Re: OK, Neirpoint...

In article <1145435349.221652.122900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
starcade@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
David M. Nieporent wrote:

They're not contradictory in the slightest. That you think they are just
further evinces your lack of understanding. There is a law against smoking
marijuana. You are legally required to abide by it -- that is, not to
smoke marijuana. I am legally required to abide by it -- that is, not to
smoke marijuana. But I am not legally required to call the police if I
suspect that you're smoking marijuana.

Why not???

Well, the legal answer is because no law requires me to do so.

The moral answer is because only totalitarian states require one to inform
on one's neighbors.

[Snip irrelevant discourse about medical marijuana]

If you witness a crime and do not report it, there can be legal
ramifications, especially if you are in a supervisory position and harm
comes from the crime you failed in your duty to report.

Leaving aside that I doubt Bud Selig witnessed any crime at all -- I doubt
he hangs out in the bathroom stalls in the locker room or in the private
homes of ballplayers -- a nebulous comment about "legal ramifications" is
too vague to respond to; you're just throwing random arguments out there,
desperately hoping that if you reword your incorrect claims enough, you'll
exhaust my interest in refuting them. There is no criminal liability for
failing to report that you suspect someone is guilty of illegally using
steroids.

Your employer is not legally
required to fire you from your job if he suspects you're smoking marijuana.

Then the employer is in violation of the law (and, I would assert, even
the contract he had you sign when you took employment).

This is completely wrong. The employer is not in violation of any law or
any contract in the scenario I described.

You also have no understanding of "at will" employment either.

Not only are you wrong, but we're not talking about at will employment.
That's the whole problem here: you don't grasp that there's a contract in
place.


And, if I've contracted with you to do a job, I can't breach it because I
suspect you're smoking marijuana.

That, to me, shows your stupidity, unless you're actually willing to
explain that one to your insurance company if my (hypothetical) use of
marijuana creates a claim with said company.
Come on; you should be smarter than that!

I think my insurance company already understands the concept of breach of
contract. If you'd like to take lessons in it, my hourly fee is $245/hour.

2) When you sign a contract, you're required to live up to it.

Not if the contract is illegal. Have you ever read about a
severability clause?

Yes, of course. I write them all the time. As with most legal
terminology you use, that phrase doesn't mean what you apparently
think it does, though.

It simply means that some of the contract can be removed and the rest
left alone.

Yes -- but it's a provision that _must be negotiated into the contract by
the parties._ It's not something automatic about a contract.

And in any case, the contract isn't "illegal." Last I checked, playing
baseball was legal in the United States.

... provided that the players act in a legal manner in doing so.

That a person breaks the law does not make contracts he entered into
"illegal." Whether a contract is described as illegal depends on the terms
of the contract.

(as well as the owners and other officials administrating it properly,
but I digress)

If the contract had a provision
stating that players agreed to use steroids in exchange for a sum of money,
_that_ would be illegal.

Why not?

Why not what?

In your world, you've already accepted roids as a price of
admission to the game.

Testing showed about 5% of players using banned substances. I guess about
95% of players managed to get admitted to the game without them.


The players have a *contract* with Major League Baseball. (Well, the
union does; the players have contracts with individual teams that
incorporate the terms of the contract with MLB.) Bud Selig is not god.
He's not above the law. He's just an employee of MLB. He has no power
to abrogate the contract that has been signed.

He then has ZERO power, especially in the cases where the contract
contradicts Federal Law.

The contract doesn't contradict federal law.

The apparent inability of the Commissioner to police violations of it
does.

False. No federal law requires the Commissioner to police steroid use.
There is no contradiction of federal law.


Worse, Congress has no power to step in.

That's completely wrong and doesn't follow in the slightest bit from the
discussion we're having. That the commissioner doesn't have power does not
mean Congress does not have power. The commissioner's power is purely
contractual; Congress's power is legislative.

Wrong. You (or one of the other apologists) asserted that the power of
the contract overrides the Federal laws against steroid use --

False. You misunderstood. Nobody said that. What we're trying to explain
to you is that the power of the contract _limits what the commissioner can
do about it._

at least
vis-a-vis baseball. How can Congress legally step in unless it wants
to run afoul of the NLRB in court, under that assumption?

The NLRA governs relationships between employer and union. It has nothing
to do with Congress.


Worse still, the players' union could go to court and say the entire
steroid policy is the fruit of an illegal tree (force by Congress
outside THEIR bounds).

That is complete gibberish. Those are all English words, and they're
basically used in order to construct grammatical sentences, but the content
makes no sense.

Why not? You do understand "fruit of an illegal tree", do you not?

Actually, no. The phrase you're looking for is "fruit of the poisonous
tree," but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this context. It's the
doctrine that says that if police conduct a search in violation of the
fourth amendment, any evidence later developed as a result of that search
is inadmissible


If I were to take your stand in the steroid fight, I would be wanting
Don Fehr to do the following:

1) The steroid investigation (itself, not just Selig acting upon its
results) is illegal, as it oversteps the bounds of the Commissioner
with respect to the CBA. It uses evidence from beyond what baseball
has legislated with respect to steroids, and hence has no force of law.

2) The entire steroid policy is _now_ illegal, since it was negotiated
under duress from an entity with no legal right to step in and
invalidate a collective bargaining agreement (talking Congress here).

Neither of which argument makes sense. You confuse "illegal" with
"violation of contract" left and right, and you misunderstand the powers of
Congress.

Saying that "the steroid investigation is illegal" simply illustrates
another one of your problems: your tendency to make incorrect sweeping
statements when more specific ones might be right. What is an
"investigation"? It could consist of asking questions, or conducting
searches of private property, including urine or blood tests. The
commissioner can ask questions. The question is what he can do if people
don't answer. If they're major league players, the answer is nothing. If
they're minor leaguers, coaches, managers, or team executives, then he can
punish them. The commissioner can request that people consent to searches.
The question is what he can do if people don't consent. If we're talking
about major leaguers, the answer is that he can do what the collective
bargaining agreement says. If we're talking about minor leaguers, coaches,
etc. then he has more power.

Assuming he had good reason to suspect that a player or players were
breaking the law, he could report it to law enforcement, but he (a) was
not obligated to report it, and (b) could not "enforce" the law by
cancelling the contract.

Then he has no power to administrate the game.

Of course he does. He just can't use it in ways that constitute breach
of contract.

Then he has no power to administrate the game.

Of course he does. He just can't use it in ways that constitute breach of
contract.

You asked earlier
whether I felt the Commissioner was a dictator. Perhaps you need to
read your baseball history and know that was the only way the office
was even CONSTRUCTED.

Actually, I don't think I asked whether you felt that; I pointed out that
you seemed to feel that, but that it was wrong. This isn't 1920.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OK, Neirpoint...
    ... There is a law against smoking ... smoke marijuana. ... It simply means that some of the contract can be removed and the rest ... the contract overrides the Federal laws against steroid use -- at least ...
    (rec.sport.baseball)
  • Re: ok, lets clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
    ... >> breech a contract or certain term of a contract. ... > "valid and legal" reasons to void Microsoft's EULA. ... court of law, then I will. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Licencing (Quite Long)
    ... Kurttrail seem, to be bound and determined not to be influenced by ... > share your opinions must not have read the law, ... The buyer goes to an agent, ... UCC in the event the contract is silent; yet so far as we are aware no ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: OK, Neirpoint...
    ... the legal answer is because no law requires me to do so. ... the contract he had you sign when you took employment). ... Who was the biggest bitching in Congress for baseball's ... No federal law requires the Commissioner to police steroid use. ...
    (rec.sport.baseball)
  • Re: ok, lets clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
    ... > Your "integrity" tells you that it's fine to renege upon an agreement ... No, contract law. ... a contract or certain term of a contract. ... reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)