You seem to think these items are disconnected.

The company is responsible to its owners only.

If it is in the best interest of the shareholders to piss off the customers then that's what they should do.

It is more likely that it's in the best interest of the shareholders to do as you suggest, have happy employees, happy customers and a product/service with which they can be proud.

As an investor I will put my money in those companies that give me the greatest return. Just because a company's sole focus is profit doesn't mean they shouldn't be a "good" company. The bigger question is not for the shareholders but for the customers. Why would customers continue to generate profits for the shareholders if it doesn't provide them with something they value or see as a fair trade for their dollars?

It covers the four contraceptives to which Hobby Lobby objected. Those four contraceptives may have the ability to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus and, thus, Hobby Lobby's objection. Hobby Lobby had no objection to the other 16 contraceptives in the mandate and, in fact, had a long-standing practice of providing those contraceptives.

It is so unnecessary to drag out Citizen's United corporations are people too argument.

TItle 1 of the U.S. Code states:

This case rested on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, an Act of Congress. Congress chose not to redefine persons to exclude corporations.

So, your belief is that the Bill of Rights is a list of rights granted to the people by the government? What does the preamble say to you?

The reason I left the "right to bear arms" in there is because of the structure of the sentence that says, "the right of the people...". I could have also listed just the, "shall not be infringed" part and retained the meaning.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how the U.S. Constitution is constructed from your perspective and how the language used in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the 9th and 10th amendments and the other articles of the Constitution reconcile with its purpose.

There's no doubt the U.S. Constitution has been hijacked by the national government. This was enabled by a re-definition of "commerce" in the 1930s. A really good example of how the Constitution was viewed before this re-definition is the language used in the 18th amendment creating prohibition.

Notice that the people, through the states, are granting a brand new power to the national government. The states were very careful in how they granted this new power to the government.

Now compare that amendment to the proposed equal rights amendment:

This amendment is restricting the power of the national government and the states. Those restrictions already existed. The language, on the other hand, shows the, in my opinion, disastrous evolution of thought from limited government with power coming from the people to one where the national government is strong and grants or denies rights to the people.

Because the Bill of Rights, as written, is not a list of rights granted but, rather, a list of prohibitions on the new government.

There was a huge debate about listing any rights because it was thought that no list could be complete. The preamble to the Bill of Rights identifies why it exists:

Notice the important statement, "...further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."

"Congress shall make no law..."
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"No soldier shall..."
"...shall not be violated..."

These are all prohibitions on the newly formed government. A compromise was reached that required the inclusion of the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This compromise is why all "retained" rights aren't listed and what allowed any rights to be listed; many who were negotiating the Bill of Rights were rightly fearful that the list would be seen as a "full" list of rights of the people.

The U.S. Constitution, as designed, granted powers from the people to the government. The compromise found within the Bill of Rights essentially listed a number of prohibitions so the new government absolutely knew that they could in no way interfere with this core set of rights.

Unfortunately, we've reached a point where many people believe that the U.S. Constitution confers rights from the government to the citizens rather than it's original purpose of conferring powers to the government from the people.

Yes, the cop can arrest you for anything he wants. That doesn't make it a lawful arrest.

The cop can ask you to leave but that doesn't make it a lawful order.

Sitting in a legally parked car would make it very difficult, under otherwise normal circumstances, for a police officer to issue a lawful order to leave.

See: Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham. This was a 1965 case that found, generally, that a police officer's order to "move on" had to be related to another function and made legal as it related to that other function; i.e., the officer is directing traffic and you're interfering with that traffic or, as an example, you are blocking pedestrian traffic on a sidewalk.

Otherwise, as the Supreme Court said, "...the literal terms of this ordinance are so broad as to evoke constitutional doubts of the utmost gravity." When addressing an ordinance that stated that it is "unlawful for any person to stand or loiter upon any street or sidewalk...after having been requested by any police officer to move on," the Supreme Court said, "The constitutional vice of so broad a provision needs no demonstration. It 'does not provide for government by clearly defined laws, but rather for government by the moment-to-moment opinions of a policeman on his beat."

Voluntarily giving personal rights over to police powers aids the continual erosion of those rights.

Well, my answer to the question would be, "None of your business," or, "I don't want to answer your questions," or, "Please leave me alone."

It's a crime to lie to a federal agent. It is rare that it's a crime to lie to a non-federal law enforcement officer. It's no crime to remain silent or refuse to answer questions.

I agree that San Francisco will do whatever they can to shut down any market with which they disapprove.

Freedom can often be abused. That's why it's, well, 'Merica.

Loitering is rarely illegal and anti-loitering statutes have been ruled unconstitutional.

Unless you are loitering with the clear intent to commit a crime you are pretty much free to hang out on any street, as Souter said, "...just to watch cars go by."

The Archivist of the United States testified yesterday that the IRS did not follow the law as it relates to the Federal Records Act.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/us-archivist-tells-oversight-committee-the-irs-did-not-follo

Is not following the law the same as breaking it?

Everyone else appears ready to accept that those emails were official records requiring preservation.

Demonstrate or provide your own citation.

I never cited malice and I don't care what reason the emails are missing. An email is more likely than not an official record. You certainly can't prove what you're attempting to state; how do you know official records aren't amongst the missing emails?

The IRS is required by law to preserve their official records. The law doesn't say, "Well, only if you're competent, or it's convenient, or you have the budget for it."

The IRS has certified that they retain their official records.

Unless you can demonstrate that there are no official records in the missing emails then, yes, the IRS has failed to preserve their records as required by law.

You may want to argue that it was incompetence that caused them to violate the law. Others may want to argue that it was malice. What is not arguable is that the IRS and its employee, Lois Lerner, failed to adhere to the requirements of the Federal Records Act.

Poor Ms. Woods tried to argue that it was an "accident" that 18 minutes of tapes were erased. This is the reason the Federal Records Act and its associated certifications exist.

Perhaps you would like to argue that it's mere coincidence combined with incompetence that caused similar disk crashes and email destruction to occur to six other employees closely associated with this issue.

At some point one has to look at the bigger picture. Through negligence, malfeasance, incompetence or evil conspiracy, important evidence related to an abuse by the IRS against citizens of the United States is missing. The more evidence that goes missing and the more sources of evidence that disappear the more like a conspiracy it looks than mere incompetence.

You are free to draw your own conclusion related to the facts but this particular thread started because you seemed to be find it incredulous that the IRS had a policy of printing their emails for preservation. Now that that belief has been shattered you still cling to some hope that even though official records were destroyed, by whatever means, continued investigation is just a GOP stunt.

Again, I've already shown you documentation from the government indicating that the IRS email system is not a recordkeeping system according to the Federal Records Act and its associated regulations.

I've also shown you the letter from the Department of the Treasury indicating that Lois Lerner was required to print any email that is an official record; which are almost all emails that are work related.

You can continue to attempt to obfuscate the issue but the facts remain: Lois Lerner and a bunch of other people associated with this issue failed to preserve official records as required by IRS policy and federal law. The IRS failed to preserve records even though they certified their systems would preserve those records.

Stop trying to project your corporate IT mentality onto systems managed by federal agencies. Watergate and 18 missing minutes helped shape the requirements found in the federal records act for good reason.

These emails were official records. Being official records they had to be maintained in an official recordkeeping system. The IRS email system is not an electronic recordkeeping system, by definition. Lois Lerner's hard drive was not an electronic recordkeeping system, by definition. The IRS official recordkeeping system for email is, by evidence of the letter I've already cited, hard copy print outs of the email.

Are you purposefully being obtuse?

Here is the full definition of a Federal record from the Federal Records Act:

"...all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine-readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the U.S. Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of the data in them." (44 U.S.C. 3301, Definition of Records)

Any email that went to the White House concerning the business of the IRS is, by definition, an official record requiring preservation.

Any email that constituted a decision making process, procedures or operations is, by definition, an official record requiring preservation.

Perhaps you would care to actually identify a class of emails that pertain to auditing, evaluation of applications for tax-exempt status, procedures to follow when processing such applications or emails that discuss IRS business between the White House and the IRS that would not be official records. Until you can accurately define such a class of emails then it is safe to say that the emails were official records requiring preservation.

As I showed you in the letter from the Department of the Treasury, Lois Lerner was required to physically print those emails and store them. The IRS's failure to properly preserve those records was a violation of law. Lois Lerner's failure to preserve those records was, at least, a violation of IRS policy.

The FDA regulates "drugs" under the very thorough Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Drugs, food and cosmetics that come under the jurisdiction of the act are quite well defined, as well as what and how the FDA is to regulate them. The statute doesn't say, "The FDA should regulate drugs." The statute defines what is a drug, what conditions a drug must meet in order to be regulated and how it is to be regulated. What causes any particular drug to be regulated is that it meets the definition and conditions that Congress established.

A good example is the definition of catfish, found within the act, "the term 'catfish' may only be considered to be a common or usual name (or part therof) for fish classified within the family Ictaluridae;..." No other fish can be regulated as a catfish.

The term "drug" means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C).

Furthermore the act goes on to state that the drugs have to be involved in interstate commerce.

So, while the statute doesn't list every drug that is regulated by the FDA, the statute gives a very clear definition of what a drug is and gives authority to the FDA to regulate it. But, what can be regulated is also very well defined. The statute lays out very specific prohibited acts that the FDA is supposed to regulate; these acts include: adulteration or misbranding, receipt of adulterated or misbranded drugs, false guarantees of what the drug does, forging, counterfeiting and a host of other items.

Even though the act doesn't list all approved drugs it does identify what list is to be recognized by the FDA, e.g. United States Pharmacopoeia.

The act was originally passed in the late 1940s and has been amended many times. Without the act the FDA wouldn't be permitted to regulate food, drugs or cosmetics. If the item doesn't fit the definition of a food, drug or cosmetic as outlined in the act then the FDA isn't permitted to regulate it. If the action isn't prohibited by the act then the FDA isn't permitted to regulate the action.

I would never argue that "drugs" as defined under statute is too broad and not specific enough because the act gives the lists from which "drugs" is to be taken. Why do you think the FDA is unable to regulate the late-night snake-oil infomercials? Could it be because those items don't meet the definition of drugs as laid out by the act? Or is it because the actions aren't prohibited? I think a layman watching the commercials would think that drugs were being advertised and they would be wrong.

Actually, it is Congress' obligation to be extremely specific in the laws they write. The nondelegation doctrine is an important concept in American jurisprudence.

J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States helped establish the rules under which power can be delegated, essentially stating that Congress has to establish an "intelligible standard" for the executive or legislative branch.

Congress can't simply tell the executive branch, "Hey, you guys control pollution so we can have a clear sky." Congress has to establish an intelligible standard upon which an administrative agency can build regulations AND Congress has to grant the power to the agency to establish those rules. Typical statutes might read, "...xxx agency is empowered to institute regulations in support of this statute."

The function of the executive agency was not to create rules but, rather, to faithfully enforce the laws of the United States. The fact that Congress has found numerous ways in order to delegate its power to the executive agency doesn't change the fundamental design of the system. This delegation of power is what's lead everyone to believe the executive branch holds more power than it really does.

The most unfortunate thing about Congress' abdication of power to the executive branch using so many specific delegations is that we've created a situation in aggregate where the executive has an almost blanket delegation of Congressional power; a delegation that would be unconstitutional if granted via a single Congressional action.