At 12:48 AM -0700 7/11/97, Kent Crispin wrote: ...
Hmmm. I thought the basis was completely different. I thought the deal was between legal officials of various states who were mounting suits against the tobacco companies, and the tobacco companies. That is, it is essentially an "out of court" settlement of a civil lawsuit.
As such, it would indeed not be binding on Tim May's Tobacco Co. And there are no particular constitutional issues involved, or free speech issues, either, come to think of it -- the settlement is just between the parties of a civil suit.
The agreement halts future lawsuits, thus depriving those who have not yet sued, or even those who have not yet contemplated suing, from seeking redress in the courts. This would seem to be a rather major constitutional issue. It's also unclear whether the "agreement" covers tobacco companies not even extant at this time (hence my use of the "Tim's Tobacco Company" example, where TTC is incorporated in 1998 and begins advertising with Joe Camel-type ads. Several states attorneys general have opinined that the deal means a complete end to such advertising, to sponsorship of sporting events by tobacco companies, etc. BTW, we're not the only ones who think this agreement, and the enabling legislation which is supposed to come from Congress, raise very serious constitutional questions. The problem may lie in class action suits in general. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I rather doubt the Framers had in mind the concept that J. Random Luser could sue in courts "on behalf" of thousands or millions of others who have not even joined the suit or may not even be aware of the suit, or may not support the suit. And the notion that the states, or insurance companies, or whatever, could sue to collect their costs when no contract was involved...well, this is just plain absurd. If I eat too many hamburgers and develop coronary disease, and some insurance company loses money on me....they cannot sue MacDonalds or Burger King for making their costs higher, any more than an exercise gym or health food store can sue the insurance company and demand a part of the "savings" from the presumably healthier clients! There are indeed deep constitutional issues involved in both of the cases being discussed in this thread. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."