Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 24, 2014, 05:49:33 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81207 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 43
1851  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: June 01, 2011, 06:31:32 PM
Now Doug, if you can find where I said that the federal government shall run all aspects of private housing, then we can discuss this.  I didn't see that mentioned in the Stossel piece either.  What was it that was said last week about apples meeting kumquats?HuhHuh

But make sure you tell me exactly and directly how the following powers  "end at keeping the peace, enforcing contracts, and property rights."

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads
 To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
disciplining, the Militia
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

(From liberalism thread, BD post)
Stossel: "The Founders knew [where government should end and personal responsibility begins].  Government should end at keeping the peace, enforcing contracts, and property rights."  I wonder if Stossel has read Article I, section 8 and the vesting clause of Article II. 

Okay, I'll bite.  Where does it say the federal government shall run all aspects of private housing?  I've read it twice now and still can't find it.

The closest I could come is: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections..." with Fannie Mae being the militia and private contracts being the insurrection.  Am I close?
-----------
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
------------
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...."
1852  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism: on: June 01, 2011, 06:20:01 PM
"That economists can't and don't predict recessions accurately is a fact."

But economists can predict with absolute certainty that tax cuts will produce X in increased revenue/jobs/etc.?  Of course not, but the willingness to believe that is undeterred.  There are models, with margins of error, standard deviations, error terms (not that those are included enough) and even the models that include a dozen or more variables can only predict a small portion of the outcome.   
1853  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 01, 2011, 06:12:12 PM
Of course it isn't compelling.  It is funny though.  And note that I said nothing about that.  I did note the CNN bit though, since this is the media issues thread. 

And I LOVE (please note the sarcasm) is inabilty to deny it is his junk.

More on "Weinergate." make sure you watch the whole thing.  More on CNN's propensity to opine!  

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-31-2011/distinguished-member-of-congress?xrs=share_copy

I'm not sure Stewart's "His d*ck is too small" defense is very compelling. It wouldn't be hard, I mean difficult for the FBI to determine if Weiner's account was hacked. Funny how he hasn't asked for an investigation but lawyered up instead. It's almost like he has something to hide.
1854  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism: on: June 01, 2011, 11:14:31 AM
Stossel: "For the first time since the founding of the Republic, people are visibly mad.  They are pushing back against the growth of government."  This is only true if one counts the founding of the Republic as being around 2000, rather than the late 1700's.  The push back against the Alien and Sedition Acts, the nullification crisis, the Civil War, most of the elections in the early 1900's, and there goes the Reagan Revolution.  I guess conservatives can put his false impact to rest.  Reagan Democrats?  Never happened.  RR landslide in 1984.  Down the conservative wormhole, I guess.  


Art Laffer's version of facts (admittedly not taken from his discussion within the video): http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/06/art-laffer-make-up-your-own-facts-here/
Laffer on the housing market bubble: http://realestaterecord.blogspot.com/2008/03/art-laffer.html

People get elected or reelected all the time by criticising government.  Look at congressional elections for evidence.  On this Gary Johnson isn't all that special.  His willingness to use the veto is noteworthy, but it is also worth noting that as governor he had the use of the line item veto, which presidents do not have.  

Stossel: "The Founders knew [where government should end and personal responsibility begins].  Government should end at keeping the peace, enforcing contracts, and property rights."  I wonder if Stossel has read Article I, section 8 and the vesting clause of Article II.  

He sure talks a good game, though.
1855  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 01, 2011, 09:14:09 AM
"I have not known George Will to open his criticism with a blatantly false statement.  Seems to me he makes a painstakingly effort to quote his opponents accurately."

That is because George Will has a Ph.D. in political science.  You can trust those people.  And, believe it or not, I prefer the three I mentioned to Rodgers. 

1856  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 01, 2011, 09:11:22 AM
More on "Weinergate." make sure you watch the whole thing.  More on CNN's propensity to opine!  

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-31-2011/distinguished-member-of-congress?xrs=share_copy
1857  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: June 01, 2011, 09:08:07 AM
It is also easy, since he works for CS Monitor to get confused about the news source.  You know, since he left CNN in 2005. 
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/its-official-walter-rodgers-leaves-cnn_b6703
1858  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: From a corrspondant from the "keeping them honest CNN" on: June 01, 2011, 05:58:38 AM
Walter Rodgers is a columnist for the Christian Science Monitor.  He gets paid to write opinion pieces, and his work is not intended to be "objective" any more than George Will, Mona Charen, or Charles Krauthammer. 

Objective journoulism de jour: rolleyes angry

 By Walter Rodgers Walter Rodgers – Fri May 27, 10:16 am ET
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,” instructed the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, “people will eventually come to believe it.”

For 2-1/2 years, the big lie repeated about President Obama has been that he’s not a real leader. Responsible critics called him diffident, spineless, and rudderless. Irresponsible critics called him a socialist, a Muslim, and not an American. Now, even after his brilliant planning and direction of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, detractors are complaining that he didn’t have the guts to release photos of Mr. bin Laden’s corpse.

Outdated notions of leadershipSome of this maligning simply reflects the same savage partisan attacks leveled against every president (except Ronald Reagan) since Watergate. Some of it reflects darker bigotry toward Mr. Obama. But it also shows our outdated and wrongheaded notions of leadership.

American culture mistakenly prizes bravado and arrogance as sure signs of leadership. Public showmanship – like donning a flight suit in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner – is easy. Quiet, cool, competence that gets results – like pulling together an international coalition to protect civilians in Libya in record time – is hard.

It’s a bias we learn as kids. Our history books lionize war heroes, yet are often silent about the diplomats who prevented conflict.

QUIZ: What's your political IQ?

AccomplishmentsLet’s recall the herculean tasks Obama has already accomplished:

He stabilized the worst economy since the Great Depression. Though unemployment remains stubborn, the stock market is basically back to where it was before the global economic meltdown. His stimulus bill kept America humming and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, while his rescue of General Motors saved an industrial icon.

His administration kept thousands of over-extended Americans from losing their homes by laboring mightily to forestall foreclosures.

In spite of ferocious opposition, he passed long-overdue reforms of our health-care system that had eluded the reach of many past presidents.

He signed into law a bold package of regulations to boost consumer protection and restrain Wall Street’s greed.

He negotiated a historic nuclear-arms reduction treaty with Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev.

Forgetting these and other accomplishments, the public has regrettably bought into the corrosive and dishonest campaign to degrade Obama. Goebbels-style nihilism that rejects anything Obama does as odious remains a powerful narrative.

The good news is that Obama’s shrewd and calculated management of the hunt for bin Laden shows how hollow these critiques are.

For months, Obama discreetly oversaw the raid. He should be praised for concealing US intentions from the Pakistanis, who seemed willfully blind about bin Laden’s whereabouts.

Compare Obama’s stealth with his predecessor’s search for bin Laden. George W. Bush was embarrassingly gullible dealing with the Pakistanis. According to Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and senior adviser to four presidents on the Middle East, Bush 43 was too easily “dazzled” by Pakistan’s former president, Pervez Musharraf.

In 2002, Mr. Musharraf assured Washington that bin Laden was almost certainly dead. Later, Musharraf’s government hinted to the Bush administration that bin Laden was on a kidney dialysis machine, half dead in a cave in Afghanistan.

In his book “Deadly Embrace,” Mr. Riedel quotes former Afghan Foreign Minister Abdallah Abdallah saying, “Musharraf skillfully played the American administration, throwing ‘dust in Bush’s eyes.’ ”

Good tasteGood taste is another facet of leadership. Contrast the way the Bush administration orchestrated a public trial and execution of Saddam Hussein, turning it into a vulgar spectacle, with Obama’s shrewd refusal to publish photos of bin Laden’s body. His announcement of bin Laden’s death was restrained and sober, not at all celebratory – the right note to conclude a sensitive military operation. Obama’s later visit to ground zero was a fitting bookend to a sad chapter in United States history.

IN PICTURES: Obama in Britain

Obama’s hawkish critics chide him for allegedly “sitting on the sidelines” during recent uprisings in Yemen, Tunisia, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Take it from someone who has reported from across the Middle East: Sitting out potential Arab civil wars isn’t abdication of leadership; it is wisdom.

And yet, when facing near-certain humanitarian disaster, Obama wisely and rapidly put together a broad NATO coalition to deal with the Libyan revolt while keeping American involvement to a minimum – no boots on the ground and no dead Americans.

It’s true that Obama hasn’t made tackling the debt a priority. But when Republicans controlled the White House and Congress for much of the past decade, US debt exploded. On that issue, the public will have to lead.

A friend, a center-right voter, told me recently, “The reason I voted for Obama is because he has no hatred in him.” In another era of divisive bitterness, Lincoln preached, “[w]ith malice toward none, with charity toward all.” It’s worth noting how closely Obama’s philosophy of leadership approaches that.

Walter Rodgers, a former senior international correspondent for CNN, writes a biweekly column.


1859  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Cyber Jihad on: May 31, 2011, 06:53:18 AM

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.

The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military.

In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," said a military official.

Recent attacks on the Pentagon's own systems—as well as the sabotaging of Iran's nuclear program via the Stuxnet computer worm—have given new urgency to U.S. efforts to develop a more formalized approach to cyber attacks. A key moment occurred in 2008, when at least one U.S. military computer system was penetrated. This weekend Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor, acknowledged that it had been the victim of an infiltration, while playing down its impact.

The report will also spark a debate over a range of sensitive issues the Pentagon left unaddressed, including whether the U.S. can ever be certain about an attack's origin, and how to define when computer sabotage is serious enough to constitute an act of war. These questions have already been a topic of dispute within the military.

One idea gaining momentum at the Pentagon is the notion of "equivalence." If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a "use of force" consideration, which could merit retaliation.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/31/pentagon-cyber-attacks-count-acts-war/#ixzz1NviUtx6h
1860  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Independence Day Quiz on: May 31, 2011, 06:17:00 AM
http://games.toast.net/independence/

I got 29 of 30.  Makes me mad, because I violated a rule about changing answers.  Should have been 30.   angry angry
1861  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Libertarian Issues on: May 30, 2011, 07:58:17 PM
That is pretty college, GM!   cheesy shocked
1862  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: VIDEO CLIPS OF INTEREST on: May 29, 2011, 11:35:37 PM
Ren McCormack will make it right. 

That does seem to be a pretty silly law/rule.
1863  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism: on: May 29, 2011, 09:13:04 PM
I think you missed my point. 
1864  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism: on: May 29, 2011, 08:12:34 PM
"Marxism is the opiate of academics".

That is actually true.  I had to smoke a bowl of "Marxism" before I got any of my degrees.  Too bad it was laced with research, data, and critical thinking.  
1865  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Rest in Peace on: May 29, 2011, 07:41:00 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110529/ap_on_re_us/us_memorial_day_cia_casualties
1866  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: May 29, 2011, 06:46:39 AM
"Huntsman's ace up the sleeve is his ability to appeal to centrist and independent voters."

That's much of an ace when he first has to appeal to Republicans to win the primary. 

1867  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: May 29, 2011, 06:43:27 AM
He is also the coauthor of a good book on the subject, with Melinda Gann Hall. 
1868  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Rest in Peace on: May 29, 2011, 06:41:34 AM
According to news outlets, he died in a hospital in New York.  No cause was annonced, although he was HIV positive and drug addicted. 
1869  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Gil Scott Heron on: May 28, 2011, 09:06:08 AM
A sad passing...

1870  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: May 27, 2011, 09:22:22 PM
A friend's take on judicial selection:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-should-keep-judicial-elections/2011/05/26/AGt08HCH_print.html
1871  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: May 27, 2011, 02:06:45 PM
A friend's take on the selecetion processes of state courts.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-should-keep-judicial-elections/2011/05/26/AGt08HCH_print.html
1872  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters) on: May 27, 2011, 02:03:18 PM
I got this in my inbox today.  Some of you might be interested. 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1825543


What is Originalism? The Evolution of Contemporary Originalist Theory

Lawrence B. Solum
University of Illinois College of Law


April 28, 2011



Abstract:     
Debates over “originalism” have been a central focus of contemporary constitutional theory for three decades. One of the features of this debate has been disagreement about what “originalism” is. More worrisome is the possibility that the arguments between contemporary originalists and their opponents, the “living constitutionalists”, are confused – with each side of the debate making erroneous assumptions about the content of their opponent’s theories.

The aim of this chapter is to clarify these debates by providing a history of contemporary originalism and then developing an account of the core or focal content of originalist theory. The history reveals that contemporary originalist theory has evolved – the mainstream of originalist theory began with an emphasis on the original intentions of the framers but has gradually moved to the view that the “original meaning” of the constitution is the “original public meaning” of the text. Even today, originalists disagree among themselves about a variety of important questions, including the normative justification for a constitutional practice that adheres to original meaning. Despite evolution and continued disagreement, however, contemporary originalist theory has a core of agreement on two propositions. First, almost all originalists agree that the linguistic meaning of each constitutional provision was fixed at the time that provision was adopted. Second, originalists agree that our constitutional practice both is (albeit imperfectly) and should be committed to the principle that the original meaning of the Constitution constrains judicial practice.

The question whether living constitutionalists actually disagree with these core principles of originalist theory is a complex one. On one interpretation, living constitutionalism and originalism are (mostly) compatible: the constitution lives inside the “construction zone,” the boundaries of which are marked by the original meaning of the text. On another interpretation, living constitutionalism is incompatible with originalism: living constitutional doctrine and practices can override even original meaning of the text, even when that meaning is clear.
1873  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Hamilton, Federalist 78-- the Judiciary on: May 27, 2011, 01:44:58 PM
"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788


The reason for Hamilton's argument is important: the judiciary has neither the purse of Congress nor the sword of the president. 
1874  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: June 18-19 Guro Crafty in Memphis, TN on: May 27, 2011, 08:38:51 AM
I am really looking forward to this!

Dog Terry

True.  True. 
1875  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: DBMA Training Camp August 12-14 on: May 26, 2011, 06:38:08 PM
Tell me more, tell me more.  My first hurdle has been cleared. 
1876  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: May 26, 2011, 04:09:21 PM
Woof, Guro... This is the movie I told you about elsewhere.  I post here for others to discuss, if they so desire.

http://littletownofbethlehem.org/
1877  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / federal response to disaster on: May 26, 2011, 03:00:40 PM
http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm

Some high points:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency coordinates the federal government's role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic disasters, whether natural or man-made, including acts of terror. FEMA can trace its beginnings to the Congressional Act of 1803.

The 1960s and early 1970s brought massive disasters requiring major federal response and recovery operations by the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, established within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Hurricane Carla struck in 1962, Hurricane Betsy in 1965, Hurricane Camille in 1969 and Hurricane Agnes in 1972. The Alaskan Earthquake hit in 1964 and the San Fernando Earthquake rocked Southern California in 1971. These events served to focus attention on the issue of natural disasters and brought about increased legislation. In 1968, the National Flood Insurance Act offered new flood protection to homeowners, and in 1974 the Disaster Relief Act firmly established the process of Presidential disaster declarations.

And, http://161.203.16.4/t2pbat8/143524.pdf

But, see http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/? which is somewhat supportive of you guys, though it does note that federal support began pretty early.  "Federal involvement in emergency relief began soon after the country's founding.... In 1793, Congress approved a special appropriations bill to send financial aid to east coast cities burdened by an influx of thousands of refugees from Santo Domingo."



1878  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: May 25, 2011, 10:14:02 PM
I am glad to know that you are supportive of protecting American lives in all situations.  You'll forgive me if I don't see federal aid to storm ravaged areas as "pork." 

"Wait, are we really concerned about saving a little money as crews are searching rubble for survivors and bodies? (Well, yes, we should always be. Not doing so has got us into this fiscal crisis, more of the same is a real bad idea.)"  So, looking for the bodies and survivors of 9/11, or Katrina, or the floods of 1993, or any other disaster is the reason we are in a financial crisis.  It must be those activities. 

1879  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: May 25, 2011, 07:59:44 PM
I linked an article that condemned Cantor's stance on using federal funds for direct aid to American people who have been subjected to a natural disaster.  If you have no problem with using federal funds for responding to that disaster, why the hell did you react like you did?
1880  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Cantor screws the people of Missouri on: May 25, 2011, 07:35:50 PM

I know, the magical money tree never runs out and anyone who suggests otherwise is a horrible, horrible person.

Yes, that is exactly what I said.  And what I've always said.  I named my kid "Magic Money Tree." 
1881  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Cantor screws the people of Missouri on: May 25, 2011, 05:31:06 PM
http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2011/05/eric_cantor_joplin_tornado.php   angry angry angry
1882  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 25, 2011, 08:47:07 AM
This Court is too liberal, and the King decision proves that.  It must be that there are liberal activist justices like Alito. 
1883  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 24, 2011, 11:12:52 PM
Those cases, if memory serves, all deal with persons not homes, except for the one with the search warrant at the wrong address.  I believe Guro's point is that there is no search warrant.  Also, there is an assumption of heighten protection in the home. 
1884  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 24, 2011, 08:37:58 AM

Utahdefenders? Not only was that the lamest bit on the topic, they sound like a superhero group from South Park.  grin

Agreed on both counts.  And I love the South Park comparison! 
1885  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Prayer and Daily Expression of Gratitude on: May 24, 2011, 05:55:06 AM
Good luck to you and yours, DougMacG. 
1886  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 23, 2011, 09:31:14 PM
Some interesting analysis on the King opinion:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/23/the-supreme-courts-advice-abou

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=119933

http://volokh.com/2011/05/19/common-misreadings-of-kentucky-v-king-and-the-difference-between-exigent-circumstances-and-police-created-exigencies/

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/kentucky-v-king/

http://www.utahdefenders.com/kentucky-v-king-good-for-utah-police-bad-for-our-liberties/
1887  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Prayer and Daily Expression of Gratitude on: May 23, 2011, 07:00:22 PM
Please keep the people of Joplin, MO in your prayers.  Or thoughts.  Or...

It looks really, really bad and the news seems to be getting worse. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24tornado.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 
 
 
1888  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 23, 2011, 01:33:44 PM
"If you are a citizen, and using force against a LEO, the odds of this turning out well for you is slim and none."

With this I completely agree.  And court decisions that gut the 4th amendment protections offered in the Bill of Rights, a series of amendments made becuase of the fear of an over reaching government, don't help this. 
1889  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 23, 2011, 07:01:07 AM
I am certainly willing to note that.  I must, I confess, plead ignorance to his notorious side before being edified by GM. 
1890  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 23, 2011, 05:19:02 AM
GM, you suggested one way that "a reasonable person" could "determine if an officer's attempt to arrest was legal or illegal."  Moreover, your point a few days ago about the ignorance of the average man about who is VP, and what is in the Constitution, etc. is true up to a point.  There are many, many who are far less ignorant about the law than the average.  So, perhaps it is reasonable to expect that some people know what the law is.  Or perhaps, it is reasonable to expect that everyone should become more educated about the Constitution and the laws of their state.

Can I safely say that you believe in a living Constitution, since you seem to think that we can't possibly know when entry is illegal before we go to a court of law?  Is it true that the 4th Amendment is just a guide, but given that there have been changes made to police techniques and with new technologies, we can disregard the original intent of the Framers and/or the 700 years of precedent (including the common law tradition that is the basis of our legal system)?  Will you be voting for President Obama's reelection?   

How in the heat of the moment are you going to determine if the entry by the officers is legal or illegal? in that moment, how are you going to calibrate your use of force for those circumstances?

If one ever needs to determine LE status, 9-1-1 is the place to start, see what dispatch says.

1891  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 22, 2011, 09:17:56 PM
I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth.  I never said that there was some kind of carte blanche right to off police officers, or anyone else.  Good grief.  In fact, if you look at a few posts back, you will see this included there too:

John Bad Elk v. United States

"If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest."


1892  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 22, 2011, 09:05:53 PM
Why wouldn't an American police officer accused of misconduct not be given the due process of law? 

1893  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 22, 2011, 08:23:06 PM
Just because someone is wrong about some things doesn't make him wrong about everything. 
1894  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Mitch Daniels isn't runnning on: May 22, 2011, 11:42:44 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55424.html
1895  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 22, 2011, 05:09:47 AM
I wear a black robe, at least ocasionally.  I am excited that I get to play a role in making these types of decisions.   cool

I think that you give too much credit to the USSC (or perhaps rely too much) assuming that is the court you meant when you stated that "even if the officer acts in good faith and in compliance with dept. policy and state law doesn't mean those actions will ultimately be ruled lawful by the court."  Given that the USSC currently hears about .01% of the cases that are appealled to it, and not all of them relate to police actions, the odds aren't all that good that a particular police action will be reviewed by the highest court.  

The basis for the Fourth Amendment, which has its basis in English Common Law, as does most of American law:
"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!" William Pitt

As for a list of cases, here you go:


John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900):
Held, that the court clearly erred in charging that the policemen had the right to arrest the plaintiff in error and to use such force as was necessary to accomplish the arrest, and that the plaintiff in error had no right to resist it.

At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant, and who had no right to arrest him, and if, in the course of that resistance, the officer was killed, the offence of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder, if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter.

"If the officer had no right to arrest, the other party might resist the illegal attempt to arrest him, using no more force than was absolutely necessary to repel the assault constituting the attempt to arrest."

United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948): "One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases."

Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958): Held: petitioner could not lawfully be arrested in his home by officers breaking in without first giving him notice of their authority and purpose...

PAYTON V. NEW YORK, 445 U. S. 573 (1980): Held: The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest. Pp. 445 U. S. 583-603.


And here is some commentary on the Indiana Supreme Court decision.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/88027.html
An interesting line, and one that speaks to your line of thinking, in discussing the Indiana case with a Michigan case: "In the interests of brevity, these rulings should be consolidated under the name “Rapist Doctrine,” in recognition of the fact that are pseudo-scholarly versions of the advice once urged upon women enduring sexual assault: Don’t resist — it will only make things worse."

http://www.libertyflorida.org/?p=563

Even the home schoolers are concerned: http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/in/201105180.asp


And, some commentary on the right to resist unlawful arrest/entry in general:

http://cad.sagepub.com/content/46/4/472.short ("attacks on the common law right are based on a misunderstanding of the original justifications for the right and that there remains a great need for the right particularly as new police tactics increase the probability of arbitrary assertions of authority."


http://www.markmccoy.com/self-defense.html: This site also has many other cases you can look at if you wish.










1896  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 21, 2011, 12:58:12 PM
You, me, any other interested observer.

Until Terry v. Ohio was decided, was it possible to say with any assurance the legitimacy of Det. McFadden's stop and frisk of John Terry?

I just don't understand the way that you obfuscate the issues at hand, GM.  The question is the rights of people to resist illegal entry into their home.  I seriously think that sometimes you don't read carefully.  Or do you just make [stuff] up?  Or do you just keep going and going like the bunny with nowhere to go? 
1897  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 20, 2011, 03:56:00 PM
Who is "we"?
1898  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: May 20, 2011, 12:47:53 PM
I thought you had decided that this horse was dead. 
1899  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 20, 2011, 12:45:36 PM
The article in question has to do with illegal searches, not what a private citizen "deems" to be an illegal search.  And at this point I would also like to note Guro's response above.
1900  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy, Big Brother (State and Corporate) & the 4th Amendment on: May 20, 2011, 04:29:24 AM
Yeah, hopefully dispatch has made some determinations to that effect. When you catch a call like that, you often have very limited amounts of infomation while you run code to the location. Thus is the reality of police work.

Can you give me a scenario where you have a case of illegal entry by law enforcement and how self defense would provide an effective resolution to that?

Hmmm, well you (plural) are gutsy to do that job.  That isn't much information to work on.  And please don't think I am trying to be disrespectful to the LEOs.  Not a chance.  You do good work, and I am honored to be friends with many.

I'd rather not try to come up with a hypothetical scenario.  I do know that any other situation that I can think of at this hour, whether or not I am able have an "effective resolution," I am able to legally act in self defense.  And that is what bothers me enough to have posted the original link. 
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 43
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!