A lot of people don't like certain things in the same bag as other things. Some may even be dictated by the local health departments or some code of food safety and some might be common sense. Examples of this is raw meats which should have their own bags segregated by type to avoid cross contamination (especially raw poultry). Heavy items like canned goods should be separated from bread or other items that could shift and become squashed. The same goes with containers that can be opened easily like rigid plastic containers holding deli foods or partially prepared fruits and vegetables. Also frozen items should be segregated from unfrozen and refrigerated items should be separated from room temperature items. Of course that is flexible to the extent that thawing or warming would not create a food safety issue or damage the goods. For instance refrigerated bottles of soda could be placed in with canned goods safely but popsicles or icecream shouldn't because the heat from the close proximity goods could excelerate melting.
Of course if you do not care about any of that - you should be free to ignore it.
Wrong. The sound part is that associations or assemblies of people have rights. It is completely consistent with the first amendment as the ruling spells out. A corporation is just that regardless of the legal structure behind or in front of it.
Going after ATT might be a big mistake. ATT used to have a huge research department that went deep into computers and devices not related to phones or telecommunications and they have purchased other companies doing the same when they went under. This research was not only in digital but analog too.
ATT might not have a patent on this stuff but they might have prior art that made its way into diagnostic tools or devices for the hearing impaired or even just pagers that could at times vibrate differently for specific numbers (work verses home numbers or clients). It would be interesting to see if they not only can pull a rabbit out of their hats but even show it had babies that in part or whole made it into actual products in use.
AT&T defended IBM in the SCO case. They likely would defend themselves and a business partner like Apple too.
Assuming a crime exists and ATT knew it. Otherwise you could go after a gas station for selling gas to a bank robber when they fill up the getaway vehicle before or after the robbery and the DMV for registering the getaway vehicle or issuing the driver license to the getaway driver.
There might be something to the idea but I'm not sure it makes sense.
Finally someone who gets the point. Simply not liking something is not reason to claim a judge was wrong or dishonest when they rule consistently with the constitution of the land (associations of people have the same rights as individuals ). They have to live within the framework of law they are in.
It is cause to dislike the premise though and changing it is a worthy cause. But change requires doing something other than blaming the judges who ruled consistently with the constitution.
The notion that "corporations" have any rights whatsoever is silly.
No it is not. Corporations are associations of people. It's that simple. Associations of people have rights especially when they are engaged in political speech. The entire legal fiction surrounding a corporation does nothing but enable the association of people.
The supreme court saying that congress was 'wrong' in having the regulations in place is now saying that these government-granted charters have inalienable rights beyond the control of the government. That is just as crazy. Let's say that the local DMV has unalienable rights, too, since that makes equal sense. Any attempt to regulate how they spend money allotted to them is an affront to our democracy.
This is what is silly. The court said that the association of people commonly known as corporations do not lose the rights afforded to other groups of people.
But the local DMV is a department of government. What you say is just silly as government has an inherent right to control itself even when it contracts out to a private company. Government has an inherent right to dictate how the funding allotted to it's subdivisions is spend. Government does not allot funding to a corporation except as payment for good and services (with very few exception) and government agencies do not operate to make a profit that the agency can just spend nilly willy.. They are not ever comparable in this sense.
It would be no more disjointed than before the supreme court heard the case. All that you say is true even with 9 people on the supreme court until the supreme court hears a case and sets precedent. It is entirely possible that the court could refuse to hear a case or even kick the case back to lower courts for more strict hearings just like it did in Fisher v. Texas. So in essence, nothing has changed. Except in the Fisher V. Texas case, a 4-4 tie is almost impossible now because Kagan recused herself so there is a seven member court if the actual decision isn't already made.
Either way, the only hardship would be waiting until another case made it up the ladder which is the same hardship that exists before it makes it to the supreme court in any case.
Corporations or the people running them are sued all the time for violating their fiduciary duty. Could is the word used because it is not as simple as will or shall.
Anyways, you cannot just appropriate funds from an account of a corporation to support the political interests of you or someone you know unless you are the sole owner of the corporation (which defeats the purpose of the argument). There has to be an interest of the company involved else is it no different than embezzlement.
Perhaps you didn't understand what I said or requested. What constitutional basics is incorrect or flawed in it?
A law from 1907 does not address the US constitution and because the law had no enforcement mechanism, I'm pretty sure no one ever had any standing to challenge it on its constitutional grounds.
However, activist conservative judges have (dishonestly) interpreted notes from a clerk in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific as a decision by the Court recognizing corporate personhood, which the decision did not.
How can you claim dishonestly? Did the notes not exist or say something different? IF anyone is being dishonest is it the premise that you claim the court is discussing corporate person hood when the fact of the matter is only if the 14th amendment applies to corporations as well. But that is essentially the same thing and a matter of semantics, it isn't a point of contention. BTW, the actual ruling in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific specifically states "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Or are you trying to say that it doesn't say that?
For nearly the first 200 years of this country's existence, money was seen as property and not speech, until Buckley v. Valeo. So much for conservatives and stare decisis!
Your reporting on this seems misleading too. The law in question was just passed by congress the year before it was challenged. Fortunately in this law, there was an enforcement mechanism which gave standing to sue.
Corporations existed at the time the Constitution was written, and if the Framers had so desired, they could have made corporations persons. I wonder if this was discussed at the Constitutional Convention..
The only thing I know of discussing corporations at the constitutional convention was a comparison of states and municipalities to corporations and a shot discussion of funding being so small that if wouldn't cover discharge of debt in corporate bankruptcies.
Corporations were a lot more powerful when the constitution was written. Many of the colonies which became countries under the articles of confederation and then states under the US constitution, were created and ran by corporations. Perhaps the framers of the Constitution just didn't see a reason to be redundant.
But they're not. Corporations aren't democracies, nor do they give equal voice to all the people.
That's what you say but you failed to point to where the court erred in law or constitution. There is this premise called stare decisis in which is states that courts will honor previous decisions. That is all that happened here. Long before you found fault with it, the courts granted corporations a personhood like status. You seem to disagree with that and want it changed but claiming the courts are wrong for over a century will not make that change.
If you can't see an issue with this, then how about we stop pussyfooting around and just allow vote selling and buying and get it over with.
I do see a problem with it. I also see a problem with not allowing political speech. As for vote selling and or buying, I'm not sure why you would go there. Candidates can spend large sums of money as well as individuals supporting them. The fact that corporations can also doesn't really mean squat.
Maybe they just let the real definitions do the work..
Designer: a person who plans the form, look, or workings of something before its being made or built, typically by drawing it in detail.
Baby: a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
Yeah, I know, the designer handbags and shoes use another definition : made by or having the expensive sophistication of a famous and prestigious fashion designer.
One seems a more proper use of the term but not the most popular in connection to this way it is being used.
The president can make recess appointments to " all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session." They vacancies specifically mentioned by the constitution in the preceding paragraph of the same section includes the supreme court.
Every corporation has a fiduciary duty. Any expenditures must meet that fiduciary duty in some way else is it no different than giving money to your brother because he is your brother. So if there isn't a compelling interest in the corporation to expend the political speech (nothing would benefit the company from the desired outcome), the corporation would be in breach of it's fiduciary obligations and could face criminal charges as well as stock holder lawsuits. When people assemble, they often form corporations in which they isolate their liability for the actions of others assembled with them to what is invested in the association of people. In other words, you should not be held financially liable for something I do just because we both share a view and were at the same event that I did something completely wrong at or because I violated the law in some ways.
Anyways, that is neither here not there. There is nothing in law or the constitution that limits corporations to anything other than an assembly or association of people. Anything else you can imagine is little more than what you think you see wrong with this concept. Whether it is or not wrong is not a constitutional question at this point. It has been settled all the way back to the 1800s. If you think it is wrong, then changing the constitution is the proper path not ignoring it or the court decisions that have been made long ago before you and your opinions on the matter were even alive.
What you seem to be saying is that in your view, an individual can have political speech but groups of people cannot peacefully assemble and pool their speech to become more effective. I do not think that is in line with the US constitution.
It has functioned with 8 members before and even with less (as few as 5 members that I know of). It originally had only 6 members and it was raised to 7, then to 9 and then to 10 and then back to 9. They will just go on about their business and any case that one vote would have changed, they will hold off until someone else is appointed provided that congress does not permanently remove a seat.
The court ruled that corporations are associations of people. Nothing you mentioned discounts that. The segregation you mention is only insofar as the people in the association does not act in their own. So if you have a corporation and work for the corporation and something happened, you are not separated from liability outside the corporation if you participated in the action. If you did not participate in the action, then you liability ends with the corporation which the segregation is apt.
You make a decent argument but you failed to address the constitutional or legal aspects of my request. It would appear that for reasons outside of constitutional or legalities, you think the ruling was wrong. However, the ruling is limited by the constitutional limits on congress and government and therefore cannot ignore the constitution because you think it is a good idea and can make a convincing argument. I suggest you amend the constitution to allow associations of people to be limited in their speech.
So in other words, there was absolutely nothing that you could find constitutionally or legally unsound about the argument (which BTW rested in part on a definition defined by congress), just that you do not like it because of your other views?
For what purpose? The president cannot force congress to act in certain ways, just to return to work.
But as I said, if congress does_not_ recess, there isn't an opportunity to call them back for a separate session. Harry Reid already created a working plan to avoid ever going to recess. The republicans have been following along too.
but the GOP leadership will likely want to avoid having their candidates commit on 'what they want in a Justice' on the campaign trail.
Nah.. All the candidates need to say is they want someone who would follow the US Constitution and not make stuff up as they go. If questions about specific people are requested, they just say- "I have people in mind but have not spoken with them on the subject so you will just have to wait until I become president."
It is really that simple of an answer. It is bad form to talk about how a judicial appointment will rule on any given topic which is why they always answer "stare decisis" or they "cannot comment" when asked about controversial topics - even by the same senators who would confirm them.
How do you know he didn't care about climate change?
Doing something that is illegal or unconstitutional does in no way all the sudden become good or correct just because you like the desired outcome. What he did was proper regardless of his views on climate change, Obama, or some treaty that isn't a treaty because the senate has to confirm all treaties for it to become a treaty.
As for Citizens United, I do not see any flaws in the ruling. Can you point them out? And no, businesses or corporations having political speech or money equals speech is not a flaw in the ruling. What constitutional basics is incorrect or flawed in it?
Nah.. The majority leader could just refuse to bring the confirmation up on this calendar and then do the same on the next. It is what Harry Reid did with legislation the house passed that he didn't want to bother with.
If congress doesn't recess, Obama cannot appoint any interim justices. This was already hashed out by the supreme court and I seriously doubt they would all the sudden ignore their own ruling and allow an intersession appointment if congress doesn't actually recess.
The supreme court has functioned with only 8 members before without problems. It can in the future too. In fact, congress may decide that it only needs 8 members and reduce the size or attempt to before the administration is out.
Not only that, so freakin what if he did. The black community is largely populated in dense urban environments ripe with gangs and notoriously bad schools (One teacher told me it was almost like holding school in a war zone at times and since he was a combat vet from Vietnam, I'll take his word for it).
Anyways, the situation is that many minorities do seem to come from tough environments and a slower pace could actually bring the talent out or nurture that talent that would let them shine above everyone else. I can see it as a net positive in some situations and probably a net negative in others. But admission due to your race and not qualifications or abilities will never foster this or weed out the differences.
The phone companies bills the pri for activity and a number reservation. It only makes financial sense to use real lines if there are few lines otherwise digital is the way to go. I have a customer who has six hard lines and the phone system is self contained within the phones. I have another who has 6 lines but uses a pri because of the ease in VoIP and trunking which includes routing calls to remote locations and cellular connections (more than 6 lines company wide but 6 at this location )
Each channel is not assigned a number on a pri. Each channel can carry any line assigned to the pri as needed. This allows lines to be in use and still ring instead of giving a busy signal. I cannot speak to BT's specific setup but these are standards of the technology and i somehow do not see England being in the dark ages on this.
Slashdot Mirror
And to think. What was tinfoil hat conspiracy bs in the past is now a feature.
A lot of people don't like certain things in the same bag as other things. Some may even be dictated by the local health departments or some code of food safety and some might be common sense. Examples of this is raw meats which should have their own bags segregated by type to avoid cross contamination (especially raw poultry). Heavy items like canned goods should be separated from bread or other items that could shift and become squashed. The same goes with containers that can be opened easily like rigid plastic containers holding deli foods or partially prepared fruits and vegetables. Also frozen items should be segregated from unfrozen and refrigerated items should be separated from room temperature items. Of course that is flexible to the extent that thawing or warming would not create a food safety issue or damage the goods. For instance refrigerated bottles of soda could be placed in with canned goods safely but popsicles or icecream shouldn't because the heat from the close proximity goods could excelerate melting.
Of course if you do not care about any of that - you should be free to ignore it.
Wrong. The sound part is that associations or assemblies of people have rights. It is completely consistent with the first amendment as the ruling spells out. A corporation is just that regardless of the legal structure behind or in front of it.
Going after ATT might be a big mistake. ATT used to have a huge research department that went deep into computers and devices not related to phones or telecommunications and they have purchased other companies doing the same when they went under. This research was not only in digital but analog too.
ATT might not have a patent on this stuff but they might have prior art that made its way into diagnostic tools or devices for the hearing impaired or even just pagers that could at times vibrate differently for specific numbers (work verses home numbers or clients). It would be interesting to see if they not only can pull a rabbit out of their hats but even show it had babies that in part or whole made it into actual products in use.
AT&T defended IBM in the SCO case. They likely would defend themselves and a business partner like Apple too.
Assuming a crime exists and ATT knew it. Otherwise you could go after a gas station for selling gas to a bank robber when they fill up the getaway vehicle before or after the robbery and the DMV for registering the getaway vehicle or issuing the driver license to the getaway driver.
There might be something to the idea but I'm not sure it makes sense.
Finally someone who gets the point. Simply not liking something is not reason to claim a judge was wrong or dishonest when they rule consistently with the constitution of the land (associations of people have the same rights as individuals ). They have to live within the framework of law they are in.
It is cause to dislike the premise though and changing it is a worthy cause. But change requires doing something other than blaming the judges who ruled consistently with the constitution.
No it is not. Corporations are associations of people. It's that simple. Associations of people have rights especially when they are engaged in political speech. The entire legal fiction surrounding a corporation does nothing but enable the association of people.
This is what is silly. The court said that the association of people commonly known as corporations do not lose the rights afforded to other groups of people.
But the local DMV is a department of government. What you say is just silly as government has an inherent right to control itself even when it contracts out to a private company. Government has an inherent right to dictate how the funding allotted to it's subdivisions is spend. Government does not allot funding to a corporation except as payment for good and services (with very few exception) and government agencies do not operate to make a profit that the agency can just spend nilly willy.. They are not ever comparable in this sense.
It would be no more disjointed than before the supreme court heard the case. All that you say is true even with 9 people on the supreme court until the supreme court hears a case and sets precedent. It is entirely possible that the court could refuse to hear a case or even kick the case back to lower courts for more strict hearings just like it did in Fisher v. Texas. So in essence, nothing has changed. Except in the Fisher V. Texas case, a 4-4 tie is almost impossible now because Kagan recused herself so there is a seven member court if the actual decision isn't already made.
Either way, the only hardship would be waiting until another case made it up the ladder which is the same hardship that exists before it makes it to the supreme court in any case.
Corporations or the people running them are sued all the time for violating their fiduciary duty. Could is the word used because it is not as simple as will or shall.
Anyways, you cannot just appropriate funds from an account of a corporation to support the political interests of you or someone you know unless you are the sole owner of the corporation (which defeats the purpose of the argument). There has to be an interest of the company involved else is it no different than embezzlement.
That is the point.
Perhaps you didn't understand what I said or requested. What constitutional basics is incorrect or flawed in it?
A law from 1907 does not address the US constitution and because the law had no enforcement mechanism, I'm pretty sure no one ever had any standing to challenge it on its constitutional grounds.
How can you claim dishonestly? Did the notes not exist or say something different? IF anyone is being dishonest is it the premise that you claim the court is discussing corporate person hood when the fact of the matter is only if the 14th amendment applies to corporations as well. But that is essentially the same thing and a matter of semantics, it isn't a point of contention. BTW, the actual ruling in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific specifically states "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Or are you trying to say that it doesn't say that?
Your reporting on this seems misleading too. The law in question was just passed by congress the year before it was challenged. Fortunately in this law, there was an enforcement mechanism which gave standing to sue.
The only thing I know of discussing corporations at the constitutional convention was a comparison of states and municipalities to corporations and a shot discussion of funding being so small that if wouldn't cover discharge of debt in corporate bankruptcies.
Corporations were a lot more powerful when the constitution was written. Many of the colonies which became countries under the articles of confederation and then states under the US constitution, were created and ran by corporations. Perhaps the framers of the Constitution just didn't see a reason to be redundant.
That's what you say but you failed to point to where the court erred in law or constitution. There is this premise called stare decisis in which is states that courts will honor previous decisions. That is all that happened here. Long before you found fault with it, the courts granted corporations a personhood like status. You seem to disagree with that and want it changed but claiming the courts are wrong for over a century will not make that change.
I do see a problem with it. I also see a problem with not allowing political speech. As for vote selling and or buying, I'm not sure why you would go there. Candidates can spend large sums of money as well as individuals supporting them. The fact that corporations can also doesn't really mean squat.
Maybe they just let the real definitions do the work..
Designer: a person who plans the form, look, or workings of something before its being made or built, typically by drawing it in detail.
Baby: a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
Yeah, I know, the designer handbags and shoes use another definition : made by or having the expensive sophistication of a famous and prestigious fashion designer.
One seems a more proper use of the term but not the most popular in connection to this way it is being used.
Well, yes he can do recess appointments to the Supreme Court.
The president can make recess appointments to " all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session." They vacancies specifically mentioned by the constitution in the preceding paragraph of the same section includes the supreme court.
Every corporation has a fiduciary duty. Any expenditures must meet that fiduciary duty in some way else is it no different than giving money to your brother because he is your brother. So if there isn't a compelling interest in the corporation to expend the political speech (nothing would benefit the company from the desired outcome), the corporation would be in breach of it's fiduciary obligations and could face criminal charges as well as stock holder lawsuits. When people assemble, they often form corporations in which they isolate their liability for the actions of others assembled with them to what is invested in the association of people. In other words, you should not be held financially liable for something I do just because we both share a view and were at the same event that I did something completely wrong at or because I violated the law in some ways.
Anyways, that is neither here not there. There is nothing in law or the constitution that limits corporations to anything other than an assembly or association of people. Anything else you can imagine is little more than what you think you see wrong with this concept. Whether it is or not wrong is not a constitutional question at this point. It has been settled all the way back to the 1800s. If you think it is wrong, then changing the constitution is the proper path not ignoring it or the court decisions that have been made long ago before you and your opinions on the matter were even alive.
What you seem to be saying is that in your view, an individual can have political speech but groups of people cannot peacefully assemble and pool their speech to become more effective. I do not think that is in line with the US constitution.
Why would it deadlock the Supreme Court?
It has functioned with 8 members before and even with less (as few as 5 members that I know of). It originally had only 6 members and it was raised to 7, then to 9 and then to 10 and then back to 9. They will just go on about their business and any case that one vote would have changed, they will hold off until someone else is appointed provided that congress does not permanently remove a seat.
Damn.. This was supposed to be posted on the guy below you.. Maybe I've drank too much again.
The court ruled that corporations are associations of people. Nothing you mentioned discounts that. The segregation you mention is only insofar as the people in the association does not act in their own. So if you have a corporation and work for the corporation and something happened, you are not separated from liability outside the corporation if you participated in the action. If you did not participate in the action, then you liability ends with the corporation which the segregation is apt.
You make a decent argument but you failed to address the constitutional or legal aspects of my request. It would appear that for reasons outside of constitutional or legalities, you think the ruling was wrong. However, the ruling is limited by the constitutional limits on congress and government and therefore cannot ignore the constitution because you think it is a good idea and can make a convincing argument. I suggest you amend the constitution to allow associations of people to be limited in their speech.
So in other words, there was absolutely nothing that you could find constitutionally or legally unsound about the argument (which BTW rested in part on a definition defined by congress), just that you do not like it because of your other views?
For what purpose? The president cannot force congress to act in certain ways, just to return to work.
But as I said, if congress does_not_ recess, there isn't an opportunity to call them back for a separate session. Harry Reid already created a working plan to avoid ever going to recess. The republicans have been following along too.
Nah.. All the candidates need to say is they want someone who would follow the US Constitution and not make stuff up as they go. If questions about specific people are requested, they just say- "I have people in mind but have not spoken with them on the subject so you will just have to wait until I become president."
It is really that simple of an answer. It is bad form to talk about how a judicial appointment will rule on any given topic which is why they always answer "stare decisis" or they "cannot comment" when asked about controversial topics - even by the same senators who would confirm them.
How do you know he didn't care about climate change?
Doing something that is illegal or unconstitutional does in no way all the sudden become good or correct just because you like the desired outcome. What he did was proper regardless of his views on climate change, Obama, or some treaty that isn't a treaty because the senate has to confirm all treaties for it to become a treaty.
As for Citizens United, I do not see any flaws in the ruling. Can you point them out? And no, businesses or corporations having political speech or money equals speech is not a flaw in the ruling. What constitutional basics is incorrect or flawed in it?
Nah.. The majority leader could just refuse to bring the confirmation up on this calendar and then do the same on the next. It is what Harry Reid did with legislation the house passed that he didn't want to bother with.
If congress doesn't recess, Obama cannot appoint any interim justices. This was already hashed out by the supreme court and I seriously doubt they would all the sudden ignore their own ruling and allow an intersession appointment if congress doesn't actually recess.
The supreme court has functioned with only 8 members before without problems. It can in the future too. In fact, congress may decide that it only needs 8 members and reduce the size or attempt to before the administration is out.
Not only that, so freakin what if he did. The black community is largely populated in dense urban environments ripe with gangs and notoriously bad schools (One teacher told me it was almost like holding school in a war zone at times and since he was a combat vet from Vietnam, I'll take his word for it).
Anyways, the situation is that many minorities do seem to come from tough environments and a slower pace could actually bring the talent out or nurture that talent that would let them shine above everyone else. I can see it as a net positive in some situations and probably a net negative in others. But admission due to your race and not qualifications or abilities will never foster this or weed out the differences.
The phone companies bills the pri for activity and a number reservation. It only makes financial sense to use real lines if there are few lines otherwise digital is the way to go. I have a customer who has six hard lines and the phone system is self contained within the phones. I have another who has 6 lines but uses a pri because of the ease in VoIP and trunking which includes routing calls to remote locations and cellular connections (more than 6 lines company wide but 6 at this location )
Each channel is not assigned a number on a pri. Each channel can carry any line assigned to the pri as needed. This allows lines to be in use and still ring instead of giving a busy signal. I cannot speak to BT's specific setup but these are standards of the technology and i somehow do not see England being in the dark ages on this.