●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bymcgrew ( 92797 ) * writes:
I had to RTFA to find out that WDE is Westinghouse Digital Electronics.
Westinghouse is currently in General Assignment, an alternative to bankruptcy under California state law
I don't get this at all. The US Constitution says bankruptcies are in Federal court and not a state matter. Is there a better FA somewhere?
byJohn Hasler ( 414242 ) writes:
> The US Constitution says bankruptcies are in Federal court and not a state matter.
It says no such thing. It does not cover bankruptcy at all, even indirectly.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bybill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * writes:
It does not cover bankruptcy at all, even indirectly.
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 4 [usconstitution.net]. Which doesn't specify that all bankruptcies are to be in Federal court, just that the Congress may specify uniform treatment.
obOnion [theonion.com]
Parent
twitter
facebook
byquantumplacet ( 1195335 ) writes:
What were you banking on no one reading your provided link? It says nothing about bankruptcy, the "uniform treatment" you mention is in reference to Imposts, Excises and Duties. The closest it gets to bankruptcy is the mention of debts, but its referring to debts the federal government owes.
bynomadic ( 141991 ) writes:
What were you banking on no one reading your provided link? It says nothing about bankruptcy, the "uniform treatment" you mention is in reference to Imposts, Excises and Duties. The closest it gets to bankruptcy is the mention of debts, but its referring to debts the federal government owes.
What about the part where it says:
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
?
bymsauve ( 701917 ) writes:
Are you an idiot in real life, too, or do you only play one on slashdot?
byCourageous ( 228506 ) writes:
Your browser has a search function. Please learn to use it before accusing someone else of not reading. That was just stupid.
byharlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) writes:
What were you banking on no one reading your provided link? It says nothing about bankruptcy
Are you blind? "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States", right there where he said it is, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 4 (1-based counting, paragraph 5 for C programmers)
●rrent threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...