Slashdot Mirror
Investor Lawsuit Blames NSA For $12B Loss In IBM Value
Jah-Wren Ryel writes "IBM Corp has been sued by the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund which accused it of concealing how its ties to what became a major U.S. spying scandal reduced business in China and ultimately caused its market value to plunge more than $12 billion." While anyone can file a lawsuit, being sued by an institutional investor is a little different than being sued by John Q. Disgruntled.
when this would happen. You just had to know that someone would go after them for this. I wonder how it will hold up in court. The bigger question I have is what else will be found during discovery
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The word is Nazgul.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Subject/citizen, you should not be concerned about your rights when it comes to security and law enforcement. But, we need legal remedy for business decisions that impact our nice retirement funds. Yeah...
Or a judge/judges will find some reason to throw the suit out. NSA's invulnerable legally.
i dont think you understand the underlying problem. American companies CANT say no to the government, because they get shutdown. dont you remember lavabit? he did say no to the NSA, and then they started prosecuting him for not giving them the information they wanted. it isnt really a matter of capitalism. as long as there is no oversight on things like the NSA, there will always be abuse. as long as there is no oversight on the NSA, companies cant really ever deny them access.
I feel like the NSA and the rest of the intelligence apparatuses have gotten to a point where the security of this nation trumps any man made law. If this nation is of and for the people, who the hell is the NSA working for?
they arent suing the NSA, they are suing IBM.
" NSA's invulnerable legally."
That's simply not true. There are a number of suits against them going forward right now.
Government (and, more to the point, people in government) are NOT immune from the law. The idea that they are (or even worse, should be) is absolute hogwash.
I can't see how anyone is surprised here.
Would you purchase anything made by USA companies now if you want your data secure and safe?
I gave up starting a cloud storage busines for companies hosting apps/storage because there is no way to claim you have a secure and safe storage system when the goon squad can come in with grenades and machine guns and blow the place up looking for any sort of activity they feel is not "legal".
Secondly, the whole idea that companies outsource I.T. operations to reduce cost can't be made any more with any western institution. The result?
About 40 people I was going to hire to start this business won't see the light of day.
This is not just me either. In the investment circles I follow lots of people are leaving or simply shelving plans for any sort of real I.T. services expansion in the USA.
Those companies that are left and do hosting, Amazon, Google, Microsoft are doing so only because they already share all of their clients data with the NSA/CIA and are permitted to exist as a result.
The whoel thing is fascist and there is no competition under those sorts of conditions.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
IBM stock price (and market cap) dropped only 6.4 percent. This is just one more stupid shareholder lawsuit, some lawyers trying to make money when a company's stop price drops. It's nice that /. can contribute to the hype.
1: Pot calling Kettle Black; The Sheriffs actively participated in illegal wiretaps and clandestine domestic operations and were even trained by the federal agencies on how to handle protests and riots. See: Katrina. They knew damn well who IBM was in bed with.
2: Predatory Societies always grow until they run out of livestock, then they turn on each other. A predator knows no other skill, and their skill can't make bread. They know what they are doing is immoral and they're doing it anyway because it's the only thing they know how to do.
3: We're about to find if NSA Gag letters are permissible in court, and indemnify executive management from failing to disclose them on 8-k and 10-k filings...
4: A rotten corrupt government doesn't produce pension funds for police; it STEALS your pension irregardless of who you are or who you work for then they try to pump and dump, crash and buy, cajole, mind-fuck and carrot and stick an ever greater percentage of the economy and people's lives under their control for whatever demented reason all while dangling numbers on a piece of paper in-front of your face. Now that you're riled up, as elected officials ya'll should start putting banksters and financial wizards in jail and properly protecting the productive side of the economy who pays your paycheck from the unproductive, self-destructive side. Your pension is gone, ya might as well ruin the lives of the people who stole it and have some dignity when you're a 70 year old mall cop.
5: IBM is now a mostly Indian company that produces services and products nobody wants; the only companies that stick with them are their institutional partners and even THEY are leaving them behind due to financial necessity. You can only sell so many computers and services with 50-150% markup because "there's magic inside we can't describe". Their days of coasting along on reputation are nearing a very abrupt end.
They are likely to have sovereign immunity for their actions unless it has been waived, legislated away, or there is an existing precedent.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Maybe they're suing IBM for allowing a clandestine operation to affect their stock price?
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
They don't always shut down the company.
Sometimes they just arrest the COB/CEO. You don't really imagine there was zero connection between Joe Nacchio of Qwest refusing to give NSA customer records without a court order (this back in 2001) and his being arrested and jailed for insider trading, do you?
(He may have engaged in some questionable trades but nothing that other corporate execs have done without getting hit with such severe penalties.)
-- Alastair
There is no real business opportunity for US or European companies in China. If your business is major infrastructure or major industry you will experience a decline in business once sufficient experience and technology has been transferred to Chinese partners. Ex GE moves some jet engine manufacturing to China to sell to Chinese airlines while the Chinese government is simultaneously releasing its 10 year plan to replace foreign designed aviation components with domestically "designed" components.
The NSA is a convenient public excuse for China doing what it had planned to do all along.
I was unaware that it is against US law for a US Federal agency tasked with intercepting communications of non-Americans to spy on China.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
NSA has been acting as the boot forever stomping on the human face. This kind of behavior can be stopped by Obama (he's further up the NSA's chain of command, but still in the chain of command) but he hasn't done so. I can only guess that he's a force behind illegal NSA activity to which he'll still claim he "didn't know" about, just as he's claimed ignorance on the ACA website, or NSA surveillance on European allies. He's still culpable for the NSA's illegal activity, will he claim he didn't know that he has broken his oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution?
I don't think the problem here is that IBM worked with the NSA. Problem is that as a shareholder IBM should have said something more about it and keep shareholders informed about the risks towards the share price. At minimum IBM should have stated it is working closely with US government organisations in electronic surveillance programs, which may cause loss of business if political environment changes.
This is the first lawsuit I've heard where investors are suing companies over NSA spying. I hope it's not the last.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Lavabit was a mom and pop store. Your paranoia does not extend to established business, which have the option to fight back but choose not to.
IBM would have survived saying no. They would have had an enormous expense in doing so.
And to clarify, they would have been fine with participation. Only the effect on stock price is in question.
The NSA actions, IBM actions, none of that is part of this.
Failure to disclose risks to revenue, and major ones at that, is serious for public companies.
"While anyone can file a lawsuit, being sued by an institutional investor is a little different than being sued by John Q. Disgruntled. "
Not in this case. Men in black will make the case disappear or be dismissed for trumped up reasons.
Good luck with that.
i dont think you understand the underlying problem. American companies CANT say no to the government, because they get shutdown. dont you remember lavabit? he did say no to the NSA, and then they started prosecuting him for not giving them the information they wanted.
You've kind of scrambled the history there.
Companies do say no to the government all the time unless the government has the actual right or power to make a demand. In Lavabit's case, Lavabit was defying a court order that only became necessary when they didn't meet a much more limited request from the FBI, which the FBI has the power to make. And it was Lavabit's choice to do that - both the defiance, and the shutdown. Lavabit's owner had a bad business model predicated on making promises he couldn't legally keep and stay out of jail or in business. That was a failure waiting to happen.
In a way I find it ironic that so many people here defend Lavabit given the large number of complaints you see on Slashdot about corporations breaking the law, owning the government, etc. At the end of the day, Lavabit was just another corporation that wasn't willing to obey the law.
You can make a reasonable argument that the government has too much power in this regard, but that is a different discussion.
as long as there is no oversight on things like the NSA, there will always be abuse. as long as there is no oversight on the NSA, companies cant really ever deny them access.
You must have missed some discussions. The NSA has oversight, and lacks the power to issue warrants or court orders itself. Even when it obtains a warrant or court order those warrants and court orders can be challenged in court.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
This goes back a lot further than the Obama administration.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
American companies CANT say no to the government, because they get shutdown. dont you remember lavabit?
Yeah, right. The US government would totally have shut down IBM (or Google, Microsoft, Apple... etc, etc, etc) for not co-operating with a law that probably wouldn't even stand up in court.
"They are likely to have sovereign immunity for their actions unless it has been waived, legislated away, or there is an existing precedent."
The NSA is not even remotely "sovereign", in any sense of the term.
"I was unaware that it is against US law for a US Federal agency tasked with intercepting communications of non-Americans to spy on China."
It isn't. But it *IS* illegal (despite their claims otherwise) to spy on Americans in the process of spying on China. UNLESS they can SHOW some kind of probable cause to believe that American is involved in spying.
That's what the FICA Court rules say, and that's what EFF has been saying all along.
And they haven't just been spying on a few Americans... they've been spying on everybody they had the ability to spy on... regardless of any even pretended connections to espionage. And that is CLEARLY illegal. It's not even a matter of debate.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. They have a legal duty to inform owners (stockholders) and potential owners about any significant risks. Suppose I'm selling you some stock in my tiny software company. Suppose Microsoft has threatened to sue my company out of existence. Should I tell you about the impending lawsuit before you invest your savings in a business that is at risk? Of course I should, and the law requires that I do so.
The three questions are:
A) Did IBM executives know this posed a risk to IBM's business in China and elsewhere?
B) Did the executives inform the stockholders of the risk?
C) Does the law specifically grant an exception for this type of risk, allowing the company to keep it secret?
A and B are probably true, so IBM's lawyers will need to find something in the law that helps them argue C. To the extent it involves NSLs (national security letters), C probably applies because it would have been illegal for IBM to reveal significant information.
They may as well be suing the NSA, considering what would come out in discovery if this lawsuit is allowed to proceed. Or rather, what won't come out, in the interest of "national security."
They are immune from the law in most cases, except where they waive sovereign immunity.
As a part of the Federal government it is.
"Is this the same type of local law enforcement agency... "
It's not any kind of law enforcement agency. It is a financial institution. It just happens to specifically handle funds for people that work for local law enforcement.
If people want to blame the NSA spying scandal on anyone, it should be Obama. He knew and approved of their actions. He should be held accountable.
And it's Congress' job to rein in the President. Congress won't rein in this president. They didn't rein in the previous one. They'll give a pass to the next one, too. Separation of powers was supposed to prevent one branch from "going rogue". That's broken now. Both parties have had opportunities in Congress to go after Presidents in the other party -- it hasn't happened, it's not gonna happen.
I am not a crackpot.
Your paranoia does not extend to established business, which have the option to fight back but choose not to.
Oh how I pine for the day when I believed that shit. We were such a more innocent populace, weren't we? Go look up MKULTRA to start, and follow the Wikipedia links from there for a few hours. CEOs of companies, deans of universities, directors of hospitals, they were all in on it and that was the 1950s.
You think that sort of thing isn't going on now? The "option to fight back," oh good heavens, someone catch me before I pass out from laughter.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
This goes back a lot further than the Obama administration.
So what? Who started it or how long it's gone on means precisely zip, zero, nada, aside from identifying additional guilty parties for the exercise of justice.
He's the asshole supposedly in charge NOW, with the power to stop it NOW.
That excuse is a tactic used by a 6-yo to escape the consequences of and blame for bad behaviors, actions, & decisions.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Funny you should make that claim in the context of an article about the losses to stockholders caused by NSA. The "upper class" is the people who have a lot invested in these companies - the people who lost part of their savings. The upper class is the executives getting sued for complying with court orders. It's the "upper class" who are MATERIALLY harmed by the NSA's actions. The rest of us are merely offended by the violation of our rights, but not really materially harmed.
The NSA serves two masters, neither of which is the upper class. Mainly they serve the government politicians, of course. Secondly, though recognizing this fact doesn't support our righteous indignation, they serve the safety of the American people, at the cost of those same citizens' rights, and most of those citizens don't seem to mind. Spying has been going on for thousands of years because SPYING WORKS. Historically, spying on high value targets has done alot of good for the country. What's new is the technical ability to spy on EVERYONE, not just carefully selected targets. That brings up privacy questions that need to be answered by the public and our leaders, not by the people whose job is to collect as much useful information as possible.
They have a legal duty to inform owners (stockholders) and potential owners about any significant risks
Right up until they receive some sort of "National Security Letter" which supersedes any other legal duty they might have, and precludes them from telling anyone that they've even been served with such a thing. Your point "C" isn't, in my own opinion, some sort of blanket excuse.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
He sounds like the crazy person who two years ago claimed that the government is tracking all of our emails and phone calls. He probably also believes Vince Foster didn't shoot himself in the back of the head and then drive to that park. That's what's so aggravating about this NSA stuff - it shows that sometimes crazy conspiracy theories are true.
If they're suing IBM then their action is futile and self-damaging. Money in any decision will go to 3 places, all of which hurt those suing. 1. Government 2. Lawyers 3. All stockholders in proportion to the shares they own. #3 means that IBM's money, which is owned by the stockholders, is transferred to the stockholders: no net gain, + administration costs, + time wasted in the lawsuits.
If they're suing the chief officers, the COs have little money compared to IBM, unless the COs have insurance against this sort of thing, in which case insurance companies get hurt to satisfy the greed of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, they have the additional legal hurdle that the company is presumed responsible for its actions, not the employees, in civil cases.
Nothing good comes of this for anyone.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Even that wouldn't have allowed to be mentioned, as it'd then have invited more questions that they couldn't answer.,
Waiting for an amusing sig.
When did he fail to defend the Constitution?
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
That's the question that will be before the judge and jury - did court orders, NSLs, etc. prohibit IBM from revealing more than they did about ALL of the risky cooperation? It may be that a vague disclosure as suggested by TFA would have hurt the business, and therefore stockholders. It may be that some of the data sharing wasn't covered by gag orders, or maybe all of it was. We don't have the necessary facts to know. You and I haven't seen the gag orders (yet). Maybe the executive's hands were tied , maybe not. We don't yet have sufficient facts to know for sure.
oh sure, they cant give court orders or warrants themselves... they just ask a 'secret court' to do it... we actually have no idea if this 'secret court' even exists. for all we know, the NSA has made it all up and decided to issue warrants on their own. just because the NSA isnt abusing its lack of oversight doesnt mean specific other parts that work with the NSA are not doing so.
you clearly dont read the monthly posts from google telling everyone how many requests theyve been asked for and how many theyve given. in ALL instances, where there was a warrant issued (by a secret court with no oversight), google gave up information on people.
we should all have a right to disobey court orders and warrants issued from a secret court with no requirements to follow the constitution.
The members of the FISA court are public record, they are judges from other courts that rotate through the FISA court. The function of the FISA court is documented. You seem disinterested in the facts of the matter.
THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT - 2012 Membership
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I suggest you root your compliance or noncompliance with the law in reality. I also suggest you speak to an attorney before not complying with a court order or warrant.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You've kind of scrambled the history there.
-- cold fjord in 45690965
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
45690965
45690965? .... That just doesn't sing. Try this instead.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The NSA may be acting independently but it is not a separate state or nation (yet). The federal, state, tribal, and local governments have a limited immunity in the US, the NSA is a government department, it is not "The" government anymore than the Pentagon itself is.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Also. It's classified government information, where's the risk taking actions? - Where did IBM fail to perform due diligence? Is the pension fund claiming that contracting/cooperating with a duly elected US federal government is a reckless risk to the shareholders investment? Note that doesn't mean I think IBM actions were morally justifiable just that the pension fund is going to have a hell of a time convincing a US court that IBM put shareholders funds at risk by cooperating with the (notorious?) US government.
The US government is quite likely IBM's biggest customer. IBM just has to read out the profit/loss statement from the US government to demonstrate the occasional $12B damage in brand recognition is just "the cost of doing business" with the US government. IBM's lawyers are probably sitting around snorting coke and laughing their arses off at this.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If that is true then there's rather unfortunate implications for the entire investment system. After all, the issue in question is that IBM was engaged in activities that would obviously lower its likely future profits, yet failed to notify the markets of them. If suing them for that is futile, what's to stop any other company from doing the same?
IBM's money is owned by the IBM, not stockholders. The stockholders own shares of IBM. Limited liability works both ways.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Yes they are claiming that cooperating/contracting to the US government is a reportable risk, even when such reporting would break a court order. They also seem to be claiming that dealing with the US government has obviously "tarnished its reputation".
I can't see how those claims will not be laughed out of a US court, the simple fact is that if you subtract $12B from the revenue IBM has made from the US government, the shareholder has received a consistent and healthy profit from the relationship for at least the past six decades.
Seems to me this is a political law suit, their intention is to make a point, they already know they will lose and have written the whole thing off as "advertising"..
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Hell, they were able to deal with the fall out from working with the Nazi's as a "cost of doing business". I am pretty sure this lawsuit is not going to go very far.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
we have a duty as american citizens to not follow any laws that are unconstitutional. in the case where the government deems laws constitutional that are not constitutional, we have a duty as americans to revolt and fight back against government oppression.
I can assure you the loss in value has nothing to do with the NSA and everything to do with horrible management. For years their plan to increase profits is to cut American jobs for cheap new hires in emerging countries. At some point we'll actually need to make something to sell when there is no one left to fire...
Are you saying that the " CEOs of companies, deans of universities, directors of hospitals, they were all in on it" - but now they are the subjects of mind control? Or that somehow once a result becomes desirable, that the behavior of the C-suite and board of executives are being mind controlled to produce that desired result? I can't think of one reason for you mentioning it that isn't absolutely raving shit-eating lunacy.
I was probably reading about that before you were born. Oh yes, since well before the eternal September. That and many other things just exactly like it. My knowledge pre-dated my post, and I stand by it. Do you have another counter argument lined up, or just more unrelated references?
And it doesn't change my opinion, even knowing that these things are not just some nutjob's fantasy, but have actually been declassified and largely match any but the craziest reports.
But, you won't be convinced using logic since you have already decided what the truth is. Are you sure your mind isn't being controlled?
I assume you are responding to the part about "a law that probably wouldn't even stand up in court."
The court that issues these decisions (FISC) is not the court that decides what is Constitutional, FISC could very well be rubber-stamping warrants with little or none or the requirements for a proper warrant.
Fighting the decision to turn over data that law enforcement considers essential is not good business sense. The only lawsuits I am aware of are filed by individuals, EPIC, and ACLU.
Google could very well have said "this is not a legal decision and we refuse to comply with an illegal order". And it would have been very expensive, because anything that could be used as evidence would most likely be disallowed. Finding enough information to support the case would be time consuming.
The strategy is, in effect, to publicise the lawsuit, and the fact that evidence was not allowed, and they lost because of it. Lose the first battle, but go on record as having fought back. And, the various decisions made will likely unravel given additional lawsuits. In the same way that no one had standing to object to the information dragnet on everyone, because no one could prove they were affected. Eventually, that fell apart.
Because it was a court order does not mean it was a valid order.
LOL cold, many NSA/US gov/mil whistleblowers have been in the US court system http://cryptome.org/2013-info/06/whistleblowing/whistleblowing.htm :)
The US gov likes to try color of law, state secrets and really push the need for expensive cleared legal staff to keep the tame US press away.
The US Constitution covers all actions by the NSA domestically and no US "gov" granted US "immunity" laws can legally out pace that
In the end the staff are usually cleared and internal changes are 'made' just to make the cases fail to gain any more domestic traction and US press attention.
Then you had Snowden who did the smart thing and went to the press, escaping the 'internal' US gov legal trap that is domestic whistleblower protections.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
This could get very interesting
I will be TRULY INTERESTING when institutional investors not only sue IBM, but also sue Cisco, Microsoft, Google and all other companies associated with NSA.
We the people, as individuals, have no power over that arrogant NSA - and those corporations, especially Cisco and Microsoft which had been in extra-ordinary friendly term with NSA, must face the same music IBM is facing, for what they have done.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
"As a part of the Federal government it is."
NO, it isn't.
The States that make up the United States are sovereign. The Federal government, by itself is not.
The United States is not a "sovereign nation". In fact it is not a "nation" at all. It is a Republic of Sovereign States.
Choose wisely as to what that issue will be, and how you will conduct your protest or revolt. You could end up in the history books as an example of wisdon, courage and character, or foolishness and fail.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Not even close. WITHIN the United States, they have no claim of "sovereign immunity". It might apply to actions against those OUTSIDE the U.S., but not inside.
Yes, Snodown's kicked off the biggest institutional reform since the invention of the telephone.
Reform? No idea what you're talking about.
Yawn. "Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund" is barely a institutional investor even if it is one. Most of the work would be farmed out.
Besides, this is a class action lawsuit by lawyers hoping to hit the lawsuit lottery. What they need is a unrelated party to be the lead plaintiff. Preferable someone sympathetic to pull the juror’s heartstrings. Windows and orphans do well. If you can't get one of them but a “aw shucks we are a simple pension fund helping good people that was taken by the big bad Wall Street types” person works just as well.
Sovereign immunity is an existing legal doctrine that predates the Constitution. No "immunity" law needed.
It's great the way you keep flogging Snowden whether or not it's relevant, which is this case it isn't. But to clarify, he didn't so much go to the press as he went to Russia, just like Philby. The Russians are learning a fair amount from him and are upgrading their systems with the information he has provided. The West loses, diplomatic relations among Western and allied nations are strained, and Russia gets a win:win. Former KGB officer Putin is the one truly LOL, and many in the West are cheering the self-immolation. Case in point.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
And IBM will continue to outsource to China and India while ignoring the fact that both nations are stealing their IP, and will no longer buy their trash.
Basically, companies like IBM, HP, and MS are going the same way as DEC, AOL, Novell, etc.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"The court that issues these decisions (FISC) is not the court that decides what is Constitutional..."
Yes, but since "The court's judges are appointed solely by the Supreme Court Chief Justice without confirmation or oversight by the U.S. Congress."(*), the court that *does* determine constitutionality isn't exactly unbiased towards FISC.
I don't know of another circumstance in which a court's judges are appointed by a single judge of the only court that could review the appointees' decisions. As well as those appointments being made with no oversight whatever.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court
I believe what's meant by "sovereign" here is "sovereign immunity", by which the US government (including the NSA as a Federal entity) is immune from lawsuits unless it consents to be sued.
YMMV under the Federal Tort Claims Act and/or the Tucker Act, but basically, the NSA enjoys the Federal government's umbrella immunity from suit which, under limited circumstances, may be rebutted or overcome.
"I believe what's meant by "sovereign" here is "sovereign immunity", by which the US government (including the NSA as a Federal entity) is immune from lawsuits unless it consents to be sued."
That does sound vaguely familiar. But if so, it is misnamed, because the Federal government has no "sovereignty", per se.
The States and The People are sovereign in the United States. Not the Federal government.
Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?
The United States is a sovereign nation. Sovereignty is a simple idea: the United States is an independent nation, governed by the American people, that controls its own affairs. The American people adopted the Constitution and created the government. They elect their representatives and make their own laws. ...
When America declared its independence in 1776, the Declaration described Americans as “one people” who had the right “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”
With these words, the United States declared its sovereignty. It became a separate nation, entitled to all the rights of existing nations. It therefore claimed the “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
That isn't correct. It is waived in many circumstances, but it still exists.
Suing the Government – Sovereign Immunity
Under the doctrine called “sovereign immunity,” the United States, New York and other states are immune from suit for torts caused by conditions on their property or by acts of their employees and agents.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Basically, China pulled a Huawei on IBM, just like the USA basically chased Huawei out of the USA. Correlation and Causation being mixed up again. This has nothing to do with IBM lobbying and cooperating with the NSA, but everything with Huawei getting chased out of the USA. It's pure and simple retaliation for that, the Chinese knew that the NSA was fist deep in IBM and MicroSoft and all those companies all along. Sorry sherrifs, no pension for you, you could have seen this coming the moment Huawei was first being accused of backdooring equipment.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Government tends to exempt itself from such lawsuits. Meaning you can't sue them.
There is some merit for the ability to shield the government from some things like that... but its obviously abused.
Its one of the reasons why its a really really stupid idea to concentrate too much power in the government because when they screw up... no one is held accountable.
If you want no one held accountable when bad things are done... then keep putting more power in the hands of politicians.
What could possibly go wrong.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
there is no oversight on appointing supreme court justices either. the president is allowed to appoint whoever he wants.
Those are STATES. Not the Federal government. That's what I was saying.
Sorry, but that's not an authoritative source. The Constitution is.
But probably more relevant here: those are two completely different uses of the word.
"Sovereignty" FROM other countries does not grant the government sovereignty from its own people.
The President's appointment of the CJ of USSC is, like his other appointments to the USSC, subject to confirmation by the Senate.
I'm pretty sure the FISC judges are unique in their appointments being subject to no oversight whatever.
I'm curious, how do you think that it applies to the "United States," as noted above, in a way that is effective and different from the Federal government?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If you search the Constitution, you don't find the word "sovereign" in it, and yet the US government has sovereign immunity when not waived as recognized by the courts and taught by the law schools. It would seem difficult to apply "sovereign immunity" to a government that wasn't sovereign. The fact that people vote to elect its leaders and legislature doesn't really alter that.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
"I'm curious, how do you think that it applies to the "United States," as noted above, in a way that is effective and different from the Federal government?"
I already explained it, further up. If you need further explanation I strongly suggest a history book.
The United States is NOT a "nation". It is a REPUBLIC of 50 sovereign States. There IS a difference, and Slashdot is probably not a very good place to try to explain it. Look it up.
"If you search the Constitution, you don't find the word "sovereign" in it, and yet the US government has sovereign immunity when not waived as recognized by the courts and taught by the law schools."
Law schools are not even remotely recognized authorities on the Constitution. Try historians instead.
Law schools teach lawyers what to say to a judge. They don't teach much actual Constitutional history, and what they do teach, they don't do well.
And finally: you should take the fact that the Constitution does not mention "sovereignty" as a pretty strong clue.
Only sovereign states can ratify treaties, yet the 50 states are barred from conducting foreign affairs. The United States, on the other hand, has ratified treaties. You're actually describing the European Union, which may negotiate jointly but ultimately treaties are ratified by the member states.
The civil war pretty well put to rest the idea that the idea that the states are truly sovereign. They may have been before they signed the constitution, but today there isn't even a way for a state to leave the union (we have no Clarity Act). I don't see how a state in such a situation could possibly be considered remotely sovereign.
Also, a republic is merely a type of government. The legal status of the states would not really be different if the U.S. were a direct democracy, a monarchy, or an empire. We're a union of 50 states, which happens to be governed as a presidential republic.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
"Only sovereign states can ratify treaties"
??? according to whom? Who, for example, has the authority to tell the United States that it can't sign a treaty?
But I'm being facetious. You're still missing the point. As I explained earlier, there is a DIFFERENCE between being "externally sovereign" (i.e., FROM other countries) and being "internally sovereign" (i.e., what entity WITHIN a government is considered sovereign).
As for your first point: the 50 sovereign States delegated the power to sign treaties to the Federal government, as one of the enumerated powers the States delegated to the Federal government. This is historical truth. Go read your history of the U.S. government (as I suggested before).
"The civil war pretty well put to rest the idea that the idea that the states are truly sovereign."
This is another grade-school level myth. I was taught this nonsense in public schools, too. It was only when I began studying history outside government-run classrooms that I learned otherwise. And it very clearly IS otherwise.
"I don't see how a state in such a situation could possibly be considered remotely sovereign. "
That's because (A) you don't seem to understand what sovereignty means, in part because (B) you are conflating two different kinds of "sovereignty".
"Also, a republic is merely a type of government. The legal status of the states would not really be different if the U.S. were a direct democracy, a monarchy, or an empire. We're a union of 50 states, which happens to be governed as a presidential republic. "
This is the most laughable assertion of all. As James Madison wrote (paraphrase, in a discussion of the power of the Federal government, and particularly the Supreme Court): "When power is delegated to a third party, that third party does not have greater authority than the entity which delegated the power."
This a direct quote: "On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it."
This is perfectly sound logic.
I should clarify my last statements.
Of course it's a "republic". That's what I wrote earlier. But as I also wrote earlier, you seem to be ignorant of the difference between a republican government and a national government. And they are, indeed, very different.
but there has never been a case where the senate actually said no. they just rubber stamp the appointments all the time.
It should be done by Congress - they're the assholes in charge of lawmaking and it was the Patriot Act that made all this shit possible.
Ruling by executive order is short-term & short-sighted; fix the damn law or repeal it. If Obama vetoes that, then his true colors will be known.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
It should be done by Congress - they're the assholes in charge of lawmaking and it was the Patriot Act that made all this shit possible.
Ruling by executive order is short-term & short-sighted; fix the damn law or repeal it. If Obama vetoes that, then his true colors will be known.
I agree. Congress has nearly become irrelevant due to both their own actions/inactions and allowing the POTUS to rule by executive order much like a king.
The Senate also needs to be returned to being appointed by the State legislatures instead of being just another popularity contest where he gives away the most stuff wins. There needs to be another Constitutional Amendment enacted to effectively repeal the 17th Amendment.
The Senate was meant to be a check against the electorate deciding to vote themselves money or voting to unfairly target a specific group and other populist trend-of-the-moment bad ideas. It protects the Republic from devolving into a tyranny-by-majority and protects the States from bullying by the Federal government.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
...where he who gives away the most stuff wins.
Oops.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The Senate also needs to be returned to being appointed by the State legislatures instead of being just another popularity contest where he gives away the most stuff wins. There needs to be another Constitutional Amendment enacted to effectively repeal the 17th Amendment.
Was the 17th amendment enacted because of corruption in the State houses? Given how the States, particularly those with Republican governors AND GOP majorities in one or both houses have been behaving, going back to appointed Senators will probably make things worse.
America needs a truly arms-length bureau to draw up the electoral maps and publicly funded elections. It works pretty well for Canada, although there are some differences given their parliamentary system. Spending 2 years out of 4 campaigning & jockeying is a waste of time and the stench of dirty money taints every level of government on both sides.
Better to overturn Citizen's United than the 17th Amendment.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Gah, typos & bad quoting. See below
The Senate also needs to be returned to being appointed by the State legislatures instead of being just another popularity contest where he gives away the most stuff wins. There needs to be another Constitutional Amendment enacted to effectively repeal the 17th Amendment.
Wasn't the 17th amendment enacted because of corruption in the State houses? Given how the States, particularly those with Republican governors AND GOP majorities in one or both houses have been behaving, going back to appointed Senators will probably make things worse.
America needs a truly arms-length bureau to draw up the electoral maps and to publicly fund elections. It works pretty well for Canada, although there are some differences given their parliamentary system. Spending 2 years out of 4 campaigning & jockeying is a waste of time and the stench of dirty money taints every level of government on both sides.
Far better to overturn Citizen's United than repeal the 17th Amendment
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The Senate has refused nominees before, and some were only confirmed after a serious fight (e.g., Clarence Thomas).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Far better to overturn Citizen's United than repeal the 17th Amendment
Wait, so you want to prevent citizens from organizing and pooling their resources to fight politicians and policies they oppose and support those they agree with? When said politicians and policies have megacorps and other political lobbying and campaign-contributors/organizations allowed to back them?
I think maybe you need to re-read the Citizens United decision and research the background of the case more thoroughly. There's been a lot of propaganda that the CU decision somehow elevates corporations over citizens in the political arena, but the opposite is actually true.
As far as GOP/DNC goes, they're both corrupt as hell, agree with 99% of the liberty-destroying laws, acts, policies, etc, and haven't represented the citizens in decades. They simply put on a Kabuki theater to distract the public and gradually increase their own power & wealth at the citizens' expense.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion raises some very good points and the effects were very apparent in the flow of big money in the 2012 election.
It was a very long time ago that someone wrote that "the love of money is the root of all evil". That's as true now as it ever was and it'll continue to corrupt & infect politics without strict controls.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The Federal government has sovereign immunity. Each and every part, including the NSA. If no department has sovereign immunity because it's not "the entire Federal government," sovereign immunity would not exist at all, since it could be applied to nothing.
What part of "except where they waive sovereign immunity" was not understood? You say not even close, and then restate what I said by specific example rather than the general rule I used. They are the same thing.