General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGP6971
(31,113 posts)Bill Maher's show last week.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)Ohio Joe
(21,731 posts)Unless they do something that should send them to jail... Then suddenly they get some kind of out.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)What are they going to do if the corporation is convicted? Relocate the plant to Leavenworth?
alfredo
(60,071 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)We determine who allowed the crime. If it is corporate policy to dump toxic waste into the environment or to go lax on occupational health and safety, resulting in deaths in oil rig fires or mine cave ins, then the chief corporate officers or perhaps even members of the board of directors should go to jail. The corporation is just an institution and go on with new corporate officers, who hopefully are better and more responsible citizens than the old ones. In any case, the corporate officers and their political allies won't be able talk about how much the litigation is going to hurt their employees, since the corporation doesn't go out of business.
Corporate personhood makes sense in only one area that I can think of: business law. In this case, corporate personhood allows the corporation, through an authorized representative, to enter a contract as if it were an individual, with the same rights and obligations under the contract. If Wylie Coyote doesn't perform his end of the agreement, the Acme Corporation gets to sue him. If the Acme Corporation doesn't perform, then Mr. Coyote gets to sue it. It is ridiculous to extend civil rights, such as the right to participate in the electoral process, to a corporation as if it were a person. If a corporate officer wants to vote for candidate X, then I doubt there's any one here would stand in his way. If he wants to fund candidate X's political campaign, that's fine with me, too, as long as he does it with his own money and not the corporation's.
Discussion?
klook
(12,152 posts)I guess that's a quaint term now.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)At least that is what they want.
Warpy
(111,169 posts)so there's no money for bribes or payoffs.
What they need to do is jail anyone with a carpeted office.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)the facts, so, I guess that explains it. Better ignored than dead, I guess. But can we really expect the "job creators" to be held responsible for any harm they do anymore? Any fines or penalties are just part of the very low cost of doing business.
Cracklin Charlie
(12,904 posts)I watched Bulworth the other day.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)Bilworth. I'll have to check it out.
eggplant
(3,908 posts)AikidoSoul
(2,150 posts)also harassment, also targeted and poisoned....
Poisoning is an old CIA tactic.
I have been targeted repeatedly for my activism against the use of thousands of toxic chemicals that have not even basic testing done. Only a handful have had adequate testing.
But the big event was in 1991 after I saw a tape of a speech given by Ross Perot at the National Press Club... got incredibly excited and motivated. I called the Perot Group in Dallas and told them I thought he would make a very good president and that I was getting into the car to drive all over Florida to show the tape to various groups asking them whether they would support such a guy for president. When I got to Tampa I met Jack Gargan and he helped get the ball really rolling.
I ordered a hundred copies of the tape and mailed them to key people.
After the movement really started my husband and I were initially at the center of activity even though it was in the isolated island of Key West. We were inundated with people who were covert ops types who kept knocking at our door and offering "to help". They a woman claiming to be a retired CIA operative said she was setting up an office in Miami for me with multiple phones, etc. I declined. Our phones were tapped. We were followed everywhere. Someone climbed our high fence late at night and put weird looking sharp metal shards in our underwear that was hanging there! How strange is that. Then we started getting sick. And then very, very sick. After a few months of this my spouse found me uncoscious on the floor. I had to be rushed to the hospital for what turned out to be organophosphate poisoning. I was the color of cement when I arrived and the emergency room. The ER staff said if he hadn't gotten there when he did that I only had a few minutes to live. They brought me back with atropine but I was deathly ill for five months, and even today have serious neurological issues.
I can never prove that I was purposefully poisoned, as was my husband, but one thing is for sure -- we never used pesticides in our house, so it had to come from another source.
druidity33
(6,445 posts)i'm sorry that my government may have done that to you. Be well. Keep standing up for what you believe in, but be careful!
:hugs:
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)"If terrorists had poisoned the water supply of a large American community, we'd be going to war right now."
(Not a verbatim quote)
bkanderson76
(266 posts)pass Go. And your rations will be bread and......WATER....
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)food coloring in the water, you know just to set the mood.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Gross negligence down to a specific individual yes.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)I can be completely unaware of my leaky septic system and still have to pay to clean up my neighbor's yard.
Negligent, schegligent. They poisoned the public water system.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)of 2005. You are just a "little person" (like the rest of us) and so you have liability.
In that law, the Big Energy firms were given a "Get out of reparations and get out of jail" free card, as the law includes an entire provision that excludes Big Energy companies from any and all liability.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)big to fail.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)that offer complete liability to any energy company that pulverizes, pollutes or otherwise destroys an entire eco system.
Since lobbyists pull the strings over the puppets we refer to as Congressional "leaders," I am not holding my breath.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)If she can provide a clear example of a specific law that has been broken, sure, but "assault" clearly won't cut it.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)There are laws against *negligence*, but I think that assault requires mens rea. IANAL, though.
Laxman
(2,419 posts)Standard of Conduct
(3) Recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. "Recklessness," "with recklessness" or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
(4) Negligently. A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. "Negligently" or "negligence" when used in this code, shall refer to the standard set forth in this section and not to the standards applied in civil cases.
and what is assault
(1) Attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) Negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or
(3) Attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
and corporate liability
(1) The conduct constituting the offense is engaged in by an agent of the corporation while acting within the scope of his employment and in behalf of the corporation unless the offense is one defined by a statute which indicates a legislative purpose not to impose criminal liability on corporations. If the law governing the offense designates the agents for whose conduct the corporation is accountable or the circumstances under which it is accountable, such provisions shall apply;
(2) The offense consists of an omission to discharge a specific duty of affirmative performance imposed on corporations by law; or
(3) The conduct constituting the offense is engaged in, authorized, solicited, requested, commanded, or recklessly tolerated by the board of directors or by a high managerial agent acting within the scope of his employment and in behalf of the corporation.
And-Under the correct circumstances there is criminal liability for violation of the Federal Clean Water Act. People have gone to jail under those provisions. If Freedom Industries and their management were reckless in their conduct, or if there was a repeated pattern of conduct, there is Federal criminal liability. It requires "Human Endangerment" which certainly exists here.
You'll get my bill in the mail.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Person in Congress who have refused to do anything about the re-writing our laws, that are responsible for enabling such a thing to happen.
Dick Cheney saw to it that in 2005, the "Oil reform" measure he was pushing for was passed by Congress. The law was totally supported in Congress. One of its provisions is that energy firms, including the coal industry, do not have to worry about any liability at all in terms of damaging an eco system.
Did the Democratic Congressional critters take some time and re-write the section of the bill once they were in the majority, from Jan 2007 to Jan 2011? Nope, they couldn't be bothered.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)If we have learned anything since 2008, we learned that the wealthy connected can get away with treason, war crimes and theft and fraud on a grand scale.
Hotler
(11,396 posts)I have yet to read or hear our president speak up about the WV spill. Oh never mind. Wall St. is still walking free the CEO of the chemical company will walk free also. But if you smoke pot you go to jail.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)or a member of the judiciary. I'm trying to think of why you would expect to hear from him.
He arrests people for pot? When did that happen?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)In fact, if the President ordered the Attorney General to prosecute, it would probably be an impeachable offense.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of Manhattan said while companies have been prosecuted for causing the 2007-2009 financial meltdown, Wall Street executives have escaped justice.
"The failure of the government to bring to justice those responsible for such a massive fraud speaks greatly to weaknesses in our prosecutorial system that need to be addressed," Rakoff said.
Rakoff, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, blamed the lack of criminal cases on a shortage of investigatory resources coupled with an over-emphasis on bringing cases against companies rather than individuals.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/13/financial-judge-idUSL2N0IX1B620131113
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)He is supposed to enforce laws equally.
I agree that we don't devote the resources to prosecution that we should. I want to see investigation and prosecution, but the investigation has to come first.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... for cannibus crimes, which he could legalize with a stroke of the pen.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)and he cannot change laws with a stroke of the pen. He is not a dictator.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)from wikipedia.
I don't know where the "executive order" fantasy came from, but not from any actual law.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)I keep reading over and over again. Maybe you need to read it.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Are you just being obstinate?
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)You seem to not know what the President's authority is. The law explains how drugs are moved to different schedules.You should read it for understanding. The President is not given authority to move them. Period, Executive orders cannot circumvent the law. The president is not a dictator.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)The President can issue Executive Orders to his underlings (e.g., the US Attorney General).
The underling is required to comply.
So if the President issued an EO that said, for example, "Hey Eric, take cannibus off the Controlled Substances Schedule" Eric would be required to comply.
See, it's not that complicated?
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)they did when Nixon gave illegal orders to his AG and Asst. AG.. He can give all the illegal orders he wants, I thought we were talking about what he could legally do.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)It is obvious to anyone who can read.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)into that law. You can't even put "assume dictatorial powers in." FDL isn't there, either.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I just read the FDL article, and also the law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/811). While I'm entirely on the side of legalization, the FDL article is a very sloppy one written by a Rand Paul supporter who is getting everyone excited that President Paul can and will repeal the drug laws via executive order.
I see nothing in the the FDL article nor the law that supports this about an executive order.
I think the AG is supposed to be independent of the POTUS.
There are other points of leverage in the law (besides the Attorney General). One is the Secretary of Health and Human Services (currently Sebelius) may request a rescheduling. She actually does work for Obama, it would seem appropriate to me that he could make such a request of her.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/811
The recommendations of the Secretary to the Attorney General shall be binding on the Attorney General as to such scientific and medical matters, and if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance. If the Attorney General determines that these facts and all other relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse such as to warrant control or substantial evidence that the drug or other substance should be removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings for control or removal, as the case may be, under subsection (a) of this section.
The other points of leverage have to do with international standards:
Whenever the Secretary of State receives notification from the Secretary-General of the United Nations that information has been transmitted by or to the World Health Organization, pursuant to article 2 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which may justify adding a drug or other substance to one of the schedules of the Convention, transferring a drug or substance from one schedule to another, or deleting it from the schedules...
...
Whenever the Secretary of State receives information that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the United Nations proposes to decide whether to add a drug or other substance to one of the schedules of the Convention, transfer a drug or substance from one schedule to another, or delete it from the schedules, the Secretary of State shall transmit timely notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services of such information who shall publish a summary of such information in the Federal Register and provide opportunity to interested persons to submit to him comments respecting the recommendation which he is to furnish, pursuant to this subparagraph, respecting such proposal. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall evaluate the proposal and furnish a recommendation to the Secretary of State which shall be binding on the representative of the United States in discussions and negotiations relating to the proposal...
It looks to me like Sebelius could get it done, and Obama could tell her he wants it done. They'd have to be able to show the science behind legalization (which should be quite easy, marijuana is one of the more harmless things I know of). If I'm not mistaken, such a review was recently done, and incredibly didn't give marijuana a clean bill of health, so it was not rescheduled. I'm not very clear on the details of this, could be wrong. And regarding my reading of the law above, I'm not a lawyer so there are probably some things I missed.
But it really looks to me like the key to the whole situation is getting an honest scheduling evaluation done by the Dept. of Health and Human Services, and President Obama could unilaterally make such a thing happen. Not the same as an executive order for rescheduling though, I don't see anywhere that such an order would be appropriate under the law.
Hotler
(11,396 posts)JCMach1
(27,553 posts)CrispyQ
(36,424 posts)What exactly would a corporate death penalty look like?
Realistically, you could not have just shut BP down. You'd leave employees without jobs, customers without service/product. I say socialize it - the government takes it over. Of course, our government is so corrupt & tied to corporate America that wouldn't work.
I'd love to hear other ideas.
Corporations have become nothing but a front for rich people to profit by behaving contrary to the common good, all without consequence.
JCMach1
(27,553 posts)BP would no longer be allowed to operate in the US. Their assets here would have to be sold.
Does anyone believe they have 'really' changed how they operate? So yeah, if it reaches the level of grievous corporate negligence, or malfeasance there should be a corporate death penalty law at the Federal level that can be applied.
http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/07/bring-back-corporate-death-penalty.html
alfredo
(60,071 posts)El_Johns
(1,805 posts)break-up of SO.
leanforward
(1,076 posts)then the people that run them should go to jail. A person or group of "wise men" (co-conspirators) decided not to perform tank maintenance. Send'em all to jail.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)To national policy, Erin Brockovich!