Snore

1st Amendment vs Treason?

Recommended Posts

My genuine desire is to try to start a thread that stays out of the gutter. 

The folks in DC are using “due process” to go after Donnie’s liquor license.  That is smart and allows him the rights every citizen is guaranteed. And they get a resounding “well done!”

On the other hand Microsoft, and several airlines are looking to stop providing services because they disagree with Fed Policies. No injunction or due process, simply withholding services.   When does this become extortion? Treason?  Yes, I know we as individuals may disagree with a policy.  But, if your firm is supplying the government under a contract, you have an obligation to provide the same level of service regardless of your personal opinion.

When taken to the logical limit, if Microsoft disagreed with a war- could they withhold thier services?  Could an airline refuse to transport troops to other US cities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so going after Trump is "well done".  Suppose Trump decided to go after the National Press Club's license?  I'm pretty sure Trump could find someone in the NPC governance who might have a political axe to grind.  It's legal but just looks like using the courts for harassment.  The Trump organization will just put some of their lawyers already on retainer to work dealing with it and there is unlikely to be any change.

As to the airlines, they can sell tickets and charters as they see fit.  Just whining "please don't use our airline" doesn't cut it.  If they don't want them on the airline don't sell them tickets and don't bid on charter contracts.

They might want to look around airports today though and see that the troops traveling in uniform today get a lot better treatment than they did in the late 60s and 70s.  They might also consider that a lot of defense contractors do a lot of traveling and quite a few CEOs today are vets before they start fucking with the troops.  A little note that says "due to xyz airlines refusal to accept DOD contracts or travel vouchers, travel on xyz is no longer a reimbursable expense" would wake a few airline CFOs up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Microsoft disagreed with a war- could they withhold thier services?"

Why not? If we are going to expand the property rights of businesses to include moral objections (providing insurance that includes birth control, denying service to identified individuals, ...), how would this be any different?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft default on their contracts with the us gov't?

I don't think so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, hermetic said:

Microsoft default on their contracts with the us gov't?

I don't think so

moral depravity clause

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snore said:

 

When does this become extortion? Treason?  

Read a dictionary

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snore said:

My genuine desire is to try to start a thread that stays out of the gutter. 

The folks in DC are using “due process” to go after Donnie’s liquor license.  That is smart and allows him the rights every citizen is guaranteed. And they get a resounding “well done!”

On the other hand Microsoft, and several airlines are looking to stop providing services because they disagree with Fed Policies. No injunction or due process, simply withholding services.   When does this become extortion? Treason?  Yes, I know we as individuals may disagree with a policy.  But, if your firm is supplying the government under a contract, you have an obligation to provide the same level of service regardless of your personal opinion.

When taken to the logical limit, if Microsoft disagreed with a war- could they withhold thier services?  Could an airline refuse to transport troops to other US cities?

um..are you referring to the airlines refusing to relocate hundreds of unaccompanied babies into detention centers by any chance?

Airlines have their own rules about minors..and I suspect one of them has something to do with parental consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

moral depravity clause

Against the US government?  Tell me how you see that playing out.  I'm not a lawyer, so if there's any precedent for what you suggest, please, enlighten the group. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:
37 minutes ago, hermetic said:

Microsoft default on their contracts with the us gov't?

I don't think so

moral depravity clause

can you give me a far / dfar number for that clause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly why I loathe Trump. One can  destroy a racing series and chase everyone off and not violate one rule. One can wreck a yacht club and stay entirely within the bylaws.

On a larger scale, Trump has opened the floodgates and shit-lagoon is now pouring out all over America. Besides for all the outright criminality going on, he is inspiring all kinds of things technically not against any law, but just "not done" here. Well not anymore :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Against the US government?  Tell me how you see that playing out.  I'm not a lawyer, so if there's any precedent for what you suggest, please, enlighten the group. 

There is no lower bound of what one should do as long as the "government is asking you to do it"? We hung people for this shit after WW II ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:
38 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Against the US government?  Tell me how you see that playing out.  I'm not a lawyer, so if there's any precedent for what you suggest, please, enlighten the group. 

There is no lower bound of what one should do as long as the "government is asking you to do it"? We hung people for this shit after WW II ;)

nothing prevents Microsoft from taking the high road and defaulting on their contracts

except the cost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

There is no lower bound of what one should do as long as the "government is asking you to do it"? We hung people for this shit after WW II ;)

Humorous tangent - but, Clean made an assertion that the "moral depravity" clause of a contract could allow Microsoft to legally renege on its contractual obligations to the US government because some in its leadership didn't like some of the things the US government was doing,  and I'm not aware of any precedent that would support that claim.  Perhaps I misunderstood his comment - either way, clarification would help. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Humorous tangent - but, Clean made an assertion that the "moral depravity" clause of a contract could allow Microsoft to legally renege on its contractual obligations to the US government because some in its leadership didn't like some of the things the US government was doing,  and I'm not aware of any precedent that would support that claim.  Perhaps I misunderstood his comment - either way, clarification would help. 

 

Any company has a set of values. They can clearly decide to not do business if the customer doesn’t align to their values. It may cost a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Any company has a set of values. They can clearly decide to not do business if the customer doesn’t align to their values. It may cost a lot.

Absolutely so, and the way it should be.  That's a bit different than the suggestions made upstream.  Political memes might be funny, but, IMHO, they're not really useful in establishing policy, nor should they be. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This is exactly why I loathe Trump. One can  destroy a racing series and chase everyone off and not violate one rule. One can wreck a yacht club and stay entirely within the bylaws.

On a larger scale, Trump has opened the floodgates and shit-lagoon is now pouring out all over America. Besides for all the outright criminality going on, he is inspiring all kinds of things technically not against any law, but just "not done" here. Well not anymore :angry:

Did you notice that congress finally got the fence picket out of it's ass and passed a bill on the subject.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

"Microsoft disagreed with a war- could they withhold thier services?"

Why not? If we are going to expand the property rights of businesses to include moral objections (providing insurance that includes birth control, denying service to identified individuals, ...), how would this be any different?

At what point does it become illegal?

Logically the answer can not be never as then the government loses the ability to govern.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

moral depravity clause

Involved in many contracts. That does not exist in gov contracts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Snore said:

Involved in many contracts. That does not exist in gov contracts. 

How could it?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Snore said:

At what point does it become illegal?

Logically the answer can not be never as then the government loses the ability to govern.  

The govt can seize the company. Happened a lot during WWII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the us versus microsoft   eminent domain in national interest

take it at just compensation and sell it to zte

that would be a really cool case to follow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

The govt can seize the company. Happened a lot during WWII

It did and as soon as the war was over they were released.  I'm not sure what basis could be used today.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hermetic said:

the us versus microsoft   eminent domain in national interest

that would be a really cool case to follow

Shit, I knew I should have kept that Digital Research stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

The govt can seize the company. Happened a lot during WWII

Sigh — I have learned a lot about that time in our history. [sarcasm font] rampant homophobia, racism, news was filtered and snatching property was acceptable . [/sarcasm font] 

 

I would bet my boat that you could never pull that off today.  Don’t care if the Russian Army was landing in NY, the Chinese in WA and PRK just nuked HI. Someattorney would take the case to fight it. 

 

So the question remains can a Gov vendor LEGALLY refuse to supply if they disagree with a policy?   It seems if a company gets due process to avoid being nationalized- the Gov should getndie process before denial of service.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Snore said:

So the question remains can a Gov vendor LEGALLY refuse to supply if they disagree with a policy?   It seems if a company gets due process to avoid being nationalized- the Gov should getndie process before denial of service.  

yes - don't become a vendor.  they can't make you sell your wholly owned product  to them

when you sign a government contract you have to abide by the terms of that contract or be declared in default

while there are certainly clauses in government contracts that a company can use to exit, moral depravity is not one of them.  all government contracts are written such that the government holds most rights - and they are all spelled out in the far boilerplate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Snore said:

Sigh — I have learned a lot about that time in our history. [sarcasm font] rampant homophobia, racism, news was filtered and snatching property was acceptable . [/sarcasm font] 

 

I would bet my boat that you could never pull that off today.  Don’t care if the Russian Army was landing in NY, the Chinese in WA and PRK just nuked HI. Someattorney would take the case to fight it. 

 

So the question remains can a Gov vendor LEGALLY refuse to supply if they disagree with a policy?   It seems if a company gets due process to avoid being nationalized- the Gov should getndie process before denial of service.  

Why do all you righties suddenly feel that property rights don't exist when it comes to the Homeland? Do you really buy the Fascist schtick?  Was it just latent in all of you, and now comes out because your guy is an out-and-out fascist, so it must now be ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a bible thumping baker can refuse to bake a cake because his religion doesn't agree with both sides of the matrimonial equation preferring to take the bumper in the dumper, then an airline should be able to refuse to participate in a violation of any number of biblical passages.  

  • "'Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow.' Then all the people shall say, Amen!'" Deuteronomy 27:19
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Why do all you righties suddenly feel that property rights don't exist when it comes to the Homeland? Do you really buy the Fascist schtick?  Was it just latent in all of you, and now comes out because your guy is an out-and-out fascist, so it must now be ok?

My whole question relates to the rights of government.  Does your singular opinion outweigh due process?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Snore said:

My whole question relates to the rights of government.  Does your singular opinion outweigh due process?

 

 

Please explain how this is a due process violation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Snore said:

My whole question relates to the rights of government.  Does your singular opinion outweigh due process?

 

 

What “rights” does the govt have? I thought the whole point of our govt was to imbue rights upon the citizens?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm thinking MS has enough propriety software that the gubmit would cave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than try to do better, consider the words of Andrew M Cuomo, Governor of the State Of New York in today's NYT

"This week, I announced New York State’s intent to file a multiagency lawsuit against the Trump administration to swiftly reunite children with their parents and put an end to the abuse of immigrant families. We fully intend to move forward with this suit to prevent any further harm to the children in custody.

Our case rests primarily on three claims.

First, that holding the children apart from their families is a violation of the constitutional rights of parents to care for, maintain custody of and communicate with their children. These parents are afforded the fundamental right to family integrity under the United States Constitution and under the New York State Constitution. By systematically separating parents from their children, this administration has shown complete disregard for parental rights.

Second, that detaining children — alone or even with their families for an extended period of time — is a violation of the terms of the 1997 Flores settlement agreement with the federal government, which set national standards regarding the detention, release and treatment of children in immigration detention. The settlement, which the administration is seeking to modify, prioritizes the principle of family unity, requires juvenile immigrant detainees to be released within 20 days, and explicitly requires family reunification with a clear preference for parental custody.

Third, we intend to invoke what is known as the “outrageous government conduct doctrine.” In a 1973 case, United States v. Russell, the Supreme Court wrote that it “may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” That day has come. The callous tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement have no place in this country.

We cannot wash away this stain on American history. But we are not without a voice, and will speak up for the voiceless, with words and with action. We will not let what has been done go unanswered, and we will do everything we can to ensure that it never happens again. Together, we can reaffirm our commitment to the fundamental values that built this state and this nation.

 

The bolded quote "outrageous government conduct doctrine" is, in the mind of this publicly elected official, moral turpitude enough to justify disobeying or rendering invalid the policies of the government. This is not just in the mind of the good governor, its in the minds of millions of people in American and around the world.

Consider, for just a moment, the impact of wrenching 20,000 MORE kids from their family unit and housing them in detention facilities around the US perhaps on military bases. WTF do you want from this country? Terrorism? Will THAT make us safer and more powerful? Enforcing horrible laws without regard for whether they are morally correct is not what I want, and not what the airlines or those who work for Microsoft want.

We are looking at the end of the Trump administration and the end of the GOP if this continues unabated. Melania's jacket is trolling from within. It's not gonna stop until Republicans & conservatives separate from the party of Trump. His (and Miller's) totalitarian urges are coming through unfiltered now, and I don't think Chessy will like that straightjacket. Not sure about Dog, but TMSAIL and Malarkey think the threads are fine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Please explain how this is a due process violation.  

 

9 hours ago, Raz'r said:

What “rights” does the govt have? I thought the whole point of our govt was to imbue rights upon the citizens?

 

In theory, the Feds pass laws and act to maintain an orderly society.  Citizens agree to follow those laws.

 

Vendors provide services under contract to support that effort.  Failing to provide agreed upon services because a vendor disagrees with policy, that THE COURTS have found to be illegal would appear to be illegal- call it treason, subversion—- whatever.

 

finally — to the a-holes who insist on bashing and trying to hijack the thread— this is an issue that will exist long after Donnie is gone.  Let’s say the next time Cali has a fire , the overwhelmingly conservative private firefighters say - nope we ain’t going there.  Or the aircraft mechanics say “f those liberals”.  What happens? How is that different?  Can’t say loss of life, just evacuate.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Snore said:

 

In theory, the Feds pass laws and act to maintain an orderly society.  Citizens agree to follow those laws.

 

Vendors provide services under contract to support that effort.  Failing to provide agreed upon services because a vendor disagrees with policy, that THE COURTS have found to be illegal would appear to be illegal- call it treason, subversion—- whatever.

 

finally — to the a-holes who insist on bashing and trying to hijack the thread— this is an issue that will exist long after Donnie is gone.  Let’s say the next time Cali has a fire , the overwhelmingly conservative private firefighters say - nope we ain’t going there.  Or the aircraft mechanics say “f those liberals”.  What happens? How is that different?  Can’t say loss of life, just evacuate.

 

 

 

Should you find yourself interested in what due process is, there is a rudimentary discussion of it here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

i encourage some investigation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Should you find yourself interested in what due process is, there is a rudimentary discussion of it here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

i encourage some investigation. 

Wow that was easy.

 

The words “due process” suggest a concern with procedure rather than substance”. I really don’t want to argue semantics.  

 

Or perhaps you are arguing that anyone, can withhold services if they disagree?   I go back to the firefighters, or a truck driver delivering goods to an area with a different political view.  What is the threshold for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snore said:

Wow that was easy.

 

The words “due process” suggest a concern with procedure rather than substance”. I really don’t want to argue semantics.  

 

Or perhaps you are arguing that anyone, can withhold services if they disagree?   I go back to the firefighters, or a truck driver delivering goods to an area with a different political view.  What is the threshold for you?

What I was trying to say nicely is that I will not discuss constitutional due process with someone who has no fucking idea what it is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"At what point does it become illegal?

Logically the answer can not be never as then the government loses the ability to govern.  "

I think the government losing the ability to govern is, in part, the point of the exercise. Since power abhors a vacuum, some entity moves into the space created by shrinking government influence; in many cases business interests.  We're moving toward a Gilded Age society where corporate interests increased their influence to the point where the Federal government had reduced ability to counter that influence.  One of the reasons for the anti-government propaganda floating around for the last 40 years or so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when was there a period where big business, and the people who controlled those businesses, were not the main influencers of government decisions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always, but the important question is the extent of the influence. I would argue that the period from 1934 to 1980, corporate influence diminished in relation to social (general? working/middle class? popular?) interests.  The fundamental concept behind Roosevelt Republicans (Progressive) was that only a strong Federal government has the power to counter corporate influence; the experiment with small, business friendly government was performed in the '20's.

Oops, just noticed the "main" qualifier;  I think the pre-civil war era had reduced corporate (consolidated economic/political power) influence due to the alternate structure of corporations. The Progressive Era, New Deal, Eisenhower, Great Society and even Nixon kept the corporate interests somewhat at bay with, of course, wartime interludes.  An argument could be made that cost-plus government contracts made the modern American corporate world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Snore said:

 

In theory, the Feds pass laws and act to maintain an orderly society.  Citizens agree to follow those laws.

 

Vendors provide services under contract to support that effort.  Failing to provide agreed upon services because a vendor disagrees with policy, that THE COURTS have found to be illegal would appear to be illegal- call it treason, subversion—- whatever.

 

finally — to the a-holes who insist on bashing and trying to hijack the thread— this is an issue that will exist long after Donnie is gone.  Let’s say the next time Cali has a fire , the overwhelmingly conservative private firefighters say - nope we ain’t going there.  Or the aircraft mechanics say “f those liberals”.  What happens? How is that different?  Can’t say loss of life, just evacuate.

 

 

 

So, if they don’t want to fight fire in California, they don’t go. Simple.

and not providing services per contract isn’t “illegal”, it’s just a civil contract dispute. Happens all the time. Courts are full to the brim with these cases. 

Some company doesn’t provide services contracted to the govt? Lawsuit. Pretty simple. 

Not sure where your fauxtrage is coming from. Levin? Rush? Fox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

What I was trying to say nicely is that I will not discuss constitutional due process with someone who has no fucking idea what it is. 

Sorry for using a legal term in the presence of an attorney.

 

@Raz'r no not from some right wing machine.  Just pondering over a cigar and Jack.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

"At what point does it become illegal?

Logically the answer can not be never as then the government loses the ability to govern.  "

I think the government losing the ability to govern is, in part, the point of the exercise. Since power abhors a vacuum, some entity moves into the space created by shrinking government influence; in many cases business interests.  We're moving toward a Gilded Age society where corporate interests increased their influence to the point where the Federal government had reduced ability to counter that influence.  One of the reasons for the anti-government propaganda floating around for the last 40 years or so.

 

 

Thanks that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Snore said:

Sorry for using a legal term in the presence of an attorney.

 

@Raz'r no not from some right wing machine.  Just pondering over a cigar and Jack.  

That is seventh grade civics level stuff.  If you are going to be a good Republican, you need to know that the Constitution/Bill of Rights is a limitation on government power. No person shall be deprived....  Don't take my word for it, look at that link I posted.  Knowing this stuff is our job as citizens.  Who else is going to stand up to our government when it oversteps, a bunch of paid politicians on the take?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Who else is going to stand up to our government when it oversteps, a bunch of paid politicians on the take? 

Often it's corporations $peaking about issues. You know, like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2018 at 5:34 AM, Snore said:

My genuine desire is to try to start a thread that stays out of the gutter. 

The folks in DC are using “due process” to go after Donnie’s liquor license.  That is smart and allows him the rights every citizen is guaranteed. And they get a resounding “well done!”

On the other hand Microsoft, and several airlines are looking to stop providing services because they disagree with Fed Policies. No injunction or due process, simply withholding services.   When does this become extortion? Treason?  Yes, I know we as individuals may disagree with a policy.  But, if your firm is supplying the government under a contract, you have an obligation to provide the same level of service regardless of your personal opinion.

When taken to the logical limit, if Microsoft disagreed with a war- could they withhold thier services?  Could an airline refuse to transport troops to other US cities?

Are they meeting their contractual obligations?

That's all that is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now