Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft,alt.games.everquest,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (
More info?)
"Sean Kennedy" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:Xns95FE64837FE4Ctherealorangyahoocom@130.133.1.4...
> Sean Kennedy <x@y.z> wrote in news:Xns95FDBE79F1099therealorangyahoocom@
> 130.133.1.4:
>> Precisely - but it does show that in this discussion there is no
>> black and white - "we can exclude anyone for any reason because
>> we're a private business".
>>
>
> And just to make things more complex:
>
>
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A101975.htm
>
> The same store involved in the dispute 10 years ago was deemed
> NOT to be a public place in a more recent decision.
>
> Things that folks not from Oregon may not know is that, for
> a very long time Fred Meyer stores also had a number of shops
> (and some still do) renting space in their building. Some
> of the older stores, particularly downtown stores like Hawthorne
> and Stadium, were remodeled to eliminate hardlines and they
> took over the space formerly occupied by tenants.
>
> My assertion that this is a vastly more complex subject than
> the simple black and white posturing of some of the NG folks
> is born out by the fact that our own Oregon Supreme Court can't
> come to a majority opinion on this.
>
> And Sanjian - if you read that you'll see exactly where in
> the Oregon Constitution the derived the right of petitioners
> to use private property.
For broad definitions of "derived." It seems like a clear example of
legislation from the bench. In the decision, they referenced the precedent
of Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen. The problem is that precedent is not law.
If the case you refer to is flawed then your decision will be equally
flawed. If you treat precedent as equal to law, then what you are actually
doing is allowing legislation to occur by decision of judges - who are often
not accountable to the people they "serve."
From the decision you cited:
] But we do not confront the issue as a matter of first impression. In
] Lloyd Corporation v. Whiffen, 315 Or 500, 849 P2d 446 (1993), the
] Oregon Supreme Court found a right to gather initiative petition
] signatures on at least some private property to be "implicit" in the
] initiative provisions of Article IV, section 1. According to the court,
] because access to people is "the life blood" of the initiative power,
] the constitution must be read to permit the solicitation of initiative
] petition signatures at some locations that happen to be private
] property, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
] Id. at 511-13. Regardless of what the text of the constitution or its
] enactment might reveal, therefore, we must take it as given that the
] right to solicit initiative petition signatures exists. The only
] question properly before us is the scope of that right.
And the referenced section of the Oregon Constitution:
] (1) The legislative power of the state, except for the initiative and
] referendum powers reserved to the people, is vested in a Legislative
] Assembly, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.
It is clear that the Constitution does not say what the OSC claimed it did.
It's more "penumbras" of the constitution. There is nothing in Art IV, Sect
1 that even remotely implies what the OSC claims. That part was invented,
whole cloth, by the OSC. What I find as especially hideous is the line
"Regardless of what the text of the constitution or its enactment might
reveal, therefore, we must take it as given that the right to solicit
initiative petition signatures exists." They pretty much specifically say
"the actual Constitution be damned, we're going to keep right on making the
same mistake that our predecessors made."
> Keep in mind that the Constitution (Federal or State) only
> serves as the basis for our laws and that its interpretation
> by the courts is what legal decisions are actually based on.
Then, by your estimation, the court can interpret the law to say whatever it
pleases (and, if they can pull that decision out of Art IV, Sect 1, you
can't say that's not the case). At that point, we are no longer a nation of
laws, nor does it matter who we elect, since the judges can "interpret"
things however they see fit, and the US becomes an oligarchy of judges.
The purpose of the constitution is to create clear and strong limits to the
government and to bind it as our servant, not to make us its. We exist as a
people with God-given rights (or, rights inherent in our existance as
humans, if you prefer) with a govenrment that has no rights, but is given
certain specific privileges by the constitution.
] "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?"
] said Dr. Ferris. "We *want* them broken. You'd better get it straight
] That it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against- then you'll
] know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after
] power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the
] real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule
] innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to
] crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals,
] one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it
] becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who
] wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for
] anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed
] nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of
] law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system,
] Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
] much easier to deal with."
-- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram