As I'm sure most of you know, this morning, the Supreme Court upheld the healthcare bill (ACA). From a political philosophy perspective-and this may surprise some of you who know me-I do think the sovereign has the right regulate, even mandate, healthcare coverage. However, that gets very complicated in a dual sovereign system such as the one in the United States. So, you begin to see why I can say the sovereign has the power and right to do this, yet still say the federal government should not. The Constitution was designed to limit the federal power, and leave the rest to the states. (Yes, later the states were limited by the Amendments, etc.) In my opinion, if one of the sovereign States' peoples voted to institute a healthcare system for that State, and could fund it, then more power to them.
All that said, what do I think of the ACA? I (like most of Congress) have not read it. So what the actual changes will be, I can only speculate. But I will predict that it will not have a huge impact on the majority of Americans. I think it is safe to say that most citizens have very little knowledge of what laws are in place that keep things running in the manner we expect, or prevent things from running as well as they could. People just are too oblivious to notice. It will probably be the same with this.
There is one exception: I can expect to make some money off of it. A new bureaucracy will lead to more business for lawyers willing to take on administrative law cases.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Emailed Lobbying
So, I was asked to comment on one of those chain email things about politics. The bold print is part of the legal changes proposed in the email. Everything else is my knee-jerk reaction fired off within a few minutes. Any errors in reasoning are mine and due to not thinking before I type.
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.
A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.
Ok, this is doable, I actually like this one. But, no tenure? Stop voting for them.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
So, this is doable as well. But, it will conflict with some of the later proposals.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
Umm, they already do, they just wrote the plan. So, this wouldn't actually change anything.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
I would want to see what the annual rates have actually been. The arguement may just be a red herring if Congress doesn't always vote themselves a pay raise, or if the rates are already lower than this proposal has. Besides, Congressional pay raises already do not take effect for the Congress voting on it. The raise is delayed until the next session, so those voting on it may never benefit from it.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
This presupposes a national health care system, so supporting this either supports Obamacare (or something similar) or supports employees participating in employer sponsored healthcare plans. Umm... Congress then gets to decide what health care plan to offer itself, and this rule does nothing. Nothing except placate people who don't actually know what they are asking for.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
They do, as far as I know. With the obvious exception of the Constitutional ban on arresting Congressmen while Congress is in session.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.
If we want Congressmen to be treated just like everyone else, why give them a massive loophole out of contract law?
If we want Congressmen to be treated just like everyone else, why give them a massive loophole out of contract law?
Finally, if we don't want career Congressmen, vote them out of office. Isn't that the definition of democracy?
Monday, February 6, 2012
Food for Thought
For any of you with e-readers of some kind (insert unsolicited plug for B&N's Nook here), you should go peruse the archives at Project Gutenberg. It has all sorts of wonderful works that have made their way into the public domain of copyright. Works such as St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The White Company. It also has, to my delight, a number of works by G.K. Chesterton. This gives me the opportunity to read Orthodoxy and Eugenics and Other Evils. The latter piece starts with the following paragraph:
I know that I have friends who simply cannot understand my willingness to "prevent people from receiving adequate medical care because they can't afford it" and other such stances to curb social welfare projects. I believe those friends have the best of intentions. Nor am I unsympathetic to the needs of the, for lack of a better word, needy. I simply think that our government is one of strictly confined powers and those bounds should not be exceeded, no matter how good the intentions. (Good Intentions: sponsored by Hell Paving & Asphalt Co.)
Perhaps I could have more fully formed this post before writing, but if I tried to do that, I never would get anything done. That said, as I read more of Eugenics, I will pass on more political/ethical thoughts from the Chesterton/Cramer distillation project. (Ha, evidence of the supreme arrogance of a law student to make that comparison.)
The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air.That opening paragraph illustrates, far better than I could, why arguments consisting of what may be characterized as "scare tactics" have some merit. It is a statement that is at the core of my reasons for arguing for limitations of government, and why I typically am not in favor of extensions of government power.
I know that I have friends who simply cannot understand my willingness to "prevent people from receiving adequate medical care because they can't afford it" and other such stances to curb social welfare projects. I believe those friends have the best of intentions. Nor am I unsympathetic to the needs of the, for lack of a better word, needy. I simply think that our government is one of strictly confined powers and those bounds should not be exceeded, no matter how good the intentions. (Good Intentions: sponsored by Hell Paving & Asphalt Co.)
Perhaps I could have more fully formed this post before writing, but if I tried to do that, I never would get anything done. That said, as I read more of Eugenics, I will pass on more political/ethical thoughts from the Chesterton/Cramer distillation project. (Ha, evidence of the supreme arrogance of a law student to make that comparison.)
Monday, December 12, 2011
The Corporations Complaint
I have a final in a couple of days on business law, so, I'm posting here. Makes sense, right?
I've seen a number of people post things on Facebook regarding companies and corporations, etc. Most of these friends are OWS proponents and rather intelligent people; people for whom I generally have a good deal of respect. But the posts tend toward - how to say this politely - the naive. The two that I can think of are the photo that has circulated stating "I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one" and the sentiment that, if a corporation is legally a person, the corporation should face criminal penalties for its acts. The second is in the context of a West Virginia mining company and the death of 29 miners.
My response is twofold: First, how can you criminally punish a company? Jail it? And second, stating that a company is legally a person is not analogous to the way a human being is a legal person. Saying that it is the same shows a gross misunderstanding of the law, at best, or deliberate manipulation of the language, at worst.
Now, to the first point. Saying that a corporation even can be criminally punished is laughable. There are several reasons I say this. First, the corporate officers are the ones who took any illegal action. Sure, they took the action on behalf of the company and in the role as corporate agents, but the corporation is legally only able to take lawful actions. So, any action by a corporate agent that is unlawful is the unlawful (and unauthorized) act of that specific person. That just means that, while you may not be able to hold the company criminally liable, there is no reason that you can't criminally prosecute the corporate officers. Second, what punishment can be assessed to a company? You can't throw it in jail and you can't throw all the employees in jail without it being a gross violation of civil rights. All you can really do is fine the company, and that is a civil punishment, not criminal.
And the second point. The legal fiction of corporate personhood. I know a number of people who would be happy to do away with that particular fiction. I say, "That's a really bad idea." There is a business form that does dispense with the corporate person, the partnership (ok, and the sole proprietorship... but close enough for government work). Without that fiction, the partners (or the owner) are personally liable for all business debts.
Ok, so you might say "Personal liability is a good thing. It'll keep those nasty business owners in line." Umm, you do realize that "business owner" would mean anyone who has invested in a company, right? So those 401k accounts, IRAs, any money market savings account you have mean you have money invested in companies. If you take away the limited liability of the corporate form, remember the form that has the legal fiction of personhood, then you are a partner in that company. So, that company does something wrong and you could be liable for the entire debt. Just for being smart about your retirement funds.
Wait, what? These evil business structures that allow companies to not be criminally liable are the same ones that allow our economy to thrive by reducing the risk of investing. So, go ahead, take away the legal corporate protections. Just be prepared to not have retirement because all investments are too risky to participate in due to your personal liability.
I've seen a number of people post things on Facebook regarding companies and corporations, etc. Most of these friends are OWS proponents and rather intelligent people; people for whom I generally have a good deal of respect. But the posts tend toward - how to say this politely - the naive. The two that I can think of are the photo that has circulated stating "I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one" and the sentiment that, if a corporation is legally a person, the corporation should face criminal penalties for its acts. The second is in the context of a West Virginia mining company and the death of 29 miners.
My response is twofold: First, how can you criminally punish a company? Jail it? And second, stating that a company is legally a person is not analogous to the way a human being is a legal person. Saying that it is the same shows a gross misunderstanding of the law, at best, or deliberate manipulation of the language, at worst.
Now, to the first point. Saying that a corporation even can be criminally punished is laughable. There are several reasons I say this. First, the corporate officers are the ones who took any illegal action. Sure, they took the action on behalf of the company and in the role as corporate agents, but the corporation is legally only able to take lawful actions. So, any action by a corporate agent that is unlawful is the unlawful (and unauthorized) act of that specific person. That just means that, while you may not be able to hold the company criminally liable, there is no reason that you can't criminally prosecute the corporate officers. Second, what punishment can be assessed to a company? You can't throw it in jail and you can't throw all the employees in jail without it being a gross violation of civil rights. All you can really do is fine the company, and that is a civil punishment, not criminal.
And the second point. The legal fiction of corporate personhood. I know a number of people who would be happy to do away with that particular fiction. I say, "That's a really bad idea." There is a business form that does dispense with the corporate person, the partnership (ok, and the sole proprietorship... but close enough for government work). Without that fiction, the partners (or the owner) are personally liable for all business debts.
Ok, so you might say "Personal liability is a good thing. It'll keep those nasty business owners in line." Umm, you do realize that "business owner" would mean anyone who has invested in a company, right? So those 401k accounts, IRAs, any money market savings account you have mean you have money invested in companies. If you take away the limited liability of the corporate form, remember the form that has the legal fiction of personhood, then you are a partner in that company. So, that company does something wrong and you could be liable for the entire debt. Just for being smart about your retirement funds.
Wait, what? These evil business structures that allow companies to not be criminally liable are the same ones that allow our economy to thrive by reducing the risk of investing. So, go ahead, take away the legal corporate protections. Just be prepared to not have retirement because all investments are too risky to participate in due to your personal liability.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Complete Non Sequitur
This has nothing to do with law, politics, or philosophical thought in any way. This is about movie protagonists.
As some of you know, I enjoy really bad action movies, also other really bad movies in other genres. But, I had the time to (re)watch Man on Fire the other day. It made me wonder: who are the movie protagonists I think would be the worst to have mad at me? So, in no particular order, here are my top five.
John Creasy, Man on Fire - Rayburn (Christopher Walken) says of Creasy, "A man can be an artist at anything. Food, whatever. It depends on how good at it he is. Creasy's art is death, and he's about to paint his masterpiece." That sums it up. Do not kidnap some one a professional, ex-special forces, bodyguard cares about. Simple.
James Bond, Quantum of Solace - Of all the Bonds, Daniel Craig comes closest to how I envision the Fleming original. Resourceful, tenacious, and downright vindictive, even MI-6 can't stop him. Umm, I'll be hiding over here.
Bryan Mills, Taken - Combine the two descriptions above, and you get Bryan Mills, minus the massive MI-6 budget. Anyone who will shoot a friend's wife to get information is not someone easily deterred.
Léon, Léon - A professional killer who takes in his orphaned neighbor; what's not to like? Teaching the kid to be just as competent as an assassin as he is... that's a little scary.
Rooster Cogburn, True Grit - John Wayne. Enough said.
Honorable mention goes out to the following: Most Marvel superheroes, Batman, and Humphrey Bogart - in anything.
As some of you know, I enjoy really bad action movies, also other really bad movies in other genres. But, I had the time to (re)watch Man on Fire the other day. It made me wonder: who are the movie protagonists I think would be the worst to have mad at me? So, in no particular order, here are my top five.
John Creasy, Man on Fire - Rayburn (Christopher Walken) says of Creasy, "A man can be an artist at anything. Food, whatever. It depends on how good at it he is. Creasy's art is death, and he's about to paint his masterpiece." That sums it up. Do not kidnap some one a professional, ex-special forces, bodyguard cares about. Simple.
James Bond, Quantum of Solace - Of all the Bonds, Daniel Craig comes closest to how I envision the Fleming original. Resourceful, tenacious, and downright vindictive, even MI-6 can't stop him. Umm, I'll be hiding over here.
Bryan Mills, Taken - Combine the two descriptions above, and you get Bryan Mills, minus the massive MI-6 budget. Anyone who will shoot a friend's wife to get information is not someone easily deterred.
Léon, Léon - A professional killer who takes in his orphaned neighbor; what's not to like? Teaching the kid to be just as competent as an assassin as he is... that's a little scary.
Rooster Cogburn, True Grit - John Wayne. Enough said.
Honorable mention goes out to the following: Most Marvel superheroes, Batman, and Humphrey Bogart - in anything.
Monday, April 4, 2011
A Little Comparative Legal History
This afternoon I had the pleasure of attending talks by two German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) Fellows. The first was a very engaging discussion about theories of criminal punishment and the use of preventative detention in the German penal system. The second was an historical perspective on the development of abortion law, with a comparison between the US development leading up to and surrounding Roe v. Wade and German jurisprudence around the same time.
The speaker, Felix Lange, remarked that it was a striking contrast in the jurisprudence of otherwise similar Western democracies. Obviously, in Roe the Supreme Court ruled that, as a matter of right to privacy, women in America have the right to an abortion. The German Constitutional Court took a different view, it ruled that the right to life in the German constitution extended to protect the unborn.
Why the dichotomy? The proposal that the Courts were merely responding to the social conscience of the people was held up as a major reason for the opposing rulings. The German people still had the memory of the policies and horrors of the National Socialist movement fresh in the collective conscience. The desire to distance themselves from that history may have influenced the Court toward a ruling that came down firmly on the side making a clear statement for the sanctity of life.
An interesting proposition, don't you think?
The speaker, Felix Lange, remarked that it was a striking contrast in the jurisprudence of otherwise similar Western democracies. Obviously, in Roe the Supreme Court ruled that, as a matter of right to privacy, women in America have the right to an abortion. The German Constitutional Court took a different view, it ruled that the right to life in the German constitution extended to protect the unborn.
Why the dichotomy? The proposal that the Courts were merely responding to the social conscience of the people was held up as a major reason for the opposing rulings. The German people still had the memory of the policies and horrors of the National Socialist movement fresh in the collective conscience. The desire to distance themselves from that history may have influenced the Court toward a ruling that came down firmly on the side making a clear statement for the sanctity of life.
An interesting proposition, don't you think?
Saturday, January 29, 2011
ITAR
So, this post really has no point other than just to point out how complex international business can get and to serve as my outlet for random thoughts involving some of my work. Enjoy.
If any of you know what ITAR, then you probably know how much of a mess the regulations can become. For those of you who don't know, ITAR is the abbreviation for International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The name of it is pretty self-explanatory and I doubt I need to go into detail on the various aspects of it for you to get the picture. Basically, it is a regulatory system for controlling the manufacture and distribution, internationally, of munitions and technology with predominately military applications. It regulates who may develop, export (and to whom), and who may even oversee the work of any item that falls within its parameters. Overall, it is not a regulation that I have much to complain about, other than it may cause awkward work environments, but that's another story.
Why am I wondering about this? I was working on a short paper involving regulatory reform and its impact on a corporation when I looked over the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program as a quick case study. I got to wondering about how much paperwork and hassle ITAR can cause when a civilian project for the military is being jointly worked on by international corporations and for multiple nations' militaries. The JSF program is certainly in that camp. The list of countries involved is small, but diverse, and various components are being developed by international teams (e.g. the engine is a joint project between General Electric and Rolls Royce).
To keep this in the terms of looking at international relations, has anyone else taken a look at the Chinese development of a 5th Generation fighter? Take a look at a variety of articles and posts about the Chengdu J-20.
If any of you know what ITAR, then you probably know how much of a mess the regulations can become. For those of you who don't know, ITAR is the abbreviation for International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The name of it is pretty self-explanatory and I doubt I need to go into detail on the various aspects of it for you to get the picture. Basically, it is a regulatory system for controlling the manufacture and distribution, internationally, of munitions and technology with predominately military applications. It regulates who may develop, export (and to whom), and who may even oversee the work of any item that falls within its parameters. Overall, it is not a regulation that I have much to complain about, other than it may cause awkward work environments, but that's another story.
Why am I wondering about this? I was working on a short paper involving regulatory reform and its impact on a corporation when I looked over the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program as a quick case study. I got to wondering about how much paperwork and hassle ITAR can cause when a civilian project for the military is being jointly worked on by international corporations and for multiple nations' militaries. The JSF program is certainly in that camp. The list of countries involved is small, but diverse, and various components are being developed by international teams (e.g. the engine is a joint project between General Electric and Rolls Royce).
To keep this in the terms of looking at international relations, has anyone else taken a look at the Chinese development of a 5th Generation fighter? Take a look at a variety of articles and posts about the Chengdu J-20.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)