171–180 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The car company is already not responsible for any accident that might happen. The operator of the vehicle is responsible for safe operation, period.
No, car companies are sued when defective equipment causes an accident. They would have to take measures to ensure that consumer-modified equipment that causes an accident is not blamed on them.
I do appreciate the effort to protect everyone's constitutional right. I wish best of luck to the pursuit. However, I feel like there is something very very wrong about method and intention of this type of actions/complains. One thing always bugs me about Americans: despite the liberties that they enjoy, despite the very real capacity to impact change in their government and laws, they all hate "the Government." Who…
That can be radically difficult because of gerrymandering.
That aside, launching a public campaign, garnering votes, and voting on a _single issue_ is often the wrong way to elect a representative.
For instance, I think the 2nd amendment is actually a good idea to prevent invasion of a foreign force (an armed population is very hard to rule over). However, I pretty much never vote for candidates that support the 2nd amendment because they often also deny climate change, vote for private prison control, etc. I can't go with their whole platform. I don't want them representing me.
So in those cases, when you have one issue - especially when it's just part of a whole (e.g. just section 1201) - it seems like the right approach, especially when you think there's a piece of legislation (like the Constitution) that supersedes and invalidates the legislation you're looking at.
I do appreciate the effort to protect everyone's constitutional right. I wish best of luck to the pursuit. However, I feel like there is something very very wrong about method and intention of this type of actions/complains. One thing always bugs me about Americans: despite the liberties that they enjoy, despite the very real capacity to impact change in their government and laws, they all hate "the Government." Who…
Legislation is inert. The Executive exists to execute the will of the people expressed through the Legislature. The Judiciary interprets legislation, particularly the interactions and priorities of various laws, ranging from the Constitution, to legislation, to case law. This in turn informs the Executive as to how to execute the legislation.
Therefore, if a citizen is of the opinion that the Executive is doing a bad job of balancing concerns in enforcement (in this particular case asserting that 1201 is unconstitutional due to the 1st Amendment), they sue the Executive. Again, this is entirely in keeping with the structure of checks and balances American government is founded on. When it works, it works well.
I do appreciate the effort to protect everyone's constitutional right. I wish best of luck to the pursuit. However, I feel like there is something very very wrong about method and intention of this type of actions/complains. One thing always bugs me about Americans: despite the liberties that they enjoy, despite the very real capacity to impact change in their government and laws, they all hate "the Government." Who…
Fixing this issue via the legislative process would therefor require realigning lawmakers with their constituents, which could be done possibly by enacting laws which prevent contributions from corporations (which is itself something that lawmakers may disagree with their constituents about) or by a grassroots campaign to basically replace the entire legislative branch with non corrupt law makers.
Both of these paths are slow and difficult, if possible at all. Meanwhile, there is an argument that the law is unconstitutional which means that it could be repealed immediately. We are still completely within the realm of being a citizen. This is the whole point of the checks and balances system.
I do appreciate the effort to protect everyone's constitutional right. I wish best of luck to the pursuit. However, I feel like there is something very very wrong about method and intention of this type of actions/complains. One thing always bugs me about Americans: despite the liberties that they enjoy, despite the very real capacity to impact change in their government and laws, they all hate "the Government." Who…
Yes, the very candidates we vote into offices chosen from a menu prepared by the 0.1% of the wealthiest people in the country.
Please see Lessig's TED talk on U.S. Democratic process.
https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...
I do appreciate the effort to protect everyone's constitutional right. I wish best of luck to the pursuit. However, I feel like there is something very very wrong about method and intention of this type of actions/complains. One thing always bugs me about Americans: despite the liberties that they enjoy, despite the very real capacity to impact change in their government and laws, they all hate "the Government." Who…
Because that's incredibly inefficient when compared to taking someone to court. Most people don't care about the things you care about, and they shouldn't have to -- that's what the courts are for. Democracy is a great last resort, but it should only be used when all other options have been exhausted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much does your wife charge as a therapist? Everyone needs to make money. HN is a weird place to bemoan prices when many here are seeking unicorn valuations while disrupting industry. Everyone hates laws until its in their best interest to have said laws.
Though I don't necessarily agree with you, I'll upvote you as I think you bring up a good counterpoint that's not being discussed. It's possible that this company's business plan assumed the replacement by obsolescence model - instead of a high upfront cost to recoup their R&D, they expected users to replace it every few years at full cost. This is no different than the vast majority of the bait & switch type schemes…
In the world I want to live in, this type of thing would be given to society due to the benefits of it. "But it's an investment; how will they recoup R&D money?" some will say. My response is that we as a society should recognize that the "free market" approach here can be quite inhumane for many people and figure out a way to either publicly fund this research (and address the related problems such as fraud and embezzlement) for the benefit of everyone.
Good luck! What's kind of cool about this issue is that it attracts support from citizens of all political stripes - whether you're a farmer who just wants to be able to fix his own damn tractor, or a hacker who wants to futz with proprietary hardware, the law is patently bogus. Unfortunately, farmers and hackers have far less political influence than corporations. Hopefully by pursuing this through the courts and wi…
I do appreciate the effort to protect everyone's constitutional right. I wish best of luck to the pursuit. However, I feel like there is something very very wrong about method and intention of this type of actions/complains. One thing always bugs me about Americans: despite the liberties that they enjoy, despite the very real capacity to impact change in their government and laws, they all hate "the Government." Who…
> One thing always bugs me about Americans: despite the liberties that they enjoy, despite the very real capacity to impact change in their government and laws, they all hate "the Government." Who is "the Government"? Wait, ain't them the very candidates that you the people vote into offices?
Fear of government is essentially a founding value of the United States, but I agree that people often go too far with it.
> Like this idea of "suing the US government." Who are you suing? The executive branch? Why are you suing them? This is over a law. It's a piece of legislation. The executive branch merely, you know, execute the laws.
Because that's how American constitutional law works. If you believe a federal law to be unconstitutional, you sue "the United States" so the courts can rule on the matter. The Justice Department, part of the executive branch, which for all intents and purposes is the government's legal team, is then tasked with defending the law.
Also, in constitutional law cases it's common for the plaintiffs to not seek monetary damages of any kind, just for the courts to affirm the rights they're asserting and remedy the specific situation that led to the lawsuit.
> Why not sue Congress?
The only time you would really have standing to sue Congress is if it did something to you directly, like you walked into Capitol Hill and one of the security guards roughed you up for no reason. Otherwise, Congress is acting on behalf of the government, and if you don't like acts of Congress you sue the government as a whole.
> Oh wait, why sue Congress when you can simply vote them out of office? Oh wait, why "stop enforcing" the laws when you can, you know, CHANGE the laws?
A couple reasons.
One, as an American citizen, there are at most three members of Congress you vote for: your Representative, and your two Senators. That's three out of 535 members. If you don't live in a state, you have no representation at all. So even if you can energize your neighbors to agree with and vote like you, it's still hard to sway the tide of national lawmaking.
Another reason is that it simply might not be politically possible to seek relief in Congress, because you're suing for a right that's politically unpopular, or for the rights of an unpopular group. Think of all the lawsuits involving flag burning, sodomy, the KKK, and the Westboro Baptist Church.