What's new
By:

Newest Restructure Plan Hits Legal Snag

R

ResScum037

Newbie
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Crystal City.......4June2004........Press Release


The newest of the Bronner/Lakefield/Siegel attempts at restructuring USAirways into profitability was discontinued after the Legal Department advised the Board of Directors that no "Force Majure(Manure)" loopholes could be found in President Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation". After months of intensive(expensive) legal research and the involvement of multiple overly high-priced consulting firms, no exceptions could be found or manufactured in this historical hearesy. It seems that the White House was reluctant to either resend or amend this document regardless of promised campaign contrabutions....although one unnamed source suggested a "registered Democrat exclusion" might be possible in late Sept. or early Oct. if the poles don't pick up.
After acknowledging it's initial disappointment, the BOD thanked Legal for it's hard work and voted for both Executive and Upper management bonuses for avoiding what might have proven to be an extremely sticky legal situation.
 
Great start to posting at USaviation. You'll fit right in. B)
 
ResScum037 said:
Crystal City.......4June2004........Press Release


It seems that the White House was reluctant to either resend or amend this document regardless of promised campaign contrabutions....
Click to expand...
Well the prez has been going around telling hate groups that he'll change the Constitiution to add a dash of homophobia to it, the only time in history its been altered to limit rights rather than extend them. Of course it would never pass but you never know what will be said in an election year. 🙄
 
Light Years said:
Well the prez has been going around telling hate groups that he'll change the Constitiution to add a dash of homophobia to it, the only time in history its been altered to limit rights rather than extend them.
Click to expand...
Amendments 16, 18, and 22 limited rights. You have a good argument; no need to exaggerate. 😉
 
Rob said:
Amendments 16, 18, and 22 limited rights. You have a good argument; no need to exaggerate. 😉
Click to expand...
18, sure. 16? Income tax is a limit on rights? I guess if you really want to stretch things, maybe. And how on earth is 22 a limit on rights?
 
You can't limit rights...only governmental intrusion on rights. If your rights are "limited", it is your fault. The U. S. Constitution says that your rights are not of this earth, but from a higher Being...thus, cannot be abridged unless you allow it.
 
mweiss said:
18, sure. 16? Income tax is a limit on rights? I guess if you really want to stretch things, maybe. And how on earth is 22 a limit on rights?
Click to expand...
I guess I could say it limits the rights of persons who have been elected president, but I won't. I meant to say 21, which limits the right to possess and transport private (alcoholic) property.
 
21 doesn't limit anything. It undoes the 18th, and nothing more. Section 2, which says
United States Constitution said:
The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Click to expand...
does nothing more than to restore to the states that power which was already granted to the states before the ratification of the 18th.
 
mweiss says: 21 doesn't limit anything.

It limits interstate commerce, subjecting it to restrictive state laws not legal for any other good or service. As a concrete example, it prevents me from mail ordering wine from outside the state I live in even if I'm willing to pay instate taxes and forces me to choose only from products sold in my state. The wine lobby is working to overcome this, claiming it is costing them hundreds of millions. I don't know if I believe their figures or not, but that's their story.
 
Rob said:
It limits interstate commerce, subjecting it to restrictive state laws not legal for any other good or service.
Click to expand...
Not true. Every state has the authority to regulate tomatoes in precisely the same way that they have the authority to regulate alcohol. Most states do not choose to have as restrictive regulations on tomatoes, but that's by choice not by fiat.
 
You say po-TAY-to. I say po-TAH-to. And Light Years is wrong in either case. Let's get back to airlines
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top