The monster that is Monsanto
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2008 15:49
VIEWED: 6598
PAGE 6 of 10
here we go again... always disappear off when you are losing an argument.
Expectation of privacy is from Tort, as previously explained. It is not a "right" Lawyers dont use 2 words for the same thing. It is something different.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually you disappeared for quite a while in the middle of an ongoing discussion and though I waited I thought you were gone. But I do need to go soon and I don't feel the need to apologize for having a life and a job. If you bump your preferred argument enough to keep it up at the top I will revisit it when I get back. But you have to make the effort b/c I'm not going to wait around for you to post or keep checking back to see if you have so deigned.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has found that the U.S. constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)." This right to privacy doesn't stem from the constitution, however, it stems from the penumbras of thoughts, practices and assumptions of the common laws of the time.
Anything to say about common law and agriculture ? If you do, say it fast, 'cause I'm outa' here soon. I'll twiddle my thumbs for 25 minutes from time of posting, then I'm gone.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch, you're such a chicken.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's look at what was actually said shall we, rather than the Rue version.
Griswold vs Connecticut
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html
Quote:
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender tohis detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described... as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."
We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.
The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
No mention of the common law.
You have chosen to interprete it that way.
Agricultural law is not some kind of parallel governance of the common law, it is the body of statute pertaining to agriculture in the same way that maritime law reflects that body of law specific to the sea.
Thank you for pointing me in that direction though because there was an interesting case
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/cases/monsanto-david.html
Quote:
The farmer argued that he was not responsible for paying Monsanto a royalty on the retained seed under the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 (PVPA), but the court noted that the Patent Act superseded the PVPA. Id. "[T]he right to save seed of plants registered under the PVPA does not impart the right to save seed of plants patented under the Patent Act." Id. (quoting Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 302 F.3d 1291, at 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, the court rejected the argument that the patent only applies to the gene in its pure form and not contained in plants or seeds, because the patent specifically refers to a man-made gene, not one that naturally occurs, making the argumeNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There are, but in relation to the government.
First there are no such things as common law rights.
Quote:And that is as good a statement of the problem as any. What needs to happen is statutory limitation of the "rights" of the ALREADY big and powerful. YOu know... socialism.
Second the common law is not statute. For example I can make you sign a none disclosure agreement as part of your condition of employment or as part of a contract and sue you if you break it even though you have a common law expectation of free speech.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.
heh. They're not my first choice on reliable news either.
Monsanto was on my evil corp list...we all know I'm right about everything except those things I'm not.
It's not so much that Monsanto is inherently evil; they're too big. They, like any business, sometimes make poor legal choices. Not to mention departments not knowing what other departments are doing. I'll give them credit for trying to clean up some (not all) of their past run-off and contamination spots. I still don't like them.
---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But if it's in the Bible, you would? Or maybe if it was in the WSJ?
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.
I dunno Rap. Instead of basing your opinion on where you read something, how about looking at the content? Cross-checking with other sources and actually working up a little intellectual sweat?
Yeah, I know... it's hard work, but I'm sure you can do it.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm far more likely to believe the WSJ than VF.
Dunno why you brought The Bible into the mix .
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You'll note that I credited their journalism in this case - something that is pretty rare for me to do, yes ?
That's because I *DO* verify and crosscheck from original source, being a skeptical and suspicious type, and never more so than when someone is telling me something I already suspect, cause then I suspect their motives, heh.
They did a good job on their fact checking and research, and I would not have said such a thing if they had not - go on, check for yourself.
To dismiss a factual, fully researched article simply because of it's source is idiotic, partisan and a damnfool thing to do, especially since the other end is swallowing a faery tale whole without so much as a blink if it comes from a favored source.
I'll even throw in a quote from ole Ronnie Ray-Gun that fits ever so appropriately.
"Trust but Verify."
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You STILL don't get it???
I'm far more likely to believe the WSJ than VF.
Rap, you shouldn't believe anything, and if you do.... that's your first and biggest mistake, and the reason why most here think you're 12 oz short of a six-pack.
Most here have a fiber or two of intellectual muscle and actually check out various postings. I didn't "believe" the article, I cross checked it by looking at other sources, and the facts of the article turned out to be widely documented. And this isn't the first time I've heard of Monsanto shaking down non-customers, suppressing scientific studies of their products etc. As a chemist by trade I read "general" scientific journals like Science and Nature as well as trade journals like Chemical & Engineering News (which BTW represent industry quite well) and the same trend has shown up over the years in technical journals.
I haven't found any reason to doubt the article. So I challenge you YET AGAIN to come up with a solid piece of evidence to show that the article is false on its face, or false in its implications. And since you haven't, you're either a mental midget who is incapable of doing any research whatsoever, or you DID the research and are just whinging because it didn't pan out for you.
Go do your homework Rap instead of blowing go-se all over the board. You dishonor yourself and the people here. You're delusional and dishonest even with yourself, and as a consequence you add nothing to a conversation. So until you manage to bring some facts to the table, I'm not trouble myself to discuss this with your further.
BTW- How's that economy going? ON FIRE! Right?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME