Groovenstein

On the one hand, yes, it is something of a cliche. On the other hand, what a marvelous way to infiltrate pop culture. One word that people would (hopefully) come to associate with Objectivism? Can you think of a better single word that gets across so much of what Objectivism is about?

It was thrown out shortly after arraignment.

You will have to justify the use of just about anything to the law. I know a person who kicked an attacker in the face and was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. This person was wearing a sneaker.

Love it. Here's another possibility, even simpler and more direct. "Think."

If I wanted a bracelet with some inspirational message, it wouldn't instruct me to inquire as to what somebody (me or anyone else) would do. I would want it to say "Kick a**". For me, that would serve not as an invitation to violence, but rather as a reminder that whatever I'm doing, it needs to be done hard and with passion. My legal work? Yup. My music? Yup. My friends? Yup. My romantic interest(s)? Yup. Those two words, crass though they may be, are all the inspiration I need. And with that in mind, I'm about to go follow my own instructions with this agency and partnership law, and my laundry. Sweet!

The Source got our spot put together and it's airing. They're using "Ghost of You" in a 20-second ad for some show "Supernatural." I don't know anything about the show, but the word connection is kind of cute.

For the six of you that care, I will be in Montreal from Wednesday afternoon until Friday evening. So if you write me in the meantime, don't expect a response. If you write me and I don't like you, don't expect a response ever.

17 U.S.C. 102(b ). The scenario you envision would be governed by contract, trade secret, and/or misappropriation law.

SN, are you concerned about a double jeopardy problem? I'm about to watch the Red Sawx, so I won't look this up, but you might want to check out the idea of separate sovereigns. Last I knew, it was totally permissible for separate sovereigns to try somebody for the same crime. Here that would be the federal government and the state government. Sadly, this often results in bazillions of drug charges. Here, it would be great.

No sweat, man. Just a little friendly ragging. I know your primary concern isn't what the law is, but you might find it helpful to know something, if you don't already. Though devisable (can be passed in a will), descendable (can be passed intestate), and alienable (can be passed during your lifetime), copyrights are not perpetual. Your garden variety U.S. copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. So let's say I write song X. I die, leaving the copyright to my newly born son. When my son turns 70, that copyright is gone. The song enters the public domain. So my son can't leave it in his will.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060630/D8IIRJDO1.html There is but one step left in the legislative process that will last several weeks. After that, it appears that Apple will likely have to turn over the technology that makes it so that iTunes will only play on iPods. All in the name of "consumer choice." I'll post my choice words elsewhere.

There's already a gargantuan thread about illegal downloading. Let's keep the discussion going over there. Also, please read the earlier parts of that thread to see if any questions have already been addressed/points have already been made. [Edit: Here's a link to that thread. Hint: It was on the same page in the ethics subforum as this thread.]

Okay, I did about five minutes of digging, and found Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, which governs presentence investigations. Perhaps some legislative history searches and what have you can yield some helpful statements pertaining to this Rule or other statutes relating to victim impact stuff. Here's the first one that comes up on Google.

So much for that. Court decides Hamdan in favor of Hamdan. Vote was 5-3. The PDF is 180-something pages, and there is just an infinitesimal chance of me getting to it. So read it yourself or read news coverage, then comment here. It is probably safe to say that this is one of the most landmark cases on presidential power in history.

I appreciate that. Now, as Dre would say, back to the lecture at hand. I wholeheartedly agree with everything quoted here. Where I think we differ is in what we're calling "objectively defined" laws. I think there is something to be said for proper procedure. For example, I think that a law passed by Congress but not signed by the President could not fairly be enforced until it was signed by the President. (I can not imagine a scenario in which I would think otherwise, but if you have one in mind, I'll certainly consider it.) But I think the definition of "objective law" includes both form and substance. If a proper law (e.g. prohibiting murder) is passed with the proper formalities, marvelous. If a proper law is not passed with the proper formalities, I imagine I would probably say that it ought be passed with proper formalities. If an improper law is not passed with the proper formalities, marvelous. Let it rot. If an improper law is passed with the proper formalities, however, I do not think that law is therefore legitimate, i.e. objective. The antitrust laws, for example, can not accurately be called "objective." I can boil down my position to a very short statement. Formalism be damned if that is needed to correct an obvious injustice. The extent of the damning depends on the context. In this case, if the amendment had passed, I would be willing to throw just about any formalism out the window. An improper Constitutional Amendment is a serious travesty. I think that mandates responding with minimal concern for formalism. You say that "it's not merely form over substance." What I am having trouble understanding, however, is under what circumstances, if any, you would condone committing a procedural flaw, even a drastic one, to prevent some sort of injustice. I have given you two standards. How much injustice? "Obvious injustice." How much ignoring of procedure? "Depends on context" is all I have for now. What are your standards here? Let's start with the easiest question. Would you ever condone ignoring some procedural defect, constitutional mandate, etc. to prevent injustice? I've given you the Takings Clause example. Another one you might want to consider is where someone would be wrongfully executed but didn't, say, comply with some procedural requirement. Btw, I'm not equating minor procedural defects with the constitutional problem I created earlier. I just lay it all out there so we might further understand our principles. This, I think, is essential for the constructive progression of this discussion. If you say there are laws you would not uphold under all circumstances, as I have, we should venture to understand why so we can fully understand the nature of our disagreement.

For our reference, a link to the Constitution. Sure, they're changeable. The Supreme Court is the last word, yes. But what if Congress decides not to follow that word? Congress could reinstate the law until the cows come home. It's quite simple. SCOTUS: Law X is unconstitutional. Congress repasses law X. Would that be bad? Hell yes. Why? Because it would be an intragovernment civil war of sorts. Could it happen? Hell yes, if Congress wanted it to. Just ignore the Court. Don't think it's possible? I'd bet money it's happened to some degree. Remember the Schiavo thing (the emergency grant of federal jurisdiction)? Congress is happy to get fuzzy with the courts when it suits it politically. Would I stand up and praise the Court? There's a good reason you think I wouldn't, and it's because the contexts are totally different. We have three basic scenarios: laws that are clearly wrong; laws that are not clearly right or wrong; and laws that are clearly right. Laws banning possession of drugs by adults are clearly wrong. I think any legal means available should be used to overturn them. If, to get drug laws overturned, I have to tell a court that God and his magic elf think they should be overturned, then that's what I'll do. In that instance, we are living with a visible, major injustice. How much of a travesty do you need before you would resort to tactics you wouldn't ordinarily use? Personally, I'd advocate philosophically questionable or downright wrong legal theories if that was needed to prevent injustice. I do not uphold form over substance at any cost. Say the economy took a big downturn, and Congress convinced the public that the just compensation requirement needed to be taken out of the Fifth Amendment so the government didn't have that expense. It proposes an Amendment, and 3/5s of the State ratify it, and you have your Amendment. No more just compensation. What are you going to do get rid of it? Claim that it violates Due Process? Can't do that under your suggestion, because the Due Process Clause is itself part of an Amendment. Find something in the original Constitution? I looked and didn't see any basis. Are you going to let it stand, then, in the name of a proper method of Constitutional interpretation? Can I see the dangerous precedent? Of course. And if we had a pretty philosophically sound government, or were talking about a law that was morally ambiguous, I'd be inclined to exercise more caution. But in certain areas, such as with drug laws, eminent domain, or a ban on flag burning (if it passed), we are without dispute in the middle of a war zone. I'll call you up and we'll have a party. No Supreme Court decision is ultimately final. If something is bad enough, Congress could flagrantly ignore the Court's authority. See above. Philosophically? Nothing by virtue of being passed at a certain point. There is the fact that the Bill of Rights happens to contain some of the most important provisions, but that's only coincidence, not causation. Legally? I think the Court would treat an Amendment to the Bill of Rights more harshly than a change to any other Amendment. I'm sure you're not, and I'd also find it troubling if we were talking about laws that were clearly right or arguably right. But when we're talking about laws that are clearly unjust, I'm not going to stick to a principled approach for its own sake. On the whole I find your comments to be insightful. In particular, I find your comments on this subject insightful. This, however, I can do without. You might disagree with me, but what I suggest is far from irrational. Let's remember that we are people who agree on a lot of fundamental things. Knowing what I know of you on this board, I am very glad you are in the world, defending reason from its many enemies. I imagine you would say the same of me. A comment with such strong language as this one, therefore, doesn't really help.

Roark did some of Keating's work and later regretted it. My copy of the book isn't here so I have no cite. Whether this was part of some overall "flaw" I can not recall.

Take some time to make a list of everyone who was a value to me. Find out what they would do with what I gave them. If I approved, set up a bunch of trusts. 24. Musician and soon-to-be lawyer.

What would be so dire about it is that if the Court upheld it they would be saying that the Bill of Rights are subject to amendment. We've got three types of Constitutional provisions in play here: original provisions (e.g. Art. III); Bill of Rights; the other amendments. I think anything saying the Bill of Rights are subject to repeal would be bad. For example, that would conceivably allow Congress, if it felt so inclined, to eliminate the just compensation requirement from the Takings Clause. Maybe that's not a big concern now, but what if the politics flip someday? Ruh-roh.

My guess? Like it worked in Marbury. Marshall said that SCOTUS' original jurisdiction can't be enlarged or trimmed. It is fixed. Untouchable. Of course, SCOTUS jurisdiction is in the original Constitution, not an Amendment, so that's a pretty big difference. But if there's one Amendment the Court would put on the level of being unrepealable (and I could see a few), I think it would be the First. What's their authority? To decide cases and controversies. If in doing that they had to nix a properly formatted Amendment, I think they would. Just take it out to an unrealistic extreme. Congress passes an Amendment saying it can kill people for any reason at any time. Where is SCOTUS going to get its authority to strike that? Another Amendment, like the Due Process Clause? But if you say the Court can't use an Amendment to nullify another Amendment, you have to find some other justification to strike it down, and I don't know where you would. I know it seems outrageous to suggest that the Court could strike down a Constitutional Amendment. But think about what this Amendment would be doing. The Court has said that flag burning is protected speech. Thus, the Amendment would be banning protected speech. In general terms, therefore, the Amendment would be destroying a crucial part of the Bill of Rights. Amending the Constitution to destroy itself? I would hope the Court would do what it had to to keep that from happening.

Amazing that 66 people in the Senate missed Texas v. Johnson day in law school. But seriously, I half wish this would have gone through. Think of the implications. It passes and the Court upholds it, we have one big nail in the coffin that we all can see being built before our eyes. The Bill of Rights can be amended out of the Constitution. The Constitution authorizes its own destruction. It's a nullity. If that's the case, then the Court upholding such an amendment allows us to get on with it and get to the revolution. It passes and the Court strikes it down? That's one great step in the direction of reaffirming liberty. Congress' power is in fact limited in a very important way. And the statement came from a "conservative" court. All the better. To the Senators who supported this: You are thieves and/or liars who do nothing but pay lip service to ideals you don't believe in to retain an office allowing you to rule over people you don't like or respect. Either that, or you pay lip service to plain, naked evil. Whichever it is, you are all pathetic and can go rot in hell. You may sit in a nice chair, and have a nice home, and whatever else. But I am better than you. I am way better than you. And I have no such luxuries. You are garbage of the lowest order. I won't kill you, but I hope you die.

In light of the hugeness of this thread, I propose further that the arguments advanced here thus far be grouped, organized, summarized, etc., so that we have the essentials of each position all in one spot. Then any particular point has a better shot at being placed correctly in its overall context. Not that I'm volunteering for this . . .

Wrong and easily dispensed with. If you have some disease that painfully eats you away with no hope of recovery, suicide can be rational. The pain could be so unbearable as to make enjoyment of life impossible.

Sorry, man, but that ruling is 104 pages, I'm a little behind on my bar review, and I'm getting ready to go back to MA on Saturday. I don't know when I can get to this.

How are we defining intelligence and maturity? I ask because it seems to me at first blush that maturity is a subcategory of intelligence.