Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: Strict construction

Your Message

If you are already a member Click here to log in

What planet do we live on?

 

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

Subscription

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • June 8th, 2009, 01:12 PM
    cyphen
    They are taxing everything potato, and potato is the traidtional food of the poor. It grows easily and is versatile. Exempting from sales tax is not the same as not having extra taxes. And yeah, the boundary question is an issue as well. To me, the fact that they're taxing everything is the real issue.
  • June 8th, 2009, 10:10 AM
    MTAtech
    Quote Originally Posted by cyphen View Post
    I counter your potato chip offense with the chewbacca defense.
    I'm a fan of the Ruy López opening myself.
    Quote Originally Posted by cyphen View Post
    This is an attempt to obscure the line between judicial activism and constitutionalist judges - and not a very good one at that. Particularly against a backdrop of a government so gone haywire that they're levying extra taxes on what is traditionally the food of the poor.

    Who here still argues that government is not too intrusive? Look where it's brought "Once Great" Britain.
    Extra taxes on what is traditionally the food of the poor? Potato Chips are food for the poor? In the U.S. most states do not exempt potato chips from sales tax at the supermarket.

    My defense is more fundamental. If 40% potato content still qualifies Pringles as potato chips, where is the boundary? 35%? 20%? If they were made entirely of rice flour, would they still be a potato chip?
  • June 8th, 2009, 08:22 AM
    RayH
    Cyphen Great Britain is about taxes! But they're still trying to collect royalties on our use of the language!
  • June 8th, 2009, 12:43 AM
    Black*Dragon
    BURP
  • June 8th, 2009, 12:37 AM
    cyphen
    I counter your potato chip offense with the chewbacca defense.

    This is an attempt to obscure the line between judicial activism and constitutionalist judges - and not a very good one at that. Particularly against a backdrop of a government so gone haywire that they're levying extra taxes on what is traditionally the food of the poor.

    Who here still argues that government is not too intrusive? Look where it's brought "Once Great" Britain.
  • June 7th, 2009, 09:48 AM
    pickel
    Let them eat cake
  • June 6th, 2009, 09:37 AM
    RayH
    The justices should have asked, "Which is it Mr. P&G, are Pringles potato crisps or have you been fraudulently marketing a not-a-potato-crip as a potato crisp?" I'm sure the Queen's treasury would benefit greater from a fine for fraud, conspiracy, etc!
  • June 6th, 2009, 09:08 AM
    tony_j15
    that is your opinion, which at this point is relatively worthless. Throw some fact behind it and explain why you feel that way, then we can have a real discussion.
  • June 6th, 2009, 12:36 AM
    Shipuuden
    Well the editor is an idiot, trying to make an idiotic point.
  • June 6th, 2009, 12:26 AM
    tony_j15
    oh, so Proctor & Gamble and the entire British government staged this event just to teach us a lesson?

    It's an editorial, not a strict news piece.
  • June 5th, 2009, 11:27 PM
    Shipuuden
    Had nothing to do with taxes, it was about sotomayor.

    It is good news for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — and for fans of no-nonsense legal opinions. It is also a reminder, as conservatives begin attacking Judge Sonia Sotomayor for not being a “strict constructionist,” of the pointlessness of labels like that.

    Conservatives like to insist that their judges are strict constructionists, giving the Constitution and statutes their precise meaning and no more, while judges like Ms. Sotomayor are activists.
  • June 5th, 2009, 11:25 PM
    tony_j15
    this had nothing to do with potatoes, this had to do with a company trying to weasel out of paying 160 million in taxes. Good on the judges, the ruling appears fair.
  • June 5th, 2009, 10:27 PM
    SeanC
    yep, Potato chip.

    You can market them as potato chips in one country and then expect other countries to believe you when you say they're not.
  • June 5th, 2009, 10:15 PM
    MD1032
    mmmmmm... Pringles

    By the way, yeah, they're potato chips.
  • June 5th, 2009, 07:02 PM
    Theophylact

    Strict construction

    and Pringles:
    Britain’s Supreme Court of Judicature has answered a question that has long puzzled late-night dorm-room snackers: What, exactly, is a Pringle? With citations ranging from Baroness Hale of Richmond to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Lord Justice Robin Jacob concluded that, legally, it is a potato chip.

    The decision is bad news for Procter & Gamble U.K., which now owes $160 million in taxes. It is good news for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs — and for fans of no-nonsense legal opinions. It is also a reminder, as conservatives begin attacking Judge Sonia Sotomayor for not being a “strict constructionist,” of the pointlessness of labels like that.

    In Britain, most foods are exempt from the value-added tax, but potato chips — known as crisps — and “similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour,” are taxable. Procter & Gamble, in what could be considered a plea for strict construction, argued that Pringles — which are about 40 percent potato flour, but also contain corn, rice and wheat — should not be considered potato chips or “similar products.” Rather, they are “savory snacks.”

    The VAT and Duties Tribunal disagreed, ruling that Pringles — which have been marketed in the United States as “potato chips” — are taxable.

    “There are other ingredients,” the tribunal said, but a Pringle is “made from potato flour in the sense that one cannot say that it is not made from potato flour, and the proportion of potato flour is significant being over 40 percent.”

    An appeals court reversed, in a convoluted opinion that considered four interpretations of the law before ultimately rejecting three of them. In the end, it decided that Pringles are exempt from the tax, mainly because they have less potato content than a potato chip.

    The Supreme Court of Judicature reversed again, in an eloquent decision. Lord Justice Jacob, in an apparent swipe at the midlevel court, insisted the question was “not one calling for or justifying overelaborate, almost mind-numbing legal analysis.”

    The VAT and Duties Tribunal took an eminently practical approach, he said. It considered Pringles’ appearance, taste, ingredients, process of manufacture, marketing and packaging, and concluded that “while in many respects” they “are different from potato crisps and so they are near the borderline, they are sufficiently similar to satisfy that test.”

    The tribunal was not obliged, he said, “to go on and spell out item by item how each was weighed as if it were using a real scientist’s balance.” It came down to “a matter of overall impression.”

    The Supreme Court of Judicature had little patience with Procter & Gamble’s lawyerly attempts to break out of the potato chip category. The company argued that to be “made of potato” Pringles would have to be all potato, or nearly so. If so, Lord Justice Jacob noted, “a marmalade made using both oranges and grapefruit would be made of neither — a nonsense conclusion.”

    He was even more dismissive of Procter & Gamble’s argument that to be taxable a product must contain enough potato to have the quality of “potatoness.” This “Aristotelian question” of whether a product has the “essence of potato,” he insisted, simply cannot be answered.

    In the Pringles litigation, three levels of British courts engaged in a classic debate over line-drawing, a staple of first-year law school classes. At some point, a potato-chip-like item is so different from a potato chip that it can no longer be called one — but when? Lord Justice Jacob invoked the wisdom of Justice Holmes: “A tyro thinks to puzzle you by asking you where you are going to draw the line and an advocate of more experience will show the arbitrariness of the line proposed by putting cases very near it on one side or the other.”

    In other words, sometimes you just have to call them as you see them.

    Conservatives like to insist that their judges are strict constructionists, giving the Constitution and statutes their precise meaning and no more, while judges like Ms. Sotomayor are activists. But there is no magic right way to interpret terms like “free speech” or “due process” — or potato chip. Nor is either ideological camp wholly strict or wholly activist. Liberal judges tend to be expansive about things like equal protection, while conservatives read more into ones like “the right to bear arms.”

    In the end, as Lord Justice Jacob noted, a judge can only look at the relevant factors and draw an overall impression. His common-sense approach was a rebuke not only to Procter & Gamble, but to everyone out there who insists that the only way to read laws correctly is to read them strictly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright 2014 All Enthusiast, Inc