Seattle becomes 11th city to boycott Arizona

spike said:
What do you think they've misunderstood?

I do remember when you misunderstood the law and thought you had to commit some offense to be asked to prove your legal status.
Click to expand...


I do find it amusing .... the federal gov't had no jurisdiction to pass a law making health insurance mandatory, but they did it anyone and some people thought that was a good thing. A state has no jurisdiction to pass a law violating the right to privacy ... and some people think it's a good thing. Because those people want what that law offers, they ignore that neither body was entitled to pass that law in the first place. And that's a bad thing ... and you blind yourselves to that and whine over trivialities as all levels of gov't creates precedent after precedent to use in court to whittle away your rights.
 
catocom said:
yep, it's work.
My hobby is messing with computers though, so I tend to see a bit of
gold floating around. ;)
Click to expand...
My job involves network devices (installation and configuration), servers and anything in between for VOIP Telephony solutions, including voice over WLAN.
 
I thought that government contracts were filled by a "lowest bidder" type approach where the company willing to complete the work to a satisfactory level for the least amount of money was awarded the contract.

I thought it was blatantly illegal to award government contracts based off of personal opinions.

Here in Jersey, it seems like every year they bust some mayor who was giving contracts to his buddies and his campaign contributors, even though other contractors submitted better bids. It's called "Pay to Play", and I'm pretty sure it is against the law.

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like a completely illegal action for Seattle to take. They cannot decide who to award contracts based off of the personal opinions of the legislators, but instead must award contracts in an unbiased matter. They cannot legally say "Well, this contractor has offered us the best proposal, but he is from a state that we don't like, so we will give the contract to someone else". It happens all the time in NJ, and every time the person gets caught, they are removed from office and arrested for corruption.

Also, spike, can you do me a favor and take a gander of the United States Constitution, Article Four, Section Two? Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it completely unconsitutional for any state or municipality to boycott another state?
 
Altron said:
I thought that government contracts were filled by a "lowest bidder" type approach where the company willing to complete the work to a satisfactory level for the least amount of money was awarded the contract.

I thought it was blatantly illegal to award government contracts based off of personal opinions.
Click to expand...

This isn't someone's personal opinion this is a resolution voted on by the city council to avoid business with a state encouraging rights violations. Similar to how the US boycotts other countries.

This isn't a pay to play. There's no pay.

Also, spike, can you do me a favor and take a gander of the United States Constitution, Article Four, Section Two? Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it completely unconsitutional for any state or municipality to boycott another state?
Click to expand...

I don't see anything in there preventing city councils from voting for boycotts.
 
Obviously, the situation of "pay to play" is referencing a mayor or governor giving unfair bias towards a particular contractor.

However, a city council giving unfair bias against a particular contractor is the same violation.

The Constitution is pretty clear in that it specifies certain policies that can occur between states. I don't know it offhand (And this is a quick reply because I am leaving for work in like 5 minutes), but I believe it prohibits things such as trade embargos or tarriffs or anything like that.

They can sign all the stupid symbolic gestures they want, but they don't have the constitutional authority to boycott another state.

The US boycotting other countries is in no way similar. The US is its own entity. There are treaties between the US and other states, and there are international regulations such as the Geneva Convention, but there is nothing like a Constitution.

One of the major roles of the Constitution was to prevent inter-state strife. It gave the federal government the ability to do certain things, and it also specified how states are no longer sovereign entities, and not able to fight with each other.
 
Altron said:
Obviously, the situation of "pay to play" is referencing a mayor or governor giving unfair bias towards a particular contractor.

However, a city council giving unfair bias against a particular contractor is the same violation.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. A city council can certainly vote to boycott an entity for ethical reasons. If a company had a horrendous environmental record or a history of corruption the city council can vote to boycott them. In this case a state s encouraging rights violations, so they are boycotted.

The Constitution is pretty clear in that it specifies certain policies that can occur between states. I don't know it offhand (And this is a quick reply because I am leaving for work in like 5 minutes), but I believe it prohibits things such as trade embargos or tarriffs or anything like that.
Click to expand...

I'll wait until you can find the part that prohibits a city council from boycotting an entity for encouraging rights violations.
 
Altron said:
I thought that government contracts were filled by a "lowest bidder" type approach where the company willing to complete the work to a satisfactory level for the least amount of money was awarded the contract.

I thought it was blatantly illegal to award government contracts based off of personal opinions.

Here in Jersey, it seems like every year they bust some mayor who was giving contracts to his buddies and his campaign contributors, even though other contractors submitted better bids. It's called "Pay to Play", and I'm pretty sure it is against the law.

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like a completely illegal action for Seattle to take. They cannot decide who to award contracts based off of the personal opinions of the legislators, but instead must award contracts in an unbiased matter. They cannot legally say "Well, this contractor has offered us the best proposal, but he is from a state that we don't like, so we will give the contract to someone else". It happens all the time in NJ, and every time the person gets caught, they are removed from office and arrested for corruption.

Also, spike, can you do me a favor and take a gander of the United States Constitution, Article Four, Section Two? Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it completely unconsitutional for any state or municipality to boycott another state?
Click to expand...
The boycott is legal. South Africa was boycotted when they had an Apartheid government.
 
valkyrie said:
The boycott is legal. South Africa was boycotted when they had an Apartheid government.
Click to expand...

Is South Africa a state? Did South Africa ratify the US Constitution?

The US can place trade embargoes on whichever countries it damn well pleases. But individual states cannot place trade embargoes on other states. Any sort of tarriff or embargo on interstate commerce placed by one state upon another is prohibited by the Constitution.
 
Altron said:
The US can place trade embargoes on whichever countries it damn well pleases. But individual states cannot place trade embargoes on other states. Any sort of tarriff or embargo on interstate commerce placed by one state upon another is prohibited by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution is a city council prohibited from boycotting anything?
 
Altron said:
Is South Africa a state? Did South Africa ratify the US Constitution?

The US can place trade embargoes on whichever countries it damn well pleases. But individual states cannot place trade embargoes on other states. Any sort of tarriff or embargo on interstate commerce placed by one state upon another is prohibited by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
An embargo is not a boycott. A boycott is not an embargo. There are subtle differences.
Embargo:
1. A government order prohibiting the movement of merchant ships into or out of its ports.
2. A prohibition by a government on certain or all trade with a foreign nation.​

Boycott: a group's refusal to have commercial dealings with some organization in protest against its policies.

For example. I have the right to boycott strawberries imported from California. I do not have the right to place an embargo preventing the free trade of strawberries imported from California. Do you see the difference?
 
spike said:
No, it's not. A city council can certainly vote to boycott an entity for ethical reasons.
Click to expand...

Article 1 Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Click to expand...
 
Well that section says "No state" not "No city" and a boycott is not a "Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts".

If the city has existing contracts with Arizona they should certainly fulfill any obligations. A boycott would not nullify those obligations.

So it appears there is nothing preventing a city from boycotting an entity for encouraging rights violations.
 
The city council has a responsibility to its constituents to make sure that any government work is contracted out to the contractor able to do the best work for the lowest price, regardless of personal bias. To not do so is corruption.

If the city council was a private company, then sure, it could do whatever it wants. But it's a publically elected governing body. It cannot represent the personal bias of the representitives against the residents of a particular state. It's a huge rights violation, namely "equal protection".

Seattle's City Council does not give Arizona residents equal protection under the law. It's discrimination. It's corruption. It's unconstitutional.
 
some prefer to figure things out, some prefer to kneejerk and go marching. seems like the former is in the minority here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top