what powers the Federal Government has explicitly, throw the rest somewhere else, and then toss in a feel-good "We <3 Liberty" clause, that would theoretically be pretty air-tight--provided everyone is on the same page. Explicit clauses, specific and exhaustive enumeration of rights, plain as fucking day troof, in the right wrong hands, though, can just as easily be an explicit, specific, and exhaustive list of points to be used in proving a case against, plain as fucking day troof.
We got military detention of U.S. Citizens from one such exercise. Though the Constitution reads:
QuoteThe privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
This one case this one time ruled that having your disability benefits cut off after a hearing by the Social Security Administration, was not a decision a citizen was constitutionally guaranteed the right to appeal to a federal court.
So naturally, 1 judge found the clause in the constitution to be most applicable to a question of Habeas Corpus in a case of rebellion as the public safety may require. (His answer was declare martial law, take it to criminal court, or let the dude go).
...and 8 found the Social Security decision to be most applicable to a question of, just how much responsibility should be placed on a busy, busy branch of government, in order to consider due process sufficiently satisfied
you know, for the situation? (their answer was "some, less than all, but definitely some to be sure"...true). So yeah, we can be held without what most people would think of as a "trial" but so long as some person somewhere heard something we had to say on the matter of our being held (what their response was is only sometimes relevant), we can say we got our rights.
--to be fair, the reasoning in the Social Security decision did say a lot of stuff about the Constitution and what-not...so there is that.
Also, the 2nd amendment is neither vague, nor up to interpretation, it's just fucking weird and confusing and "if the part that says something important says all there is to be said, why'd you put this other part in there that says something that we can't quite figure out how in the hell it may matter with the important part." Not cool, assholes.
--edit for maybe something near on-topic. I'd prefer a vague protection of rights that might accidentally protect that right in cases that may or may not involve actual people, or whatever, to a very precise and explicit protection of rights that is just treated as something in need of a work-around. It's all in the eye of the beholder, ultimately.
The thing about the vagueness (that which I subjectively consider vague, apparently), which is a new thing I learned today, is actually a part of a fundamental difference between American and European continental law.
I was seriously wondering, if the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to important to US law and government, how come it's so vague and open to interpretation? First I thought, well, maybe because it's old and written a long time ago. But then I figured, no because our books of law are pretty precise even if they're old, and if the language gets too outdated I suppose they'll be very carefully rewritten because they're like the "computer code" our legal system runs on so it needs to be unambiguous and clear. And then I realized I didn't know what the proper English word for "law book" is, anyway, so I looked it up, and then I learned.
The main point is, your laws, they aren't codified! At all! No wonder they're vague! :)
You got common law and statutory law. And both are equally important in the US. But common law is the vague part because it is unwritten and based on things like jurisprudence.
European continental law, also called Civil Law, is very different! I'll just copy a bit from WIkipedia here:
----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_law
Civil law (or civilian law) is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections, as compared to common law systems that gives great precedential weight to common law on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[1][2]
Conceptually, it is the group of legal ideas and systems ultimately derived from the Code of Justinian, but heavily overlaid by Germanic, ecclesiastical, feudal, and local practices,[3] as well as doctrinal strains such as natural law, codification, and legislative positivism.
Materially, civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules.[4] It holds legislation as the primary source of law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially trained judicial officers with a limited authority to interpret law. Juries separate from the judges are not used, although in some cases, volunteer lay judges participate along with legally trained career judges.
----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_code#Civil_codes_in_the_Americas
In the United States, codification appears to be widespread at a first glance, but U.S. legal codes are actually collections of common law rules and a variety of ad hoc statutes; that is, they do not aspire to complete logical coherence. For example, the California Civil Code largely codifies common law doctrine and is very different in form and content from all other civil codes.
----
This is so weird! I had never figured you could actually run a serious legal system without, well, you know, aspiring to complete logical coherence :) So I learned something today! :)
I'd like it if Dok weighed in on this shit, because he knows hisself some Constitution.
I am finding myself very skeptical of almost everything you have to say about it, NoLoDeMiel. I am not well enough versed in Constitutional Law to actually call out most of it, but there are enough areas of what you say that don't ring true that I have a hard time trusting your judgement on any of it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 26, 2012, 11:07:00 PM
I was seriously wondering, if the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to important to US law and government, how come it's so vague and open to interpretation? First I thought, well, maybe because it's old and written a long time ago. But then I figured, no because our books of law are pretty precise even if they're old, and if the language gets too outdated I suppose they'll be very carefully rewritten because they're like the "computer code" our legal system runs on so it needs to be unambiguous and clear. And then I realized I didn't know what the proper English word for "law book" is, anyway, so I looked it up, and then I learned.
The constitution was written vaguely specifically to allow different interpretations as times changed.
I would suggest you read
The Federalist Papers, for a full explanation by the guys who wrote the constitution.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 26, 2012, 10:39:04 PM
On the other hand, being vague on specifics can express an intent that is explicitly broad. The specific protected rights listed in the Bill of Rights, ideally, would just be an "in case of fire, break glass," sorta deal. When shit get's stupid and the only thing limiting the government is what it's been told it can't do, these should be the last rights to go.
Balls. Go back and read amendment IX.
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 26, 2012, 12:57:46 PM
Looks more like it defines "citizen" in terms of "person". I don't see any definition of "person".
Neither do I.
When the term "person" is used, it means
any person in American custody or jurisdiction. When the term "The People" is used, it means the citizenry of the United States. For example, amendment V states that, for example, a Canadian accused of a crime in America is guaranteed a proper trial, whereas amendment II guarantees the
citizen's right to keep & bear arms.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 26, 2012, 11:51:50 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 26, 2012, 12:57:46 PM
Looks more like it defines "citizen" in terms of "person". I don't see any definition of "person".
Neither do I.
When the term "person" is used, it means any person in American custody or jurisdiction. When the term "The People" is used, it means the citizenry of the United States. For example, amendment V states that, for example, a Canadian accused of a crime in America is guaranteed a proper trial, whereas amendment II guarantees the citizen's right to keep & bear arms.
It doesn't look like the Constitution defines "personhood". Most likely because the framers never thought that would be necessary, I'm guessing.
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 26, 2012, 11:07:00 PM
The thing about the vagueness (that which I subjectively consider vague, apparently), which is a new thing I learned today, is actually a part of a fundamental difference between American and European continental law.
I was seriously wondering, if the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to important to US law and government, how come it's so vague and open to interpretation? First I thought, well, maybe because it's old and written a long time ago. But then I figured, no because our books of law are pretty precise even if they're old, and if the language gets too outdated I suppose they'll be very carefully rewritten because they're like the "computer code" our legal system runs on so it needs to be unambiguous and clear. And then I realized I didn't know what the proper English word for "law book" is, anyway, so I looked it up, and then I learned.
The main point is, your laws, they aren't codified! At all! No wonder they're vague! :)
You got common law and statutory law. And both are equally important in the US. But common law is the vague part because it is unwritten and based on things like jurisprudence.
European continental law, also called Civil Law, is very different! I'll just copy a bit from WIkipedia here:
----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_law
Civil law (or civilian law) is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections, as compared to common law systems that gives great precedential weight to common law on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[1][2]
Conceptually, it is the group of legal ideas and systems ultimately derived from the Code of Justinian, but heavily overlaid by Germanic, ecclesiastical, feudal, and local practices,[3] as well as doctrinal strains such as natural law, codification, and legislative positivism.
Materially, civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules.[4] It holds legislation as the primary source of law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially trained judicial officers with a limited authority to interpret law. Juries separate from the judges are not used, although in some cases, volunteer lay judges participate along with legally trained career judges.
----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_code#Civil_codes_in_the_Americas
In the United States, codification appears to be widespread at a first glance, but U.S. legal codes are actually collections of common law rules and a variety of ad hoc statutes; that is, they do not aspire to complete logical coherence. For example, the California Civil Code largely codifies common law doctrine and is very different in form and content from all other civil codes.
----
This is so weird! I had never figured you could actually run a serious legal system without, well, you know, aspiring to complete logical coherence :) So I learned something today! :)
hehe...you said
serious.
This reminds me...I've been curious a lot lately if there are any examples of a multi-bodied high judicial out there in the great big governed world?
I ask because "Computer code" is exactly what comes to mind when I think of where U.S. law is severely wanting. We honestly don't even have a set useage for logical operators. Does "Necessary and Proper" mean all that which is Necessary and that which is Proper, or only that which is Necessary and also Proper, or "every particular power included to do a required general thing" ? Is it the superset the subset, or the other universe?
Thing is interpretation, applicability, relevance, these are all different questions, but there are so many different "valid" answers to those questions that putting all that in the hands of 9 people assembled in one court just obliterates separation of powers in any meaningful sense (except executive military power...that's, several times, proven itself separate from the other branches). Could a 3 part judiciary, consisting of a court of logic, a court of fact and a court of opinion, answer a question it wasn't asked, find the money that is the speech, the corporation that is the person, and the rights that protect a freedom from the free. I kinda doubt it...but then again, there's still this romantic "liberty and justice for all forever and ever amen" part of my poor deluded mind that kinda wants to stand up and cheer when a bunch of goofy shits in robes, Superman in and free poor confined "speech" from the oppressive grip "speaker's" have held on it. Such heroism is hardly possible in a world which consists merely of that which "exists".
Pretty much if I dig the decision I'm glad of the interprability that allowed it to be reach. If I don't like the decision it's all bullshit and needs fixed yesterday. If I'm fucking dead scared of the decision...guess that comes with the territory.
As an aside, you mentioned California law, I've looked at the 1st section of their Constitution only, it's a pretty good example of what can be done to codify what is a preferred attitude in interpretation. That is something I really dig:
Quote(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in
effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly
construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly
construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule,
or other authority adopted after the effective date of this
subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with
findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and
the need for protecting that interest.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 26, 2012, 11:49:17 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 26, 2012, 10:39:04 PM
On the other hand, being vague on specifics can express an intent that is explicitly broad. The specific protected rights listed in the Bill of Rights, ideally, would just be an "in case of fire, break glass," sorta deal. When shit get's stupid and the only thing limiting the government is what it's been told it can't do, these should be the last rights to go.
Balls. Go back and read amendment IX.
Not seeing how this refutes my argument. If Articles 2-4 are tight, taught and real, REAL careful about limits on implied powers, the bill of rights can consist of:
1. When in doubt, yes the people can.
2. everything else is state or people. (2 prong this, confers to state and people, and very much takes away what Federal can't already claim to have)
Loose as the articles are, the bill of rights has to be more explicit in enumerating rights. Speech, press, religion, assembly, etc, etc, should be common sense in light of a locked down governmental authority, but having been given room to stretch out, it's wise to make sure there are some specifics that should never be questionable under any circumstances, but should be the last things to go when government busts it's banks and 10 little amendments on a piece of paper mean fuck-all.
I think the specifics chosen are pretty interesting, though. A little bit of what could prove helpful in any last ditch-efforts to stave off the shit-storm. A little bit of what authorities may otherwise step on just in the course of trying to get shit done. Some good old timey no quartering, and 9 and 10, which are absolutely necessary if you're going to enumerate rights in the first place...which is where I was at in the last post. The specifics were deemed wise, but what happens when you list specifics (interpretation gets narrowed) also needed to be addressed. Actually, I don't really think the bill of rights is very vague at all though, actually. Was just a general point about why vague and why explicit.
(Not that this is in any way enlightening, just answering where I was called out ;) )
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 11:13:15 PM
I'd like it if Dok weighed in on this shit, because he knows hisself some Constitution.
I am finding myself very skeptical of almost everything you have to say about it, NoLoDeMiel. I am not well enough versed in Constitutional Law to actually call out most of it, but there are enough areas of what you say that don't ring true that I have a hard time trusting your judgement on any of it.
If you see something that looks bullshit, hit me on it. It may well be bullshit and I got some bad info or did some bad reading, and got some bullshit stuck in my teeth. Be doing me a favor. My judgement on most of it is straight opinion. I like it, I don't like it. Seems to me, doesn't seem. My judgement is something that I refine through exercise, not something that I hold as authoritative.
If I can follow the reasoning in a decision (and there's whole areas where even the vocabulary is prohibitive to me in that regard), or trace the evolution of a law or whatever, that still doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that I see how A to B was traversed. Read one of the dissenting opinions in Citizen's United and a bit of one of the majority opinions, and you'll see just how very wildly the reasoning can vary even amongst our top dogs. There is always bullshit to call in law, my main aim is to be able to pick out what's "not the sorta bullshit one would expect in a place like this," and what's "bullshit that's hip, hot and happenin."
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 10:10:33 AM
Loose as the articles are, the bill of rights has to be more explicit in enumerating rights.
Patrick Henry had argued against the Bill of Rights in the first place, because people would assume that's all the rights they had. The only two things that need to be enumerated are amendments IX and X. Everything else was a mistake to put down on paper.
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 12:20:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 26, 2012, 11:51:50 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 26, 2012, 12:57:46 PM
Looks more like it defines "citizen" in terms of "person". I don't see any definition of "person".
Neither do I.
When the term "person" is used, it means any person in American custody or jurisdiction. When the term "The People" is used, it means the citizenry of the United States. For example, amendment V states that, for example, a Canadian accused of a crime in America is guaranteed a proper trial, whereas amendment II guarantees the citizen's right to keep & bear arms.
It doesn't look like the Constitution defines "personhood". Most likely because the framers never thought that would be necessary, I'm guessing.
I would argue that the dictionary definition would stand. Even if it doesn't, becoming a "person" means that a corporation would have to be eligible for the draft and jury duty. It also means they'd have to pay income tax, per amendment XVI. Most corporations don't want that, as they'd pay out the fucking nose.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 10:22:29 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 11:13:15 PM
I'd like it if Dok weighed in on this shit, because he knows hisself some Constitution.
I am finding myself very skeptical of almost everything you have to say about it, NoLoDeMiel. I am not well enough versed in Constitutional Law to actually call out most of it, but there are enough areas of what you say that don't ring true that I have a hard time trusting your judgement on any of it.
If you see something that looks bullshit, hit me on it. It may well be bullshit and I got some bad info or did some bad reading, and got some bullshit stuck in my teeth. Be doing me a favor. My judgement on most of it is straight opinion. I like it, I don't like it. Seems to me, doesn't seem. My judgement is something that I refine through exercise, not something that I hold as authoritative.
If I can follow the reasoning in a decision (and there's whole areas where even the vocabulary is prohibitive to me in that regard), or trace the evolution of a law or whatever, that still doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that I see how A to B was traversed. Read one of the dissenting opinions in Citizen's United and a bit of one of the majority opinions, and you'll see just how very wildly the reasoning can vary even amongst our top dogs. There is always bullshit to call in law, my main aim is to be able to pick out what's "not the sorta bullshit one would expect in a place like this," and what's "bullshit that's hip, hot and happenin."
What I would really appreciate, for clarity, is that you are clear about when you are stating facts, and when you are stating personal conjecture that is not based on research or training. You state much of your conjecture as if you are a trained expert and they are authoritative facts, and that makes the whole discussion messy.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 27, 2012, 03:33:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 12:20:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 26, 2012, 11:51:50 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 26, 2012, 12:57:46 PM
Looks more like it defines "citizen" in terms of "person". I don't see any definition of "person".
Neither do I.
When the term "person" is used, it means any person in American custody or jurisdiction. When the term "The People" is used, it means the citizenry of the United States. For example, amendment V states that, for example, a Canadian accused of a crime in America is guaranteed a proper trial, whereas amendment II guarantees the citizen's right to keep & bear arms.
It doesn't look like the Constitution defines "personhood". Most likely because the framers never thought that would be necessary, I'm guessing.
I would argue that the dictionary definition would stand. Even if it doesn't, becoming a "person" means that a corporation would have to be eligible for the draft and jury duty. It also means they'd have to pay income tax, per amendment XVI. Most corporations don't want that, as they'd pay out the fucking nose.
Right... they want selective personhood. All the rights with none of the responsibilities.
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 27, 2012, 03:33:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 12:20:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 26, 2012, 11:51:50 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 06:37:16 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 26, 2012, 12:57:46 PM
Looks more like it defines "citizen" in terms of "person". I don't see any definition of "person".
Neither do I.
When the term "person" is used, it means any person in American custody or jurisdiction. When the term "The People" is used, it means the citizenry of the United States. For example, amendment V states that, for example, a Canadian accused of a crime in America is guaranteed a proper trial, whereas amendment II guarantees the citizen's right to keep & bear arms.
It doesn't look like the Constitution defines "personhood". Most likely because the framers never thought that would be necessary, I'm guessing.
I would argue that the dictionary definition would stand. Even if it doesn't, becoming a "person" means that a corporation would have to be eligible for the draft and jury duty. It also means they'd have to pay income tax, per amendment XVI. Most corporations don't want that, as they'd pay out the fucking nose.
Right... they want selective personhood. All the rights with none of the responsibilities.
We Doktors refer to this condition as "Aristocracy". It's one of the reasons we rebelled against the British.
Alternatively it could be argued that, like the American colonists, corporations simply want to avoid the financial costs of a system they benefit from, and so are acting within the finest of American traditions.
Note: Americans who wish to repay their Seven Wars debt, plus interest, need only PM me for the details needed for the bank transaction.
Quote from: Cain on February 27, 2012, 05:18:55 PM
Alternatively it could be argued that, like the American colonists, corporations simply want to avoid the financial costs of a system they benefit from, and so are acting within the finest of American traditions.
While I'd like to argue that the Americans mostly objected to not getting a say in those things, it wouldn't be precisely accurate.
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 27, 2012, 05:24:39 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 27, 2012, 05:18:55 PM
Alternatively it could be argued that, like the American colonists, corporations simply want to avoid the financial costs of a system they benefit from, and so are acting within the finest of American traditions.
While I'd like to argue that the Americans mostly objected to not getting a say in those things, it wouldn't be precisely accurate.
:lulz:
The Whiskey Rebellion would be my favorite damn thing in all damn U.S. America ever. Drunk guys what are pissed that after all that they gotta pay some gotdamn taxes again! Oh, America, I love the way you've been America for so damn long.
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 04:42:23 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 10:22:29 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 11:13:15 PM
I'd like it if Dok weighed in on this shit, because he knows hisself some Constitution.
I am finding myself very skeptical of almost everything you have to say about it, NoLoDeMiel. I am not well enough versed in Constitutional Law to actually call out most of it, but there are enough areas of what you say that don't ring true that I have a hard time trusting your judgement on any of it.
If you see something that looks bullshit, hit me on it. It may well be bullshit and I got some bad info or did some bad reading, and got some bullshit stuck in my teeth. Be doing me a favor. My judgement on most of it is straight opinion. I like it, I don't like it. Seems to me, doesn't seem. My judgement is something that I refine through exercise, not something that I hold as authoritative.
If I can follow the reasoning in a decision (and there's whole areas where even the vocabulary is prohibitive to me in that regard), or trace the evolution of a law or whatever, that still doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that I see how A to B was traversed. Read one of the dissenting opinions in Citizen's United and a bit of one of the majority opinions, and you'll see just how very wildly the reasoning can vary even amongst our top dogs. There is always bullshit to call in law, my main aim is to be able to pick out what's "not the sorta bullshit one would expect in a place like this," and what's "bullshit that's hip, hot and happenin."
What I would really appreciate, for clarity, is that you are clear about when you are stating facts, and when you are stating personal conjecture that is not based on research or training. You state much of your conjecture as if you are a trained expert and they are authoritative facts, and that makes the whole discussion messy.
I'll give it a shot. Don't have many voices on call for the purpose of spouting my damned fool head off. Pretty much all everything is, "as I have read, or as I understand," thrown out there for consideration and reconsideration if it's wrong. I'll qualify an opinion or conjecture that I'm feeling a good high degree of certainty on more often than I'll qualify the durr that is the norm--an "I shit you not" for emphasis and what not.
Faith in American supremacy has always been founded in the American Dream; the belief that the system that benefits the rich will benefit YOU some day, because in America, anyone can get rich enough to own a house and a nice car. The American Dream has been largely mythical from the beginning, but since the 1970's it's been a lie which is getting harder and harder to maintain. The people are becoming aware, and aren't as dully complacent as the media wants us to continue thinking they are.
We have these various lunatic fringe groups who are absolutely convinced that they represent the majority, because that's what the media has told us all. But their numbers don't back it up. The real Average American is not a complacent sow parked in front of American Idol; the real Average American is working too many hours for not enough pay, is upside-down on a mortgage that he's not sure he's going to be able to pay this month, has inadequate health insurance, is in favor of universal health care, eats poorly and is overweight and feels bad but is too damn tired all the time to do anything about it, does not give a shit whether his gay neighbors can get married, is afraid his job (which he hates) is going to be lost due to offshoring, and is helplessly outraged at the influence corporations have over the government.
The only thing keeping them in check is the carefully media-fostered belief that the rest of America consists of fat, happy, bigoted consumers who support the status quo, and that there are so many of them that we can't do anything to change things. When something big like Occupy comes along, the media does its level best to make sure the people involved are portrayed as radicals, hippies, spoiled trust-fund kids, anything but regular people you can identify with, because if you can see yourself in a movement you might join it.
Truth is, the them we're so afraid of is us.
:mittens:
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 07:48:54 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 04:42:23 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 10:22:29 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 11:13:15 PM
I'd like it if Dok weighed in on this shit, because he knows hisself some Constitution.
I am finding myself very skeptical of almost everything you have to say about it, NoLoDeMiel. I am not well enough versed in Constitutional Law to actually call out most of it, but there are enough areas of what you say that don't ring true that I have a hard time trusting your judgement on any of it.
If you see something that looks bullshit, hit me on it. It may well be bullshit and I got some bad info or did some bad reading, and got some bullshit stuck in my teeth. Be doing me a favor. My judgement on most of it is straight opinion. I like it, I don't like it. Seems to me, doesn't seem. My judgement is something that I refine through exercise, not something that I hold as authoritative.
If I can follow the reasoning in a decision (and there's whole areas where even the vocabulary is prohibitive to me in that regard), or trace the evolution of a law or whatever, that still doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that I see how A to B was traversed. Read one of the dissenting opinions in Citizen's United and a bit of one of the majority opinions, and you'll see just how very wildly the reasoning can vary even amongst our top dogs. There is always bullshit to call in law, my main aim is to be able to pick out what's "not the sorta bullshit one would expect in a place like this," and what's "bullshit that's hip, hot and happenin."
What I would really appreciate, for clarity, is that you are clear about when you are stating facts, and when you are stating personal conjecture that is not based on research or training. You state much of your conjecture as if you are a trained expert and they are authoritative facts, and that makes the whole discussion messy.
I'll give it a shot. Don't have many voices on call for the purpose of spouting my damned fool head off. Pretty much all everything is, "as I have read, or as I understand," thrown out there for consideration and reconsideration if it's wrong. I'll qualify an opinion or conjecture that I'm feeling a good high degree of certainty on more often than I'll qualify the durr that is the norm--an "I shit you not" for emphasis and what not.
I just want to know to what degree I should be taking your word for things... that's the reason I asked about your level of expertise. We actually do have people on the board who are very highly trained in certain fields, so when someone presents something as fact it's usually because they have a significant amount of formal study on it under their belts.
I don't necessarily need you to cite sources every time, but I now at least have a better handle on the angle you are coming from.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 27, 2012, 03:30:31 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 10:10:33 AM
Loose as the articles are, the bill of rights has to be more explicit in enumerating rights.
Patrick Henry had argued against the Bill of Rights in the first place, because people would assume that's all the rights they had. The only two things that need to be enumerated are amendments IX and X. Everything else was a mistake to put down on paper.
I can definitely get behind that line of reasoning in general. But me and a whole bunch of dudes who called it 200 years ago, wouldn't look at the basket clause and not start putting rights on paper, real quick. No matter how many we could get tied down in the Constitution, congress was gonna be grabbing authorities even quicker. Hell, didn't even have to listen to the words of those who warned against that clause, just give a read to how dickish Hamilton got defending it. He knew what was up...and he
liked it!
I am, definitely, gonna get the NDAA breakdown up at some point here, but it's easily got the most evil application of listing something as a way of not listing something that I've ever seen. Actually, even better, it lists something, meaninglessly, in a place where it will say to the citizen "it's all good" and say to the court "..."
Think Obama can now execute corporations?
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 07:48:54 PM
I'll give it a shot. Don't have many voices on call for the purpose of spouting my damned fool head off. Pretty much all everything is, "as I have read, or as I understand," thrown out there for consideration and reconsideration if it's wrong. I'll qualify an opinion or conjecture that I'm feeling a good high degree of certainty on more often than I'll qualify the durr that is the norm--an "I shit you not" for emphasis and what not.
Tip: You can easily just throw a few "I think" or "IMO" and "According to X" into it. Doesn't need to be a fully qualified qualifier every time and if you miss one it's no big deal people will ask or assume from context. I find it works wonders. ("I find" is another good one btw)
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 08:09:23 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 07:48:54 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 04:42:23 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 10:22:29 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 26, 2012, 11:13:15 PM
I'd like it if Dok weighed in on this shit, because he knows hisself some Constitution.
I am finding myself very skeptical of almost everything you have to say about it, NoLoDeMiel. I am not well enough versed in Constitutional Law to actually call out most of it, but there are enough areas of what you say that don't ring true that I have a hard time trusting your judgement on any of it.
If you see something that looks bullshit, hit me on it. It may well be bullshit and I got some bad info or did some bad reading, and got some bullshit stuck in my teeth. Be doing me a favor. My judgement on most of it is straight opinion. I like it, I don't like it. Seems to me, doesn't seem. My judgement is something that I refine through exercise, not something that I hold as authoritative.
If I can follow the reasoning in a decision (and there's whole areas where even the vocabulary is prohibitive to me in that regard), or trace the evolution of a law or whatever, that still doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that I see how A to B was traversed. Read one of the dissenting opinions in Citizen's United and a bit of one of the majority opinions, and you'll see just how very wildly the reasoning can vary even amongst our top dogs. There is always bullshit to call in law, my main aim is to be able to pick out what's "not the sorta bullshit one would expect in a place like this," and what's "bullshit that's hip, hot and happenin."
What I would really appreciate, for clarity, is that you are clear about when you are stating facts, and when you are stating personal conjecture that is not based on research or training. You state much of your conjecture as if you are a trained expert and they are authoritative facts, and that makes the whole discussion messy.
I'll give it a shot. Don't have many voices on call for the purpose of spouting my damned fool head off. Pretty much all everything is, "as I have read, or as I understand," thrown out there for consideration and reconsideration if it's wrong. I'll qualify an opinion or conjecture that I'm feeling a good high degree of certainty on more often than I'll qualify the durr that is the norm--an "I shit you not" for emphasis and what not.
I just want to know to what degree I should be taking your word for things... that's the reason I asked about your level of expertise. We actually do have people on the board who are very highly trained in certain fields, so when someone presents something as fact it's usually because they have a significant amount of formal study on it under their belts.
I don't necessarily need you to cite sources every time, but I now at least have a better handle on the angle you are coming from.
Yeah, unqualified, if it's a case or a point I break down in some detail, that's because I can...which means it's good and swallowed. If I'd wager, dollars, donuts, etc, fairly sure of it (I play poker, but I ain't gambled in years). If it's "well this is all bullshit and malarkey and pisses me off right good and well" even if I'm saying it from an informed position, I'm addressing reasoning, so I'm just waiting for some new perspective on the same exact information to come to mind.
On Citizen's United, I broke it down here after a couple of reads. Have read some background since. Pretty simple decision on points of fact, but the background is immense. I say with all honesty and earnestness that as a judicial practice in general, and much, much more so for
this court, answering a question of facial constitutionality on a piece of legislation is black swan rare, doing so when the question wasn't asked, exists only in the mythical land of the unicorn, Michael Jackson's original nose and my virginity. Not sure what to make of it, but it's screaming pretty fucking loud. In my deepest, wildest dreams I like to imagine they were trying to provide a new facial basis for giving some old questions a new look...but then again, maybe she's just smiling and not at all interested in marrying me ;)
--Also as to the things this opinion is
not saying in the manner purported, money = speech (to the extent that any limitations on campaign spending, other than those enacted with McCain-Feingold, are facially unconstitutional. No reason, implication, or assertion is provided that an appropriately structured campaign finance limit would fail constitutionality), corporations is people too (which it is, but it is saying it standing on top of a gaudy list of precedent, not establishing it), I say that after reading, re-reading, and re-re-re-reading those points. It ain't there...which, in terms of how the presence or absence of those opinions effects the ability of any future decision to cite them as though they were, means exactly dick. If there's anything I'd say with full certainty about constitutional jurisprudence, it's that not being there is no reason for it not to be found (or conversely, that being there only means getting the hell around it, or ignoring it, in a pinch).
There's a case being tried right now that I am trying to remember enough about to find it... all I can remember is that the issue is one in which the corporation is being sued as a person.
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 08:59:59 PM
There's a case being tried right now that I am trying to remember enough about to find it... all I can remember is that the issue is one in which the corporation is being sued as a person.
This'n?
Quotehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/supreme-court_n_1015953.html
Gonna be interesting. Easy out with the whole international thing if they want to take it, though that'd be pretty ballzy with Citizen's United still floating in the air. First I've seen of this but I'm assuming no "how" has been established, since "if" was still up in the air. If they say yes to "if", if and how they address "how" will be pretty interesting, too. If they just throw "is people" at the corporation and leave "how" untouched, "is people" gets broader. If they give some standard, however minimal or non-binding, "is people" get's narrower. Of course with this being international I'm not sure if it's to be decided under treaty, constitution, statute or what. It's possible that it could yield a whole new corporate person entirely.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 09:36:52 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 08:59:59 PM
There's a case being tried right now that I am trying to remember enough about to find it... all I can remember is that the issue is one in which the corporation is being sued as a person.
This'n?
Quotehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/supreme-court_n_1015953.html
Gonna be interesting. Easy out with the whole international thing if they want to take it, though that'd be pretty ballzy with Citizen's United still floating in the air. First I've seen of this but I'm assuming no "how" has been established, since "if" was still up in the air. If they say yes to "if", if and how they address "how" will be pretty interesting, too. If they just throw "is people" at the corporation and leave "how" untouched, "is people" gets broader. If they give some standard, however minimal or non-binding, "is people" get's narrower. Of course with this being international I'm not sure if it's to be decided under treaty, constitution, statute or what. It's possible that it could yield a whole new corporate person entirely.
That's not the one I heard about, but it's very interesting! It's going to be quite a year.
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 09:41:56 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 27, 2012, 09:36:52 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 27, 2012, 08:59:59 PM
There's a case being tried right now that I am trying to remember enough about to find it... all I can remember is that the issue is one in which the corporation is being sued as a person.
This'n?
Quotehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/supreme-court_n_1015953.html
Gonna be interesting. Easy out with the whole international thing if they want to take it, though that'd be pretty ballzy with Citizen's United still floating in the air. First I've seen of this but I'm assuming no "how" has been established, since "if" was still up in the air. If they say yes to "if", if and how they address "how" will be pretty interesting, too. If they just throw "is people" at the corporation and leave "how" untouched, "is people" gets broader. If they give some standard, however minimal or non-binding, "is people" get's narrower. Of course with this being international I'm not sure if it's to be decided under treaty, constitution, statute or what. It's possible that it could yield a whole new corporate person entirely.
That's not the one I heard about, but it's very interesting! It's going to be quite a year.
Got as far as the question of whether there is a an applicable law that Dutch broke in aiding and abetting extra-judicial killing, and lost my appetite. This one's ugly...