Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"APPEALS COURT REVERSES JURY IN "AKRE V FOX TV" CASE:
Court Condones Media Lies, in Spite of FCC Policy Against "News Distortion"
QUOTE Accepting a defense rejected by three other Florida state judges in at least six separate motions, a Florida appeals court has reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.
In a six-page written decision released February 14, the court essentially ruled the journalist never stated a valid whistle-blower claim because, they ruled, it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
In the lawsuit filed in 1998, Akre claimed she was wrongfully terminated for threatening to blow the whistle to the FCC. After a five-week trial that ended August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that she was indeed fired for threatening report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.
In overturning the jury on what amounts to a legal technicality, the court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Nonetheless, the station aired a report in wake of the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.
The "threshold issue," the court wrote -- and all it ruled upon -- was whether the technical qualifications for a whistleblower claim were ever met by Akre. In Florida, to file such a claim, the employer misconduct must be a violation of an adopted law, rule or regulation. Fox argued from the first -- and repeatedly failed in front of three different judges -- to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.
In essence, the news organization owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to even lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. In it's opinion, the Court of Appeal held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
The court let stand without comment the jury verdict that awarded nothing to Steve Wilson, Akre's husband and co-plaintiff in the case. He aggressively represented himself at trial, paving the way for Fox attorneys to suggest he was as aggressive in the newsroom as he was in the courtroom and perhaps that was why he was fired.
Bzzzt. The Constitution is not a living breathing document, so the Fed will never run the show, and if they try...well, we state boys have a surprise waiting for them!
The LivingConstitution is a concept in American constitutional interpretation which suggests that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.[1
This is the mainstream view, as even that old fart Scalia admits.
The LivingConstitution is a concept in American constitutional interpretation which suggests that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.[1
This is the mainstream vierw, as even that old fart Scalia admits.
Good, the "living document" is a view held by unAmerican extremists. Same view as Herr Hitler had when he said that "the constitution could not have forseen this happening" when asking President Hindenburg to promote him to chancellor, based on the turmoil caused by the Reichstag fire. We know how the rest went.
Problem with the "living document" approach is that it's used by opportunists to alter laws to suit their own ambitions for power. It's an excuse for the intellectually slothful.
If the founders thought it should've been a living document, they would have mentioned that fact in the text. Oh yeah, that's right...they did. It's called AN AMENDMENT!
Pure Colbertian satire at its best, although I doubt Fauxies realize it.
oh sure, the 10th amendment is a bunch of nonsense. that little piece of paper is what the USA is all about. maybe people should learn that before they start calling our constitutional rights nonsense.
Good, the "living document" is a view held by unAmerican extremists. Same view as Herr Hitler had when he said that "the constitution could not have forseen this happening" when asking President Hindenburg to promote him to chancellor, based on the turmoil caused by the Reichstag fire. We know how the rest went.
Problem with the "living document" approach is that it's used by opportunists to alter laws to suit their own ambitions for power.
If the founders thought it should've been a living document, they would have mentioned that fact in the text. Oh yeah, that's right...they did. It's called AN AMENDMENT!
Opportunists who wanted to end slavery and save capitalism from itself.
Again, a living constitution is the mainstream view- as anyone who has passed Poly Sci 101 can tell you- whether they personally agree or not.
I could live with this, although I think the country operates better when we have laws that are uniform. It's not 1776 anymore.
I think the core of it all has to do with the Fed issuing sweeping mandates without providing anything monitary to go with. (if I'm reading this right)
Education was a big gripe of the many, as the Fed came up with rules for the states that required certain educational protocol, and the states had to run under their own budgets to get it done. (no help from the Fed)
Another complaint I think, was although the Fed can delegate in the interstate arena, it's "hands-off" on the intrastate side of things. The Fed, according to the Constitution, cannot regulate the intrastate dealings of the states.
For instance;
If your state grows tabacco, and it's grown and used inside of your state exclusively, then the Fed can neither tax it, or regulate it when you apply the Constitution.
I do agree though, that there are some things that should be fairly uniform across all of the states..
oh sure, the 10th amendment is a bunch of nonsense. that little piece of paper is what the USA is all about. maybe people should learn that before they start calling our constitutional rights nonsense.
New Federalism
Main article: New Federalism
Another movement calling itself "Federalism" appeared in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. New Federalism, which is characterized by a gradual return of power to the states, was initiated by President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) with his "devolution revolution" in the early 1980s and lasted until 2001. Previously, the federal government had granted money to the states categorically, limiting the states to use this funding for specific programs. Reagan's administration, however, introduced a practice of giving block grants, freeing state governments to spend the money at their own discretion. New Federalism is sometimes called "states' rights", although its proponents usually eschew the latter term because of its associations with Jim Crow and segregation. Unlike the states' rights movement of the mid-20th century which centered around the civil rights movement, the modern federalist movement is concerned far more with expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause, as in the areas of medical marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich), partial birth abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart), gun possession (United States v. Lopez), federal police powers (United States v. Morrison, which struck down portions of the Violence Against Women Act), or agriculture (Wickard v. Filburn). President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) embraced this philosophy, and President George W. Bush (2001-2009) appeared to support it at the time of his inauguration.
However, the New Federalism movement is not a systematic theory of political thought, nor does it have coherent ideological formulations. Leaders who call for states' sovereignty on one issue may have no hesitation to put forward expansive federal intervention on another, in the contemporary debate of fiscal and social controversies, such as abortion, homosexual marriage, and drug control.
I think you should be aware of this................
Opportunists who wanted to end slavery and save capitalism from itself.
That's why an amendment process was in place (ergo, abolition of slavery by uber-racist Lincoln). If Obama had some b*lls, he'd try to push an amendment to justify his insane policies.
Quote:
Again, a living constitution is the mainstream view- as anyone who has passed Poly Sci 101 can tell you- whether they personally agree or not.
Nope, it's still extremist. Since the concept of amending the constitution exists already and the founders never wrote a provision for the core to be changed willy nilly, anyone who suggests the core of the constitution is somehow "living" is pretty much a fruitcake.
Bzzzt. The Constitution is not a living breathing document, so the Fed will never run the show, and if they try...well, we state boys have a surprise waiting for them!
It actually is, but under a VERY strict system to change it IE amendments being passed by 3/4 of the states. Well the article states that 35 of the 50 states are moving to pass this kind of legislation, So 3/4 of the states are wishing to reassert an already existing amendment. To me, the states have spoken, The federal government must give the power given to the states back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
