You're not a non-entity. You are voluntarily participating in the operation of an Artificial Legal Entity, created by The People via the Secretary of State accepting the filing requesting existence.
So, WHY would The People bother doing any of that? Last time I checked the Constitution of New York, and the Constitution of the United States, there was no requirement of any Governmental body to provide for the creation of Artificial Legal Entities.
So, again, why would The People bother? It's not taxes. If *you* operate a business, and turn a profit, *you* pay taxes. So why bother creating Artificial Legal Entities, and why would you ever create one you couldn't regulate.
Consider something else. The ALE is a creation of The State. Can the Creator endow it's creation with powers, it The State, does not have?
Sarcasm aside, then what's the benefit to The People for permitting the existence of Corporate Artificial Legal Entities in the first place, if they don't FIRST benefit The People in tangible ways?
Why bother having the Secretary of State even bother filing the paperwork?
These Artificial Legal Entities need to be re-enslaved.
When the owners sign on the line, begging The People to permit their incorporation, they agree to go by the regulation The People impose.
It is very much like your drivers' license.
You OWN your car, and theoretically, in a Free Nation , that Property Right is absolute, and you may do with your property, your car, whatever you wish.
UNTIL you sign your Drivers' license application. At that moment, when you AGREE to abide by the Regulations for Vehicles and Traffic, that you surrender your Rights.
Exact same thing with the incorporation of ALEs. We *could* make them do whatever we want, and if they don't like it, they can just close up shop, and liquidate their assets back to the shareholders.
But somehow, this idea of them being just as good as a Flesh-and-Blood came about.
Every dollar spent on NASA's budget is a dollar wasted.
Jerry Pournelle has it right. Offer PRIZES to the American Corporations which achieve goals.
That way, us taxpayers don't spend a DIME until we get results.
Want the 250 Billion Dollar Prize for keeping 31 Americans alive and well on the moon for a year and a day? Keep 31 Americans alive and well on the moon for a year and a day, and it's yours taxfree.
I suggest going for the 100 Billion Dollar Prize for reusable access to space, replacing the shuttle first.
For less than the cost of the Iraq War SO FAR, we could have had the constellation of orbital solar power satellites beaming down electricity to fill the batteries of our hybrid cars with ZERO EMISSIONS.
*AND* the lifting infrastructure to install and support them ( meanwhile providing access to orbit for about the cost of FedEx Custom Critical.)
We *have* the electric grid, we just need to plug in Ground Stations.
And we could tell the Oil Vendors to hold onto their stocks, b/c we'll still need to buy it, but only enough to make Tupperware, going forward.
"WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT *EXPLICITLY* SAY HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT?"
It doesn't. Why would you believe that the Constitution creates Rights? That's incorrect.
They come ( as stated explicitly in the Declaration of Independence ) from our Creator.
The Constitution DOES say that the rights NOT enumerated, are all reserved by The People and/or The State.
Why would anyone who is literate, for even a second, suggest the Constitution does anything EXCEPT enumerate the legitimately delegated authority of the Federal Government.
Is your issue the Unconstitutional expansion of Federal Authority? I don't disagree. Blame the Hamiltonians and their "Liberal" interpretation of the Constitution to say that which it does not say.
"Were that apparent simplistic statement true (which our Judicial system had determined it was NOT so long ago) there would be no "right" to privacy, no "right" to an abortion, no IRS, no federally funded healthcare, etc etc etc..."
The DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE is the document which speaks to the unalienable rights, not the Constitution, and they come from Our Creator.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It SHOULD BE familiar to you...
The 9th and 10th Amendments clarify the Feds position with respect to the Unenumerated Rights quite clearly.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
Hamilton was a piece of shit, and if he was shot dead 18 years earlier, the US would be a much better place. We all are aware of HIS biases and agenda, aren't we?
I don't really need the DOJ to tell me what the Constitution says, thanks. I'm perfectly able to read it myself.
The Constitution says EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, No More, No Less.
Anyone contending differently has their own idealogical or political agenda. ( which apparently doesn't involve basic literacy. )
"ALL their authority is derived from the President. "
ALL their authority is DELEGATED by The People via The Constitution.
"For a U.S. Attorney to prosecute the President is for the President to prosecute himself."
The indictment reads "UNITED STATES v. BUSH", not "BUSH v. BUSH".
Why is that?
"The Executive Power is vested in The President".
HOW does anyone get from that to "The President Cannot Be Prosecuted While In Office?"
"Yes, there is. I've explicitly stated it many times, and you've refused to address it."
I don't think you know what the word "explicit" means.
WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT *EXPLICITLY* SAY THE PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION WHILE IN OFFICE?
I'm saying that you're hypothesis of "The President Prosecuting Himself" is just plain wrong, as the case is The United States v., The US Attorneys act in the Name of The People.
Why do you think that is, and not acting in the name of the President?
"And again: WHO do you suppose could prosecute him?"
Ever hear of a United States Attorney. What oath do they take, is it obedience to the Executive, or obedience to the Law?
Let's look for your mythical "The President Cannot Be Prosecuted For Crimes while in office" clause...
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Const
"And indeed, in my opinion, the Constitution does say exactly what it means: it says, quite clearly, that no one has the authority to prosecute the President, except the President himself."
Please cite the Constitutional Text which specifies, "quite clearly, that no one has the authority to prosecute the President, except the President himself", and further, as you contend, that the delegation of authority to the Executive, makes the Executive immune to that authority.
You can't.
And that is why Hamiltonians are easily dismissed.
The leap from the delegation of authority ( which is explicit ) to the ASSUMPTION that that delegation "somehow" translates into immunity from prosecution for criminal acts...
How are you supposed to impeach someone for High Crimes, if they're not CONVICTED OF HIGH CRIMES first?
By citing Hamilton, we know all about you which needs to be known.
Why do Hamiltonians seem to believe the Constitution doesn't say EXACTLY what it means?
Because their "Liberal" interpretation of otherwise very simple, clear text enables their dishonesty.
To a Hamiltonian, the Constitution needs to be Interpreted for The People, because The People are too dumb to understand it themselves. Right then and their they label themselves Enemies of Liberty.
So, you're saying that The President is EXEMPT from The Law.
How does that tie into "All Men Are Created Equal", and the whole "Due Process" and "Equal Protection" thing?
And where is the EXPLICIT grant of immunity, delegated by The People, to the Executive Branch, in the Constitution.
You *do* know that the Constitution delegates *all* authority to the Federal Government, and if it's not EXPLICITLY DELEGATED, it's not a Lawful Power.
So, what clause of the Constitution grants Immunity from Prosecution to the Executive?
"Who would prosecute him? Only federal prosecutors have the authority to do that, and that authority is derived from the executive authority of the United States. And according to the very beginning of Article II, Section 1, all of that executive authority of the United States is vested in the President. To file criminal charges against the President would mean the President was prosecuting himself, which makes no sense."
OR that the United States Attorney bringing the case to the Grand Jury cared more about his OATH and DUTY than his Political Reliability.
But, since Sampson and Goodling's Purge of the DOJ of anyone expressly NOT a "Loyal Bushie", you have a point, it *is* kind of mute, with all of the US Attorneys being nothing but politically reliable flunkies.
So... This is what the Soviet Union used to be like, with The Party more important than The Law, eh?
[quote]
It's also why one executive department cannot sue another one: because then the President would be suing himself. [/quote]
PROSECUTE. And the case is the United States v. Bush, not Bush v. Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
YOU JUST WANT TO BE ANONYMOUS.
The flaw is that you're assuming that a desire to be anonymous means you have a REASON to be anonymous.
SAMBA. Not being able to package Samba is the kiss of death.
Dear Congress,
Don't make us release the contents of your cellphone calls, landline calls, internet usage, and emails. STFU and do as you're told.
Your Master,
AT&T
http://www.varley.net/Pages/Books/Mammoth.htm
DAMNIT! I forgot the [sarcasm] tag again. Apologies for any misunderstandings...
But Tony Stark is *still* a total Dick!
Thank YOU Mr. Spoiler!
Man, is Tony Stark an asshole, or what? "Recovering Alcoholics"... Can't really trust 'em, can you?
You're not a non-entity. You are voluntarily participating in the operation of an Artificial Legal Entity, created by The People via the Secretary of State accepting the filing requesting existence.
So, WHY would The People bother doing any of that? Last time I checked the Constitution of New York, and the Constitution of the United States, there was no requirement of any Governmental body to provide for the creation of Artificial Legal Entities.
So, again, why would The People bother? It's not taxes. If *you* operate a business, and turn a profit, *you* pay taxes. So why bother creating Artificial Legal Entities, and why would you ever create one you couldn't regulate.
Consider something else. The ALE is a creation of The State. Can the Creator endow it's creation with powers, it The State, does not have?
Sarcasm aside, then what's the benefit to The People for permitting the existence of Corporate Artificial Legal Entities in the first place, if they don't FIRST benefit The People in tangible ways?
Why bother having the Secretary of State even bother filing the paperwork?
These Artificial Legal Entities need to be re-enslaved.
When the owners sign on the line, begging The People to permit their incorporation, they agree to go by the regulation The People impose.
It is very much like your drivers' license.
You OWN your car, and theoretically, in a Free Nation , that Property Right is absolute, and you may do with your property, your car, whatever you wish.
UNTIL you sign your Drivers' license application. At that moment, when you AGREE to abide by the Regulations for Vehicles and Traffic, that you surrender your Rights.
Exact same thing with the incorporation of ALEs. We *could* make them do whatever we want, and if they don't like it, they can just close up shop, and liquidate their assets back to the shareholders.
But somehow, this idea of them being just as good as a Flesh-and-Blood came about.
How about we get NASA out of the loop for Manned Space Flight and give it to....
The Navy.
They're called Space SHIPS, aren't they?
If that's the kind of management ethos the Sr Brass has...
It explains a lot, doesn't it?
That's MY opinion, about each dollar in the budget being wasted, not Jerry Pournelle's.
It's HIS suggestion to do the prize-based development.
I can go along with the idea of JPL not being a total bunch of screw-ups. They *do* predate NASA by a goodly number of years.
Every dollar spent on NASA's budget is a dollar wasted.
Jerry Pournelle has it right. Offer PRIZES to the American Corporations which achieve goals.
That way, us taxpayers don't spend a DIME until we get results.
Want the 250 Billion Dollar Prize for keeping 31 Americans alive and well on the moon for a year and a day? Keep 31 Americans alive and well on the moon for a year and a day, and it's yours taxfree.
I suggest going for the 100 Billion Dollar Prize for reusable access to space, replacing the shuttle first.
For less than the cost of the Iraq War SO FAR, we could have had the constellation of orbital solar power satellites beaming down electricity to fill the batteries of our hybrid cars with ZERO EMISSIONS.
*AND* the lifting infrastructure to install and support them ( meanwhile providing access to orbit for about the cost of FedEx Custom Critical.)
We *have* the electric grid, we just need to plug in Ground Stations.
And we could tell the Oil Vendors to hold onto their stocks, b/c we'll still need to buy it, but only enough to make Tupperware, going forward.
"WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT *EXPLICITLY* SAY HEALTHCARE IS A RIGHT?"
It doesn't. Why would you believe that the Constitution creates Rights? That's incorrect.
They come ( as stated explicitly in the Declaration of Independence ) from our Creator.
The Constitution DOES say that the rights NOT enumerated, are all reserved by The People and/or The State.
Why would anyone who is literate, for even a second, suggest the Constitution does anything EXCEPT enumerate the legitimately delegated authority of the Federal Government.
Is your issue the Unconstitutional expansion of Federal Authority? I don't disagree. Blame the Hamiltonians and their "Liberal" interpretation of the Constitution to say that which it does not say.
"Were that apparent simplistic statement true (which our Judicial system had determined it was NOT so long ago) there would be no "right" to privacy, no "right" to an abortion, no IRS, no federally funded healthcare, etc etc etc..."
The DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE is the document which speaks to the unalienable rights, not the Constitution, and they come from Our Creator.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It SHOULD BE familiar to you...
The 9th and 10th Amendments clarify the Feds position with respect to the Unenumerated Rights quite clearly.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
Are pretty damn clear.
Hamilton was a piece of shit, and if he was shot dead 18 years earlier, the US would be a much better place. We all are aware of HIS biases and agenda, aren't we?
I don't really need the DOJ to tell me what the Constitution says, thanks. I'm perfectly able to read it myself.
The Constitution says EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, No More, No Less.
Anyone contending differently has their own idealogical or political agenda. ( which apparently doesn't involve basic literacy. )
"I already said that is not explicitly stated. I said it was directly, necessarily, implied."
I'm sorry, I'm just never going to believe the Constitution implies anything.
EVERYTHING it says is explicitly, clearly stated, and I contend anyone suggesting otherwise has their own agenda.
"Sure, unless that law is a violation of the Constitution, of course."
IIRC, it's not the Executive which decides the Constitutionality of Laws.
"ALL their authority is derived from the President. "
ALL their authority is DELEGATED by The People via The Constitution.
"For a U.S. Attorney to prosecute the President is for the President to prosecute himself."
The indictment reads "UNITED STATES v. BUSH", not "BUSH v. BUSH".
Why is that?
"The Executive Power is vested in The President".
HOW does anyone get from that to "The President Cannot Be Prosecuted While In Office?"
"Yes, there is. I've explicitly stated it many times, and you've refused to address it."
I don't think you know what the word "explicit" means.
WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT *EXPLICITLY* SAY THE PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION WHILE IN OFFICE?
I'm saying that you're hypothesis of "The President Prosecuting Himself" is just plain wrong, as the case is The United States v., The US Attorneys act in the Name of The People.
Why do you think that is, and not acting in the name of the President?
There is no "Unitary Executive".
Congress passes the Laws.
The Executive executes those laws.
There is no wiggle room.
Obey the Law, AS WRITTEN BY CONGRESS.
Don't do the Crime, if you Can't Do The Time.
"And again: WHO do you suppose could prosecute him?"
Ever hear of a United States Attorney. What oath do they take, is it obedience to the Executive, or obedience to the Law?
Let's look for your mythical "The President Cannot Be Prosecuted For Crimes while in office" clause...
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Const
"And indeed, in my opinion, the Constitution does say exactly what it means: it says, quite clearly, that no one has the authority to prosecute the President, except the President himself."
Please cite the Constitutional Text which specifies, "quite clearly, that no one has the authority to prosecute the President, except the President himself", and further, as you contend, that the delegation of authority to the Executive, makes the Executive immune to that authority.
You can't.
And that is why Hamiltonians are easily dismissed.
The leap from the delegation of authority ( which is explicit ) to the ASSUMPTION that that delegation "somehow" translates into immunity from prosecution for criminal acts...
How are you supposed to impeach someone for High Crimes, if they're not CONVICTED OF HIGH CRIMES first?
By citing Hamilton, we know all about you which needs to be known.
Why do Hamiltonians seem to believe the Constitution doesn't say EXACTLY what it means?
Because their "Liberal" interpretation of otherwise very simple, clear text enables their dishonesty.
To a Hamiltonian, the Constitution needs to be Interpreted for The People, because The People are too dumb to understand it themselves. Right then and their they label themselves Enemies of Liberty.
Boy, is that a leap.
So, you're saying that The President is EXEMPT from The Law.
How does that tie into "All Men Are Created Equal", and the whole "Due Process" and "Equal Protection" thing?
And where is the EXPLICIT grant of immunity, delegated by The People, to the Executive Branch, in the Constitution.
You *do* know that the Constitution delegates *all* authority to the Federal Government, and if it's not EXPLICITLY DELEGATED, it's not a Lawful Power.
So, what clause of the Constitution grants Immunity from Prosecution to the Executive?
"Who would prosecute him? Only federal prosecutors have the authority to do that, and that authority is derived from the executive authority of the United States. And according to the very beginning of Article II, Section 1, all of that executive authority of the United States is vested in the President. To file criminal charges against the President would mean the President was prosecuting himself, which makes no sense."
OR that the United States Attorney bringing the case to the Grand Jury cared more about his OATH and DUTY than his Political Reliability.
But, since Sampson and Goodling's Purge of the DOJ of anyone expressly NOT a "Loyal Bushie", you have a point, it *is* kind of mute, with all of the US Attorneys being nothing but politically reliable flunkies.
So... This is what the Soviet Union used to be like, with The Party more important than The Law, eh?
[quote]
It's also why one executive department cannot sue another one: because then the President would be suing himself.
[/quote]
PROSECUTE. And the case is the United States v. Bush, not Bush v. Bush.
You're not getting junkmail in your reality-based mailbox, then?
This has NOTHING to do with stopping Spam.
This is all about generating revenue from Spam.