If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote: Sancho Panza writes: A law passed by Congress and signed by the President prohibits that. You know, it's not that hard to actually look things up. The "law passed by Congress" is 49 USC § 40127. The authority to pass this law is granted to Congress by the Constitution. But the law itself has no other Constitutional backing. It can be repealed by a simple majority of Congress (Again under authority granted under the constitution) without having to go through the rigamoral that is required if you want to change to the constitution itself. -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
On 11/1/2011 9:35 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In , wrote: Sancho Panza writes: A law passed by Congress and signed by the President prohibits that. You know, it's not that hard to actually look things up. The "law passed by Congress" is 49 USC § 40127. The authority to pass this law is granted to Congress by the Constitution. But the law itself has no other Constitutional backing. It can be repealed by a simple majority of Congress (Again under authority granted under the constitution) without having to go through the rigamoral that is required if you want to change to the constitution itself. Federal laws are considered to have "constitutional backing" until they are challenged and held to be otherwise by, say, a Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. This is all basic civics that anyone commenting on such questions should have down pat. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
On 11/1/2011 12:06 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
Kurt Ullman writes: Constitutional rights only impact on governmental actions, not the actions of a private entity. Completely false. Every entity must respect most Constitutional provisions, not just the government. The O.P. is apparently unaware of the civil rights protests at places like lunch counters and other privately owned public accommodations. The best you might be able to do might be kidnapping or something similar because you were held against your will, but I wouldn't want to press it. I would. In fact, I'd just open the door, blow the slide, and leave. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
Kurt Ullman writes:
But the law itself has no other Constitutional backing. It was passed by Congress, which is only possible because the Constitution says that Congress can do this. Therefore it is backed by the Constitution. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
Kurt Ullman writes:
Nope. I can kick you off my property at will even if you are OWS and are occupying. No repercussions because there is no requirement that I give you freedom of speech. These actions do not generally conflict with the Constitution. However, if you attempt to prevent a person from voting, or if you attempt to punish him for exercising his Constitutional right to freedom of speech (as by firing him for endorsing a political candidate, for example), you run into conflict with the Constitution. The first amendment, for instance, says specifically that Government shall not, etc. In general, and by extension, things forbidden to the government by the Constitution are also forbidden to private entities. The government cannot seize property under certain conditions, and by extention, this restriction also applies to private entities such as corporations. The reason corporations are not always required to guarantee freedom of speech is that they do not have a monopoly over the means of expression--you can express yourself outside the company even if the company prohibits this on its premises. But if, for some reason, you do not have other options available to you, the restrictions applied by a corporation might be unconstitutional. But then you have violated (techically anyway) violated federal law and you could be subject (technically anyway) to criminal prosecution. Yes. But sometimes that's the only way to get the law changed. It would be an interesting case, and could set useful precedents. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
In message someone claiming
to be Mxsmanic typed: DevilsPGD writes: No; but not due to constitutional restrictions, there are other laws which prohibit such (or rather, which define penalties for doing so) The "other law" is 49 USC § 40127 (a). I guess I'm the only person here who actually looked it up rather than try to bluff my way through it. I wasn't bluffing, I knew that the law exists, I just didn't know it's particular name. Thanks for putting in the leg work. -- It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote: Kurt Ullman writes: Nope. I can kick you off my property at will even if you are OWS and are occupying. No repercussions because there is no requirement that I give you freedom of speech. These actions do not generally conflict with the Constitution. However, if you attempt to prevent a person from voting, or if you attempt to punish him for exercising his Constitutional right to freedom of speech (as by firing him for endorsing a political candidate, for example), you run into conflict with the Constitution. Actually, I can fire a person in many states for endorsing a candidate. If you are in an at-will state and have no other contractural agreements (such as union or employment contracts), I don't even need a reason to fire you. Even if I do get in trouble (legally) it won't be because of first amendment issues, but because of employment law issues. Laws only say I have to give you an opportunity to vote. If, for instance, the polls don't close until 6 and you get off at four, I usually don't have to give you any time off during work hours. So, I probably could legally fire you for taking off early to vote. The first amendment, for instance, says specifically that Government shall not, etc. In general, and by extension, things forbidden to the government by the Constitution are also forbidden to private entities. The government cannot seize property under certain conditions, and by extention, this restriction also applies to private entities such as corporations. The US government constitutionally can take anything they want for any purpose with only requirement being they pay for it (the taking clause). The limits are placed by laws. What state and local governments can do is limited by paying for it AND whatever their constitutions allow (since states may place limits on emminent domain). The restriction on corps (unless assisted by a governmental entity) is related to theft, contract, and other laws. There is no constitutional issue. The reason corporations are not always required to guarantee freedom of speech is that they do not have a monopoly over the means of expression--you can express yourself outside the company even if the company prohibits this on its premises. But if, for some reason, you do not have other options available to you, the restrictions applied by a corporation might be unconstitutional. But then you have violated (techically anyway) violated federal law and you could be subject (technically anyway) to criminal prosecution. Yes. But sometimes that's the only way to get the law changed. It would be an interesting case, and could set useful precedents. -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
On 11/2/2011 7:55 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
The US government constitutionally can take anything they want for any purpose with only requirement being they pay for it (the taking clause). Courts have not upheld that overly broad declaration. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
In article ,
Sancho Panza wrote: On 11/2/2011 7:55 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote: The US government constitutionally can take anything they want for any purpose with only requirement being they pay for it (the taking clause). Courts have not upheld that overly broad declaration. It is a little bit of superfluity, but not all that much. At least at the Fed level, there has to be some public purpose, but the courts have pretty much said public purpose is whatever the government says it is. The ability to invoke eminent domain has always been around, viewed by the courts as being inherent in sovereignty. It rests in the legislature to say what can be condemned, but can be delegated to others.. say RRs or utility. The "public purpose" is the use defined in the constitution, statute or ordinance. Berman v Parker set the modern definition of "public use" when it decided the government could take the land and lease it to a private developer for $1 a year. The same with Kelo v New London (CT). In that case a resort hotel and conference center, new state park, 80-100 new residences, research, office and rental space, was a public use and New London could condemn it. (Although these are related to state or local condemnation, they all raised Fed constitutional questions of what was a public purpose under the US constitution. Find me a FEDERAL ruling that says differently from what I mentioned. States can, and do, add things to their laws on emmenient domain. -- People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, until patients started presenting with sexually acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours
In message someone claiming to be Fly Guy
typed: But with regard to holding me on a plane for 7 hours against my will, here we have a corporation (a legal person) interfering with my liberty. Unless this has already been dealt with by the supreme court, I say that it's high time that it should be. First off, let me say that I agree completely; however, I'm going to play devil's advocate a bit here. So here's the question: Say someone takes it to court and the court rules that people have the unqualified right to leave whenever they want. Now what? You're flying from city X to city Y, you've landed in city Z and are stuck on a plane for 6 hours and decide to leave. What's your next move? -- It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Passengers Trapped on Runway for 8 Hours at JFK | Agent_C | Air travel | 106 | February 20th, 2007 02:24 AM |
JetBlue Passengers Stranded for Almost 11 Hours | Ablang | Air travel | 0 | February 18th, 2007 07:42 AM |
AA holds passengers hostage in airplane for 9 hours | James Robinson | USA & Canada | 0 | January 11th, 2007 02:22 PM |
Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours | Larry R Harrison Jr | Air travel | 296 | January 10th, 2005 10:31 PM |
USA detains BA passengers for 3 hours | nobody | Air travel | 28 | January 4th, 2004 09:15 PM |