Silence DoGood <Silence_DoG...@angelic.com> wrote in news:e4cb826c-26bf- 4e66-bdc7-d994ae29c...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 13, 11:06 am, sinebar <sinebar3...@gmail.com> wrote: <snip/>
> As for the Supreme Court, if you read the constitution you will > understand that the concept of "three co-equal branches of government" > is faith based. Congress is clearly supreme, and the senate can fire > the entire Supreme Court tomorrow before lunch, if they feel like > it. ..and if the states don't like that, 2/3 can call a constitutional > convention by the end of the next day or sooner.
> > As for the Supreme Court, if you read the constitution you will > > understand that the concept of "three co-equal branches of government" > > is faith based. Congress is clearly supreme, and the senate can fire > > the entire Supreme Court tomorrow before lunch, if they feel like > > it. ..and if the states don't like that, 2/3 can call a constitutional > > convention by the end of the next day or sooner.
> 3/4. > <snip/>
Article V Par 1: "...on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states.." 3/4 is needed for ratification, however proposed.
In article <hb4s2e$kj...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >Exactly. A drug addict might have gone to some other country where use >of that drug is legal (or even have become addicted here before that >drug was outlawed. Or even become addicted to prescription drugs.) So we >don't make it illegal to be addicted to the drug but simply to have >improperly USED it.
With the exception of South Dakota (which has outlawed humans), it isn't illegal to have used a drug. It is illegal to manufacture, possess, and/or sell various drugs (without appropriate licenses).
In article <Xns9CA652DDEF5E3spamtraplexregia...@130.133.1.4>, Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote: >> Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote: >>>se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>In the case of your employer, there's actual money there that >>>legally belongs to you.
>> No, there isn't. There's a single large fund, the assets of >> which are pledged to pay my pension as well as those of >> thousands of others.
>You are allocated a certain amount of the fund, and are legally >entitled to it.
There is no such "certain amount". I am supposed to receive a certain payment, perhaps purchased by the fund from an insurance company. The cost of purchasing that amount is not my problem, and in normal circumstances will not affect the amount I receive.
>>>If your employer files bankruptcy the money is still yours. >> What money? >In the pension plan, of course. That's what we've been talking >about.
What money in the pension plan? There's a huge fund. None of it is earmarked for me; rather, the entire fund is pledged for all pensions of all employees and ex-employees.
In a Defined *Contribution* plan, I get a statement every so often that says "The current value of your share of the plan (or your investments under the plan) is $X." There are no such statements from a Defined Benefit plan.
>>>In the case of social security, you have no rights in any >>>specific money. >> Just like the pension fund. There are no dollars, bonds, or >> stock shares in my name. There's just a promise, backed by a >> commingled fund. >No, you're wrong. They may not be specifically in your name, but >they are in the name of a trust of which you are a beneficiary.
That's right, I'm _a_ beneficiary.
>You are entitled to your share.
Defined how?
>>> The government can change what you are supposed to receive, >>>and even eliminate it altogether. And other than politically, >>>you have no recourse. >> The only thing stopping the company from doing likewise is the >> law. And the government can change that. >No they can't. The Constitution prohibits Congress from impairing >the obligaiton of contracts.
No, it prohibits states from doing that.
> Such a change in the law would do just that.
Again no, it would remove the special protections a pension fund has; that wouldn't impair the contract (that the company must pay me the pension), but it would make that contract subject to bankruptcy just like other contracts.
>>>Your employer's plan is actual money allocated to each >>>participant. >> No, it isn't. It's one big commingled fund. >Are you saying that if you own a house with your siblings, you have >no individual rights in the house? That would be flat out wrong.
I'm not saying anything about houses.
>And it's the same in the case of pension plans.
In a Defined Benefit plan, there is no money allocated to any given employee. Rather, there is a fund, there is data about employees and ex-employees and their salaries, and there is an actuarial calculation determining the amount the company is required to contribute. It is not calculated on a per-employee basis.
se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote: > Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>You are allocated a certain amount of the fund, and are legally >>entitled to it.
> There is no such "certain amount". I am supposed to receive a > certain payment, perhaps purchased by the fund from an insurance > company. The cost of purchasing that amount is not my problem, > and in normal circumstances will not affect the amount I > receive.
Then how do you reconcile section 401 of the IRC? It deals with qualified plans and says, in part,
"A trust shall not constitute a qualified trust under section 401 (a) unless the plan of which such trust is a part provides that an employees right to his normal retirement benefit is nonforfeitable upon the attainment of normal retirement age...."
In the case of both a defined contribution and a defined benefit plan it means that, at the relevant time, the employee,
"has a nonforfeitable right to 100 percent of the employees accrued benefit derived from employer contributions."
There is no such right under Social Security.
> What money in the pension plan? There's a huge fund. None of > it is earmarked for me; rather, the entire fund is pledged for > all pensions of all employees and ex-employees.
Individual dollar bills are not earmarked for you. But a certain amount or proportion is allocated to you, and is not forfeitablee.
>>You are entitled to your share.
> Defined how?
It's required to be defined by the plan. So if you get divorced they can figure out what your wife's share is, among other things.
>>>> The government can change what you are supposed to receive, >>>>and even eliminate it altogether. And other than politically, >>>>you have no recourse.
>>> The only thing stopping the company from doing likewise is the >>> law. And the government can change that.
>>No they can't. The Constitution prohibits Congress from >>impairing the obligaiton of contracts.
> No, it prohibits states from doing that.
Right. I should have said that they can't deprive you of property without just compensation. Your rights in a qualified plan are vested and can't be taken away.
> In a Defined Benefit plan, there is no money allocated to any > given employee. Rather, there is a fund, there is data about > employees and ex-employees and their salaries, and there is an > actuarial calculation determining the amount the company is > required to contribute. It is not calculated on a per-employee > basis.
So what happens if your plan is terminated? Are you saying you get nothing because they can't figure out what your share is?
What happens if you leave the company's employment before retirement? Contributions were based on giving you a benefit assuming you remain employed there until retirement. Does that mean you get nothing?
>se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote: >> Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>>You are allocated a certain amount of the fund, and are legally >>>entitled to it.
>> There is no such "certain amount". I am supposed to receive a >> certain payment, perhaps purchased by the fund from an insurance >> company. The cost of purchasing that amount is not my problem, >> and in normal circumstances will not affect the amount I >> receive.
>Then how do you reconcile section 401 of the IRC? It deals with >qualified plans and says, in part,
>"A trust shall not constitute a qualified trust under section 401 >(a) unless the plan of which such trust is a part provides that an >employees right to his normal retirement benefit is nonforfeitable >upon the attainment of normal retirement age...."
That says that the company can't decide not to pay me.
>In the case of both a defined contribution and a defined benefit >plan it means that, at the relevant time, the employee,
>"has a nonforfeitable right to 100 percent of the employees >accrued benefit derived from employer contributions."
Note that in a Defined Benefit Plan, that does not correspond to any particular amount of money.
>> What money in the pension plan? There's a huge fund. None of >> it is earmarked for me; rather, the entire fund is pledged for >> all pensions of all employees and ex-employees.
>Individual dollar bills are not earmarked for you. But a certain >amount or proportion is allocated to you, and is not forfeitablee.
Neither an amount nor proportion is allocated to me; rather, the right to receive a specific benefit is. The Plan might be under-funded; if it is, and the company folds, I don't get that full benefit (if it's high enough).
>>>You are entitled to your share. >> Defined how? >It's required to be defined by the plan. So if you get divorced >they can figure out what your wife's share is, among other things.
That isn't a share *of the account*.
>>>>> The government can change what you are supposed to receive, >>>>>and even eliminate it altogether. And other than politically, >>>>>you have no recourse. >>>> The only thing stopping the company from doing likewise is the >>>> law. And the government can change that. >>>No they can't. The Constitution prohibits Congress from >>>impairing the obligaiton of contracts. >> No, it prohibits states from doing that. >Right. I should have said that they can't deprive you of property >without just compensation. Your rights in a qualified plan are >vested and can't be taken away.
Yes, they can, by act of law. The government could pass a law allowing the company to remove money from the plan, in return for a promise to pay the benefits.
>> In a Defined Benefit plan, there is no money allocated to any >> given employee. Rather, there is a fund, there is data about >> employees and ex-employees and their salaries, and there is an >> actuarial calculation determining the amount the company is >> required to contribute. It is not calculated on a per-employee >> basis.
>So what happens if your plan is terminated? Are you saying you get >nothing because they can't figure out what your share is?
If the plan is terminated, the company is required to fully fund my benefit (e.g. by purchasing it from an insurance company). If the plan is under-funded at the time, the company has to kick in more money. If over-funded, the company can take back the excess (at least, that used to be the rule).
>What happens if you leave the company's employment before >retirement?
I did.
> Contributions were based on giving you a benefit >assuming you remain employed there until retirement. Does that >mean you get nothing?
No, it means I get a benefit as defined in the plan, based on my final average salary.
se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote: > Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>"has a nonforfeitable right to 100 percent of the employees >>accrued benefit derived from employer contributions."
> Note that in a Defined Benefit Plan, that does not correspond to > any particular amount of money.
But a particular amount of money can be calculated. That's what actuaries do, in addition to calculating the amount that much be contributed for each employee to achieve the defined benefit.
>>Individual dollar bills are not earmarked for you. But a >>certain amount or proportion is allocated to you, and is not >>forfeitablee.
> Neither an amount nor proportion is allocated to me; rather, the > right to receive a specific benefit is. The Plan might be > under-funded; if it is, and the company folds, I don't get that > full benefit (if it's high enough).
Not according to the department of labor. Either an amount or a proportion can be determined, and in the case of divorce often must be determined.
>>Right. I should have said that they can't deprive you of >>property without just compensation. Your rights in a qualified >>plan are vested and can't be taken away.
> Yes, they can, by act of law. The government could pass a law > allowing the company to remove money from the plan, in return > for a promise to pay the benefits.
In that case they would be exchanging a calculable amount of money for a debt in the same amount. They would be depriving you of security for the debt, and that might be something that would have to be compensated for, since it is a valuable property interest.
> If the plan is terminated, the company is required to fully fund > my benefit (e.g. by purchasing it from an insurance company). > If the plan is under-funded at the time, the company has to kick > in more money. If over-funded, the company can take back the > excess (at least, that used to be the rule).
How do they know how much to kick in if the amount owed to you can't be determined or calculated? Insurance companies do that all the time.
>>What happens if you leave the company's employment before >>retirement?
> I did.
And that changes the amount of the defined benefit, because they are no longer making contributions for you. That's because a specifically calculable portion or dollar amount of the fund is allocated to you, and if it doesn't grow they can't give you the benefit based on the assumption that you could continue working there.
>> Contributions were based on giving you a benefit >>assuming you remain employed there until retirement. Does that >>mean you get nothing?
> No, it means I get a benefit as defined in the plan, based on my > final average salary.
Which is based on actuarial calculations that determine how much must be colledged each year for the projected benefit. That's done by calculating how much your particular share must be worth to give you the benefit required. You, based on your age and your salary.
They don't just throw a lot of money in a pot and hope there's enough at the end of pay the benefits called for in the plan.
"Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message news:hcl7cg$5a5$1@reader1.panix.com... > In article <Xns9CB44AA0EC227spamtraplexregia...@130.133.1.4>, > Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote: >>se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote: >>> Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The government can change what you are supposed to receive, >>>>>>and even eliminate it altogether. And other than politically, >>>>>>you have no recourse. >>>>> The only thing stopping the company from doing likewise is the >>>>> law. And the government can change that. >>>>No they can't. The Constitution prohibits Congress from >>>>impairing the obligaiton of contracts. >>> No, it prohibits states from doing that. >>Right. I should have said that they can't deprive you of property >>without just compensation. Your rights in a qualified plan are >>vested and can't be taken away.
> Yes, they can, by act of law. The government could pass a law > allowing the company to remove money from the plan, in return for a > promise to pay the benefits.
This happened back in the 80's with the corporate raiders. They would buy a company, split it up, and sell the pieces. They would also drain retirement plans of "excess" cash.
"Art S" <TheDabble...@att.net> wrote: >> Yes, they can, by act of law. The government could pass a law >> allowing the company to remove money from the plan, in return >> for a promise to pay the benefits.
> This happened back in the 80's with the corporate raiders. They > would buy a company, split it up, and sell the pieces. They > would also drain retirement plans of "excess" cash.
But that was different than what Seth is suggesting.
In the 80's interest rates went so high that actuaries recalculated future values based on current interest rates, and determined that some plans were over-funded. As a result some companies reduced contributions or even withdrew funds so that they were, as calculated at the time, properly funded.
When interest rates went back down, the actuarial calculations based on the interest rates at that time showed the plans that had money withdrawn were then underfunded.
Seth is talking about withdrawing money without any particular justification other than a law saying that someone's vested pension can be distributed to someone other than the plan participant.
In article <Xns9CB75E59A7FDFspamtraplexregia...@130.133.1.4>, Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote: >> Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>>"has a nonforfeitable right to 100 percent of the employees >>>accrued benefit derived from employer contributions."
>> Note that in a Defined Benefit Plan, that does not correspond to >> any particular amount of money.
>But a particular amount of money can be calculated. That's what >actuaries do, in addition to calculating the amount that much be >contributed for each employee to achieve the defined benefit.
Yes, the present value of my entitlement can be calculated. The sum of those present values for all plan participants will not match the amount actually in the plan, hence that amount cannot be defined as mine.
>> Neither an amount nor proportion is allocated to me; rather, the >> right to receive a specific benefit is. The Plan might be >> under-funded; if it is, and the company folds, I don't get that >> full benefit (if it's high enough).
>Not according to the department of labor. Either an amount or a >proportion can be determined, and in the case of divorce often must >be determined.
So in the case of a divorce, my hypothetical ex-spouse is entitled to, say, 50% of my benefits. That doesn't involve changing anything I've said. The only change is that the plan will mail two checks instead of one, once I start collecting. (Yes, it's possible that the division will be done differently; but if the plan's terms are that cashing out early isn't an option, a QDRO can't force the plan to make it one.)
>>>Right. I should have said that they can't deprive you of >>>property without just compensation. Your rights in a qualified >>>plan are vested and can't be taken away. >> Yes, they can, by act of law. The government could pass a law >> allowing the company to remove money from the plan, in return >> for a promise to pay the benefits. >In that case they would be exchanging a calculable amount of money >for a debt in the same amount. They would be depriving you of >security for the debt, and that might be something that would have >to be compensated for, since it is a valuable property interest.
Only that isn't what has actually happened. Companies terminated over-funded plans and took back the excess, buying annuities; employees lost the security of a benefit guaranteed by an over-funded plan, and in return got insurance company credit risk.
>> If the plan is terminated, the company is required to fully fund >> my benefit (e.g. by purchasing it from an insurance company). >> If the plan is under-funded at the time, the company has to kick >> in more money. If over-funded, the company can take back the >> excess (at least, that used to be the rule).
>How do they know how much to kick in if the amount owed to you >can't be determined or calculated? Insurance companies do that all >the time.
The present value of my benefit can be calculated. However, that's not the amount in the plan at the time, so I can't have a claim against the plan for that amount (else the total claims wouldn't match the plan's assets).
>>>What happens if you leave the company's employment before >>>retirement? >> I did. >And that changes the amount of the defined benefit, because they >are no longer making contributions for you. That's because a >specifically calculable portion or dollar amount of the fund is >allocated to you,
Except it isn't, because such calculated amounts don't match anything else.
> and if it doesn't grow they can't give you the benefit based on the >assumption that you could continue working there.
What does that mean? They have to give me the benefit based on the terms of the plan, whether or not their investments in the plan grow.
>>> Contributions were based on giving you a benefit >>>assuming you remain employed there until retirement. Does that >>>mean you get nothing? >> No, it means I get a benefit as defined in the plan, based on my >> final average salary. >Which is based on actuarial calculations that determine how much >must be colledged each year for the projected benefit. That's done >by calculating how much your particular share must be worth to give >you the benefit required. You, based on your age and your salary.
That's based on how much they expect to require to pay everybody the benefits described in the plan. The amount currently in the plan is one of the inputs to that calculation, which is done as a single global calculation, not per participant. The actuary's report says "According to the IRS Rules, you must contribute between $X and $Y to the plan this year." That amount is not broken down by participant.
Seth wrote: > In article <hb4s2e$kj...@news.eternal-september.org>, > Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>> Exactly. A drug addict might have gone to some other country where use >> of that drug is legal (or even have become addicted here before that >> drug was outlawed. Or even become addicted to prescription drugs.) So we >> don't make it illegal to be addicted to the drug but simply to have >> improperly USED it.
> With the exception of South Dakota (which has outlawed humans), it > isn't illegal to have used a drug. It is illegal to manufacture, > possess, and/or sell various drugs (without appropriate licenses).
You're right, I should have said "improperly possess it." I.e. I could have a prescription for Vicodin and have properly purchased the drug but if I gave it to you, you would be illegally possessing it (even if you didn't take it.)
In article <hcsd51$i0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >Seth wrote: >> In article <hb4s2e$kj...@news.eternal-september.org>, >> Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> So we don't make it illegal to be addicted to the drug but simply >>> to have improperly USED it.
>> With the exception of South Dakota (which has outlawed humans), it >> isn't illegal to have used a drug. It is illegal to manufacture, >> possess, and/or sell various drugs (without appropriate licenses).
>You're right, I should have said "improperly possess it."
The tense difference is important. It is illegal to improperly possess it; it isn't illegal to have improperly possessed it. (The difference is that of jurisdiction; if someone improperly possessed it in a different jurisdiction, there is no violation in his current jurisdiction.)
> I.e. I could have a prescription for Vicodin and have properly >purchased the drug but if I gave it to you, you would be illegally >possessing it (even if you didn't take it.)
And in that case, you would be guilty of "selling" it. ("Federal law prohibits the transfer of this without a prescription.")
I wonder (with the exception of South Dakota) if it's possible to use an illegal drug without ever being in possession of it.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:36:06 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote: >I wonder (with the exception of South Dakota) if it's possible to >use an illegal drug without ever being in possession of it.
There is a process whereby, through a kiss, one partner will exhale hash smoke into the mouth of the other. That would seem to fit the bill. The question is whether this would be legal for the receiving partner.
In article <hd1c8l$j0...@reader1.panix.com>, Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>I wonder (with the exception of South Dakota) if it's possible to >use an illegal drug without ever being in possession of it.
Suppose someone injects you with a class IV narcotic -- one for which you have *not* been issued a prescription -- _without_ your knowledge that that is what they are injecting? Was that drug _ever_ in you 'possession' before it entered your blood-stream?
Seth wrote: > In article <hcsd51$i0...@news.eternal-september.org>, > Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> Seth wrote: >>> In article <hb4s2e$kj...@news.eternal-september.org>, >>> Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>>>> So we don't make it illegal to be addicted to the drug but simply >>>> to have improperly USED it. >>> With the exception of South Dakota (which has outlawed humans), it >>> isn't illegal to have used a drug. It is illegal to manufacture, >>> possess, and/or sell various drugs (without appropriate licenses). >> You're right, I should have said "improperly possess it."
> The tense difference is important. It is illegal to improperly > possess it; it isn't illegal to have improperly possessed it. (The > difference is that of jurisdiction; if someone improperly possessed it > in a different jurisdiction, there is no violation in his current > jurisdiction.)
I don't see the tense being important but yes, the jurisdiction is. Would it be illegal for me to be CURRENTLY using pot while in Sweden just because VA outlaws it? Would it only be murder if I'm CURRENTLY killing someone? I.e. yes, the jurisdiction does matter and it's part of what makes the possession illegal/improper. So if I had improperly possessed (PAST tense) pot in VA, they could get a conviction NOW but if I possessed pot PROPERLY in Sweden (or improperly in NC,) they could not.
>> I.e. I could have a prescription for Vicodin and have properly >> purchased the drug but if I gave it to you, you would be illegally >> possessing it (even if you didn't take it.)
> And in that case, you would be guilty of "selling" it. ("Federal law > prohibits the transfer of this without a prescription.")
2 points:
1) I would be guilty of illegally TRANSFERRING it, not selling it (I received no payment in return.)
2) I was talking about the person (you, in the hypothetical) who received the drug, not the person (me) who gave it to you.
> I wonder (with the exception of South Dakota) if it's possible to > use an illegal drug without ever being in possession of it.
Probably not. But they just make the possession illegal and thus cover the crime whether ya use it or just possess it long enough to pass along to someone else (or just hadn't had a chance yet to use it.)
>>I wonder (with the exception of South Dakota) if it's possible >>to use an illegal drug without ever being in possession of it.
> Suppose someone injects you with a class IV narcotic -- one for > which you have *not* been issued a prescription -- _without_ > your knowledge that that is what they are injecting? Was that > drug _ever_ in you 'possession' before it entered your > blood-stream?
I have a vague recollection of seeing a case where someone was prosecuted for possession solely because tests showed that he had illegal drugs in his blood stream. I don't remember how the case turned out.
In article <Xns9CBE571C4BA1Aspamtraplexregia...@130.133.1.4>, Stuart A. Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>I have a vague recollection of seeing a case where someone was >prosecuted for possession solely because tests showed that he had >illegal drugs in his blood stream. I don't remember how the case >turned out.
If it was South Dakota, he was convicted ("internal possession" of any scheduled drug is illegal. That's why I stated they outlawed humans; many natural substances (e.g. Testosterone) are scheduled drugs.)
<spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote: >I have a vague recollection of seeing a case where someone was >prosecuted for possession solely because tests showed that he had >illegal drugs in his blood stream. I don't remember how the case >turned out.
This has come up from time to time. I believe Wisconsin ruled earlier this year that its statute was broad enough to include it.
Daniel Reitman
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP INTENDED.
In article <0g6kf512hc4amcqd1alj63cpebq9nn4...@4ax.com>,
Daniel R.Reitman <dreit...@spiritone.com> wrote: >On 9 Nov 2009 16:33:44 GMT, "Stuart A. Bronstein" ><spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>I have a vague recollection of seeing a case where someone was >>prosecuted for possession solely because tests showed that he had >>illegal drugs in his blood stream. I don't remember how the case >>turned out.
>This has come up from time to time. I believe Wisconsin ruled earlier >this year that its statute was broad enough to include it.
It might be possible to show that it was ingested while in the state. For instance, the defendant was arrested at 3 PM. A blood sample was drawn at 4 PM. Based on the results, including concentrations of the drug and its breakdown products, it must have been ingested between 2 PM and 2:30 PM. The defendant was arrested 100 miles from the state border, and admitted he hadn't flown in that day.
But based on earlier articles, ingestion doesn't imply possession. I don't know if state laws prohibit ingestion as well as possession.
>> Can you even *get* auto insurance if you have a driver's >> license and no vehicle? What does it cover?
> I think the answers are yes and personal liability, > respectively.
> Chauffeurs come to mind.
That may be correct, but chauffeurs do not make a good example. In the case of people who drive commercially, it's generally the auto that's insured, not specifically the driver.
The question was whether an individual can get insurance on whatever car he may drive if he doesn't own a car. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could, but I've never seen it.
> >> Can you even *get* auto insurance if you have a driver's > >> license and no vehicle? What does it cover?
> > I think the answers are yes and personal liability, > > respectively.
In that, Fred is correct.
> > Chauffeurs come to mind.
> That may be correct, but chauffeurs do not make a good example. In > the case of people who drive commercially, it's generally the auto > that's insured, not specifically the driver.
In that, Stu is correct.
> The question was whether an individual can get insurance on whatever > car he may drive if he doesn't own a car. I wouldn't be surprised if > someone could, but I've never seen it.
I posted a message on this very thread, many moons ago, which included URLs of various insurance companies' websites who currently offer "non- owner auto insurance" policies. Google the phrase in quotes (without the quotes) and you'll find several of them. Somehow I thought that finding should have put the kibbosh on the "Does it exist?" question, but I should have realized that, on Usenet, no beaten horse ever truly dies.
-- This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice. Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information. I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter. For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS 10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300 Columbia, MD 21044 (tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The question was whether an individual can get insurance on >> whatever car he may drive if he doesn't own a car. ˙I wouldn't >> be surprised if someone could, but I've never seen it.
> I posted a message on this very thread, many moons ago, which > included URLs of various insurance companies' websites who > currently offer "non- owner auto insurance" policies. Google > the phrase in quotes (without the quotes) and you'll find > several of them. Somehow I thought that finding should have put > the kibbosh on the "Does it exist?" question, but I should have > realized that, on Usenet, no beaten horse ever truly dies.
Thanks, Mike. Sorry I didn't remember. It's great information to know, and a good service for people who don't own a car but like to rent them frequently.
Silence DoGood <Silence_DoG...@angelic.com> wrote: > As for the Supreme Court, if you read the constitution you will > understand that the concept of "three co-equal branches of government"
I'm with you so far.
> is faith based.
You lost me there.
Unless what you mean is, the whole idea of _any_ form of Constitutional self-government is faith-based, in the sense of "faith" that means "trust" or "fidelity." We the People believe in our Constitution, _and_ we believe in our leaders, not in the infantile sense of recognizing that they merely _exist_, but in the adult sense of knowing that our fate is in their hands and that we willingly put it there, confident that THE RULES we all agreed upon will be followed - that's what TRUST means. And that's what makes Constitutional government the rule of LAW, not just rule by the whims of the individual men and women who happen to fill positions of power within the system.
To some extent, the checks-and-balances of the 3-branch-of-government system recognizes that humanity's evil or selfish impulses may sometimes predominate, so that we need all 3 branches to each keep an eye on the other two, and keep them honest. While that is true, the liberal, enlightenment concept that self-government is even possible relies on an optimistic view of progress, of the goodness of fundamental human values, and the possibility of improvement of the human condition.
So, we do trust the Constitutional system as a whole to be a mostly stable and beneficial system of government, and it has worked out pretty well so far, despite some pretty serious Constitutional crises, including the Civil War, the Watergate coverup, Iran-Contra, and others, and despite various ways in which the laws on the ground and the people who write and enforce them have not lived up to the ideals the Constitution inspires - the legal tolerance of slavery and of Jim Crow segregation, the official mistreatment of Japanese-Americans in WW2, the Gilded Age giveaways to robber barons and the corporate trusts they created to wield monopoly power, and an updated version of the Gilded Age in which the merchants of death at places like Blackwater and Halliburton profit hugely from the "War on Terror" as do all their colleagues in the military-industrial complex, just to name a few. And, at bottom I must agree with Mr. DoGood that if the majority of people stop believing in the US Constitutional system as something precious and worth protecting, then it will fail - as many other civilizations and governments have before. So yes, in that sense it is a faith-based system of government.
> Congress is clearly supreme,
In the sense that only Congress can make the laws that create most Federal agencies and only Congress can levy taxes and appropriate funds in the budget for the operation of various aspects of the government, true. As far as most Executive-branch agencies are concerned (other than those specifically set up by the Constitution, and the Cabinet departments, whose secretaries are at bottom essentially no more than the President's panel of advisers on specific areas of policy), Congress created them by passing statutes, and Congress can un-create them or un-fund them if their usefulness is past. The Works Progress Administration, frex, no longer exists (although its handiwork is still much with us in the form of the public works it constructed during the 1930's Great Depression), nor does the National Recovery Administration (ditto, although it was controversial from the beginning and was aborted sooner than the WPA).
> and the senate can fire the > entire Supreme Court tomorrow before lunch, if they feel like > it.
That part is _not_ true. The Constitution (in Article III) specifically protects the Federal judiciary with lifetime tenure - once appointed, they cannot be fired, although an Article III judge, like a President or Senator, may be impeached for serious misconduct - and Article III also provides that the judges' pay may not be decreased during their tenure. If the Senate tried to do what you say they could, they would be acting unconstitutionally and would precipitate another constitutional crisis.
Those two provisions are essential for the independence of the Federal judiciary, and that independence gives the Federal Courts' holdings a great deal of moral authority they would lack if, as in many States and other countries, they were pawns of the political spoils system and owed their continuance in tenure of office to their loyalty, and leanings, in favor of the politicians who appointed them. Thank goodness it is mostly so, despite occasional dippings into the muck (Bush v. Gore comes to mind). -- This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice. Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information. I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter. For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication. Mike Jacobs LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS 10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300 Columbia, MD 21044 (tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote in news:e0a2e06c-14c9-4656-83e4- 57dc31026...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> Silence DoGood <Silence_DoG...@angelic.com> wrote: >> As for the Supreme Court, if you read the constitution you will >> understand that the concept of "three co-equal branches of government"
<snip/>
>> and the senate can fire the >> entire Supreme Court tomorrow before lunch, if they feel like >> it.
> That part is _not_ true. The Constitution (in Article III) > specifically protects the Federal judiciary with lifetime tenure - > once appointed, they cannot be fired, although an Article III judge, > like a President or Senator, may be impeached for serious misconduct -
I don't believe that a Senator can be impeached. Article II, Section 4 restricts impeachment to civil officers, which excludes legislators. Each house may expel one of its members by a 2/3 vote per Article I, Section 5.
> and Article III also provides that the judges' pay may not be > decreased during their tenure. If the Senate tried to do what you say > they could, they would be acting unconstitutionally and would > precipitate another constitutional crisis.
It's true that there has to be a Supreme Court, but Congress sets its size and (mostly) its appellate authority.
It's not clear to me what would happen if Congress reduced the Supreme Court to one Justice. They've abolished judge*ships* before. <snip/>
|
