The supremacy clause is a constitutional power. The 10th amendment does not enumerate powers.
All the supremacy clause says is that federal law is supreme over state law. However, in order for federal law to be valid, it has to be constitutionally valid which means the constitution has to give the federal government jurisdiction and lacking that, the 10th amendment prohibits the law from being valid.
e inability of the federal government to cap speed limits directly is consistent with this since any point of a highway is only in one state at a time. The Zimmerman case as well is consistent with this since as you say it did not involve anything outside of a single state or any area where the federal government can specifically intervene in an otherwise purely intra-state matter. These examples only show that the supremacy clause doesn't completely negate state law, but this does not completely negate federal law either.
No, what is shows is that the federal government cannot just make a law and have it override state law. It shows that the government has to have constitutional authority to make the law and constitutional authority to impose it over the state laws else the 10th amendment steps in and decides in favor of the states.
The gambling issue is *specifically* a case involving sites outside of a state's borders. The supremacy clause would not allow the federal government to force a state to have a purely state lottery or prohibit a purely state lottery, but it does allow the federal government to intervene if a state tried to prohibit its residents from possessing a lottery ticket from another state or in this case from gambling on a website that is located outside of the state
Actually, no. It is specifically an issue involving sites within a state's borders. The feds already made gambling across state lines illegal. They even made it illegal to process credit card payments to and from people inside the US and gambling sites. The problem is that some of the states have made internet gambling legal if the servers are located within the state and the gambling house has a presence within the state and is subject to state laws. The WTO said that because some states allow online gambling inside those states, the feds must allow online gambling in every state with servers and companies located anywhere in the world in order to satisfy a provision of a treaty that has to be interpreted to include a technology created after the treaty was signed despite the US prohibiting gambling across the state lines since the 1941 wire fraud act.
A treaty is only an agreement to change or solidify the federal government's relations with other sovereign nation's. It is not in any way an amendment to the US constitutions. The Constitution says all laws have to be made in accordance with the constitution and that all treaties must be made under the same authority.
The absurdity of what you suggest can be illustrated rather easily. Can the senate and the president of the US sign a treaty to give California to China or to abolish the US constitution altogether and go back under English rule? If you say no, I say then a treaty cannot alter the constitution and must be made in accordance with it. Plain and simple.
So it is discovered that the U.S. is not following the treaty in the case of Antigua, for whatever uninteresting internal reason, and therefore Antigua is no longer bound by the same treaty when dealing with the U.S. It is that simple.
If that were only the case, there wouldn't be an issue. The WTO is not saying that Antigua can ignore the same treaty as the US effectively did, they have said that they can ignore other treaties under WIPO to the tune of 21 million some dollars.
If the U.S. signed a treaty and then didn't follow through internally, it is their own problem. At least as long as they want other nations to stick to this treaty. The 'federal government' might not have power to make this a law in all states. In that case, it is their job to 'sell' the treaty they signed internally. To convince all states that this is good for them and their trade. In this they have failed - apparently - and now enjoying the first consequences.
it is obvious that you don't have a clue about this.The US did not in any way shape or form sign a treaty then fail to implement it. The US signed a treaty well before online gambling was possible or possible outside a small rare situation and the treaty has later been reinterpreted to include online gambling despite the US having a ban on gambling across state lines since the wire fraud act of 1941. The prevailing argument was that because states under their own sovereign right inside the US allow gambling inside the state, the US is non-compliant.
Between some idiot on the Internet, and the Constitution, I'll trust the Constitution.
Don't trust yourself then. That's ok, I will explain your problem to you in a minute.
. Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.
Reread the section of the constitution you posted. and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States has a specific meaning. It means that the United States, which is constituted by the Constitution, can make only treaties that are constitutional or under the authority of the constitution. That's where your argument flopps on the ground like a dieing fish out of water. I actually feel sorry for you and it as it gasps for air trying to save itself while roasting in the sun.
No treaty can be made that alters the US constitution because the constitution says the treaty has to be made under the authority of the United States and the United States can only alter the constitution by amendment procedures.
The inter-state commerce clause was designed for this purpose. They have been abusing those powers to ban drugs, but regulating gambling crossing state lines is literally what the law is set up to do.
I don't think you understand the problem. Some state make internet gambling illegal. The interstate commerce clause could not make those states change that. The feds already made it illegal to gamble across state lines and states that specifically allow online gambling require servers to be set up in state and the site is regulated like a casino within the state. the feds also already made it illegal for a credit car processor to process transactions between an online gambling site and an American person which hasn't stopped the problem.
Part of Antigua's argument specifically addressed the fact that specific states allow forms of online gambling even though the fed does not. So the interstate commerce clause has already been used but has not worked.
If they'd meant tourist advertising, they could have said tourist advertising. If they want to say things that can be interpreted in any way one wants, then they need to accept that others may have different interpretations.
No, it doesn't work that way. They, as everyone else, has an idea about what a general term or phrase means. If the mortgage on your home said you couldn't use the home for commercial purposes, then 10 years after you are paying for it high speed internet finally makes it to your house and they decide that working from home is "commercial purposes". Somehow I doubt you would all the sudden say, "well it can be interpreted that way or anyway they like, I guess I have to drive an hour in rush hour traffic twice a day again". I'm willing to bet that you and everyone else would claim that it wasn't commercial purposes for you to work from home just because the internet finally made it possible.
How would they feel if some other country decided that selling religious books was against social policy?
We already see that so how does it feel? I mean seriously, do you think members of the WTO do not regulate the content that enters their country? There are 22 members of the Arab league and 57 members of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation inside the WTO who not all, but some strictly forbid religious materials not of Islamic origin, BTW, those organizations are not just countries palling around together, they are fraternal and recognized in the WTO as such.
And wrote a law that also forbid selling DVDs, CDs, and MP3s, etc. that might contain religious themes? (Not against providing them, O no, just against selling them.) Doing it for entertainment is allowed, but not as a profitable activity. I could come up with an interpretation of that treaty that would easily justify such a law.
I seriously doubt you could come up with any interpretation of that treaty. You have already demonstrated that you do not know or understand it and you have demonstrated already that you have little knowledge of the situation surrounding the US gambling issues that Antigua has. You sound like someone who is just pissed and running off at the mouth because the US outlaws gambling, just like the lawyer from Texas who went to the WTO to cause this problem in the first place.
No, it wouldn't be even close to that. That is probaly why you think it is so absurd -you are confused.
If you must keep a christian comparison, it is like a christian leaving a church where the preacher claims watching all TV is a sin and then joining the christisn church next door who claims only watching sin on tv can be a sin.
You see, the treaty does not say gambling is legal or anything of the sort. Even the WTO agrees that the US never intended to allow gambling as part of the treaty. You see, the problem comes from an interpretation that recreational services which would normally be considered tourism recruitment and cruise lines and the likes include online gambling despite the fact that the treaty language predated online gambling by 4 years in yhr modt liberal construct of online gambling and by 10 or more years in the most conservative construct.
But to be clear, the us never signed a treaty that said you must allow online ganbling. It signed a treaty that has later been interpreted to allow something that didn't exist when the treaty was created.
I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm not necessarily a libertarian and I have already stated in another thread you have replied to that I think government should regulate it.
However, the begger in Soviet Russia doesn't need to know anything about the US. Soviet Russia should have the laws in place too. This system is internationally recognized the world around and is in use in Russia too. But a lawsuit over international persons or shell companies only gets complicated, not impossible.
You are right, people can game the system, fake bankruptcies and all that. But that would only embolden government to take action for criminal charges and the app stores would likely end up banning the apps before then to avoid vicarious liability.
Yes, to the extent they are constitutionally allowed and they have jurisdiction.
They are equal to the Constitution, so far as coverage of the states is concerned. Functionally, they are amendments to the Constitution
No they are not. The government was never founded in a way that would allow just the senate and the president to change the relationship the constitutions imposes on the states and federal government. That would require a constitutional amendment which deals with a whole lot more input then a majority in the senate. The 9th amendment makes this clear when it says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, all the laws and treaties made have to be within the bounds of the constitution. A treaty cannot change the constitution in any way. In the lawsuit over Obamacare which is also the law of the land, the mandate did not survive constitutional challenge on the merits of a fine. The Supreme court had to change it from a fine to a tax in order to find support for it (on a side note, that will likely be challenged too within the next year or so).
In Ohio for instance, the law requires the executor of an estate to file any probable wrongful death lawsuits on the behalf of the estate. If they fail to do so, the legal heirs can go after the executor of the estate for whatever they think the wrongful death claim would have brought.
Most law firms will flip the bill for the lawsuit and take a percentage of the suit if won. But it might not be up to the people that care about the dead. It may be something the law requires even if it does cost a lot more of the inheritance than they will recover.
It is exactly the WTO's problem. If the treaties are not interpreted to the limitations of the countries involved, they are not valid treaties. In other words, you cannot expect a government, the US or England or France or any other government, to be bound to treaties that they do not have the ability to implement. If you do, you have a treaty that doesn't function and it becomes invalid.
Perhaps invalid is not the word I'm looking to use. Maybe unenforceable Garbage is a better word.
Article Six does give the federal government the authority for the former with respect to transactions outside of the states borders.
Not really. The supremacy clause cannot work against the constitutional powers or the 10th amendment.
It can regulate the commerce between states but cannot force a state to participate in a specific form of commerce. This was already explored when the federal government attempted to lower all the speed limits to 55 mph. It got tossed out on a court case due to the 10th amendment so they instead decided to withhold federal highway funding if they didn't lower the speed limits to 55. Then when they attempted to do the same for a motorcycle helmet law, another 10th amendment case was brought. This went threw the courts which the supreme court ruled that they couldn't remove existing moneys, only refuse to give additional moneys. After that, all the states started raising the speed limits back up and some that put helmet laws in place repealed them.
The only time article 6 will give the federal government power to intrude on a state is when the federal government already has original jurisdiction. An example of this is the murder laws. Lets take the Zimmerman case for example. Neither the original DA or the police wanted to charge Zimmerman with anything. They didn't think he could be convicted which ultimately proved to be correct. The feds got involved but couldn't bring charges on him so they pressured the state. Finally the state sent in a special prosecutor and formally charged Zimmerman with murder. He was formally acquitted (regardless of whether you agree with the situation or not). The feds couldn't prosecute him because the crime didn't happen on federal property, involved a federal employee, happen in a federal territory, or cross state lines.
Another example is the civil rights laws in which the feds attempted to look at to somehow punish Zimmerman but their hands were tied due to nothing happened that violated the letter of the laws within their jurisdiction. Did you know that federal civil rights laws do not apply to everyone or every company? Companies making less then a certain amount of money aren't subject to them. Hotels with less then something like 14 rooms aren't subject to them. There are quite a few other exceptions that do not apply. It is a good thing that states have created their own civil rights laws that mirror or compliment the federal laws in order to bridge these gaps. But it is an illustration of how the federal government is limited to original jurisdiction in which the interstate commerce clause was used to give jurisdiction in this case. It also illustrates that the supremacy clause or article 6 is limited to that fact. Both murder and civil rights laws are federal but plenty of circumstances exist where they do not apply.
Your argument is true only if all treaties are invalid.
Well, no. I hit on why with the either willingly sign a treaty or it is imposed on them (presumable by force or the threat of force).
Can Antigua ignore US law within its borders? If no, then nobody who crosses the US is sovereign. We have the New World Order, and it is us.
The issue here is trade favor and if it remains given the circumstances. If a county doesn't honor our IP laws, we can chose not to trade with them or allow them to trade with us. We might even be able to convince some other nations to join in on the fun. We certainly cannot force them to obey US law without the threat of force (which I think this government might be capable of trying)
But I believe the ruling is flawed insomuch that it doesn't take into account the political structure of the US and instead imposes the rules as if the federal government was an all encompassing concentration of power in the US that all states and citizens are subjects of. This would be the normal structure in most of the rest of the world but in the US, it is different. Some people say this is what makes the US exceptional- the people are the sovereign and the government is allowed to exist as subjects of the people. It has been hard to find that in practice lately but that was the general idea where as in other countries, the government is the sovereign and the people are subjects of the governments. This is especially the case in Europe where most people and governments are subjects of the crown. There are 12 monarchies in Europe currently (including the Vatican city) and while they do not have or exert much political power any more, the concept is still there.
Should we examine this situation with the limitations the US government has actually being recognized, I'm confident the ruling would have been different. The Treaty was designed to stop favoritism in trade and remove barriers to entry, not impose mandates the government cannot implement because something relatively new came about.
That won't exactly fly with this. I'm not even positive that Missouri v. Holland would have ended the way it did with the court that is seated now either.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius is why too. Obamacare was actually ruled part unconstitutional which is why the federal exchange is the center of problems and attention today.
All these federal state divides seem to apply only to the US in case things out there are not going our way, isn't it?
Well, actually, it applies to the US in every matter the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to act in. So there are some exceptions but it is no secret considering that the tenth amendment to the US constitution specifically says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Why, I understand Syria did not sign CW treaty but that did not prevent us getting ready to bomb that little country, the whole cong/sen banging war drums.
Now, if you actually think we were going to bomb Syria, I have some swamp land-- prime beach front property I could sell you. The only reason why we considered bombing Syria is because Obama open his mouth and was trying to look tough and drew a red line he never thought Syria would cross. Any other president would have shut the hell up before that was even said but once push came to shove, they would have also done something instead of sending the minions out to claim any day now, he will make a decision, he's just using his intellect to intellectualize or something, then pass it off to congress before Putin took one of Kerry's gaffs and gave him an out.
Now I will admit that there are people in congress who want us to goto war in Syria. That Loon John McCain is one of them but that should tell us something.
We didn't ignore international law to hurt the economy of others.
The problem is that the US federal government does not have the authority to mandate states allow gambling inside their borders or restrict them from allowing it. The US federal government does not have the authority to allow gambling inside a state without that gambling following the state's laws to a tee. The US federal government does not have the authority to ban gambling inside a state. And this is not even bothering getting into the Indian reservations which complicate things a little more.
This was all clearly argued when the WTO was making it's decision but they couldn't comprehend it. Instead, the WTO basically remedied the situation by allowing them to recoup some monetary advantages through the unlicensed use of IP.
International law does not and can not override the laws of a sovereign nation. A nation can only be subject to international law if it is imposed on them thereby removing their sovereignty or if it willingly submits to it. A treaty is a willful submission but if the treaty is to be interpreted in this way, the US federal government had no authority to sign it without adding a signing statement to limit it's exposure.
The US has it's hands tied in this matter. The problem is that the federal government has no authority to require individual states to allow gambling within it's border nor does it have the authority to require states to allow gambling from outside it's border to happen inside the state in violation of the state's laws.
Those limitations should have been put in a signing statement upon ratification. Evidently, no one saw this possibility and didn't do it.
They wouldn't have to leave the WTO, just remove yourself from the treaty then sign and ratify it again with a signing statement that negates the problem.
The problem is that the US is not government by one federal government. The states have sovereign authority in these matters and the US federal government has no power to act over top of them. Simply put, a signing statement to this effect should have been there to begin with. Someone obviously didn't understand the consequences, the WTO court doesn't understand the US political jurisdiction, so it simply needs fixed.
The Avalanche Rescue System actually does have a predicated standard that is recognized internationally. Supposedly, you purchase one anywhere, regardless of the manufacturer, and it is completely comparable anywhere in the world that uses the system.
That being said, I do think this is a government regulation type thing in at minimum, they should be required to clearly disclaim any possibility of being a substitute for the real thing.
Imagine you were at a pool or lake and there was a flotation device hanging on a pole near by that said life saving emergency device. Now suppose you fell in and injured yourself to the point that keeping your head above water was very difficult and someone grabbed that device and tossed it to you. Now suppose when you grab it it falls apart and doesn't have the buoyancy you would expect from a real life saver flotation device that is US coastguard approved because it was a cheap replica sold to someone to add to the ambiance of the location. Now suppose that person thinks you will be ok holding onto the flotation device when he see you grab it and immediately runs to get someone to help.
Caveat emptor could mean a death sentence if someone thinks you or they will be safe and you are not. An app like this or even a device like this must make it clear that it is not the real thing or a comparable substitute for the real thing. If that is present and the buyer decides to give it a try, it is buyer beware. If it isn't available and readily known, then it is misleading, dangerous, and possibility fraudulent. And I think that these apps will end up being removed by lawsuits over wrongful death, aggravated injuries or something before any criminal charges will be filed. When a widow and their children are crying in court stating how the deceased thought it was just as good because of the marketing and the defense is claiming the guy should have looked into what he was purchasing better or he should have read the EULA which has the disclaimer hidden in it, its going to be hard to see how this ends in the app maker's favor.
One of the problems is that how do you know those facts? Of course you are not a dummy and looked into it a bit and applied knowledge you probably already possessed, but have you done so before this story came about?
Well, suppose you have looked into it and when you did, you saw an app for your phone that said it could send help if ever in an avalanche. If you were an average consumer, would you know based on that exchange that the app couldn't be a substitute? Forget what you know about phones and think like a normal person who's geekiest moment might be watching The Big Bang Theory or reruns if Weird Science.
I know people who are contract lawyers, who build million dollar homes, who see millions of dollars pass through their hands daily as an investment banker, and a lot of other people who would otherwise seem intelligent by most standards but can't figure out the reason their computer isn't turning on is because they kicked the power strip with their feet and unplugged it or switched it off. One thing I learned a long time ago, what is obvious for some will not be for all. People are just different. It is what makes the world an interesting place.
If somebody brands it as 'Personal Safety Notifier Pro' and insinuates that EMS dispatch is somehow going to find you based on this behavior, I'd like to see them charged with negligent homicide each time that fails to happen.
They would probably be sued out of existence by a few wrongful death lawsuits before anyone prosecuted them. The thing is, you can make claims, you can obfuscate claims that lead people to believe something not directly implied, but when it is a matter of life and death and the later prevails, you more then likely end up with a courtroom watching a widow and their children cry while some lawyer is telling his client to stop acting like subtle deception is ok if you do it right and profit from it.
Someone is going to have a bad day.
Please, the you was not you specifically, it was a general you in which I could make a point.
I'm generally against the governments doing things like that but I agree this is one time some controlling authority steps in and initiates legal action to make sure the apps are not marketed as something they are incapable of. It would be like me marketing a bungy cord as a replacement passenger restraint system (seat belt) for cars that had them cut either by vandalism or by emergency personnel after a crash.
Given the information in the submission and one of the linked files, these apps should be required to specifically indicate they are not avalanche rescue system substitutes.
I would suggest a good portion of the difference is who has the email legitimately.
I mean is it worse for your roommate, who you have loaned your car to before to take your car and drive across town without asking or for me who you don't know or just met to do the same?
That's because no one thought they were lies. Too many previous government officials said the same things. Too many foreign officials said the same things. Saddam himself supposedly said in a CIA interview that he had to make the world think he had chemical weapons because he feared Iran would invade them if they knew he was defenseless.
People at that time disagreed on what to do about it but few disagreed on the facts that turned out to be incorrect. Even the UN weapon's inspectors said in their quarterly reports that unregistered duel use items and chemical precursors along with the constant obstructions in inspections made it appear that Iraq had not disposed of all their WMDs or stopped working with them. You can even download those reports from the UNMOVIC and UNSCUM websites that are still available. Hans Blix, one of the strongest opponents of the Iraq war authored or approved most of those quarterly reports before the invasion.
Slashdot Mirror
All the supremacy clause says is that federal law is supreme over state law. However, in order for federal law to be valid, it has to be constitutionally valid which means the constitution has to give the federal government jurisdiction and lacking that, the 10th amendment prohibits the law from being valid.
No, what is shows is that the federal government cannot just make a law and have it override state law. It shows that the government has to have constitutional authority to make the law and constitutional authority to impose it over the state laws else the 10th amendment steps in and decides in favor of the states.
Actually, no. It is specifically an issue involving sites within a state's borders. The feds already made gambling across state lines illegal. They even made it illegal to process credit card payments to and from people inside the US and gambling sites. The problem is that some of the states have made internet gambling legal if the servers are located within the state and the gambling house has a presence within the state and is subject to state laws. The WTO said that because some states allow online gambling inside those states, the feds must allow online gambling in every state with servers and companies located anywhere in the world in order to satisfy a provision of a treaty that has to be interpreted to include a technology created after the treaty was signed despite the US prohibiting gambling across the state lines since the 1941 wire fraud act.
A treaty is only an agreement to change or solidify the federal government's relations with other sovereign nation's. It is not in any way an amendment to the US constitutions. The Constitution says all laws have to be made in accordance with the constitution and that all treaties must be made under the same authority.
The absurdity of what you suggest can be illustrated rather easily. Can the senate and the president of the US sign a treaty to give California to China or to abolish the US constitution altogether and go back under English rule? If you say no, I say then a treaty cannot alter the constitution and must be made in accordance with it. Plain and simple.
If that were only the case, there wouldn't be an issue. The WTO is not saying that Antigua can ignore the same treaty as the US effectively did, they have said that they can ignore other treaties under WIPO to the tune of 21 million some dollars.
it is obvious that you don't have a clue about this.The US did not in any way shape or form sign a treaty then fail to implement it. The US signed a treaty well before online gambling was possible or possible outside a small rare situation and the treaty has later been reinterpreted to include online gambling despite the US having a ban on gambling across state lines since the wire fraud act of 1941. The prevailing argument was that because states under their own sovereign right inside the US allow gambling inside the state, the US is non-compliant.
Don't trust yourself then. That's ok, I will explain your problem to you in a minute.
Reread the section of the constitution you posted. and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States has a specific meaning. It means that the United States, which is constituted by the Constitution, can make only treaties that are constitutional or under the authority of the constitution. That's where your argument flopps on the ground like a dieing fish out of water. I actually feel sorry for you and it as it gasps for air trying to save itself while roasting in the sun.
No treaty can be made that alters the US constitution because the constitution says the treaty has to be made under the authority of the United States and the United States can only alter the constitution by amendment procedures.
The Founding Fathers were smarter than you.
I don't think you understand the problem. Some state make internet gambling illegal. The interstate commerce clause could not make those states change that. The feds already made it illegal to gamble across state lines and states that specifically allow online gambling require servers to be set up in state and the site is regulated like a casino within the state. the feds also already made it illegal for a credit car processor to process transactions between an online gambling site and an American person which hasn't stopped the problem.
Part of Antigua's argument specifically addressed the fact that specific states allow forms of online gambling even though the fed does not. So the interstate commerce clause has already been used but has not worked.
No, it doesn't work that way. They, as everyone else, has an idea about what a general term or phrase means. If the mortgage on your home said you couldn't use the home for commercial purposes, then 10 years after you are paying for it high speed internet finally makes it to your house and they decide that working from home is "commercial purposes". Somehow I doubt you would all the sudden say, "well it can be interpreted that way or anyway they like, I guess I have to drive an hour in rush hour traffic twice a day again". I'm willing to bet that you and everyone else would claim that it wasn't commercial purposes for you to work from home just because the internet finally made it possible.
We already see that so how does it feel? I mean seriously, do you think members of the WTO do not regulate the content that enters their country? There are 22 members of the Arab league and 57 members of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation inside the WTO who not all, but some strictly forbid religious materials not of Islamic origin, BTW, those organizations are not just countries palling around together, they are fraternal and recognized in the WTO as such.
I seriously doubt you could come up with any interpretation of that treaty. You have already demonstrated that you do not know or understand it and you have demonstrated already that you have little knowledge of the situation surrounding the US gambling issues that Antigua has. You sound like someone who is just pissed and running off at the mouth because the US outlaws gambling, just like the lawyer from Texas who went to the WTO to cause this problem in the first place.
No, it wouldn't be even close to that. That is probaly why you think it is so absurd -you are confused.
If you must keep a christian comparison, it is like a christian leaving a church where the preacher claims watching all TV is a sin and then joining the christisn church next door who claims only watching sin on tv can be a sin.
You see, the treaty does not say gambling is legal or anything of the sort. Even the WTO agrees that the US never intended to allow gambling as part of the treaty. You see, the problem comes from an interpretation that recreational services which would normally be considered tourism recruitment and cruise lines and the likes include online gambling despite the fact that the treaty language predated online gambling by 4 years in yhr modt liberal construct of online gambling and by 10 or more years in the most conservative construct.
But to be clear, the us never signed a treaty that said you must allow online ganbling. It signed a treaty that has later been interpreted to allow something that didn't exist when the treaty was created.
I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm not necessarily a libertarian and I have already stated in another thread you have replied to that I think government should regulate it.
However, the begger in Soviet Russia doesn't need to know anything about the US. Soviet Russia should have the laws in place too. This system is internationally recognized the world around and is in use in Russia too. But a lawsuit over international persons or shell companies only gets complicated, not impossible.
You are right, people can game the system, fake bankruptcies and all that. But that would only embolden government to take action for criminal charges and the app stores would likely end up banning the apps before then to avoid vicarious liability.
Yes, to the extent they are constitutionally allowed and they have jurisdiction.
No they are not. The government was never founded in a way that would allow just the senate and the president to change the relationship the constitutions imposes on the states and federal government. That would require a constitutional amendment which deals with a whole lot more input then a majority in the senate. The 9th amendment makes this clear when it says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, all the laws and treaties made have to be within the bounds of the constitution. A treaty cannot change the constitution in any way. In the lawsuit over Obamacare which is also the law of the land, the mandate did not survive constitutional challenge on the merits of a fine. The Supreme court had to change it from a fine to a tax in order to find support for it (on a side note, that will likely be challenged too within the next year or so).
In Ohio for instance, the law requires the executor of an estate to file any probable wrongful death lawsuits on the behalf of the estate. If they fail to do so, the legal heirs can go after the executor of the estate for whatever they think the wrongful death claim would have brought.
Most law firms will flip the bill for the lawsuit and take a percentage of the suit if won. But it might not be up to the people that care about the dead. It may be something the law requires even if it does cost a lot more of the inheritance than they will recover.
It is exactly the WTO's problem. If the treaties are not interpreted to the limitations of the countries involved, they are not valid treaties. In other words, you cannot expect a government, the US or England or France or any other government, to be bound to treaties that they do not have the ability to implement. If you do, you have a treaty that doesn't function and it becomes invalid.
Perhaps invalid is not the word I'm looking to use. Maybe unenforceable Garbage is a better word.
Not really. The supremacy clause cannot work against the constitutional powers or the 10th amendment.
It can regulate the commerce between states but cannot force a state to participate in a specific form of commerce. This was already explored when the federal government attempted to lower all the speed limits to 55 mph. It got tossed out on a court case due to the 10th amendment so they instead decided to withhold federal highway funding if they didn't lower the speed limits to 55. Then when they attempted to do the same for a motorcycle helmet law, another 10th amendment case was brought. This went threw the courts which the supreme court ruled that they couldn't remove existing moneys, only refuse to give additional moneys. After that, all the states started raising the speed limits back up and some that put helmet laws in place repealed them.
The only time article 6 will give the federal government power to intrude on a state is when the federal government already has original jurisdiction. An example of this is the murder laws. Lets take the Zimmerman case for example. Neither the original DA or the police wanted to charge Zimmerman with anything. They didn't think he could be convicted which ultimately proved to be correct. The feds got involved but couldn't bring charges on him so they pressured the state. Finally the state sent in a special prosecutor and formally charged Zimmerman with murder. He was formally acquitted (regardless of whether you agree with the situation or not). The feds couldn't prosecute him because the crime didn't happen on federal property, involved a federal employee, happen in a federal territory, or cross state lines.
Another example is the civil rights laws in which the feds attempted to look at to somehow punish Zimmerman but their hands were tied due to nothing happened that violated the letter of the laws within their jurisdiction. Did you know that federal civil rights laws do not apply to everyone or every company? Companies making less then a certain amount of money aren't subject to them. Hotels with less then something like 14 rooms aren't subject to them. There are quite a few other exceptions that do not apply. It is a good thing that states have created their own civil rights laws that mirror or compliment the federal laws in order to bridge these gaps. But it is an illustration of how the federal government is limited to original jurisdiction in which the interstate commerce clause was used to give jurisdiction in this case. It also illustrates that the supremacy clause or article 6 is limited to that fact. Both murder and civil rights laws are federal but plenty of circumstances exist where they do not apply.
Well, no. I hit on why with the either willingly sign a treaty or it is imposed on them (presumable by force or the threat of force).
The issue here is trade favor and if it remains given the circumstances. If a county doesn't honor our IP laws, we can chose not to trade with them or allow them to trade with us. We might even be able to convince some other nations to join in on the fun. We certainly cannot force them to obey US law without the threat of force (which I think this government might be capable of trying)
But I believe the ruling is flawed insomuch that it doesn't take into account the political structure of the US and instead imposes the rules as if the federal government was an all encompassing concentration of power in the US that all states and citizens are subjects of. This would be the normal structure in most of the rest of the world but in the US, it is different. Some people say this is what makes the US exceptional- the people are the sovereign and the government is allowed to exist as subjects of the people. It has been hard to find that in practice lately but that was the general idea where as in other countries, the government is the sovereign and the people are subjects of the governments. This is especially the case in Europe where most people and governments are subjects of the crown. There are 12 monarchies in Europe currently (including the Vatican city) and while they do not have or exert much political power any more, the concept is still there.
Should we examine this situation with the limitations the US government has actually being recognized, I'm confident the ruling would have been different. The Treaty was designed to stop favoritism in trade and remove barriers to entry, not impose mandates the government cannot implement because something relatively new came about.
That won't exactly fly with this. I'm not even positive that Missouri v. Holland would have ended the way it did with the court that is seated now either.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius is why too. Obamacare was actually ruled part unconstitutional which is why the federal exchange is the center of problems and attention today.
Well, actually, it applies to the US in every matter the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to act in. So there are some exceptions but it is no secret considering that the tenth amendment to the US constitution specifically says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Now, if you actually think we were going to bomb Syria, I have some swamp land-- prime beach front property I could sell you. The only reason why we considered bombing Syria is because Obama open his mouth and was trying to look tough and drew a red line he never thought Syria would cross. Any other president would have shut the hell up before that was even said but once push came to shove, they would have also done something instead of sending the minions out to claim any day now, he will make a decision, he's just using his intellect to intellectualize or something, then pass it off to congress before Putin took one of Kerry's gaffs and gave him an out.
Now I will admit that there are people in congress who want us to goto war in Syria. That Loon John McCain is one of them but that should tell us something.
We didn't ignore international law to hurt the economy of others.
The problem is that the US federal government does not have the authority to mandate states allow gambling inside their borders or restrict them from allowing it. The US federal government does not have the authority to allow gambling inside a state without that gambling following the state's laws to a tee. The US federal government does not have the authority to ban gambling inside a state. And this is not even bothering getting into the Indian reservations which complicate things a little more.
This was all clearly argued when the WTO was making it's decision but they couldn't comprehend it. Instead, the WTO basically remedied the situation by allowing them to recoup some monetary advantages through the unlicensed use of IP.
International law does not and can not override the laws of a sovereign nation. A nation can only be subject to international law if it is imposed on them thereby removing their sovereignty or if it willingly submits to it. A treaty is a willful submission but if the treaty is to be interpreted in this way, the US federal government had no authority to sign it without adding a signing statement to limit it's exposure.
The US has it's hands tied in this matter. The problem is that the federal government has no authority to require individual states to allow gambling within it's border nor does it have the authority to require states to allow gambling from outside it's border to happen inside the state in violation of the state's laws.
Those limitations should have been put in a signing statement upon ratification. Evidently, no one saw this possibility and didn't do it.
They wouldn't have to leave the WTO, just remove yourself from the treaty then sign and ratify it again with a signing statement that negates the problem.
The problem is that the US is not government by one federal government. The states have sovereign authority in these matters and the US federal government has no power to act over top of them. Simply put, a signing statement to this effect should have been there to begin with. Someone obviously didn't understand the consequences, the WTO court doesn't understand the US political jurisdiction, so it simply needs fixed.
The Avalanche Rescue System actually does have a predicated standard that is recognized internationally. Supposedly, you purchase one anywhere, regardless of the manufacturer, and it is completely comparable anywhere in the world that uses the system.
That being said, I do think this is a government regulation type thing in at minimum, they should be required to clearly disclaim any possibility of being a substitute for the real thing.
Imagine you were at a pool or lake and there was a flotation device hanging on a pole near by that said life saving emergency device. Now suppose you fell in and injured yourself to the point that keeping your head above water was very difficult and someone grabbed that device and tossed it to you. Now suppose when you grab it it falls apart and doesn't have the buoyancy you would expect from a real life saver flotation device that is US coastguard approved because it was a cheap replica sold to someone to add to the ambiance of the location. Now suppose that person thinks you will be ok holding onto the flotation device when he see you grab it and immediately runs to get someone to help.
Caveat emptor could mean a death sentence if someone thinks you or they will be safe and you are not. An app like this or even a device like this must make it clear that it is not the real thing or a comparable substitute for the real thing. If that is present and the buyer decides to give it a try, it is buyer beware. If it isn't available and readily known, then it is misleading, dangerous, and possibility fraudulent. And I think that these apps will end up being removed by lawsuits over wrongful death, aggravated injuries or something before any criminal charges will be filed. When a widow and their children are crying in court stating how the deceased thought it was just as good because of the marketing and the defense is claiming the guy should have looked into what he was purchasing better or he should have read the EULA which has the disclaimer hidden in it, its going to be hard to see how this ends in the app maker's favor.
lol.. Going old school Clinton style. That would depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Oh the memories.
One of the problems is that how do you know those facts? Of course you are not a dummy and looked into it a bit and applied knowledge you probably already possessed, but have you done so before this story came about?
Well, suppose you have looked into it and when you did, you saw an app for your phone that said it could send help if ever in an avalanche. If you were an average consumer, would you know based on that exchange that the app couldn't be a substitute? Forget what you know about phones and think like a normal person who's geekiest moment might be watching The Big Bang Theory or reruns if Weird Science.
I know people who are contract lawyers, who build million dollar homes, who see millions of dollars pass through their hands daily as an investment banker, and a lot of other people who would otherwise seem intelligent by most standards but can't figure out the reason their computer isn't turning on is because they kicked the power strip with their feet and unplugged it or switched it off. One thing I learned a long time ago, what is obvious for some will not be for all. People are just different. It is what makes the world an interesting place.
They would probably be sued out of existence by a few wrongful death lawsuits before anyone prosecuted them. The thing is, you can make claims, you can obfuscate claims that lead people to believe something not directly implied, but when it is a matter of life and death and the later prevails, you more then likely end up with a courtroom watching a widow and their children cry while some lawyer is telling his client to stop acting like subtle deception is ok if you do it right and profit from it.
Someone is going to have a bad day.
Please, the you was not you specifically, it was a general you in which I could make a point.
I'm generally against the governments doing things like that but I agree this is one time some controlling authority steps in and initiates legal action to make sure the apps are not marketed as something they are incapable of. It would be like me marketing a bungy cord as a replacement passenger restraint system (seat belt) for cars that had them cut either by vandalism or by emergency personnel after a crash.
Given the information in the submission and one of the linked files, these apps should be required to specifically indicate they are not avalanche rescue system substitutes.
I would suggest a good portion of the difference is who has the email legitimately.
I mean is it worse for your roommate, who you have loaned your car to before to take your car and drive across town without asking or for me who you don't know or just met to do the same?
That's because no one thought they were lies. Too many previous government officials said the same things. Too many foreign officials said the same things. Saddam himself supposedly said in a CIA interview that he had to make the world think he had chemical weapons because he feared Iran would invade them if they knew he was defenseless.
People at that time disagreed on what to do about it but few disagreed on the facts that turned out to be incorrect. Even the UN weapon's inspectors said in their quarterly reports that unregistered duel use items and chemical precursors along with the constant obstructions in inspections made it appear that Iraq had not disposed of all their WMDs or stopped working with them. You can even download those reports from the UNMOVIC and UNSCUM websites that are still available. Hans Blix, one of the strongest opponents of the Iraq war authored or approved most of those quarterly reports before the invasion.