oldslabsides wrote:
  Of course that is possible, but I like to imagine the storm troopers would want some reason to come get you: they're not likely to spend much energy on you, unless you do something actively wrong, like writing hot checks. If you really live off the grid, don't make enough money for the IRS to come knockin', and don't bother anybody else, it could be years, if ever, before the authorities come around.

 cc_rider wrote: 
what's the diff if they pick & choose or disregard all laws?  gubment gonna come get your ass either way.

 steeler wrote:
 
Exactly. If they just wanted to live in the hinterlands, unfettered by the trappings of civilization, I wouldn't care a whit. Declare yourself sovereign, heck crown yourself king for all I care. But it's all-or-nothing: you don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

Ah, the freemen!  Asserted the right to declare themselves sovereign — and to engage in check-kiting! 
 Sorry, couldn't resist. I always think that each time I hear them mentioned . . .been a while.   

 

 oldslabsides wrote: 

Technically, it requires someone with legal standing to appeal the decision for the Supremes to get involved, but it's likely the corporate interests that were party to the suit in Montana may in fact do that.

 cc_rider wrote: 

they found the freemen, didn't they?

 oldslabsides wrote:
 
Are you kidding? The Feds don't even know where Montana is.

 aflanigan wrote: 

how long do you think the feds will let that stand?

Finally, something (other than Lazy8's dance moves) that Montanans can be really, really proud of.

In Montana, Corporations Aren't People

Montana high court upholds ban on election spending by corporations
by Matt Gouras
Great Falls Tribune
December 30, 2011

HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court restored the state's century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday that interest groups say bucks a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court decision granting political speech rights to corporations.

The decision grants a big win to Attorney General Steve Bullock, who personally represented the state in defending its ban that came under fire after the "Citizens United" decision last year from the U.S. Supreme court.

"The Citizens United decision dealt with federal laws and elections — like those contests for president and Congress," said Bullock, who is now running for governor. "But the vast majority of elections are held at the state or local level, and this is the first case I am aware of that examines state laws and elections."

The corporation that brought the case and is also fighting accusations that it illegally gathers anonymous donations to fuel political attacks, said the state Supreme Court got it wrong. The group argues that the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, passed as a citizen's ballot initiative, unconstitutionally blocks political speech by corporations...

 Lazy8 wrote:
That would have been a problem too, but that isn't what he apologized for and that isn't what troubles me about his (and the various courts') ruling.

Sympathy with one of the parties in a suit must never be the basis for a decision—it has to be driven by the law regardless of who wins or loses. Otherwise we lose the rule of law, and the law might as well not be there. Trials would just be popularity contests.

My problem with his apology was that it resulted from the outcome. He ruled that Conneticut could seize her house (and her neighbor's houses) and hand the land over to a private party based on the vague assumption that that private party would bring in more tax revenue. That revenue never materialized and that's the basis for his regret, but that was a possibility when he ruled. He's saying that if he could have predicted that outcome he'd have ruled otherwise.

The precedent would have been made the other way, but not based on the law—just the shifting fortunes of the the company who got the sweetheart deal. That has many layers of wrong all over it.

The Kelo decision was bad law because it was a faulty reading of the constitution, not because the taxpayers got screwed just as badly as the people their government screwed.
  I agree, the ruling never made sense on its face, no matter the outcome. Taking private property away from one group of citizens, giving it to another group of private citizens, for the express purpose of a for-profit commercial venture? That's what our country has come to? That's practically the definition of fascism.

And we're supposed to think that judge is qualified to rule on matters of Constitutionality? He sheds crocodile tears over a ruling that ruined a bunch of peoples' lives, because they had the audacity to buy property someone else might eventually want to build a strip-mall on? Worse, it set a very dangerous precedent: your property can be seized, by force if necessary, if your government decides somebody else should have it. Not for public use, mind you, but for a privately-owned business.

This is the stuff revolutions are made of.

For some reason reply isn't working on your post, but well said Lazy8.

 cc_rider wrote:
That would have been a problem too, but that isn't what he apologized for and that isn't what troubles me about his (and the various courts') ruling.

Sympathy with one of the parties in a suit must never be the basis for a decision—it has to be driven by the law regardless of who wins or loses. Otherwise we lose the rule of law, and the law might as well not be there. Trials would just be popularity contests.

My problem with his apology was that it resulted from the outcome. He ruled that Conneticut could seize her house (and her neighbor's houses) and hand the land over to a private party based on the vague assumption that that private party would bring in more tax revenue. That revenue never materialized and that's the basis for his regret, but that was a possibility when he ruled. He's saying that if he could have predicted that outcome he'd have ruled otherwise.

The precedent would have been made the other way, but not based on the law—just the shifting fortunes of the the company who got the sweetheart deal. That has many layers of wrong all over it.

The Kelo decision was bad law because it was a faulty reading of the constitution, not because the taxpayers got screwed just as badly as the people their government screwed.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Wow. When a sitting Judge discovers his rulings affect actual people, all of a sudden he has a change of heart. Thanks a lot, asshole.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Good read. 

It's important to understand exactly what he's apologizing for, but the revelation is illuminating.

Apology Adds An Epilogue To Kelo CasIe

Supreme Court Justice's Startling Apology Adds Human Context To Tough Ruling

Though she lost the eminent domain case against New London and her home, Susette Kelo, seen at an eminent domain protest at the Capitol in 2006, became a compelling figure in the property rights movement. (Rick Hartford, The Hartford Courant / September 18, 2011)

If a state Supreme Court judge approaches a journalist at a private dinner and says something newsworthy about an important decision, is the journalist free to publish the statement?

I faced that situation at a dinner honoring the Connecticut Supreme Court at the New Haven Lawn Club on May 11, 2010. That night I had delivered the keynote address on the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London. Susette Kelo was in the audience and I used the occasion to tell her personal story, as documented in my book "Little Pink House."

Afterward, Susette and I were talking in a small circle of people when we were approached by Justice Richard N. Palmer. Tall and imposing, he is one of the four justices who voted with the 4-3 majority against Susette and her neighbors. Facing me, he said: "Had I known all of what you just told us, I would have voted differently."

BUSH v. GORE

(no, not THAT  Bush v. Gore)

 ankhara99 wrote: 
You've heard about the budget crisis, right?

But you're right, this is the sort of thing the GOP will not touch. Along with Defense spending, tax cuts, corporate handouts. We NEED those things. Those are not luxuries like, oh, safe food, clean water, kids in school, stuff like that.

 kurtster wrote: 
This is one the Court got right.  The only problem with this law is that it relies on the E-Verify database, which by the accounts I've heard is sketchy and inaccurate.  Hopefully the feds won't cut the funding to it and make things even worse. 

 kurtster wrote: 
Hadn't heard due to being tied up with other things, fun & not-so-fun. Now that I know, good for AZ! Hopefully, CA has the balls to follow suit, though I doubt it. AZ got tired of the rhetoric and took action. CA politicians like to hear themselves talk and solving a problem gives them less to talk about. You see where I'm going with this.

I think the possibility exists that several midwestern states will copy AZ's law. Then you will hear the coasties say things like how racist the plains staters are while they look down their noses. Oftentimes, people on the coasts lead the way with reforms.  This is a case where you can bet they won't quickly hop on the bandwagon even though they would benefit from it more than the central states! That accusation of racism linked to enforcing businesses to obey existing laws causes some serious blindness to the facts. Others will see thru the BS, but that word will still keep them from following their hearts out of fear of being mislabeled.