There is a significant difference between the two. For example, one is involved here and the other is not. The article (and the underlying letter) clearly explain that it is the Department of State that has taken these actions.
The summary and headline must be changed.
For all of you non-lawyers who have not followed Supreme Court caselaw on arbitration, the fault lies with the Federal Arbitration Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act
In short, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that that Act has such a strong presumption for the validity of an arbitration clause that it is impossible to wiggle out of it.
The next emerging threat is going to be binding arbitration in employment contracts. It already is inserted in many employment contracts, and the only protection at the moment is being offered by the NLRB. See, e.g., http://www.natlawreview.com/article/nlrb-throws-cold-water-mandatory-arbitration-provisions-prohibiting-class-actions-em
Hello. If you read Ron Suskind's excellent "Confidence Men," you will learn that Obama negotiated away the Public Option with the insurance companies months before the bill was passed. In fact, he even negotiated it away BEFORE he addressed a joint session of Congress and said that he wanted to see it in the bill.
It's quite shameful, really. So, there you have it. Killed by backroom dealing.
You do realize that that was at least 20 years ago, right? Rotenberg started EPIC in 1994, and your own citation indicates that he worked for Leahy after graduating from law school. You're falsely implying that he is currently working for Leahy and was advising him about PIPA.
Also, EPIC has a history of filing suit over Google policies, such as when Google Buzz was rolled out.
A fair point. The government is hardly a monolith. Although I think there are larger problems than Rumsfeld's infamous "few bad apples," you are absolutely correct that it is not worth condemning the entire institution.
While I agree with you that "evil" is overused, I do think that certain US policies such as "targeted killings" that kill multitudes of civilians and target United States citizens, the propping up of Saleh in Yemen, and the torture both carried out at our military prisons and contracted out to third party countries such as Syria constitute "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked." It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose I am just more damning than you.
They are not doing micropayments for BF3. It is a normal BF game; you must be confusing it with Heroes or something. There will be exclusive preorder content, though.
Jurisdiction comes from the Alien Tort Statute. There have been a number of recent cases of aliens suing corporations in the US because of violations of international law.
Whether what Cisco did in China was legal under Chinese law does not matter; the ATS is all about whether norms of customary international law have been violated. Torture is the primary example. This is not some crazy lawsuit; it is a tried and true method of punishing corporations for their complicity in human rights violations.
Well, technically this is not true. What is true is that SCOTUS has, through the doctrine of incorporation, incorporated most of the BoR against the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm quite happy that they did, although it was, and still is, a bit of a legal stretch. And not all of the amendments, as someone else said, have been incorporated. The 2nd likely will after McDonald v. Chicago. Other rights, such as the right to trial by jury in civil cases over $20, from the 7th Amendment, has also not been incorporated.
Oh, and interestingly, it is pretty widely assumed that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to be used as a tool of incorporation, but SCOTUS gutted this in the Slaughterhouse Cases, so that the clause has no power.
Well, unlike other posters, I am a lawyer; The Bill of Rights begin "Congress shall make no law," and it has always been held that the Bill of Rights are a purely a restriction upon government action. A cursory reading of the history surrounding the BoR, or the manner in which they have always been applied, will show that you are really missing the point.
Well, in Ex parte Merryman, Lincoln was ordered by a federal court to stop the suspension of habeas corpus and he did ignore it. I assume this is the case to which you are referring, as it affirmed that a president does not have the power to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus. But the Constitution explicitly gives the power to Congress, anyway. And in 1863 Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act which effectively legalized what Lincoln had already ordered.
The point is that Congress can legally suspend habeas corpus. So if the president, in such a scenario, had the support of Congress, as Lincoln eventually did, then de facto martial law could be quite easily effected.
Perhaps it would be a bit of a stretch, but (and I certainly do not endorse this point of view!) the Constitution does give Congress the ability to suspend habeas corpus in times of invasion or rebellion. If habeas corpus is suspended, then it would seem logical that the government could effectively force everybody to remain inside their homes and do whatever the government says. One way to think about it is that the entire country could be, effectively, under house arrest. Thus, you have de facto martial law.
Anyway, just the ramblings of a law student.
The ACLU currently has a similar lawsuit. Although I am not sure who the EFF exactly is representing as plaintiffs, the ACLU is using journalists and other individuals who can show that their work has suffered due to the fear of being spied on by the government.
You are only partially correct. Georgia did start an offensive in South Ossetia against the independence movement there. However, Russia has most definitely gone beyond any peacekeeping role that it claimed. The Russians have bombed the Georgian town of Gori, which is well outside of the combat zone.
If anything, it seems that Russia is using the Georgian attacks on South Ossetia as a pretense to invade the entire country. This has gone well beyond anything the Russians should be doing, regardless of what Georgia did in the first place. It is, as the Georgian president has put it, an act of war.
Oh, and if you won't take this American's word for it, try the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7551595.stm
Is it truly so remarkable a concept that there is alien life? And, would this man not be in a position to perhaps know the truth? Why do so many of you dismiss him so quickly? There have been so many "close encounters" and the like in the last several decades to certainly make me a believer.
Even if there is an apparent conflict between the two rulings, such a contradiction will not necessarily be referred to the US Supreme Court. Remember, the New Jersey ruling was under the New Jersey Constitution, which provides far more rights to citizens than the United States Constitution. As such, even if there is not federal right to privacy with one's ISP, there still could be a right to privacy within the state of New Jersey.
Speaking of sexist, that comment is uncalled for. Contrary to what the (former?) President of Harvard thinks, women are indeed capable of participating in math and science fields. It is merely social structure that "guides" them away from these traditionally "masculine" enterprises.
The "feature" that made your teammates appear to be enemies by appearing as red was actually a bug in the 1.00 and was NOT introduced in the patch. Don't get me wrong though, I'm still mad at EA for releasing a bad patch without enough testing. And, to top it all off, DICE is on vacation after releasing BF2...just messing this whole situation up even more
Slashdot Mirror
There is a significant difference between the two. For example, one is involved here and the other is not. The article (and the underlying letter) clearly explain that it is the Department of State that has taken these actions. The summary and headline must be changed.
For all of you non-lawyers who have not followed Supreme Court caselaw on arbitration, the fault lies with the Federal Arbitration Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act In short, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that that Act has such a strong presumption for the validity of an arbitration clause that it is impossible to wiggle out of it. The next emerging threat is going to be binding arbitration in employment contracts. It already is inserted in many employment contracts, and the only protection at the moment is being offered by the NLRB. See, e.g., http://www.natlawreview.com/article/nlrb-throws-cold-water-mandatory-arbitration-provisions-prohibiting-class-actions-em
Hello. If you read Ron Suskind's excellent "Confidence Men," you will learn that Obama negotiated away the Public Option with the insurance companies months before the bill was passed. In fact, he even negotiated it away BEFORE he addressed a joint session of Congress and said that he wanted to see it in the bill. It's quite shameful, really. So, there you have it. Killed by backroom dealing.
You do realize that that was at least 20 years ago, right? Rotenberg started EPIC in 1994, and your own citation indicates that he worked for Leahy after graduating from law school. You're falsely implying that he is currently working for Leahy and was advising him about PIPA. Also, EPIC has a history of filing suit over Google policies, such as when Google Buzz was rolled out.
A fair point. The government is hardly a monolith. Although I think there are larger problems than Rumsfeld's infamous "few bad apples," you are absolutely correct that it is not worth condemning the entire institution.
While I agree with you that "evil" is overused, I do think that certain US policies such as "targeted killings" that kill multitudes of civilians and target United States citizens, the propping up of Saleh in Yemen, and the torture both carried out at our military prisons and contracted out to third party countries such as Syria constitute "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked." It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose I am just more damning than you.
Well said, sir!
The obvious logical fallacy with your statement is that, just because other regimes may be evil and corrupt, it does not mean that the US is not.
They are not doing micropayments for BF3. It is a normal BF game; you must be confusing it with Heroes or something. There will be exclusive preorder content, though.
Jurisdiction comes from the Alien Tort Statute. There have been a number of recent cases of aliens suing corporations in the US because of violations of international law. Whether what Cisco did in China was legal under Chinese law does not matter; the ATS is all about whether norms of customary international law have been violated. Torture is the primary example. This is not some crazy lawsuit; it is a tried and true method of punishing corporations for their complicity in human rights violations.
Well, technically this is not true. What is true is that SCOTUS has, through the doctrine of incorporation, incorporated most of the BoR against the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm quite happy that they did, although it was, and still is, a bit of a legal stretch. And not all of the amendments, as someone else said, have been incorporated. The 2nd likely will after McDonald v. Chicago. Other rights, such as the right to trial by jury in civil cases over $20, from the 7th Amendment, has also not been incorporated. Oh, and interestingly, it is pretty widely assumed that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to be used as a tool of incorporation, but SCOTUS gutted this in the Slaughterhouse Cases, so that the clause has no power.
Well, unlike other posters, I am a lawyer; The Bill of Rights begin "Congress shall make no law," and it has always been held that the Bill of Rights are a purely a restriction upon government action. A cursory reading of the history surrounding the BoR, or the manner in which they have always been applied, will show that you are really missing the point.
Hey. I have a Vostro 1500 and managed to get the touchpad and video card working. You can e-mail me at: andb52 AT gmail DOT com if you want any input!
Well, in Ex parte Merryman, Lincoln was ordered by a federal court to stop the suspension of habeas corpus and he did ignore it. I assume this is the case to which you are referring, as it affirmed that a president does not have the power to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus. But the Constitution explicitly gives the power to Congress, anyway. And in 1863 Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act which effectively legalized what Lincoln had already ordered. The point is that Congress can legally suspend habeas corpus. So if the president, in such a scenario, had the support of Congress, as Lincoln eventually did, then de facto martial law could be quite easily effected.
Perhaps it would be a bit of a stretch, but (and I certainly do not endorse this point of view!) the Constitution does give Congress the ability to suspend habeas corpus in times of invasion or rebellion. If habeas corpus is suspended, then it would seem logical that the government could effectively force everybody to remain inside their homes and do whatever the government says. One way to think about it is that the entire country could be, effectively, under house arrest. Thus, you have de facto martial law. Anyway, just the ramblings of a law student.
The ACLU currently has a similar lawsuit. Although I am not sure who the EFF exactly is representing as plaintiffs, the ACLU is using journalists and other individuals who can show that their work has suffered due to the fear of being spied on by the government.
Well, if the barracks bombing in Lebanon from the 1980s is anything to go by, we'd probably run the hell away.
You are only partially correct. Georgia did start an offensive in South Ossetia against the independence movement there. However, Russia has most definitely gone beyond any peacekeeping role that it claimed. The Russians have bombed the Georgian town of Gori, which is well outside of the combat zone. If anything, it seems that Russia is using the Georgian attacks on South Ossetia as a pretense to invade the entire country. This has gone well beyond anything the Russians should be doing, regardless of what Georgia did in the first place. It is, as the Georgian president has put it, an act of war. Oh, and if you won't take this American's word for it, try the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7551595.stm
Is it truly so remarkable a concept that there is alien life? And, would this man not be in a position to perhaps know the truth? Why do so many of you dismiss him so quickly? There have been so many "close encounters" and the like in the last several decades to certainly make me a believer.
Even if there is an apparent conflict between the two rulings, such a contradiction will not necessarily be referred to the US Supreme Court. Remember, the New Jersey ruling was under the New Jersey Constitution, which provides far more rights to citizens than the United States Constitution. As such, even if there is not federal right to privacy with one's ISP, there still could be a right to privacy within the state of New Jersey.
Speaking of sexist, that comment is uncalled for. Contrary to what the (former?) President of Harvard thinks, women are indeed capable of participating in math and science fields. It is merely social structure that "guides" them away from these traditionally "masculine" enterprises.
The "feature" that made your teammates appear to be enemies by appearing as red was actually a bug in the 1.00 and was NOT introduced in the patch. Don't get me wrong though, I'm still mad at EA for releasing a bad patch without enough testing. And, to top it all off, DICE is on vacation after releasing BF2...just messing this whole situation up even more