Wouldn't the UCC apply to, you know, commerce?

Because they want to search people on such flimsy evidence that they wouldn't even be able to get a subpoena approved?

The purpose of the UCC is to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; and to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties. UCC Art. 1 § 1-102.

Not really true. Intent does not factor into whether or not a contract is legally enforceable, in the face of an unambiguous document. What we look for to determine a contract's enforceability is whether a promise and exchange has been made and agreed to on the basis of negotiation (a) in good faith; (b) diligence; (c) reasonableness; and (d) care.

It is presumed that the parties who enter into a contractual relationship are aware of their obligations to the other, and that the operate in their own best self-interest (at "arms length"). Absent fraud, duress, or some sort of unlawful exchange prohibited by law, the contract will stand.

No, all that is necessary is consideration based on either a benefit conferred to the promissee or a detriment to the promissor - not both. It doesn't matter what that benfit or detriment is, as long as it is alienable or transferable.

i don't know how you drew this conclusion, as the basis for most commercial contracts is the bargained for exchange of goods or services in return for money.

I'm not sure how the 7th Amendment is relevant in the present case. This is a 4th and 5th Amendment issue.

I'm still not sure what this has to do with unreasonable search and seizure or due process. Even if it does, I'm not sure how you have drawn the conclusion that the 7th Amendment does not apply anymore. If I'm missing something (which is entirely possible), could you clarify or provide some authority to that effect?

yeah, I think I'm even more lost now^^

I got your (Monastrell's) intitial points about how changing jurisdictions can affect how your rights are adjudicated, which is relevant if we're talking about the potential for using administrative subpoenas in closed-door tribunals. But I think maybe UCC 1-207 does something different from what you're thinking--it allows a party to a contract for sale of goods to write an explicit reservation of rights into the contract. I can't figure out how it's related, but maybe I'm just being a little dense (?)

[Edited on May 25, 2005 by nonbillable]

Okay, I don't know what tortured path you're taking from UCC 1-207 to the FBI's wish to write subpoenas at their whim. Please, explicate, not pontificate.

yowza, this is a wordy and complex thread. i think CE should start offering correspondence courses in civics and government.

on the subject:

it seems there is a distinct point when anti-government paranoia begins to look justified. as nonbillable and Kieth noted, the lack of true gains in efficiency that this would achieve makes it all the more frightening and dangerous. what do they need to do, exactly?

Transparency in 2008

[Edited on May 25, 2005 by rottenart]

I don't know; I still don't get what you are saying at all. Are you saying that UCC 1-207 is the only way one can make sure that his right to contract is preserved? If that's what you are saying, I don't agree. Can you please provide a source which justifies this position?


[Edited on May 25, 2005 by dead_ringer]

I guess I meant an authority which echos your assertion, not a private property rights website. I've got a copy of the UCC. I'm looking for something official like a court decision, or a state or federal statute.

Oh, I know. I just haven't come across anything which states that the UCC provision is either necessary nor sufficient to do what you claim. I've come across a couple of decision which state that invoking the UCC is not dispositive of anything; it is merely evidence of intent in the face of an ambiguous agreement, or where one party has an understanding radically different than the other party.

Again, I don't agree. I've come across nothing supporting this assertion. There are, however, literally thousands of state and federal court cases which utilize state common law to determine the outcome of contract disputes. In some of them, section 1-207 is invoked. I don't want to make a big thing of this, but I'm just trying to understand the your point, and without any authority supporting it, I am having a hard time doing that. Oh, and I'm pretty sure the UCC does not apply to employment contracts in some jurisdictions.

Really bad idea. With all the hysteria with the Patriot Act, critics always seem to ignore that sneak-and-peek searches required warrants. Not requiring warrants would put the FBI in charge of itself for searches, which given its record on other things in the past like Waco and sloppy crime lab work, isn't very comforting. Not to mention it violates the 4th amendment.

I...I...I don't know what to say.

Now that we all seem to be opposed to this (I don't think anyone came out in favor) can I ask the question "Who, besides the FBI, wants this to happen?" I can't really imagine a constituency that would publicly support this sort of thing.

Wow, lambs lying down with lions.

I am thoroughly opposed to anything that smacks of federal gun registration. There is no need for that. The only reason the Brady Bill ever passed was that records of Brady checks were required to be destroyed. If it weren't for that provision the vote wouldn't have been close.

What we don't need in the way of spying or tracking citizens, we shouldn't have. We don't need national ID cards. We don't need national firearms registration. We don't need federal databases that track travel via air. I agree strongly with John Gilmore that we shouldn't even need identification to travel by air given that passengers are now subject to physical inspection at the whim of airport security and aren't allowed to get onto planes carrying sticks. I don't want the Federal government tracking my possessions or travel. It's not a gun nut issue. The gun nuttery is part of the package. I don't want the Federal government inspecting my mail, my email, whose parking lot my car shows up in, my video rentals, my library checkouts, my affiliations, none of that. When I become a criminal, someone will know it through ordinary means.

It's easy to find common ground on civil liberties once you realize that, just like free speech, it gives to people whose lifestyles and viewpoints you oppose just as much as it gives to you. I'll give any law-abiding nutjob his freedom if I get mine in the process.