 UCAS Political Structure, Not US politics, I don't care |
  |
 Jun 11 2004, 11:36 PM
Post
#26
|
|||
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 15-June 03 From: UCLA, CFS Member No.: 4,738  |
This actually brings another legal question to mind (not having a copy of SoNA I find this all very interesting): Does the UCAS honor rulings made by the United States Supreme Court? I mean logically the passage of the 13th and 14th UCAS amendments could also be taken as a means to perpetuating the Shiawase and Seretech decisions, even though the actual decision was no longer binding to the UCAS, couldn't it? I guess that would make sense too considering that I've never heard of LS, KE, or even local law enforcement Mirandizing anyone in the Sixth World.... |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Jun 12 2004, 12:08 AM
Post
#27
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,759 Joined: 11-December 02 From: France Member No.: 3,723 |
To some extent. In the first decade of the XXIth Century US probably exported the corporate extraterritoriality like they already exported corporate structure and accountancy standards. For the timing, I think there are much more parameters that'd make it the right time to introduce the BRA. After losing California and the CAS and refusing to military intervene in Europe or Middle East, the US/UCAS no longer were an undisputed leader for the world, the major computer/telecom industry being rebuilded by Japan under corporate control, mid-eastern oil no longer being they key to geopolitic (if you ask me,Saudi Arabia would have been involved in the Jihad because the oil fortune no longer held the youth and islamists in line) and the europeans were finishing the euro-wars (war is rarely the right time to propose liberal idea). I don't know Carl Preston economic policy well enough to tell if the situation in the UCAS was the decisive signal for the BRA. The BRA is seemingly a minimal agrement. UCAS laws are considered as the base because Seattle is the default gaming area. Pueblo, Québec or CAS signed the BRA and yet the megacorporations aren't as free there as they are in the UCAS. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 12 2004, 12:15 AM
Post
#28
|
|||||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,759 Joined: 11-December 02 From: France Member No.: 3,723 |
It leaves little room for debate here. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Jun 12 2004, 08:18 PM
Post
#29
|
||
|
Guests |
Funny you should ask. Yes. The UCAS judiciary would still follow U.S. and Canadian federal case law. Ironically, because the U.S. Supreme Court says so. Back in the 19th century, the question arose of exactly whose common law applied given that the U.S. Constitution recongizes cases in law and equity (common law). The Supreme Court's answers was: The British Common Law before 1789. The states' own common law couldn't apply, to the supreme sovereign of the U.S., but there had already a quite well-developed body of common law from Britain that the states used: The British law. There are also a few states whose common law incorporates certain aspects of U.S. federal (and thus pre-1789 British) common law to a point from when they were territories before became states. Because Article III of the UCAS Constitution is ostensibly the same until otherwise noted differently in canon, the UCAS judiciary would follow the existing common law at the time--the U.S. and Canadian national common law. In which case, the UCAS Supreme Court (which was comprised of god knows who) would have to spend most of its first terms dealing with circuit split issues involving which national common law to apply (which can be a really big deal) because now we have two sovereigns merging together. Oh, and since Canada is a commonwealth, does that mean more British common law has been adding to the federal judiciary's complement of powers? Don't know, but it's important. Hell, just the fact that Canada didn't become a Dominion apart from the direct rule of Britain until 1867 would have an effect on how much British law applies until then. Overall, it would be critical for the UCAS Judiciary to have access to the common law of both countries, but especially the U.S. common law. Why? Marbury v. Madison. Without existing common law, they'd have to articulate that all over again, and what would happen if there was never Marbury. However, one of the first opinions put forth by the UCAS Supreme Court would have grandfathered in someone's case law, and since SoNA mentions it, the U.S. got their federal case law in. Canada OTOH probably got screwed. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 13 2004, 02:18 AM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 124 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 2,072 |
Where does the Shaiwase decisions fall into this? (Extratero..I cant spell today.)
|
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Jun 13 2004, 04:35 AM
Post
#31
|
|
Guests |
It is U.S. federal case law, and would be grandfathered into UCAS federal case law.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 13 2004, 07:01 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,577 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gwynedd Valley PA Member No.: 1,221 |
Right, unless there is a new law written to address something, then the old law just carries over. Siunce someone invoked US history, look at the bill of rights, the first 10 ammendments to the US constitutuiono were changes to things they didn't like in the British laws that had previously been in place, but there was no need to address slavery one way or the other because they just carried over the existing laws, and only got to the changing that when there was a need to change the status quo.
|
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Jun 14 2004, 01:44 AM
Post
#33
|
|
Guests |
Congress has tried to overrule a SCOTUS decision at least once a generation on a Constitutional issue.
And at least once a generation SCOTUS promptly beats them about the head and body in response, telling them that if they are so concerned, to amend the Constitution. Statutory interpretation, OTOH, is a little more flexible (such as the response to the snail darter decision). In this context, Shiawase and Seretech were AFAIK based on Constitutional grounds. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 02:08 AM
Post
#34
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
The Supreme Court can overturn it's own decisions without Constitutional changes, though.
IIRC, the Gideon v. Wainwright case overturned a previous ruling that said the Constitution did not guarantee Right to a Lawyer. The court felt that a fair trail in serious legal cases required a lawyer to be fair and just, even though it had previously claimed otherwise. Time changes the meaning of words, and the Court reinterprets the words to suit the current climate. Public radio had a discussion about Judical Review on Odyssey that I found awesome. |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Jun 14 2004, 02:33 AM
Post
#35
|
||
|
Guests |
Indeed. The most famous probably being Brown reversing Plessy. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 14 2004, 08:47 PM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,577 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gwynedd Valley PA Member No.: 1,221 |
I'm not saying they couldn't. But they actually have to make the change or what was in place keeps going, like how Dred Scott kept slavery in place until the 13th ammendment.
|
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Jun 14 2004, 11:28 PM
Post
#37
|
|
Guests |
Um... I never said nor implied you were wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2004, 05:07 PM
Post
#38
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,577 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gwynedd Valley PA Member No.: 1,221 |
True, but someone might have read your post as saying the US regularly revisits this stuff, which they don't.
Someone asked baout Canadian law. From the comments in NAGtNA my guess is Canadian law pretty well got shafted. Considering how little of Canada was left after NAN and Quebec left, my guess is they didn't have too much to hope for except being rescued by the US |
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2004, 08:12 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 153 Joined: 1-April 04 Member No.: 6,211 |
I don't really have anything to add, I just want my named associated with this thread so I can sound this smart.
So yeah, Brown and Plessy.. important thing there. Very important thing there.... *adds to his resume* |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Jun 15 2004, 09:01 PM
Post
#40
|
|
Guests |
hahaha
That would be a poor assumption on their part. Generationally, it may happen soon if there's a sudden shift in the Court. Sometimes it takes 25 years (Grutter addressing Bakke), sometimes 60 (Brown reversing Plessy), but most of the time it is sniping at little things over time to how we got from Roe v. Wade to Casey in 20 years, or the line of four or five cases in the 90s which gutted the concept of punitive damages. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 16 2004, 12:33 AM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,577 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gwynedd Valley PA Member No.: 1,221 |
Or it can take more than four score and seven years- Founding of the nation to 13th ammendment.
|
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Jun 16 2004, 02:15 AM
Post
#42
|
|
Guests |
Indeed, if SCOTUS had anything to do with that. But Dred Scott had been good law for twenty years when the Thirteenth overturned it, because only passing 13 could overturn it.
But I'm done with this thread. This is useless information for SR. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th August 2025 - 05:16 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.