Fining "Human Shields".....

Michael, some Presidential Executive Orders (those that do not just set policy) have long been treated as law. They are based in the constitutional authority of the office and can be overturned by Congress if they choose to do so. Some of them have been very controversial, like FDR's EO to incarcerate US citizens of Japanese heritage during WWII. When EO's are referenced as part of pulic law, as in this case, Congress is explicitly making the EO part of the law. So, congressional review is a non-issue here.

 

I know how it works, but consider this: One of Clinton's aides once said, after Clinton signed one once, said, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool, huh?"

That's a far, far cry from being passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress and then being duly ratified by the President. There ain't no checks and balances in the above statement. Just the Executive Branch creating law, rather than enforcing the law as the Constitution empowers them to do. Thanks FDR, you wanker. Or whoever was responsible, if it was some wanker prior to FDR.

Mongo, I don't disagree that they left it open-ended and open to Amendments. HOWEVER, they also EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED about 90% of what the government does today. The Tenth Amendment is VERY clear: if it's not spelled out above, you CANNOT do it. Has that Amendment been repealed? Legally? No. Functionally? Yep, ever since the Civil War. Thanks Abe, you wanker.

 

No, but every other intern can claim a hostile work environment.

 

I looked it up, that wanker would be one George Washington, October 3, 1789. Proclaimed November 26 as a national day of thanksgiving.

 

Bosses get screwed and fired over it all the time. Dumbass girl consents then later says she was pressured then bam, lawsuit and civil court... granted it is usually settled with the boss getting fired and money changing hands. Continue to kid yourself and I will continue to watch dumbasses lose their jobs.

It happens all the time and has happened to friends of mine and co-workers I've had(and I not just talking about the boss' side ).

Spouting laws only work in legitimate courtrooms where the laws are actually interpreted correctly.

Of course the Lewinski case is different since it involved the Pres. Kind of tough to expect him to just step down to avoid all of the investigation crap... of wait not it wasn't.

 

having done discrimination work for years (still have a hand in it) I can safely say that 99% of sex between employees is never an issue.

Also, it is entirely legal to fire a boss for having sex with an underling. It is simply bad policy to permit relationships between bosses and their underlings. And it is stupid of a boss to have sex with his secretary, in this day and age anyhow.

And what the hell are "spouting laws"?

 

Henry David Thoreau - Civil Disobediance

Not the same situation, but I believe the sentiment in general is applicable.

 

I was more thinking the War Powers Act and real Executive Orders, Frank. I don't see any criminal penalties attached to Thanksgiving.

 

it's a fair amount of oppression.

being forced to eat cranberry sauce fer christ sakes.

 

What trade did she perform with the Iraqis??

Sounds to me more like jailing political opposition than justice.

 

good thing you live in canada. {so you don't have to worry about it}

 

not sure about spouting laws... I was in a hurry. I'm actually having to earn my pay these days.

BTW, I agree with you on the point above.

They do get settled for monetary sums fairly often to avoid going through the courts correct? That is a normal question not a smartassed question. I know of two specific cases here that were settled because of a woman that changed her mind about the affair then claimed harressment. They are former coworkers that aren't allowed to talk about it. I am convinced that it was consensual on both sides but two men had their careers ruined for it(course they were married and get punished that way too ). One thing that might throw a kink in these situations is that they are government contractors.

 

John, I'm working on a case now where my client was a supervisor who had a romantic relationship with a woman employee that he did not directly supervise. It was clearly and unequivocally consensual - many witnesses will testify in his behalf. The husband found out, put huge pressure an her, and tried to blackmail my client. Client went to HR to advise of the situation and they were very unsympathic, even though she had never complained. He resigned. But she did complain and is now filing a complaint with the EEOC alleging that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted over a period of months by my client!! She is obviously making up these allegations as a result of Hubby's pressure and as a face-saving method.

Here is the rub re settlement: Discrimination cases do settle but not as easily or as often as personal injury cases. This happens for two reason: 1) discrimination involves an intent to harm someone and it is more difiicult to get someone to admit that they intentionally did something wrong (whereas negligence cases usually just involve a mistake); 2) because many companies have no insurance for discriminatory actions of the company or its employees, settlement money usually must come from company coffers and most companies seem incapable of making the astute economic decisions to settle that insurers do. But insurance for discriminatory acts is getting far more popular these days.

Hope this helps!

Rodger

 

Your answer can be found in Sec 2(d), 2(e), 2(f) and 2(g) of Presidential Executive Order 12724. Go to page 2 of the thread.

 

Okay, question. US Army troops have been recorded handing out food supplies to Iraqis. Shouldn't they be charged? Shouldn't those charges go right up the line to the President himself, as he is the Commander-in-Cheif ?? Performance of duty cannot be a defense as they should have know that their actions were patently illegal.

Could the President be charged with violating a Presidential Order?

 

No. The UN approved food dsitribution to the Iraqi people. They are doing this. If you want to charge someone, charge the UN.

What Grand Ma grocery bag did was give comfort to the enemy and violated a law forbidding travel to Iraq.


Irregardless, Grand Ma done screwed herself. I'll cry next year for her.

 

Is the Presidential order is still in effect?

 

UN approvals are irrelavent (and rightly so) with respect to soverign American law.

Just curious, wasn't Rosa Parks breaking the law on a bus one day? Wasn't she arrested? I guess she should have just done what she was told, huh?

 

Hey, the old bag knew the law. She chose to ignore it. Now she pays the piper.

As for Rosa Parks. Comparing what she did to what the retired teacher did is apples and oranges.
Rosa was arrested, yes. Was she disobeying a clearly unjust law? Absolutely. Would I have supported her in her actions? yeap. Do I think it's insulting to a just cause compare the Rosa and Human shield? You decide that one yourself Ace.