Slashdot Mirror

You may not be aware of 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i):

It is the law which shows who has to get a social security number [my notes added].

--cite--
(B) (i) In carrying out the Commissioner's duties under subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (F), the Commissioner of Social Security shall take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will, to the maximum extent practicable [This is the key here - "maximum extent practicable" still does not mean "required"], be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers (or ascertaining that such numbers have already been assigned):

(I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment; [We see here that citizens are not required to get the number for "employment", only aliens. Also, since this is the Social Security Act, the term "employment" is a defined term in the law, and does not have the same meaning as the same term that you and I might want to convey during normal speech.]

(II) to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person; and [We see here that someone is getting some benefits. It could be a citizen, it could be an alien, it doesn't matter. Read Ashwander v. TVA and Bowen v. Roy and you will see that someone who receives benefits cannot complain about paying for them.]

(III) to any other individual when it appears that he could have been but was not assigned an account number under the provisions of sub clauses (I) or (II) but only after such investigation as is necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Social Security, the identity of such individual, the fact that an account number has not already been assigned to such individual, and the fact that such individual is a citizen or a noncitizen who is not, because of his alien status, prohibited from engaging in employment; [All this does is make the Secretary responsible to find everyone in class I and II above.] and, in carrying out such duties, the Commissioner of Social Security is authorized to take affirmative measures [Notice that it is no longer "maximum extent practicable". Does that mean less than "not required"?] to assure the issuance of social security numbers:

(IV) to or on behalf of children who are below school age at the request of their parents or guardians [This is how most folks got enumerated. Tell your parents, "Shame on you!" from me.]; and

(V) to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment in school. [Which is an important consideration, as many state schools are receiving federal funds and so need to get this number in order to collect. However, schools within the states of the Union are not technically not eligible for these funds.]
--end--

So can it be more clear from this that citizens are not required to get an SSN? It is required of aliens in order to work in the U.S., and of anyone else only in order to participate in a voluntary benefits program.

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935)

"In final analysis, the petitioners' sole reliance is the thesis that efficiency depends upon morale, and morale in turn upon assurance of security for the worker's old age. Thus pensions are sought to be related to efficiency of transportation, and brought within the commerce power. In supporting the act the petitioners constantly recur to such phrases as 'old age security,' 'assurance of old age security,' 'improvement of employee morale and efficiency through providing definite assurance of old age security,' 'assurance of old age support,' 'mind at ease,' and 'fear of old age dependency.' These expressions are frequently connected with assertions that the removal of the fear of old age dependency will tend to create a better morale throughout the ranks of employees. The theory is that one who has an assurance against future dependency will do his work more cheerfully, and therefore more efficiently. The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is in any just sense a regulation of interstate transportation. If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. The answer of the petitioners is that not all such means of promoting contentment have such a close relation to interstate commerce as pensions. This is in truth no answer, for we must deal with the principle involved and not the means adopted. If contentment of the employee were an object for the attainment of which the regulatory power could be exerted, the courts could not question the wisdom of methods adopted for its advancement."

You may not be aware of 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i):

It is the law which shows who has to get a social security number [my notes added].

--cite--
(B) (i) In carrying out the Commissioner's duties under subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (F), the Commissioner of Social Security shall take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will, to the maximum extent practicable [This is the key here - "maximum extent practicable" still does not mean "required"], be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers (or ascertaining that such numbers have already been assigned):

(I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment; [We see here that citizens are not required to get the number for "employment", only aliens. Also, since this is the Social Security Act, the term "employment" is a defined term in the law, and does not have the same meaning as the same term that you and I might want to convey during normal speech.]

(II) to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person; and [We see here that someone is getting some benefits. It could be a citizen, it could be an alien, it doesn't matter. Read Ashwander v. TVA and Bowen v. Roy and you will see that someone who receives benefits cannot complain about paying for them.]

(III) to any other individual when it appears that he could have been but was not assigned an account number under the provisions of sub clauses (I) or (II) but only after such investigation as is necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Social Security, the identity of such individual, the fact that an account number has not already been assigned to such individual, and the fact that such individual is a citizen or a noncitizen who is not, because of his alien status, prohibited from engaging in employment; [All this does is make the Secretary responsible to find everyone in class I and II above.] and, in carrying out such duties, the Commissioner of Social Security is authorized to take affirmative measures [Notice that it is no longer "maximum extent practicable". Does that mean less than "not required"?] to assure the issuance of social security numbers:

(IV) to or on behalf of children who are below school age at the request of their parents or guardians [This is how most folks got enumerated. Tell your parents, "Shame on you!" from me.]; and

(V) to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment in school. [Which is an important consideration, as many state schools are receiving federal funds and so need to get this number in order to collect. However, schools within the states of the Union are not technically not eligible for these funds.]
--end--

So can it be more clear from this that citizens are not required to get an SSN? It is required of aliens in order to work in the U.S., and of anyone else only in order to participate in a voluntary benefits program.

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935)

"In final analysis, the petitioners' sole reliance is the thesis that efficiency depends upon morale, and morale in turn upon assurance of security for the worker's old age. Thus pensions are sought to be related to efficiency of transportation, and brought within the commerce power. In supporting the act the petitioners constantly recur to such phrases as 'old age security,' 'assurance of old age security,' 'improvement of employee morale and efficiency through providing definite assurance of old age security,' 'assurance of old age support,' 'mind at ease,' and 'fear of old age dependency.' These expressions are frequently connected with assertions that the removal of the fear of old age dependency will tend to create a better morale throughout the ranks of employees. The theory is that one who has an assurance against future dependency will do his work more cheerfully, and therefore more efficiently. The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is in any just sense a regulation of interstate transportation. If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. The answer of the petitioners is that not all such means of promoting contentment have such a close relation to interstate commerce as pensions. This is in truth no answer, for we must deal with the principle involved and not the means adopted. If contentment of the employee were an object for the attainment of which the regulatory power could be exerted, the courts could not question the wisdom of methods adopted for its advancement."

You may not be aware of 42 USC 405(c)(2)(B)(i):

It is the law which shows who has to get a social security number [my notes added].

--cite--
(B) (i) In carrying out the Commissioner's duties under subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (F), the Commissioner of Social Security shall take affirmative measures to assure that social security account numbers will, to the maximum extent practicable [This is the key here - "maximum extent practicable" still does not mean "required"], be assigned to all members of appropriate groups or categories of individuals by assigning such numbers (or ascertaining that such numbers have already been assigned):

(I) to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States either for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting them to engage in employment in the United States and to other aliens at such time as their status is so changed as to make it lawful for them to engage in such employment; [We see here that citizens are not required to get the number for "employment", only aliens. Also, since this is the Social Security Act, the term "employment" is a defined term in the law, and does not have the same meaning as the same term that you and I might want to convey during normal speech.]

(II) to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person; and [We see here that someone is getting some benefits. It could be a citizen, it could be an alien, it doesn't matter. Read Ashwander v. TVA and Bowen v. Roy and you will see that someone who receives benefits cannot complain about paying for them.]

(III) to any other individual when it appears that he could have been but was not assigned an account number under the provisions of sub clauses (I) or (II) but only after such investigation as is necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Social Security, the identity of such individual, the fact that an account number has not already been assigned to such individual, and the fact that such individual is a citizen or a noncitizen who is not, because of his alien status, prohibited from engaging in employment; [All this does is make the Secretary responsible to find everyone in class I and II above.] and, in carrying out such duties, the Commissioner of Social Security is authorized to take affirmative measures [Notice that it is no longer "maximum extent practicable". Does that mean less than "not required"?] to assure the issuance of social security numbers:

(IV) to or on behalf of children who are below school age at the request of their parents or guardians [This is how most folks got enumerated. Tell your parents, "Shame on you!" from me.]; and

(V) to children of school age at the time of their first enrollment in school. [Which is an important consideration, as many state schools are receiving federal funds and so need to get this number in order to collect. However, schools within the states of the Union are not technically not eligible for these funds.]
--end--

So can it be more clear from this that citizens are not required to get an SSN? It is required of aliens in order to work in the U.S., and of anyone else only in order to participate in a voluntary benefits program.

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935)

"In final analysis, the petitioners' sole reliance is the thesis that efficiency depends upon morale, and morale in turn upon assurance of security for the worker's old age. Thus pensions are sought to be related to efficiency of transportation, and brought within the commerce power. In supporting the act the petitioners constantly recur to such phrases as 'old age security,' 'assurance of old age security,' 'improvement of employee morale and efficiency through providing definite assurance of old age security,' 'assurance of old age support,' 'mind at ease,' and 'fear of old age dependency.' These expressions are frequently connected with assertions that the removal of the fear of old age dependency will tend to create a better morale throughout the ranks of employees. The theory is that one who has an assurance against future dependency will do his work more cheerfully, and therefore more efficiently. The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is in any just sense a regulation of interstate transportation. If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. The answer of the petitioners is that not all such means of promoting contentment have such a close relation to interstate commerce as pensions. This is in truth no answer, for we must deal with the principle involved and not the means adopted. If contentment of the employee were an object for the attainment of which the regulatory power could be exerted, the courts could not question the wisdom of methods adopted for its advancement."

The majority opinion of the California Supreme Court got it right. There is a ton of federal legal precedent that if one does not have "minimum contacts" with the jurisdiction in question, then one is not subject to the laws of that jurisdiction. See the Pennoyer v. Neff and International Shoe cases for the leading U.S. Supreme Court precedent on personal ("in personam") jurisdiction. The short of it is, there is no personal jurisdiction by a State over a person with no "mimimum contacts" within that jurisdiction. That is also why this case will likely be re-filed in Texas, the defendant's home state.

I'm somewhat surprised that Justice O'Connor would put the case up for further consideration. My prediction ... the Supreme Court won't take the case, leaving the California ruling to stand.

The majority opinion of the California Supreme Court got it right. There is a ton of federal legal precedent that if one does not have "minimum contacts" with the jurisdiction in question, then one is not subject to the laws of that jurisdiction. See the Pennoyer v. Neff and International Shoe cases for the leading U.S. Supreme Court precedent on personal ("in personam") jurisdiction. The short of it is, there is no personal jurisdiction by a State over a person with no "mimimum contacts" within that jurisdiction. That is also why this case will likely be re-filed in Texas, the defendant's home state.

I'm somewhat surprised that Justice O'Connor would put the case up for further consideration. My prediction ... the Supreme Court won't take the case, leaving the California ruling to stand.

However much I might disagree with ESR's grandstanding over the whole Halloween documents thing, he was clearly acting as a journalist, and the Supreme Court has said some very strong things about the freedom of jounalists to publish, most recently in the 1999 case BARTNICKI v. VOPPER. (a.k.a. US v. VOPPER)

In that case, a jounalist revealed the content of an intercepted cellphone telephone call recorded by an unknown person. Clearly, this is illegally obtained information, at least as illegal as trade secret violations. The USSC upheld this disclosure and explicitly threw out civil liability against the journalist.

Findlaw reference: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-16 87.

As for the subpoena to surrender the source, that would depend (I assume) on what state-by-state journalist shield laws exist in whichever state attempts to assert jurisdiction.

And no, IANAL either, but the Supreme Court decision is pretty definitive.

That's not quite right either. You don't have a "right to create a backup. Nor are you exempt from the law by making a backup (with the exceptions of certain forms audio recording for non commercial purposes (The AHRA)).

Fair use is defined here and does not include a right to make a backup copy. In fact, the copying of the entire original article is a factor against fair use.

In fact, the Sony VCR case decided that time-shifting was a fair-use, under the assumption that people wouldn't be making a library of tapes.

I live in Oregon, so I'm used to some pretty boneheaded ideas but this one takes the cake. Fortunately it runs afoul of a little thing called the 4th Amendment. While the state is in dire financial straits--so bad that a 4-day school week was investigated as a cost cutting measure--a much more obvious fix to the budget crisis than this moronic measure would be to readjust our income tax. Oregon has a defecto flat-tax as the brackets haven't been readjusted since the 30's. A flat tax is naturally a recipe for ruin because in order to pay for things like roads and schools the tax has to be set quite high which means the working poor and middle class have less disposable income to put back into the economy.

In CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), the Supreme Court ruled police could do this. I happen to agree with this. By putting it on the curb, you have shown that you want the city to come and take it away. In other word you want the city to have it.

As far as the city getting annoyed at the journalists, they can be annoyed, but I doubt there is much they can do about it, for much the same reason that the police can rummage though trash.

Take a look at the Young v. New Haven Advocate case that just came out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

In that case, a connecticut newspaper, aimed at a connecticut audience, posted an article purportedly libeling the warden of a virginia prison. But the court found that the existence of a web site was not enough -- the web site must somehow be directed towards the forum that wants jurisdiction over the defendant.

As to the actual conduct, the newspaper obviously knew that the article discussed the virginia warden. But the article does not, in itself, confer jurisdiction.

The defendant must somehow have enough contact with Virginia to permit jurisdiction: the test is "minimum contacts" sufficient to "comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

To find these contacts, the court looked to the web site (the source of the contact) - not the article (the source of the lawsuit). The web site was directed at a connecticut audience, only advertised to a connecticut audience, and the newspaper had no contacts at all with virginia. Thus, the newspaper web site has no minimum contacts with virginia with which to support personal jurisdiction over the defendant newspaper for posting the article.

If the newspaper had been a physical paper (it is, in fact also a physical paper) then the same analysis would be applied. The article would not be enough, unless the newspaper undertook affirmative acts (such as having paying customers in the forum state) to take advantage of the forum.

This has two practical effects. First, it doesn't prevent someone from suing a defendant--it just requires them to sue where they actually conduct their activities.

Second, this result actually means that internet publications will be treated the same as print publications, at least within the united states.

This obviously creates a problem, especially in the speech areas, with varying European and British laws. Americans certainly do not want to be subject to British libel laws unless they direct something to Britain, not just for posting things for an american audience.

So take the Gutnick case from AU. Under the 4th Circuit test, if the purportedly libelous statement was posted in the East Asian edition of the WSJ (which includes Australia) then it would (in this hypothetical) be more likely to meet the american minimum contacts standard. This is simply because the speech was directed at the forum state, and thus the author should expect to be responsible for posting targeted at that forum.

The opposite result would be rather dangerous: Imagine Slashdot, and any slashdot poster, subject to Saudi Arabian censorship laws. Or more deviously, American discussions of foreign policy and intelligence on web sites such as crytome.org subjected to the official secrets act. Imagine the effect on the NY Times if William Safire knew that the NYT was now subject to libel suits in Singapore for postings directed at the United States complaining about Singapore's government. Such a stifiling of commerce, speech and internet development wouldn't solve anyone's interest.

Now, about your hypotheticals:
(1) The Fourth Circuit test actually applies the same minimum contacts analysis to both physical and internet speech.
(2) If, as you suggest, a translation into a hypothetical country's unique language is included on a web site, that would be a strong indicator that the newspaper intended to target that forum, and would support (but wouldn't be definitive) of minimum contacts. For example, the LA Times serves a city with a large hispanic population. If it were to publish articles in spanish on its web site, that would not mean the LA Times was focusing its web site at Spain, Argentina or even Mexico.

I don't know if this is the biggest IP case of 2002, but it's one of the funniest: Mattel v. Universal [warning: pdf link], which concerns MCA Records' release of a single called "Barbie Girls" (which, of course, drew a lawsuit from lawsuit-happy Mattel). Judge Alex Kozinski, one of the most hilarious judicial opinion-writers of our time, called this "the battle between "speech-Zilla and trademark-Kong."

Here is an exercise for those of you who don't appreciate the political differences between judicial circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

First, here is a sample opinion [free reg. req.] from the (generally regarded as liberal) 9th Circuit.

Next, try a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as conservative) D.C. Circuit.

Next, here is a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as Neanderthal) 4th Circuit. These cases were all decided within the last few days. The 9th ruled in favor of a criminal defendant in an entrapment case; the D.C. ruled in favor of the big drug companies, quashing a prescription drug program for the poor; and the 4th ruled against a black lung claim by someone who had 40 years in the coal mines. I rest my case and God save the 9th Circuit. (You can subscribe to U.S. Court of Appeals opinions here. Sorry about the pdf link, that's how the 9th issues 'em).

Here is an exercise for those of you who don't appreciate the political differences between judicial circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

First, here is a sample opinion [free reg. req.] from the (generally regarded as liberal) 9th Circuit.

Next, try a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as conservative) D.C. Circuit.

Next, here is a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as Neanderthal) 4th Circuit. These cases were all decided within the last few days. The 9th ruled in favor of a criminal defendant in an entrapment case; the D.C. ruled in favor of the big drug companies, quashing a prescription drug program for the poor; and the 4th ruled against a black lung claim by someone who had 40 years in the coal mines. I rest my case and God save the 9th Circuit. (You can subscribe to U.S. Court of Appeals opinions here. Sorry about the pdf link, that's how the 9th issues 'em).

Here is an exercise for those of you who don't appreciate the political differences between judicial circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

First, here is a sample opinion [free reg. req.] from the (generally regarded as liberal) 9th Circuit.

Next, try a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as conservative) D.C. Circuit.

Next, here is a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as Neanderthal) 4th Circuit. These cases were all decided within the last few days. The 9th ruled in favor of a criminal defendant in an entrapment case; the D.C. ruled in favor of the big drug companies, quashing a prescription drug program for the poor; and the 4th ruled against a black lung claim by someone who had 40 years in the coal mines. I rest my case and God save the 9th Circuit. (You can subscribe to U.S. Court of Appeals opinions here. Sorry about the pdf link, that's how the 9th issues 'em).

Here is an exercise for those of you who don't appreciate the political differences between judicial circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

First, here is a sample opinion [free reg. req.] from the (generally regarded as liberal) 9th Circuit.

Next, try a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as conservative) D.C. Circuit.

Next, here is a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as Neanderthal) 4th Circuit. These cases were all decided within the last few days. The 9th ruled in favor of a criminal defendant in an entrapment case; the D.C. ruled in favor of the big drug companies, quashing a prescription drug program for the poor; and the 4th ruled against a black lung claim by someone who had 40 years in the coal mines. I rest my case and God save the 9th Circuit. (You can subscribe to U.S. Court of Appeals opinions here. Sorry about the pdf link, that's how the 9th issues 'em).

Here is an exercise for those of you who don't appreciate the political differences between judicial circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

First, here is a sample opinion [free reg. req.] from the (generally regarded as liberal) 9th Circuit.

Next, try a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as conservative) D.C. Circuit.

Next, here is a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as Neanderthal) 4th Circuit. These cases were all decided within the last few days. The 9th ruled in favor of a criminal defendant in an entrapment case; the D.C. ruled in favor of the big drug companies, quashing a prescription drug program for the poor; and the 4th ruled against a black lung claim by someone who had 40 years in the coal mines. I rest my case and God save the 9th Circuit. (You can subscribe to U.S. Court of Appeals opinions here. Sorry about the pdf link, that's how the 9th issues 'em).

Here is an exercise for those of you who don't appreciate the political differences between judicial circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

First, here is a sample opinion [free reg. req.] from the (generally regarded as liberal) 9th Circuit.

Next, try a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as conservative) D.C. Circuit.

Next, here is a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as Neanderthal) 4th Circuit. These cases were all decided within the last few days. The 9th ruled in favor of a criminal defendant in an entrapment case; the D.C. ruled in favor of the big drug companies, quashing a prescription drug program for the poor; and the 4th ruled against a black lung claim by someone who had 40 years in the coal mines. I rest my case and God save the 9th Circuit. (You can subscribe to U.S. Court of Appeals opinions here. Sorry about the pdf link, that's how the 9th issues 'em).

Here is an exercise for those of you who don't appreciate the political differences between judicial circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

First, here is a sample opinion [free reg. req.] from the (generally regarded as liberal) 9th Circuit.

Next, try a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as conservative) D.C. Circuit.

Next, here is a sample opinion from the (generally regarded as Neanderthal) 4th Circuit. These cases were all decided within the last few days. The 9th ruled in favor of a criminal defendant in an entrapment case; the D.C. ruled in favor of the big drug companies, quashing a prescription drug program for the poor; and the 4th ruled against a black lung claim by someone who had 40 years in the coal mines. I rest my case and God save the 9th Circuit. (You can subscribe to U.S. Court of Appeals opinions here. Sorry about the pdf link, that's how the 9th issues 'em).

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

Congress 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.

Yes, they're thinking the same things as you.

Guess who opposes it? The prosecutor.

Texas is #1 in U.S. executions and so is of particular interest for a capital trial. The show is the kind of thing I'd like to see, and Frontline is pretty level-headed, but not if it were possibly damaging to a life/death decision. So I'd like to see it but don't think they should do it. :)

Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan 15.

That's even assuming the "Dirty Cheap Viagra." peddler wouldn't be guilty of mail fraud. (which is much, much more commonly prosecuted than email fraud...)

Sure, you could pay to send the note via the USPS, but that's basically what AOL is asking the spammers to do anyhow...

Unfortunately, I work for a company that makes stock option plan management software. This company will of course, remain unnamed. However, I deal with this shit, each and every day of my life. I thus can't resist but point out how rediculous your post is.

Cashing in options on insider info is totally illegal. That's insider trading, bud.

Insider trading does not APPLY to stock options. Stock options are NOT stocks. They are options! (duhhh!) AKA derivative securities. They derive their value from future ownership. You can exercise stock options whenever they vest. It is theoretically possible someone could then sell those stocks at some future pivotal state, but I can tell you that 95%+ of optionees do same day sales, as soon as the stock in the money. That being the case, insider trading is pretty much impossible since they are waiting a long time for those options to vest. Note, that is a figure I observe after having see hundreds of databases in my days.

If your broker has proof you have the options, he should have NO PROBLEM shorteslling the stock the second you call him to do it, and then you replace the short with your options. THAT is how you get current market price on options, without risk.

I don't play the market in that fashion myself. But most stocks that are underwater are flat... You aren't going to make any money shorting the stock because the value isn't going to be changing. Its already worthless, especially today.

What does short selling have to do with stock options? Absolutely nothing Short selling, by the very definition is selling of stock you do not own. Usually, it is stock owned by the broker or from another client. This stock is lended to you, and you promise to buy it in the future. It is a loan, and a gamble. As any true loan, it can be called by the owner. So you can't keep it forever. But to make a long story short, when you buy back the stock if the price is lower than the day you borrowed it, the difference is credited to your account. If the price is higher than the day you borrowed it, you owe the difference. Read more here.

Exercising options on the open market and then holding the stock is a BAD idea.... there is a taxable benefit on the difference between what you paid and fair market value of the stock. It's not considered capital gains.. which means if the stock goes down, you get a capital loss, but you can't offset your tax obligation.

This is what really proves you don't know anything about stock options. Congress has allowed for the first $100,000 of stock acquired in a calender year to be sold tax free if they are held for the minimum required time of one year after date of vesting. These are called Incentive Stock Options, or ISO's. Options in excess of $100,000 a year are called NQ's, or non-qualified, because they don't qualify for the tax benefit. Read more about the IRS code at Findlaw.

Go with the short.

I hope you read up a little more on short selling. You my actually make some money some day, if you ever have the credit or collateral to do so.

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." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States").

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 persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

A quick search on Google will find this and this andthis as three of the top four results...

You may find that the "truth in advertising" regulations might have come into effect after several companies were caught trying such tricks. There have been many documented cases where advertisers have been even more deceitful than simply putting marbles in a bowl of soup.

The Supreme Court adopted no such view in Miller. You are engaging in naked historical revisionism, just like the judges in the 9th Circuit.

In Miller, the Supreme Court examined the Second Amendment at length, considered its application to the case at hand, and concluded that the National Firearms Act did not violate the Constitution - and that Miller did not have any individual right to bear sawed-off shotguns.

In last month's ruling, the Ninth Circuit examined the Second Amendment at length, considered its application to the case at hand, and concluded that California's Assault Weapons Control Act did not violate the Constitution - and that the plaintiffs did not have any individual right to bear arms.

In 2001's Emerson, the Fifth Circuit examined the Second Amendment at length, considered its application to the case at hand, and concluded that the law in question (a temporary restraining order) still did not violate the Constitution - even if Emerson did have an individual right to bear arms.

In all of these cases, gun control legislation survived a direct court challenge to its constitutionality. Even the Fifth Circuit ruling, which drew the radical conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, did not conclude that the government had erred in denying this right. The Fifth Circuit acknowledged that it was taking a radical view of the Second Amendment, compared to its peers and the historical record; if you don't believe me, read the ruling yourself.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling was consistent with all other federal appellate court decisions dating back to Miller; the Fifth Circuit's ruling was not. The Fifth Circuit explicitly did not find in Miller a precedent that all other federal appellate courts have found to date; in order to reach its ruling, it had to avoid in Miller what all other courts have found there, which was that Miller explicitly denies an individual right.

There's no getting around this: Miller offered the Supreme Court an opportunity to choose between an expansive view of the Second Amendment and a restrictive one, and it chose the latter. The Supreme Court could have upheld the lower court's finding, which was that the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment; instead it chose to hear the case, reverse the lower court's decision, and deny an individual right to bear sawed-off shotguns.

At best, you can argue that Miller's denial of individual rights is limited in scope, compared to the Ninth's broader denial - but arguing that Miller is a ringing endorsement of individual rights flies in the face of the actual decision, which reversed the lower court, denied Miller's rights, and determined that a gun-control law did not violate the Second Amendment.

For example, in Miller had the US supreme court not believed that he had an individual right to bear arms, they would have ruled based on lack of standing (as the 9th Circuit here did).

Try again? Miller was a criminal case, and the United States appealed to the Supreme Court; a lower court had quashed Miller's indictment on the grounds that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional. How could a court possibly find that the United States, acting as public prosecutor, did not have standing?

I could proceed to rebut your third, fifth and sixth paragraphs, but suffice to say that, aside from a single Fifth Circuit ruling, none of the federal courts have endorsed your view that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms, or that Miller endorses an "individual rights" view - in fact, all the courts except the Fifth have reached the opposite conclusion. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will soon be called upon to clarify its position... but I think you'll be unpleasantly surprised at the outcome.

I happen to think that guns reduce crime and generally do more good than harm, and that most gun control legislation is misguided. I think our best response to terrorism is a decentralized approach, that encourages the average citizen to play an active role in our defense. But I also recognize that reasonable people, acting in good faith, can honestly disagree over the scope of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. I think judges who disagree with me (and with each other, for that matter) are a sign that our democracy is healthy and strong, and not a sign that some judges are evil and should be replaced by people who parrot my views.

The individuals who are members of the militia of the United States are clearly defined in US Law. Whether or not there exists list contains all and only those who qualify is a separate question.

No but it clearly states that a well ordered militia is the reason for your right to own guns. Those two phrases are clearly related. If they simply wanted all people to have guns they would not have included the first phrase.

First, it does not stipulate a well ordered militia, it specifies a well regulated militia. This refers at the time to military discipline, not laws. To understand the context of the debate, see Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper 29 quoting one of his critics:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

You have correcly stated the 9th Circuit's position. The position is complete crap, however. I would impeach a judge for adopting such a position, because I believe it violates the oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

You'd impeach a lot of judges, then: Historically the courts all agree with the Ninth Circuit, including the Supreme Court (United States v. Miller, 1939); the odd man out is the 2001 Fifth Circuit case.

Also, your dissection of key Second Amendment words and phrases omits any discussion of what "well regulated" means, unless you meant that John Ashcroft (and, before him, Janet Reno) gets to decide. Care to elaborate?

You have correcly stated the 9th Circuit's position. The position is complete crap, however. I would impeach a judge for adopting such a position, because I believe it violates the oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

You'd impeach a lot of judges, then: Historically the courts all agree with the Ninth Circuit, including the Supreme Court (United States v. Miller, 1939); the odd man out is the 2001 Fifth Circuit case.

Also, your dissection of key Second Amendment words and phrases omits any discussion of what "well regulated" means, unless you meant that John Ashcroft (and, before him, Janet Reno) gets to decide. Care to elaborate?

And here you are. The racist bits have been removed, the sexist bits are nominally still intact. Enjoy.

Do the laws you quote say anything about what the responsibilty of the the militia are?

"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "

The militia of the 2nd Amendment was a true citizens militia. All citizens considered physically capable were the militia. Yes, in the 18th century, "physically capable citizen" meant "white male". That means nothing, unless you're also going to say that the rest of the Bill of Rights should be limited to the 18th-century definition of "citizens".

As for the duties of the militia: Yes, for the citizens' militia to actually serve as any kind of reliable supplement for the Armed Forces, training would be necessary, 200 years ago as much as now. That's not the point. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect a right of "the people, as long as the government is training them enough that the militia can be called 'well-regulated'." There's no reason, grammatical or otherwise, to suppose that "the people" is defined differently in the 2nd Amendment than in the 1st, the 4th, or the 5th.

See the law in question

As far as I can tell, they simply want to maintain the status quo and uphold the second amendment.

Ah, but there's a minefield there. What does the Second Amendment actually say?

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.

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units

(See the rest of FindLaw's Discussion)

The NRA talks a lot about "sportsmen." The Second Amendment says nothing about sport firearms. I'd read it as saying that it is necessary to allow citizens to keep their own firearms to defend themselves against enemies of the Free State. Does that mean that I can keep a portable nuke in my home to defend myself against an invasion by aliens? A ridiculous question, but different readings of the amendment might answer that question in different ways.

I remember reading that the majority of crimes were committed with guns obtained illegally

But the majority of accidental shootings were committed with guns obtained legally. It's a much more complex issue than you think it is. Me, I'm on the fence. I think regulation of the numbers and kinds of firearms one can have (noone can give me a reasonable explanation for why someone should have more than a few guns) and a level of licensing similar to that used for vehicles (do you have a record? Have you taken a simple course on gun safety? Here's your license!) that doesn't record who actually HAS guns, but only who has passed certain requirements to buy a gun (much like some states have for handguns), if the regulations are properly enforced (they aren't always), would solve a lot of the problems.

that should be http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment02/

• (b) Whoever -

  (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent -

  • (A) to influence any official act; or
  • (B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
  • (C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

  (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

  • (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
  • (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud on the United States; or
  • (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

  (3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

  (4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom; shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

That pretty much says it. But Ashcroft is soft on corporate crime.

Disclaimer - IANAL

From Artslaw "The copyright provides the owner with a number of exclusive rights, including the right to make new versions of the original work, called derivative works." It also grants them the right to prevent others from creating derivative works.
It does protect the expression and not the actual idea. What was proposed was to take an original work, substitute new words for all of the old words, in order to screw the original copyright holder out of their rights. The proposal has nothing to do with the idea, just the expression of the idea. That is the kind of thing that will put your laywers kids through college. It will also have the US Attorney show up to make things difficult. If you care about the idea, then do your own research and present your own take on the subject.

Unless you're writing a parody(amongst other things), you don't have a right to create a derivative work without the copyright holders permission. Even if you write a parody, you might get sued to death. Person wrote a parody of "Gone With the Wind", and the court decided that the work had infringed (Findlaw).

Don't get me wrong, I think most copyright law is overly broad, and the DMCA is just bloody evil. Even more annoying is the fact that most of the crap in the DMCA is there to comply with conditions in the WIPO treaty.

Citations?

"Only the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors may be protected, and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts." - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/ar ticle01/39.html#1

As for whether useful arts means the same as artistic, maybe that's where we are disagreeing.

But copyright is explictiy referred to and defined in the Constitution and, AFAIK, the right to privacy is not.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV).

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX).

But copyright is explictiy referred to and defined in the Constitution and, AFAIK, the right to privacy is not.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV).

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX).

since a space got inserted in that link, here it is for your easy lazily-clicking pleasure.

Actually I want to add to this. The majority here are not lawyers in any capacity, and the advice you see here reflects that fact. There's a reason it takes several years to be a lawyer. And no Websters(TM) isn't going to make anyone an instant lawyer. If the "/." are going to be true to what they profess to believe (the results of a "/." poll come to mind)? Then they need to have a firmer grasp of both the legal, and political system. A court, nor a politician is going to be impressed by your ability to yell at the top of your voice "I want my rights!", or "You evil people are taking away my rights!". The opposition has a firm grasp of both processes, and the results reflect that fact. The "/." wants to change things? Then drag yourself out of your self-imposed isolation, and study the law and politics with the same fevor that you devoted to technical issues, otherwise you'll lose face when you complain about the results..

US Legal resource

Danish law in english

Foregn law resources

US guide to Denmark

The US political process & advocacy

The First Sale doctrine is a well established matter of law. Even prior to its codification in Title 17, the First Sale doctrine was used to overturn attempts to turn sales of copyrighted works into licenses. The case Bobbs-Merril v. Strauss was settled by the Supreme Court almost 100 years ago on similar facts. Bobbs-Merril, a publisher, printed a license in the books that it sold stating that they could not be resold to the public for less than the price specified by the publisher. Strauss, a retailer operating the Macy's department stores, bought lots of unsold books on the secondary market and resold them at a discount. They were sued and the decision stated that once a copyrighted object was sold, the copyright owner had exercised his right to vend and could not control further sales.

What has not been litigated, to my knowledge, is the claim that Copyright preempts many common software licensing terms and that with the purchase of a lawfully made copy, one receives all the rights necessary to install the software and to utilize it. Since one can not condition acceptance of a license on acts which the buyer has the right to perform, these kinds of claims should be preempted.

What the Constitution does is protect you against non-routine mistreatment: For example, suppose your CO orders you to convert to {fill in religion}, or penalizes you extra for a failure to pray. That's a First Amendment violation, and would be illegal even if military regulations permitted it (I'm sure they don't). Have a look at Weiss v. U.S.. The theory (right or wrong) is that if you wanted the additional constituitional protections that attach even to criminal prosecutions in military trials, you should have exercised your right to reject the art. 15 and demand a full court martial [a right that AFAIK exists for all military personnel except those serving on board ships at sea]. Yes, I understand that in practice the punishments get worse if you are seen to be wasting more people's time.

As for the defendant's perception that all he has left to bargain for is the level of punishment, this isn't actually so different from the civilian system: prosecutors have so many more things they might do than they have time for, they tend to charge the ones they think are most guilty or serious. Unless you have something exculpatory the police missed, you're reduced to plea bargaining: which is just another form of "trying to minimize the punishment you get for whatever you were accused of, guilty or not."

Note, however, that if you are caught red-handed it's ok to punish you more for failing to confess. That's done in the civilian courts (both by higher charges, since you didn't plea bargain, and by higher sentencing for 'failure to take responsibility'). I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's the law, and I can't see why it couldn't be done in the military.

Now you are going to tell me that any idiot who thinks he can win such a federal case and have a military career afterwards has no sense. That's probably true, but that goes to the tendency of all organizations to retaliate against whistle-blowers, not what the rules say.

Here's a (farily) simple rule: The US Constitution applies to everything the US government does, not just court cases. It applies to all three branches of government including the executive (which includes the military). But "due process" is not a one size fits all standard. Rather, it's the start of an inquiry, 'What process is due under these circumstances?'

PS. I'm not a veteran. I'm a law professor.

What the Constitution does is protect you against non-routine mistreatment: For example, suppose your CO orders you to convert to {fill in religion}, or penalizes you extra for a failure to pray. That's a First Amendment violation, and would be illegal even if military regulations permitted it (I'm sure they don't). Have a look at Weiss v. U.S.. The theory (right or wrong) is that if you wanted the additional constituitional protections that attach even to criminal prosecutions in military trials, you should have exercised your right to reject the art. 15 and demand a full court martial [a right that AFAIK exists for all military personnel except those serving on board ships at sea]. Yes, I understand that in practice the punishments get worse if you are seen to be wasting more people's time.

As for the defendant's perception that all he has left to bargain for is the level of punishment, this isn't actually so different from the civilian system: prosecutors have so many more things they might do than they have time for, they tend to charge the ones they think are most guilty or serious. Unless you have something exculpatory the police missed, you're reduced to plea bargaining: which is just another form of "trying to minimize the punishment you get for whatever you were accused of, guilty or not."

Note, however, that if you are caught red-handed it's ok to punish you more for failing to confess. That's done in the civilian courts (both by higher charges, since you didn't plea bargain, and by higher sentencing for 'failure to take responsibility'). I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's the law, and I can't see why it couldn't be done in the military.

Now you are going to tell me that any idiot who thinks he can win such a federal case and have a military career afterwards has no sense. That's probably true, but that goes to the tendency of all organizations to retaliate against whistle-blowers, not what the rules say.

Here's a (farily) simple rule: The US Constitution applies to everything the US government does, not just court cases. It applies to all three branches of government including the executive (which includes the military). But "due process" is not a one size fits all standard. Rather, it's the start of an inquiry, 'What process is due under these circumstances?'

PS. I'm not a veteran. I'm a law professor.

I would have to research to find out why 14 years with a possible 14 more was chosen

In looking up something else, I ran across an annotation in the US Code (US Constitution, Article I, clause 8, annotations page 39). "So far as patents are concerned, modern legislation harks back to the Statute of Monopolies of 1624, whereby Parliament endowed inventors with the sole right to their inventions for fourteen years." That's where the 14 year figure comes from.

In 1624, 14 years was a pretty significant fraction of the adult lifespan. Once you hit adulthood at age 16 or so, you could reasonably expect to have another 15-30 years in you. Today, of course, with average adult lifespans hovering around the 55 year mark, things are somewhat different.

You can read the annotations on FindLaw, here.

See we can agree every now and then...

Of course, what happens when a poor person sues a megacorporation...

The "poor person" had better have a good case and a good attorney.

I started to think maybe having the losing party pay for court costs would be a bit Draconian, but then I read this story. If you want to read the complaint, click here. Again I am resolved that the we need to reform Tort Law as soon as possible.

Yes. They got a lot of flak over that, prompting them to change the policy... I don't know the exact policy now, but according to my cousin in the marines, it's somewhere between "don't ask don't tell" and "just don't hit on the other soldiers".

Well, this tells a different story. However, you appear to have a point: according to this story the military is of two minds on the matter, in practice if not in policy. However, the point remains that you can get your life ruined when your privacy is violated, even if you aren't doing anything that you (?) or I would consider wrong. Here's another example , although I wish I could find a link to the original story.

This is getting offtopic, but it is interesting nonetheless. Going back to the issue of privacy I think it boils down to very simple point: my life is my business. That may not always be true in practice, but then that is where legal protection is needed.

By the way, there is a blurb in AvWeek about the original topic:

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's idea for a Total Information Awareness (TIA) system is stirring up a hornet's nest. It is one of 15 projects at Darpa's "information awareness office" aimed at using information technology to prevent and preempt terrorist attacks. The gist of TIA is to use signal processing similar to that used in anti-submarine warfare to ferret out the signature of terrorist transactions in cyberspace. But critics have huge concerns about civil liberties and privacy if the government starts mining all sorts of databases for information on civilian transactions. It doesn't help that the Darpa office is run by Vice Adm. (ret.) John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame. Robert Popp, Poindexter's deputy, acknowledges that privacy will be a challenge. But at a forum at nearby George Mason University last week, Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the National Security Agency, which is responsible for all Defense Dept. sigint, said he doesn't understand how TIA would work or if it is feasible.

Pre-Employment Testing of Applicants [nolo.com]", written tests can be dangerous because "A multiple choice aptitude test may discriminate against minority applicants or female applicants because it really reflects test-taking ability rather than actual job skills."

This is a spoof right ? The point of a selction process *is* to discriminate based on fair objective criteria (test) rather than a unfair subjective criteria (interview).

Later, in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio (1989), the Supreme Court reversed itself, saying that "business necessity" was a huge burden to prove.

Then, with the Civil Rights act of 1991, Congress reinstated the business necessity requirement, but courts have been a little uneven on how to apply the law.

Search on "disparate impact" if you want to see more.

Pre-Employment Testing of Applicants [nolo.com]", written tests can be dangerous because "A multiple choice aptitude test may discriminate against minority applicants or female applicants because it really reflects test-taking ability rather than actual job skills."

This is a spoof right ? The point of a selction process *is* to discriminate based on fair objective criteria (test) rather than a unfair subjective criteria (interview).

Later, in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio (1989), the Supreme Court reversed itself, saying that "business necessity" was a huge burden to prove.

Then, with the Civil Rights act of 1991, Congress reinstated the business necessity requirement, but courts have been a little uneven on how to apply the law.

Search on "disparate impact" if you want to see more.

Well, yes and no. Yes, it is true that revolutionary-era documents made distinctions between individuals and corporations. However, for more than a hundred years, corporations have been legal entities in their own right in the United States and elsewhere. So, for example, corporations can be named in lawsuits, and individuals can act as agents, or in the name of, a corporation. It is a legal fiction, in a sense, but corporations are indeed persons. See US Supreme Court, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 1886. That's 118 US 394.

Hmmmm, let's see. For a primer on this, I'd suggest Eric Foner's The Story of American Freedom. New York: Norton, 1988.

A critical view can be found here.

Some more citations. Sorry, it's a sickness.

Corporate Personality in the 20th Century. Edited by ROSS GRANTHAM and CHARLES RICKETT. [Oxford: Hart Publishing. 1998.] Reviewed in the Cambridge Law Journal 58, no. 1 (1999): 222-259

Capitalism without the Capitalist: The Joint Stock Company Share and the Emergence of the Modern Doctrine of Separate Corporate Personality. The Journal of legal history. 17, no. 1, (April 01, 1996): 41

ARTICLES - Persons, Things and Corporations: The Corporate Personality Controversy and Comparative Corporate Governance. The American journal of comparative law. 47, no. 4, (1999): 583.