[speechlesstx]

Same goes with liberals versus conservatives, so stop digging up the wackos, it serves no purpose.

This coming form the guy who offered up this.

So dude, are you calling the president of the Teamsters Union and the President of the United States wackos? Really? MY first six quotes were from the so-called 'leader of the free world,' not some old rocker from the 70s.

[NeedKarma]

My post was satire obviously, I guess we need a font for that.

It was in reference to your post. I thought that was obvious but I guess it wasn't.

Your quotes are no different than some of the stuff that Palin said or posted. So what? What does it prove?

[speechlesstx]

LOL, those quotes are from the President, the man that's supposed to represent ALL Americans. Palin holds no office, nor does Ted Nugent. What the president says IS relevant.

[speechlesstx]

This guy must have taken Obama seriously when he said if they bring a knife you bring a gun...

Washington D.C. - Today, Wednesday, April 25, 2012 Senator James M. Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, will take to the Senate floor to put the spotlight on a little-watched video from 2010 which reveals a top Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA's "general philosophy" is to "crucify" and "make examples" of oil and gas companies.

Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming. In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best - and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.

Just another example of this administration's bullying tactics and apathy to actually doing something this country's energy needs. And you guys bristle at the notion the EPA is an out of control, unaccountable bureaucracy. They'll just crucify a few they arbitrarily deem to be offenders and the rest will fall in line.

Civil war? You betcha, and the left started it.

[NeedKarma]

Poor Region VI Administrator.

[speechlesstx]

Poor Region VI Administrator.

??

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I submit that if you spent your day on the internet, you could come up with foul mouthed, or stupid lefties... Uhhhh, I can too. So what? I'm NOT going to convince YOU that your guy's are MORE foul mouthed than mine or whether they're more dangerous... And, you ain't going to convince me either...

THAT just ain't going to happen on this here website today, or ANY other day... So, let's just call a truce about that. Even though I'm going to feel COMPELLED to show you how WRONG you are, I'm not going to.

Unless you want to keep going... I don't know what the point is any more. As much as the RESPONSIBILITY for actions of government rests at the top, NOBODY thinks the president is in CONTROL of government... That's what WRONG with government. It's UNCONTROLLABLE.

So, I'm not going to let you say that because some stupid bureaucrat says something stupid or mean, that it MEANS something about Obama. It doesn't, and you KNOW it doesn't.

Truce or no?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hey, you brought up this civil war and war on women nonsense but I'm all for a truce, even though this jerk's words DO represent this administration's attitude, and I find that much more relevant than Ted Nugent running his mouth.

But truce it is.

[excon]

But truce it is.

Hello again, Steve:

Like our friend Bill O'Reilly, you had the last word.

excon

[tomder55]

The problem is not what Armendariz said . It's what he subsequently did that is the concern. I think bureaucrats like him are a huge problem in this country.

EID has followed closely the actions of EPA's Region 6 office in Dallas, and specifically its decision to issue an endangerment order against Range Resources back in 2010 despite clear scientific evidence in contradiction of its charges (embarrassingly for the agency, EPA had to withdraw that order earlier this year). This includes pointing out how the Administrator for that office, Al Armendariz, gleefully emailed activists in the area (prior to the official announcement) that EPA was “about to make a lot of news” and that it was “time to Tivo channel 8.”

That news, of course, was that EPA “determined” Range Resources had contaminated drinking water in Parker County, Texas. Local anti-shale activist Sharon Wilson cheerfully responded, “Hats off to the new Sheriff and his deputies!”

But as it turns out, the story behind Mr. Armendariz's actions is much deeper, and indeed much more troubling.

Hydraulic fracturing

No he didn't wait for scientific evidence ,or anything resembling due process . He issued an emergency order against Range Resources and compelled them to take remedial action in 48 hrs after his decree. This was at the very same time he was bragging about crucifying companies he was charged with regulating.

[TUT317]

The problem is not what Armendariz said . It's what he subsequently did that is the concern. I think bureaucrats like him are a huge problem in this country.

Hydraulic fracturing

No he didn't wait for scientific evidence ,or anything resembling due process . He issued an emergency order against Range Resources and compelled them to take remedial action in 48 hrs after his decree. This was at the very same time he was bragging about crucifying companies he was charged with regulating.

Hi Tom,

Due process? Interesting isn't it? Why not have corporations avail themselves to all the benefits to substantive due process. All you need is some smart lawyer to go through the Bill of Rights and claim more and more benefits for the mythical individual (personhood).

Do we really need individuals to participate in a pluralistic system. Why not have corporations take on this role?

Tut

[tomder55]

So the government can impose fines ,penalities and demands of action ,without the guarantee of challenging it ? That's what happened in this case. The company did nothing wrong . But an over zealous ideologue environmentalist with an agenda ,was put into the position ,by the President ,to punish the company for the crime of doing a legal business in an industry he opposes.

And don't think that this is a rare case. The only thing different is that this one got publicized because he allowed his SOPs to be video taped.

I have dealt with government regulators for years . Nothing extreme like this happened to me . But this is what usually happens . A regulator comes into the operation and performs an audit.
Based on that audit they write up observations that they expect corrective actions to take place. The corrective actions are taken ,sometimes at considerable expense. Then after time another regulator repeats the process and has observations that find that the actions taken to satisfy one regulator are completely inadequate for the next regulator /inspector ,even thought they were accepted by the 1st regulator. And on and on it goes.

So often ,it's the perception of the auditor that matters most . Trust me ,they are less than perfect people. Some of them go through the motions ,and some of them strap on crusader armor.

Are you seriously telling me that a company does not have due process rights to address cases when the regulator erred either unintentionally ,or in the case above maliciously ?

[TUT317]

Are you seriously telling me that a company does not have due process rights to address cases when the regulator erred either unintentionally ,or in the case above maliciously ?

Hi Tom,

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that legal process law covers the rights of a company when governments act in an arbitrary fashion. Well, in my country it does anyway.

There was a case here recently when the E.P.A launches prosecution under the some type of clear water act pertinent to the mining industry. The company challenged the proceeding on the basis that it was not going to respond to the relevant notices on the ground of self-incrimination.

This was rejected on the basis that self-incrimination is only applicable to individuals. The company had their day in court and were afforded the benefits of legal process laws, minus the self-realization.

I am also saying is that corporation have no self-realization as part of their non-human condition. The only reason natural rights came into existence was because of the human condition.

On that basis I have to rethink original intent as a valid argument. Valid in this case anyway. So, yes, there is original intent when it comes to natural rights because humans have a teleology, corporations don't.

So yes, you are right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say such things as freedom of speech applies only to individuals. However, I would say it was the original intent of freedom of speech that it should only apply to individuals.

Tut

[paraclete]

So yes, you are right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say such things as freedom of speech applies only to individuals. However, I would say it was the original intent of freedom of speech that it should only apply to individuals.

Tut

Arguing the sublime to the ridiculous will get you nowhere with Tom Tut his mind is made up, the founding fathers said it so it must be true, notwithstanding that their original intent had to be quickly corrected for all the intent they left out, if I remember correctly wasn't freedom of speech one of those things they left out, probably too sedicious for their day

[tomder55]

Do you really want to start from the beginning again ? An individual running a business does not forfeit rights because that individual is operating a business .Similarly ,a group of individuals ,or an association of individuals do not forfeit their rights because they choose to form a corporation to conduct their business.
Individuals have a right to organize, or to “assemble” to use the constitutional term, and to then, as an assembled group, express political opinions and take political actions. In this sense, the group, or the “corporation” has the same right as a person to express political opinion. 'Corporate personhood' under those conditions is semantics. The Citizens United decision was in harmony with both the spirit , letter and intent of the First Amendment.

[tomder55]

arguing the sublime to the rediculous will get you nowhere with Tom Tut his mind is made up, the founding fathers said it so it must be true, notwithstanding that their original intent had to be quickly corrected for all the intent they left out, if I remember correctly wasn't freedom of speech one of those things they left out, probably too sedicious for their day

It depends ;Hamilton did not think a Bill of Rights was needed because rights were implicit in the text.But the majority of the founders thought otherwise. There was an understanding that with the signing, a Bill of Rights would be added through the amendment process. So it is not true that it was an oversight.

[TUT317]

Do you really want to start from the beginning again ? An individual running a business does not forfeit rights because that individual is operating a business .Similarly ,a group of individuals ,or an association of individuals do not forfeit their rights because they choose to form a corporation to conduct their business.
Individuals have a right to organize, or to “assemble” to use the constitutional term, and to then, as an assembled group, express political opinions and take political actions. In this sense, the group, or the “corporation” has the same right as a person to express political opinion. 'Corporate personhood' under those conditions is semantics. The Citizens United decision was in harmony with both the spirit , letter and intent of the First Amendment.

Why not the beginning? It is just as good as the middle or the end.
SCOTUS does this any time it hands down a decision. It makes a ruling based on some type of historical precedent. It may even choose to go against previous decisions, but a again this is a political/historical decision. You can't extract the politics.

Where you choose within history to stem your argument depends on your political point of view. You choose the point of reference based on your politics.

I want to promote freedom of religion so I choose Jefferson as the primary architect because I know this was his original intention when he first thought of the First amendment. If someone disagrees with me because it doesn't suit their politics then they might like to consider other secondary inputs and claim that this was the original intent.It seems to me one starting point is as good as another.

I agree that we can discuss the spirit and letter of the First Amendment, but for the reasons just outlined, intent is an entirely different matter. You can't tack original intent on to spirit and letter of the law and claim they are the same thing. So leaving aside original intent let's have a look at freedom of speech.

SCOTUS got Citizens United wrong. The majority decision supports the claim that the First Amendment stops government from "interfering in the market place of ideas" Where does it say this? It says that governments can't abridge freedom of speech. It doesn't say the government can't promote freedom of speech. On this basis the Citizens United decision could be looked at in a different light. A different starting point if you like.

Tut

[paraclete]

Do you really want to start from the beginning again ? An individual running a business does not forfeit rights because that individual is operating a business .Similarly ,a group of individuals ,or an association of individuals do not forfeit their rights because they choose to form a corporation to conduct their business.
Individuals have a right to organize, or to “assemble” to use the constitutional term, and to then, as an assembled group, express political opinions and take political actions. In this sense, the group, or the “corporation” has the same right as a person to express political opinion. 'Corporate personhood' under those conditions is semantics. The Citizens United decision was in harmony with both the spirit , letter and intent of the First Amendment.

A very nice argument Tom and it would be true if someone hadn't thought it prudent to create an artificial entity to avoid the rights of others, now inbuing this artificial entity with the same rights as real people, that is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. A corporation does not have its own voice but reflects the voice of those running it, therefore it has no separate voice and cannot be said to exercise free speech

[TUT317]

a very nice argument Tom and it would be true if someone hadn't thought it prudent to create an artificial entity to avoid the rights of others, now inbuing this artificial entity with the same rights as real people, that is going from the sublime to the rediculous. a corporation does not have its own voice but reflects the voice of those running it, therefore it has no seperate voice and cannot be said to exercise free speech

Yes, I was going to address this issue before. I am not a lawyer but I think Tom is failing to distinguish between substantive due process and procedural due process.

[tomder55]

I want to promote freedom of religion so I choose Jefferson as the primary architect because I know this was his original intention when he first thought of the First amendment

Just a quick correction . Thankfully ,Jefferson was on assignment in Europe at the time of the founding and was therefore not able to input some of his French Revolution type philosophies into the construct of the Constitution.

It says that governments can't abridge freedom of speech. It doesn't say the government can't promote freedom of speech. On this basis the Citizens United decision could be looked at in a different light. A different starting point if you like

Interesting argument . Waiting to hear how restricting free speech promotes free speech.

a very nice argument Tom and it would be true if someone hadn't thought it prudent to create an artificial entity to avoid the rights of others, now inbuing this artificial entity with the same rights as real people, that is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. A corporation does not have its own voice but reflects the voice of those running it, therefore it has no separate voice and cannot be said to exercise free speech

The First Amendment also identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government. Sorry guys ,this is not artificial constructs . This is a basic right . Some call it the right of association ,and some call it the freedom of assembly . A corporation is no more an artificial construct than a political party ;and has the same right to influence the direction of the politics of the country.