A different view on why GME was restricted in some brokerages

newwurldmn · Jan 30, 2021

zghorner said:
While the Declaration of Independence recognizes the unalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and the Constitution explicitly protects life and liberty, happiness goes unmentioned in the highest law of the land.[1] The Declaration has no standing in the legal system of the United States; nevertheless, the pursuit of happiness has an important role in American legal history, and is becoming increasingly significant internationally. Protections of the pursuit of happiness have been written into various state and national constitutions, and have even been cited in some of the United States’ Supreme Court’s landmark decisions on marriage. The emergence of legal protection for considerations of happiness, despite its omission in the supreme law of the land, demonstrates this right’s power in the American consciousness.

Although the explicit right to pursue happiness is absent from the Constitution of the United States, it was not forgotten at the state level. Less than a month prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Convention of Delegates adopted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which included a guarantee of the inherent right to “the enjoyment of life and liberty… and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”[2]These protections remain in place today in the state constitution. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts followed Virginia’s lead, including the term happiness in its own state constitution eight times and most notably protecting the unalienable rights of the people in “seeking and obtaining their happiness and safety.”[3] Further, more than 70 years after Jefferson included this famous phrase in the Declaration, these words remained in the forefront of American political thought. Wisconsin’s constitution, adopted in 1848, repeated the assurance of the inherent rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” for its people.[4] These three states are the only states to explicitly recognize the right to pursue happiness as a fundamental right, but the application of the concept in American jurisprudence has not been confined within these states’ borders.

It was not until a 1923 decision that the United States Supreme Court recognized the pursuit of happiness at the national level when interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of the right to liberty. In the case Meyer v. Nebraska, Robert Meyer, a schoolteacher, challenged the constitutionality of Nebraska’s Siman Act, which forbade education administered in a foreign language. In a 7-2 ruling, the Court found in favor of Meyer. Justice McReynolds, writing for the majority, found that the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause protects not only one’s freedom from restraint, but also one’s freedom to engage in contracts, to hold an occupation, to learn and gain knowledge, to marry and raise children, and to demonstrate faith and participate in religion.[5] He found that, in sum, these freedoms entitled one “generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”[6] When teaching a foreign language, Meyer was exercising his occupational and intellectual freedoms as defined by Justice McReynold’s decision, and in doing so, pursuing his happiness.

The Meyer precedent has held, and the right to pursue happiness has been central to two landmark decisions defining the constitutionality of marriage. Almost 50 years after Meyer, the case Loving v. Virginia reached the Supreme Court. This case challenged a Virginia statute that prohibited interracial marriages on the grounds that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. In a 9-0 decision, the court found this prohibition unconstitutional. Chief Justice Warren echoed the Meyer precedent in his majority opinion, restating that right of freedom of marriage was “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”[7] The precedent set by Loving v. Virginia recently played a significant role in the Court’s majority opinion in Obergefell v Hodges, where, in a 5-4 ruling, the Court found bans on marriage for same-sex couples unconstitutional.[8]In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy cited the court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia because its precedent demonstrated that the Supreme Court has found a constitutional protection for the right to marry. While the right to the pursuit of happiness may not be stated outright in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has, and continues to recognize this right, and to protect the many freedoms it encompasses.

Even more broadly, the United States is not alone in recognizing a legal right to happiness. The recognitions of the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” in Japan’s 1946 Constitution[9] and the “right to pursue happiness” in South Korea’s 1948 Constitution[10] indicate that this protection was central to the development of democracies modeled on America’s own government in the post World War II period. But considerations of happiness as a right and as a policy concept have developed independently as well. The “Buen Vivir” movement is shaping the constitutions of South American countries including Bolivia and Ecuador. Buen Vivir, which means “good living”, is a holistic concept that emphasizes the attainment of well-being through harmony not only between people, but also between communities and nature.[11] These ideas were enshrined in the Constitution of Ecuador in 2008, and the Constitution of Bolivia in 2009. Ecuador’s Constitution articulates Buen Vivir as a series of rights, while the Bolivian Constitution offers a more interpretive approach, outlining the “search for a good life,” in the ethical and moral principles of the state.[12] These different approaches to Buen Vivir may act as comparative models for other countries in South America, and throughout the world, looking to integrate a right to well being into their own constitutions.

More than 200 years after Thomas Jefferson penned the words “pursuit of happiness,” this right has gained significant protections in American jurisprudence and international constitutional theory. This year the United Nations released its third World Happiness Report (in which the United States ranked 15th, Japan 46th, South Korea 47th, Ecuador 48th, and Bolivia 51st) to measure the happiness of member nations, and to encourage these countries to use this information to direct their own public policies.[13] Using happiness as the aim of public policy is not a new idea. In fact, to understand this perspective on governance, one must only look again to Thomas Jefferson who once wrote, “the care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”[14]

https://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/culr/2016/02/16/constitutional-considerations-of-happiness/
More...

you know someone has no real argument when they resort to freedom of speech and pursuit of happiness.

vanzandt · Jan 30, 2021

smart folk just don't swim in these waters.

....fwiw.

JSOP · Jan 30, 2021

newwurldmn said:
how is freedom of speech violated?

Is freedom for the pursuit of happiness in the constitution or just in the Declaration of Independence?
More...

It's actually the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights that RH and IB and all those brokerages that ban trading violated.

The Ninth Amendment

The Ninth Amendment states that listing specific rights in the Constitution does not mean that people do not have other rights that have not been spelled out.

People shall have the rights and freedom to manage their own financial affairs as they see fit to the spirit of the pursuit of happiness as set out in the Declaration of Independence.

And all of the brokerages that banned trading are also in breach of contract btw as they did not fulfill their specific performance as part of the contract that was agreed up between them and their clients.

So not only those brokerages' actions are unconstitutional but they can also be sued in civil court for breach of contract.

newwurldmn · Jan 30, 2021

JSOP said:
It's actually the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights that RH and IB and all those brokerages that ban trading violated.

The Ninth Amendment

The Ninth Amendment states that listing specific rights in the Constitution does not mean that people do not have other rights that have not been spelled out.

People shall have the rights and freedom to manage their own financial affairs as they see fit to the spirit of the pursuit of happiness as set out in the Declaration of Independence.

And all of the brokerages that banned trading are also in breach of contract btw as they did not fulfill their specific performance as part of the contract that was agreed up between them and their clients.

So not only those brokerages' actions are unconstitutional but they can also be sued in civil court for breach of contract.
More...

have drug dealers successfully used the 9th amendment?

what about tax evaders?

I bet there is no breach of contract when you read robinhood’s T&Cs

vanzandt · Jan 30, 2021

JSOP said:
It's actually the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights that RH and IB and all those brokerages that ban trading violated.

The Ninth Amendment

The Ninth Amendment states that listing specific rights in the Constitution does not mean that people do not have other rights that have not been spelled out.

People shall have the rights and freedom to manage their own financial affairs as they see fit to the spirit of the pursuit of happiness as set out in the Declaration of Independence.

And all of the brokerages that banned trading are also in breach of contract btw as they did not fulfill their specific performance as part of the contract that was agreed up between them and their clients.

So not only those brokerages' actions are unconstitutional but they can also be sued in civil court for breach of contract.
More...

Robinhood TOS page 11:

16. Restrictions on Trading.I understand that Robinhood may, in its discretion, prohibit or restrict the trading of securities, or thesubstitution of securities, in any of My Accounts. I understand that Robinhood may execute all orders byMe on any exchange or market, unless I specifically instruct Robinhood to the contrary. In the event of abreach or default by Me under this Agreement, Robinhood shall have all rights and remedies available toa secured creditor under all applicable laws and in addition to the rights and remedies provided herein. Iunderstand that Robinhood may at any time, at its sole discretion and without prior notice to Me: (i)prohibit or restrict My access to the use of the App or the Website or related services and My ability totrade, (ii) refuse to accept any of My transactions, (iii) refuse to execute any of My transactions, or (iv)terminate My Account. The closing of My Account will not affect the rights or obligations of either partyincurred prior to the date My Account is closed.Further, Robinhood will not tolerate any foul or abusive language, physical violence, threatening behavior,or other inappropriate conduct directed toward Robinhood, its Affiliates' officers, employees, contractorsor customers. If I engage in any such behavior, as determined by Robinhood in its sole discretion, Iagree that Robinhood is authorized to: (i) liquidate any securities, instruments or other property in MyAccount, (ii) send Me the proceeds, and (iii) close My account. Robinhood will not be responsible for anyLosses caused by the liquidation of securities, instruments or other property pursuant to this paragraph,including any tax liabilities.17. Waiver; Limitation of Liability; Indem
________________________________

The 1st sentence pretty much sums it up.

Once again.... fwiw.

vanzandt · Jan 30, 2021

newwurldmn said:
I bet there is no breach of contract when you read robinhood’s T&Cs
More...

lol... i was posting as you wrote....

JSOP · Jan 30, 2021

vanzandt said:
Robinhood TOS page 11:

16. Restrictions on Trading.I understand that Robinhood may, in its discretion, prohibit or restrict the trading of securities, or thesubstitution of securities, in any of My Accounts. I understand that Robinhood may execute all orders byMe on any exchange or market, unless I specifically instruct Robinhood to the contrary. In the event of abreach or default by Me under this Agreement, Robinhood shall have all rights and remedies available toa secured creditor under all applicable laws and in addition to the rights and remedies provided herein. Iunderstand that Robinhood may at any time, at its sole discretion and without prior notice to Me: (i)prohibit or restrict My access to the use of the App or the Website or related services and My ability totrade, (ii) refuse to accept any of My transactions, (iii) refuse to execute any of My transactions, or (iv)terminate My Account. The closing of My Account will not affect the rights or obligations of either partyincurred prior to the date My Account is closed.Further, Robinhood will not tolerate any foul or abusive language, physical violence, threatening behavior,or other inappropriate conduct directed toward Robinhood, its Affiliates' officers, employees, contractorsor customers. If I engage in any such behavior, as determined by Robinhood in its sole discretion, Iagree that Robinhood is authorized to: (i) liquidate any securities, instruments or other property in MyAccount, (ii) send Me the proceeds, and (iii) close My account. Robinhood will not be responsible for anyLosses caused by the liquidation of securities, instruments or other property pursuant to this paragraph,including any tax liabilities.17. Waiver; Limitation of Liability; Indem
________________________________

The 1st sentence pretty much sums it up.

Once again.... fwiw.
More...

newwurldmn said:
have drug dealers successfully used the 9th amendment?

what about tax evaders?

I bet there is no breach of contract when you read robinhood’s T&Cs
More...

That blanket disclaimer has limitations and is subject to a degree of reasonableness. Robinhood cannot just arbitrarily refuse to execute your order just because of their "discretion" the same that drug dealers and tax evaders cannot use the Ninth Amendment as the defense to their crimes.

FTW!!!

vanzandt · Jan 30, 2021

JSOP said:
That blanket disclaimer has limitations and is subject to a degree of reasonableness though. Robinhood cannot just arbitrarily refuse to execute your order just because of their "discretion" the same that drug dealers and tax evaders cannot use the Ninth Amendment as the defense to their crimes.

FTW!!!
More...

Hmmm.
I'm out of my wheel-house here.
You may or may not be right.

JSOP · Jan 30, 2021

vanzandt said:
Hmmm.
I'm out of my wheel-house here.
You may or may not be right.
More...

Trust me, I am right. If an investor who in their sound mind and body and had enough means to buy shares of GME or AMC or any of the stocks at the prevailing price and RH refused to execute their bona fide orders, and if that investor takes RH to court for breach of contract, failure of fiduciary duties, negligence, that POS disclaimer of RH will NOT stand a chance. And RH will be liable to pay any damages that that investor had suffered due to RH's arbitrary refusal in executing bona fide orders and punitive damages.

Because what RH did is in direct impediment of an orderly market operation and a break down of an entire financial industry and cannot set precedence. Otherwise from now on, any brokers can just refuse to execute your order or execute any orders to take money from your account at their "discretion" and you would have no control over your own money.

vanzandt · Jan 30, 2021

JSOP said:
Trust me, I am right. If an investor who had enough means to buy shares of GME or AMC or any of the stocks at the prevailing price and RH refused to execute their bona fide orders, and if that investor takes RH to court for breach of contract, failure of fiduciary duties, negligence, that POS disclaimer of RH will NOT stand a chance. And RH will be liable to pay any damages that that investor had suffered due to RH's arbitrary refusal in executing bona fide orders and punitive damages.
More...

I know I'd be pissed if it were me.
I mean off the charts pissed.
In a big way.
I guess we'll see what happens.