en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers
All industries have their lobbiests, and will pump lots of money into political favors in their best interests... its capitalism at its finest.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
HiDesert
join:2008-08-17
| said by en102  :All industries have their lobbiests, and will pump lots of money into political favors in their best interests... its capitalism at its finest. Thats true. However, this case is a bit different being they violated the 4th amendment and broke the law. The telcos crossed the grey line on this one. And they got lucky they were let off the hook. This is a really sad state of affairs for our constitution. And is also where I lost all respect for Obama. I have little faith anymore for our federal government. |
|
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | reply to en102
To quote Thomas Jefferson, "We need a bloody revolution every twenty years, just to keep government honest."
It's been 232 years... Long overdue.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." |
|
Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
clubs:   | So...
How's that Change coming along? |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to HiDesert
"They" being whom? I don't think that anybody, except a government agency (i.e., the NSA), can "violate" an amendment. The U.S. Constitution, including its amendments, applies to the U.S. Government; and, with one of the "Reconstruction" amendments, typically considered to apply to state governments, as well.
There are civil and criminal laws to apply to corporations, of course.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| said by NormanS :"They" being whom? I don't think that anybody, except a government agency (i.e., the NSA), can "violate" an amendment. The U.S. Constitution, including its amendments, applies to the U.S. Government; and, with one of the "Reconstruction" amendments, typically considered to apply to state governments, as well. That's not entirely true. You're right that the Bill of Rights originally was only a bar against Congressional infringement. In 1866 the 14th amendment was passed to extend the Bill of Rights against state infringement (who were essentially reinstituting slavery by denying rights to freed slaves, either by passage of "Jim Crow" laws, or simply turning a blind eye to private violence against blacks.
The intent of the framers of the 14th was to protect recently freed slaves from state laws recreating slavery. But, by implication it also extended to local laws (not nullified by the state), or private violence that went unpunished by state or local officials.
The intent of the 14th amendment wasn't recognized by the Supreme Court until the mid 1920s when they began what became known as "selective incorporation" of the Bill of Rights into the 14th amendment.
Mark |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by amigo_boy :In 1866 the 14th amendment was passed to extend the Bill of Rights against state infringement... Re: my remark about "Reconstruction amendments". Look that term up some time. There were three, of which 14 was one.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by NormanS :said by amigo_boy :In 1866 the 14th amendment was passed to extend the Bill of Rights against state infringement... Re: my remark about "Reconstruction amendments". Look that term up some time. There were three, of which 14 was one. I'm very familiar with the 13th though 15th amendments. The 14th amendment was the one that extended the Bill of Rights to state (and by implication) private or organizational infringement. It's a matter of semantics because, although the 14th amendment didn't give the federal government jurisdiction over private/organizational infringement, it gave them jurisdiction over the state that didn't take action over such municipal, private or organizational infringement. It's indirect.
Mark |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to en102
said by en102 :its capitalism at its finest. Well, corruption, anyway... which you could argue is part in parcel with sufficiently unrestrained capitalism. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: AT&T ,,, your money, delivered to the fund raisers
But what, about my post, didn't mention the extension of Constitutional protection, or control, or whatever you want to call it, to the states? Must I requote my comment?
quote:
...and, with one of the "Reconstruction" amendments, typically considered to apply to state governments, as well.
What did I miss, that I failed to convey exactly what you said I didn't?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Alvin
@qwest.net
| reply to NormanS
The question of whether AT&T did something illegal isn't the point. The fact that Congress and the President granted them immunity and prevented the courts doing their job in determining whether or not they did something illegal is the problem.
And in the greatest irony, it was the 14th amendment, through the Supreme Court and cases brought to it (over 80% of which were about corporations, not freed slaves) was the one that ultimately allowed Corporations to be defined as people and gave them the right to own property and have free speech leading to this problem with lobbyists and corporate domination in the first place.
Now they're able to use their pull to avoid responsibility. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by Alvin :
The question of whether AT&T did something illegal isn't the point. The fact that Congress and the President granted them immunity and prevented the courts doing their job in determining whether or not they did something illegal is the problem.
You're wrong. Congress and the President did nothing more than restate 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) [1]. That law already defines when telcos are (or are not) liable to criminal or civil prosecution.
So, the so-called immunity deal [2] didn't convey immunity. It says its only applicable *if* 2511 applies. All it did was provide an avenue for the judiciary to make that determination.
We know this was the basis of the Administration's defense of the telcos because AG Gonzalez documented his argument that 2511 applies.[3]
[1] »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
[2] »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf (see page 88)
[3] »www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonns···ties.pdf (see page 23). |
|
