To me it reminds me of the quote on how a society handle their prisoners. They can never have power again and must feel the consequences, but we have to show some baseline level of respect for human life, and show what makes us better than them. It's not status or money, it's ideals and empathy
Natanael
joined 11 months ago
finally my manager said something about the bonuses has already been communicated and people would be angry to get less
That's because they have a fixed budget and the proportions are tied to evaluated performance tiers, increasing your rating would contractually require them to compensate you more from the same pool of money
You're missing the absolutely massive difference of the purpose of constitutional law VS federal or state law.
In a simplified form, the former is to constrain government actors to protect the people, the latter is to constrain individuals to protect them against each other.
There is no such thing as a right to be a president, but the constitution recognize the right to not be represented by seditionists. The constitution doesn't punish the candidate here in 14A3 - it simply constrains them from enacting the power of the government.
Criminal and civil punishment would be applied separately, where the candidate is directly afforded rights. But enacting constitutional restrictions is not limited by the results of civil and criminal procedures. Why else is congress allowed to impeach which just a vote?
Due process looks very different for the same reason - the process is designed to protect the public over the candidate, and the candidate's strongest claim is protecting representation, not protecting themselves.
https://wealthpol.web.ox.ac.uk/article/how-rich-are-dictators
That wasn't hard was it
Ok and then they did what after industrialization? How come you're leaving that part out?
What somebody formally owns and gets in income isn't the same as the wealth they actually control in authoritarian systems.
Also, wealth equality through being poor isn't that brilliant
He thought the timeshare was a scam, which is ironic because usually you have to have brains to figure that out
https://www.commondreams.org/news/conservative-scholars-trump-disqualified
The standard under the constitution is what the standard under the constitution is, not that of current civil prosecution under federal and state law.
Precedence for nullifying the entirety of an invalid appointment and its consequences exist, and were applied when courts unrolled the illegal hostile takeover of USIP
The constitution explicitly were written to only require acts of congress to pardon, but not an act of congress to decide someone was guilty. It's not even close, that means courts gets to decide. SCOTUS lied.
Then why does so many experts on constitutional history disagree?
Colorado didn't have jurisdiction to convict, but had jurisdiction to recognize it. The legal process over it was still ongoing then.
It would be absurd to assume you could just appeal yourself out of it, especially when the text clearly says courts can not declare you qualified again, NOT EVEN SCOTUS, 2/3 of congress has to do that - and they didn't
No, it's clear enough, other rights could be enforced by courts before legislation was made explicit, this one specifically is very clear on what's expected even if it doesn't say by who. That's exactly where courts can say "until congress decides otherwise, this applies here" like the Colorado supreme court did, because if the method isn't specified but the result is then the court can choose the method.
In the case of disqualification it's pretty clear - anybody could challenge a candidate's right to be on the ballot based on their actions, pointing to the disqualification clause, which the Colorado state did - and then a court with jurisdiction to try constitutional rights test it, like the Colorado Supreme Court did.
All the "ambiguity" they point at is fake wordplay, pretending to not be aware of the history behind the rules which makes it exceedingly clear. There's no such thing as a constitutional right that can't be invoked, no matter how much SCOTUS pretends otherwise.
Otherwise constitutional rights simply do not exist, because all you have to do to invalidate them is create a scenario not legislated before.
... Oh right, SCOTUS already blessed "qualified immunity" for cops where not even a law is good enough, but rather a court having to enforce that specific law in that specific scenario - TLDR SCOTUS is full of liars who are exceeding the authority that the constitution gives them.
... But the lower courts have also already started to push back on SCOTUS now fortunately - including instances of reissuing orders blocked by SCOTUS simply motivated by the fact that SCOTUS made the choice to not leave a binding opinion (note that rulings without opinions don't create binding precedence) and even calling SCOTUS liars on the opinions they did issue. And that's what Colorado should have done too - reissued the ban against Trump motivated by the fact the SCOTUS did not address the facts and thus their opinion is not applicable.
Right now the real long term solution is taking back a majority in congress and packing the court, declaring the prior SCOTUS rulings invalid (reinstating the 14A3 disqualification and formally accusing the now 6 former justices of material support of enemies of the state)
You can't override contracts terms that take priority (GPL, which you as developers already agreed to when redistributing it) with a second one (their own ToS).
GPL explicitly prohibits adding restrictions, so attempting to claim the ToS severs their GPL right is invalid because it is GPL which instead overrides that term in the ToS.
Upper management can certainly increase the budget. Your line manager probably can't