I'm sure this will all end well. Or bankruptcy. Probably theirs.
Oh and yes I believe you are correct - a contract is not binding if it has no been signed, or dollars changed hands (like when you buy Windows Seven NT 6.1).
I once refused to buy a phone because I wanted the plain-black instead of the bright red. Unfortunately the black was discontinued, so I never bought the phone.
Another time I delayed buying a Nintendo Gamecube because I thought the original color was hokey (looked like a toy). Also not many games worth playing. Then they released the black version about a year later, which I liked a lot better, so I decided to buy it.
The results are a reflection of how the question was asked. If they ahd asked:
"Do you support the president having a kill switch to remove Websites that post articles criticizing the president or the government?" The result would probably be just 10-20% in favor.
(1) They install the second line. (2) Now you have two phone numbers. (3) Upgrade phone #2 to DSL. (4) Now you have two 1.5 Mbit/s feeds into you home. One for you, and one for the kids.
>>>there is no natural difference between the owners of a corporation doing such things collectively,
There is another difference. Shareholders often don't agree with the practices of corporations. For example shareholders might not support Microsoft's endorsement of McCain for President (just picking randomly), and yet Microsoft is speaking with one voice as if all ~100,000 shareholders agree. It's misrepresentative.
-Or- shareholders might not be aware that Microsoft is hiring children to hand-assemble phones in an overseas sweatshop, and yet MS is lobbying in China's government to keep the practice legal. For those reasons (among many), I think speaking/lobbying should be limited to shareholders only..... on a one-by-one basis as individuals. And Microsoft should be muzzled. i.e. It has no privilege to speak - not a right. And said privilege can be severely limited.
For example Microsoft shareholders retain their rights, but the actual Microsoft, which is as inanimate as a building, should have no rights. It is a THING and things don't have rights, although the individuals inside that thing still retain all their Human rights (to speak, lobby, etc). .
>>>the two are identical.
No. They aren't. I know Bill Gates is not the "owner" but for sake of argument let's suppose he is. He has the right to speak and hire lobbyists out of his OWN pocket. But Microsoft should have zero right to spend the money out of its own Treasury, because MS has no more rights than a building. It's a Thing not a person.
Humans rights are for humans. Not things. Bill Gates is a human. He has rights. Microsoft is a thing. It does not.
Unless you want to continue watching Congress STEAL your taxpayer money in 700 billion dollar bailouts? Because that's what the current system has created. It has become "We The Corporations" and "The Bill of Corporation Rights" while the human beings no longer matter.
>>>ever heard the phrase "co-equal branch of government"?
Ever heard of separation of powers? The law-making power is specifically listed by the Constitution(s) as belonging to the State Legislature and US Congress. For example a judge might rule, "It's okay for government schools to send laptops home, and record video of their students." That would be case precendent. But if the PA Legislature a month later passes a law forbidding spying on kids, then the Legislature's law will be *supreme* to the judge's opinion. His opinion will be nullified.
So just like I said... judges opinions and precedents are inferior to the actual Written Law. .
>>>Local law trumps Supreme court decisions?
Yes. Let's suppose the Supremes ruled the city council of Baltimore shall be abolished, and run the city themselves (or assign the duty to congress). Local law, namely that passed by Maryland's Legislature creating Baltimore's council, would reign supreme over the court's opinion, because Amendment 10 forbids the SCOTUS from committing such an act (powers not given the US is reserved to the States). The Baltimore Council would not be dissolved, because the Law reigns supreme over mere judges.
To suppose otherwise would place us under the "despotism of oligarchs" to quote Jefferson.
Assuming the court allowed states to collect this info, I would be required to keep a list of all my customers in 2011, separate them, and mail-out 51 letters to the 50 states plus DC. That would require several days worth of labor on my part, and that is "taxing". I should not be taxed by governments where I have no representation in their legislature.
>>>Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret the supreme law of the land
Not correct. "The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303 .
>>>the higest authority on the matter
Also not correct. The States assembled in convention are the highest authority. "But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
And he also said:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
And of course third parties like the Libertarians or Reformers or Communists would get no funds. Or else only ~1% what the Democrats/Republicans get. Your idea would merely solidify the Duopoly of the present parties, and lock-out any challengers. Brilliant (for them, not us).
And of course religious parties (constitutionalists) would not be allowed to get any money. Just as religious schools can't get any government money. So that's another form of suppression of voter speech.
>>>[MS ads] have a tremendous impact on elections.
Claim without proof has no value. I consider your statement "null" and meaningless. Like if I said, "The grass is pink." Your statement is equally lacking in value.
>>>Microsoft could set up a shell group called "Concerned Citizens for Software Freedom" and funnel money into it to buy a million political ads that trashed a candidate running against a candidate they liked.
So?
MS runs ads all the time. I don't find their running of ads to be something to fear, especially since I ignore them (press fast-forward on tape). You argument that MS should no longer be able to advertise seems specious at best, and fear-mongering at worst.
>>>if the people of the assembled group wanted to base their vote on a collective decision, then there isn't anything that should stop such a thing.
But that is still Individuals exercising individual, Human rights. That doesn't mean the corporation should have the right to cast ~100,000 votes on behalf of its employees. Neither should said corporation have the right to hire lobbyists to speak on behalf of its employees.
If they employees want to hire lobbyists, let them do it on an individual basis, while the corporation remain as silent as a rock, tree, or building.
>>>Just because people chose to exercise their right to assemble into a group, does not mean they have to give up their other rights. The Corporation only has the powers of the individuals that own it.
You are 100% correct.
However just because people form a group, doesn't mean the group acquires personhood. For example Microsoft employees retain their rights, but the actual microsoft, which is as inanimate as a building, should have no rights. If the owner of MS wants to speak let him speak as *himself* while the building remains silent. If the owner wants to hire lobbyists, let him hire them using his OWN money, while MS money is forbidden from hiring lobbyists.
Just because you join a group, does not mean you lose your rights - you can still speak, et cetera. But neither does it mean the corporation suddenly becomes Human. Non-humans (rocks, trees, buildings) don't have rights.
"Case law" is an inappropriate term. Courts make rulings and set precedents, but that doesn't mean future judges have to obey. For example if previous precedent established "segregating blacks from whites in Chicago is okay", that doesn't mean a judge is bound to it. He might say, "Well segregation violates the 14th. So I declare segregation to be null inside my jurisdiction," which might just be a single city, or could extend across a whole state or US district.
Also courts are inferior to legislatures. Case "law" is inferior to Local law, which is inferior to State law, which is inferior to US law, which is inferior to Constitutional law. Decisions made by judges are the weakest form. They are akin to advisements, and not much else.
Don't exaggerate. The Supreme Court is free to change their mind. They once ruled that segregation was legal, and then later changed their minds. Also take heat in the words of Thomas Jefferson (founder of the Democrat-republicans):
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
The STATES are the ultimate deciders. If they don't like this decision and the Court does not change its mind, they have the otion to amend the Constitution and remove donations from corporations.
>>>Because see, the way we actually track public opinion in this country is by having elections.
Not true. We also track public opinion via Citizens' calls to the Congressional representatives. In October 2008 the phones were overloaded with citizens saying, "Vote No on the bailout bill," and it passed anyway. Then the same thing happened again in the week prior to the Healthcare Reform Bill ("vote no") and it passed anyway. The calls were approximately 75% and 70% against these bills.
So the previous poster is correct. The Democrat-supermajority Congress is ignoring the constituents - you might as well not bother calling, because they won't listen anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure this will all end well.
Or bankruptcy.
Probably theirs.
Oh and yes I believe you are correct - a contract is not binding if it has no been signed, or dollars changed hands (like when you buy Windows Seven NT 6.1).
I once refused to buy a phone because I wanted the plain-black instead of the bright red. Unfortunately the black was discontinued, so I never bought the phone.
Another time I delayed buying a Nintendo Gamecube because I thought the original color was hokey (looked like a toy). Also not many games worth playing. Then they released the black version about a year later, which I liked a lot better, so I decided to buy it.
>>>I can't imagine why anyone would want a white one.
That's right.
Once she's had black,
she'll never go back.
>>>you're connecting to a cell tower. How do you _know_ where your call goes from there?
I always figured it goes through the existing POTS lines. Although internet would provide a greater bandwidth per tower.
For those who prefer youtube (because it's downloadable):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKdU_xL4O8
>>>Amateur Radio, the original geek hobby, still exists.
The FCC's Broadband Plan will reassign that chunk of the EM Spectrum to cellular phones (or internet). So no, it wouldn't still exist.
A Democracy allows you to execute a man with a simple majority vote. No need to prove guilt. It's a tyranny. It's what happened to Socrates.
Rule by Law, like our Constitution, is preferable.
Now we just need to enforce it rather than ignore it.
The results are a reflection of how the question was asked. If they ahd asked:
"Do you support the president having a kill switch to remove Websites that post articles criticizing the president or the government?" The result would probably be just 10-20% in favor.
Ever thought about getting a second phone line?
(1) They install the second line.
(2) Now you have two phone numbers.
(3) Upgrade phone #2 to DSL.
(4) Now you have two 1.5 Mbit/s feeds into you home. One for you, and one for the kids.
>>>There is no chance they would want that information to be able to target you directly or sell that information to someone else.
Nice sarcasm.
But these things don't cause me to have fear.
I get to read the latest Tom Clancy or Higgins Clark for free.
P.S.
>>>there is no natural difference between the owners of a corporation doing such things collectively,
There is another difference. Shareholders often don't agree with the practices of corporations. For example shareholders might not support Microsoft's endorsement of McCain for President (just picking randomly), and yet Microsoft is speaking with one voice as if all ~100,000 shareholders agree. It's misrepresentative.
-Or- shareholders might not be aware that Microsoft is hiring children to hand-assemble phones in an overseas sweatshop, and yet MS is lobbying in China's government to keep the practice legal. For those reasons (among many), I think speaking/lobbying should be limited to shareholders only..... on a one-by-one basis as individuals. And Microsoft should be muzzled. i.e. It has no privilege to speak - not a right. And said privilege can be severely limited.
Fine. Corrected:
For example Microsoft shareholders retain their rights, but the actual Microsoft, which is as inanimate as a building, should have no rights. It is a THING and things don't have rights, although the individuals inside that thing still retain all their Human rights (to speak, lobby, etc).
.
>>>the two are identical.
No. They aren't. I know Bill Gates is not the "owner" but for sake of argument let's suppose he is. He has the right to speak and hire lobbyists out of his OWN pocket. But Microsoft should have zero right to spend the money out of its own Treasury, because MS has no more rights than a building. It's a Thing not a person.
Humans rights are for humans. Not things.
Bill Gates is a human. He has rights.
Microsoft is a thing. It does not.
Unless you want to continue watching Congress STEAL your taxpayer money in 700 billion dollar bailouts? Because that's what the current system has created. It has become "We The Corporations" and "The Bill of Corporation Rights" while the human beings no longer matter.
>>>ever heard the phrase "co-equal branch of government"?
Ever heard of separation of powers? The law-making power is specifically listed by the Constitution(s) as belonging to the State Legislature and US Congress. For example a judge might rule, "It's okay for government schools to send laptops home, and record video of their students." That would be case precendent. But if the PA Legislature a month later passes a law forbidding spying on kids, then the Legislature's law will be *supreme* to the judge's opinion. His opinion will be nullified.
So just like I said... judges opinions and precedents are inferior to the actual Written Law.
.
>>>Local law trumps Supreme court decisions?
Yes. Let's suppose the Supremes ruled the city council of Baltimore shall be abolished, and run the city themselves (or assign the duty to congress). Local law, namely that passed by Maryland's Legislature creating Baltimore's council, would reign supreme over the court's opinion, because Amendment 10 forbids the SCOTUS from committing such an act (powers not given the US is reserved to the States). The Baltimore Council would not be dissolved, because the Law reigns supreme over mere judges.
To suppose otherwise would place us under the "despotism of oligarchs" to quote Jefferson.
>>>By not buying things from Poland
That sounds reasonable, unless it's a product only Poland makes. IMHO I should not have to pay Poland's tax unless my body enters their jurisdiction.
>>>what on earth are you babbling about?
Assuming the court allowed states to collect this info, I would be required to keep a list of all my customers in 2011, separate them, and mail-out 51 letters to the 50 states plus DC. That would require several days worth of labor on my part, and that is "taxing". I should not be taxed by governments where I have no representation in their legislature.
>>>Supreme Court, whose job it is to interpret the supreme law of the land
Not correct. "The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
.
>>>the higest authority on the matter
Also not correct. The States assembled in convention are the highest authority. "But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
And he also said:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
>>>all funding must come from the gov't,
And of course third parties like the Libertarians or Reformers or Communists would get no funds. Or else only ~1% what the Democrats/Republicans get. Your idea would merely solidify the Duopoly of the present parties, and lock-out any challengers. Brilliant (for them, not us).
And of course religious parties (constitutionalists) would not be allowed to get any money.
Just as religious schools can't get any government money.
So that's another form of suppression of voter speech.
>>>[MS ads] have a tremendous impact on elections.
Claim without proof has no value.
I consider your statement "null" and meaningless. Like if I said, "The grass is pink."
Your statement is equally lacking in value.
>>>Microsoft could set up a shell group called "Concerned Citizens for Software Freedom" and funnel money into it to buy a million political ads that trashed a candidate running against a candidate they liked.
So?
MS runs ads all the time. I don't find their running of ads to be something to fear, especially since I ignore them (press fast-forward on tape). You argument that MS should no longer be able to advertise seems specious at best, and fear-mongering at worst.
>>>if the people of the assembled group wanted to base their vote on a collective decision, then there isn't anything that should stop such a thing.
But that is still Individuals exercising individual, Human rights.
That doesn't mean the corporation should have the right to cast ~100,000 votes on behalf of its employees.
Neither should said corporation have the right to hire lobbyists to speak on behalf of its employees.
If they employees want to hire lobbyists, let them do it on an individual basis, while the corporation remain as silent as a rock, tree, or building.
>>>Just because people chose to exercise their right to assemble into a group, does not mean they have to give up their other rights. The Corporation only has the powers of the individuals that own it.
You are 100% correct.
However just because people form a group, doesn't mean the group acquires personhood. For example Microsoft employees retain their rights, but the actual microsoft, which is as inanimate as a building, should have no rights. If the owner of MS wants to speak let him speak as *himself* while the building remains silent. If the owner wants to hire lobbyists, let him hire them using his OWN money, while MS money is forbidden from hiring lobbyists.
Just because you join a group, does not mean you lose your rights - you can still speak, et cetera.
But neither does it mean the corporation suddenly becomes Human.
Non-humans (rocks, trees, buildings) don't have rights.
"Case law" is an inappropriate term. Courts make rulings and set precedents, but that doesn't mean future judges have to obey. For example if previous precedent established "segregating blacks from whites in Chicago is okay", that doesn't mean a judge is bound to it. He might say, "Well segregation violates the 14th. So I declare segregation to be null inside my jurisdiction," which might just be a single city, or could extend across a whole state or US district.
Also courts are inferior to legislatures. Case "law" is inferior to Local law, which is inferior to State law, which is inferior to US law, which is inferior to Constitutional law. Decisions made by judges are the weakest form. They are akin to advisements, and not much else.
>>>that individual citizens are forevermore
Don't exaggerate. The Supreme Court is free to change their mind. They once ruled that segregation was legal, and then later changed their minds. Also take heat in the words of Thomas Jefferson (founder of the Democrat-republicans):
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
The STATES are the ultimate deciders.
If they don't like this decision and the Court does not change its mind,
they have the otion to amend the Constitution and remove donations from corporations.
Contributions may only come from registered voters (and with the current $2000 limit)
That would exclude money from corporations.
>>>Because see, the way we actually track public opinion in this country is by having elections.
Not true. We also track public opinion via Citizens' calls to the Congressional representatives. In October 2008 the phones were overloaded with citizens saying, "Vote No on the bailout bill," and it passed anyway. Then the same thing happened again in the week prior to the Healthcare Reform Bill ("vote no") and it passed anyway. The calls were approximately 75% and 70% against these bills.
So the previous poster is correct. The Democrat-supermajority Congress is ignoring the constituents - you might as well not bother calling, because they won't listen anyway.