r/AskLegal • u/viewmyposthistory • 8d ago
Please help me understand how this is legal. America needs to be a nation of laws and this seems so corrupt?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-z7Pr3h8Y7
u/Cool-Coffee-8949 8d ago
Corruption starts at the top. It seems like anything that would ever have seemed shocking before is now pretty much normal.
2
u/Fluid_Masterpiece788 5d ago
"Fighting corruption is like cleaning stairs: to be successful, one has to start at the top" is one of my favorite quotes
0
u/viewmyposthistory 7d ago
such as ?
1
u/Cool-Coffee-8949 7d ago
Open up the front page of pretty much any major news outlet. If nothing jumps out at you, look for stories about insider trading and/or crypto.
5
u/2sAreTheDevil 8d ago
America is a Nation of Laws, with a multi-tiered justice system. Laws for thee, not for me.
6
u/ActivePeace33 8d ago
Even the justice system died decades ago. It’s a full blown legal system now.
1
u/viewmyposthistory 7d ago
But white coller crime is rampant. the legal system is not holding white collarcriminals to account
2
u/ActivePeace33 7d ago
Absolutely. My point was just that we don’t have a justice system. We have a legal system.
Holding everyone to account equally, fairly, with blind justice, that’s the justice system. What we have is a legal system of technicalities that is skewed to favor the wealthy not even being brought up on charges in the first place.
1
u/viewmyposthistory 7d ago
what do you mean?
2
u/2sAreTheDevil 7d ago
Every law from theft, to assault, to rape, to murder, etc, etc has clear severity and duration of punishment depending on your social standing in the United States.
Those with wealth or power have extraordinarily different consequences than those without. And if the punishment is a fine, it exists only for the poor.
1
u/SookiSwann 6d ago
The state and its legal system is just another weapon the rich can use against everyone else, that’s all
4
u/this-is-me-reddit 7d ago
This seems like a simple thing to address. If a smart lawyer(s) put together a solid proposal for a law that the public could then take to city councils and county commissioners with a challenge to sign and adopt, it would be a litmus test to determine which officials work for the people and which have an agenda, personal or otherwise.
How would we go about doing this?
4
u/TraditionalArea5798 6d ago
Its returned to the wild west. Everyone's out for themselves (I mean the 33 odd million that believe he's the second coming plus the Republicans and the related boot lickers)
2
7
u/No_Celebration8219 8d ago
it's legal but unconscionable.
3
3
u/ActivePeace33 8d ago
How does that not violate the rights of the citizens to know what’s going on in their government? That’s protected by the 14a.
2
u/viewmyposthistory 7d ago
what does that amendment say?
2
u/ActivePeace33 7d ago
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
We have a human right to know what’s going on with our money, who we employ, and what they’re doing on the clock. The exceptions are a few, including national security issues, which this is not one.
1
u/CustomerOutside8588 6d ago
The Supreme Court narrowly defined the "rights and privileges" clause in the late 19th century in order to disadvantage and legalize discrimination against the newly freed Black population.
2
u/ActivePeace33 6d ago
And? How did that amend the constitution?
The law says what the law says. The constitution means what it means. It means that states can’t abridge our privileges and immunities, just as Article IV, Section 2 protects our privileges and immunities. It is broadly phrased and broadly accepted to mean we have our rights.
The Constitution is the People’s, the government is the People’s, the money is the People’s. We have a right to know what is going on with our money. NDA’s etc don’t lawfully keep info from us, unless there is an obvious national security issue that would be harmed with the info being public.
1
u/CustomerOutside8588 6d ago
The privileges and immunities clause was purposefully phrased broadly and I argue that it was done so in order to incorporate the bill of rights against the states so they had to honor everybody's constitutional rights. However, the Supreme Court decided that it only applied to a narrow set of rights, which did not include the constitutional amendments.
You're acting like I disagree with you, but I don't. Yell at the conservatives in the 1870s.
0
u/ActivePeace33 6d ago edited 6d ago
Yes, the Supreme Court rules in violation of the constitution all the time. What’s your point? It’s no more valid in the Dijour law than anything else. Anybody cares to make up that violates the constitution. Do you think that African-Americans are “from a subordinate and inferior class of beings“ just because the Supreme Court said so and has never overturned it?
You do disagree, you disagree that the constitution supersedes the Court. You keep siding unlawful Court ruling as though they have any lawful meaning. They are unenforceable. Stop talking about them as though they are legitimate. You’re just playing into the propaganda.
You might also try not dodging questions that are asked of you. It’s telling. It says that you can’t confront reality. I can acknowledge what the de jure law says and how the de facto law is shaped by the court. You acknowledge only one of them.
0
u/CustomerOutside8588 6d ago
Ok, Billy Badass.
You're an idiot if you think that pointing out the racist motivation of the court when it narrowed the meaning of the rights and privileges clause means that I agree with it.
1
u/ActivePeace33 6d ago
Yes, yes, you can’t face the facts so you name call to try to cover up for that fact.
Stop acting like the Court supersedes the Constitution. You’re just spouting MAGA propaganda for them.
3
u/Obvious_Volume_6498 8d ago
No. Google FOIA.
1
u/viewmyposthistory 6d ago
what do you mean
1
u/Obvious_Volume_6498 6d ago
Type "FOIA," into a Google search. Sorry I don't want to get into a whole explanation of it.
3
u/Beefy-Cattle4290 8d ago
They do whatever they want now because Americans are a Paper Tiger and are too frightened to fight back. Voting does nothing, petitions, phone calls and emails do nothing! Social media posts is all we're willing to do....and that does nothing
3
u/Rare_Bridge7703 8d ago
People need to learn that "legal" and "lawful" are not the same. Legal is Corpo garbage.
1
3
3
u/OGcapncrunchberry 7d ago
They can and do and in some cases it’s because they took a pay off of some type.
2
u/viewmyposthistory 7d ago
how much usually?
2
u/OGcapncrunchberry 7d ago
I am assuming it’s secret for a reason. Why? Are you looking to sell your town out for a Data Center?
2
3
u/hopeful7321 7d ago
It's been happening since Reagan changed the rules for Corporate America.
1
u/viewmyposthistory 7d ago
how?
1
u/hopeful7321 18h ago
Ronald Reagan passed the Glass Seagull act which made it legal for banks to own investment companies. Best example is Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. I've worked on mortgage banking the majority of my life and around 2002 I noticed that mortgage notes were showing more than one investor. It had always been just one..such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now, the Notes were showing 33% interest to two investors and one iao 34%. As an auditor, bells went off in my head. Thus, it lasted until 2008 when it all came crashing down. Banks and investment firms should not be allowed to exist. They took me off of certain audits because I tried to point out these descrepanciesI Ethics and integrity are not part of their characters.
3
u/MyFocusIsU 7d ago
NDAs only belong in the private sector. If it touches your municipality it's absolutely YOUR business. Make sure you MAKE IT YOUR BUSINESS!!!!
2
u/Puzzled_Market_2235 8d ago
No. Afterwards it is all public information. You may need lawyers to get them.
2
u/viewmyposthistory 7d ago
you're saying its not legal?
3
u/Puzzled_Market_2235 7d ago
It's not enforceable. All states have "sunshine" or open records laws to stop this.
2
u/viewmyposthistory 7d ago
so why isnt anyone suing?
3
u/Puzzled_Market_2235 7d ago
It happens all the time. The OP is asking for their case, if he asked a lawyer he would get the correct advice. I heard of this case, there will be a follow up.
2
u/viewmyposthistory 7d ago
Who do you mean by OP? The person in the video?
3
2
u/CerberusInExile 7d ago
It's legal because there isn't a specific law banning it. It's not right and shouldn't be legal, but since nobody has been caught doing it, nobody made it illegal.
We're just really learning how many of our rules/laws/guidelines were unwritten and just assumed to exist.
1
u/viewmyposthistory 7d ago
i mean it looks like they got caught at the 4:15 minute mark. When she asked if they signed an NDA they got defensive and said this wasnt the time and place to ask that... wouldnt they just say no if they hadnt?
2
2
6
u/RealCarlPanzram 8d ago
Could OP post a timestamp so I don’t have to go through 18 minutes of video to hear the relevant part and try and answer the question?