Police State

dave23 said:

Student_Council said:

dave23 said:

ridski said:

Student_Council said:

Social: this coming weekend I can do whatever the heck I want to, including going into NYC to attend a gay Mongolian Jewish dance, or perhaps a Satan-worshiping ritual. or I could just sit home and troll Internet chat rooms for friends or enemies.

Of course, if you're taking the train, upon your entrance to and exit from NYC you need walk through a phalanx of heavily armed and armored DHS officers, National Guardsmen and women, ESU troopers, K-9 units, Amtrak police, Port Authority police and numerous uniformed and non-uniformed NYPD officers. But it's okay if you're not doing anything illegal, right?

While I too believe the US is not "in the final stages of fully reconstituting itself as a police state", various laws have been enacted and are being enacted that could turn this place into one at the drop of a hat.

I've always been baffled that so-called small-government conservatives aren't bothered by the vastly increased governmental presence everywhere we go.

I'm more bothered by the vastly increased government and municipal waste and bureaucracy that the U.S has seen in the past few decades.

To me the threat isn't the National Guardsmen in Penn Station, it's the redundant town administrators who make $100K plus cadillac benefits and six weeks' off. But that's just me.

What are the stats on the increased waste? The defense budget has doubled in the last decade. And, as I'm sure you know, it was pretty high ten years ago. Those National Guardsman in Penn Station are the result of the doubling.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576219073867182108.html

Where in that article are the statistics on waste? I see a lot on governmental growth, but nothing concrete to suggest it's waste. Unless, of course, you believe all government spending is waste.

The "article' you cite is an editorial, in a newspaper that has rarely shied away from fudging and outright falsifying data on their opinion pages.
Just one example,

Assuming the numbers are correct (and I didn't check them), they are nonetheless being used to lie. First, the number of manufacturing jobs has absolutely nothing to do with the number of government employees - the numbers are Juxtaposed to suggest some inverse relationship between them, where none exists. Second, while it may be the case that government jobs grew by 95%, the US population grew over the same period grew by 74% (the increased cost of healthcare alone could account for most of the difference). Fwiw, the defense budget grew, in real terms, by 94%.

The piece goes on to say
blockquote rel=WallStreetJournal">It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers.

It's suggesting 1) that people employed by the government do no work - they are simply collecting paychecks (they're "takers"). I guess that must include soldiers, sailors, airmen/women, teachers, postal workers, VA doctors and nurses etc, and 2) That this descent into idleness and sloth was entirely by choice of those Americans- that it wasn't industrial companies and their facilitators in Congress who shipped most of those jobs out of the country, leaving only the service sector as a growth business.

In other words, the editorial is complete bullsh!t.

GMCaesar said:

I'm sure there was a nice selection of entertainments to be had in Berlin in the late '30s.

Just because they aren't coming for you doesn't mean they aren't coming for someone else down the street.

Here's a piece of good news: "Amid criticism about the way New York City police officers enforce marijuana laws, Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly issued a memo to commanders this week reiterating that officers are not to arrest people who have small amounts of marijuana in their possession unless it is in public view.

The New York Legislature decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana in the 1970s, making possession of 25 grams or less a violation of the law that in most cases would not bring a jail sentence. But possessing even small amounts of marijuana in public view remains a misdemeanor.

Just over 50,000 people were arrested on marijuana possession charges last year, a vast majority of them members of minorities and male. Critics say that as part of the Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policy, officers routinely tell suspects to empty their pockets and then, if marijuana is displayed, arrest them for having the drugs in public view, thereby pushing thousands of people toward criminality and into criminal justice system."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/nyregion/minor-marijuana-possession-charges-require-public-view.html

Decided to remove it since it involves a friend's child but glad I got rastro's opinion on the matter.

He could have said he wanted to call a lawyer. But.. how much did he have? I believe under 25 grams is a "violation" in NYS, which means a ticket, not arrest.

IANAL, but to me, trying to make him read the bible is a very clear violation of his civil rights. That part bothers me more than the arrest.

.

I am not a lawyer.

.

Thanks for spelling it out, rastro. It's too late at night for me to think through the possibilities -- or google it.

lisat said:

I wonder if he had said he wanted a lawyer instead of turning over what he had, would they have searched his room without a warrant.

IMHO, it's likely the only difference is that any arrest/fine would be dismissed. I doubt the police would even be reprimanded.

jeffmarkel,

Sorry to pursue a thread drift, but:

I know that you know that you're playing fast and loose with the language of our Second Amendment; and I can fully appreciate your sentiment that there are too many guns about, as well as that the Second Amendment may very well be anachronistic in twenty-first century America.

But I'm wondering what you think of those who would say First they came for our Second Amendment Rights, but I wasn't a gun owner....

In the event I've misapprehended your thinking on the Second Amendment, please accept my apologies.

TomR

TomR - yes, Jeff is clearly playing "fast and loose" with the language of the Second Amendment by quoting it. Seriously, what are you talking about?

My feeling is pretty much what TomR is getting at. I don't feel the need to own a gun, but some do, and I don't want to take that away from them. Maybe it would have been better not to have the right to own guns in the first place. It would be even better if guns didn't exist, but we can't uninvent them. The horse is out of the barn.

Not my point at all, Tom. My point is that the language of the second amendment, while somewhat ambiguous, speaks of the right to "bear arms" only in the context of the need for a "well regulated militia," gun-rights fanatics preference to ignore it notwithstanding.

I know. It's quite debatable because it's so very ambiguous.

But over time, it has been interpreted by a great many to mean we can own guns as individuals, not part of a militia. And many do own guns. And now, to say that the right they've been exercising was wrong all along amounts to a reduction in rights. And I can't favor that, even if we decide it's been a grand mistake. And there is not enough consensus to say we agree that it was a grand mistake. So right or wrong, the right to own guns exists.

jeffmarkel said:

Not my point at all, Tom. My point is that the language of the second amendment, while somewhat ambiguous, speaks of the right to "bear arms" only in the context of the need for a "well organized militia," gun-rights fanatics preference to ignore it notwithstanding.

Didn't the Supreme Court rule in favor of individual right to bear arms?

They did - that doesn't mean they're right.

I'm still waiting to hear what exactly a "well-regulated militia" means in the context of the gun debate, and if I'm really really lucky why it's there in the second amendment in the first place.

Student_Council said:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576219073867182108.html

That doesn't answer my question, of course. I asked for stats on waste and bureaucracy, not growth.

By the way, much of that growth is because of the insane expansion of defense over the last 10 years.

My favorite part of that opinion piece was this line: "Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services—fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations—through competitive contracting to private providers."

Notice he bases his point on studies, not reality. A lot of states, cities and town have already privatized these things. The results? Not much saved (especially when it comes to prisons).

I know I would prefer my fire fighting and prevention go to to the lowest bidder. Police, too.

And remember the debacle of privatizing the DMV?

jeffmarkel said:

They did - that doesn't mean they're right.

Sorry, Jeff, but that argument could kill Roe V Wade, too.

No need to be sorry - pretty much all Supreme Court decisions are matters of opinion - that's why they call the documents explaining them "opinions."

rastro said:

I know I would prefer my fire fighting and prevention go to to the lowest bidder. Police, too.

We could save money by scaling down transportation.

No need to eliminate partners

Nice essay by David Cole on these 3 books in NYReview of Books, Dec 22:

One Nation Under Surveillance: A New Social Contract to Defend Freedom Without Sacrificing Liberty (Chesterman); Nothing to Hide: the false tradeoff between privacy and security (Solove); The Rights of People: How our search for safety invades our liberties( Shipler).

A few points from essay:

Currently: U.S. v Jones is most important privacy case to reach SCOTUS: drug dealer is charged after monitoring GPS for extended period; do we need cause (4th Amend.) as we would with warrant to monitor GPS? or is GPS the equivalent of physically "keeping a tail" on a suspect? And is there a difference between following someone via GPS from Point A to Point B and monitoring via GPS for an extended period?

Should your cell phone company be made to turn over records of your location without cause?

If police can search an individual, can they claim anything on your phone - texts, emails, etc? That laptop in your luggage at the airport?

SCOTUS is notoriously slow on tech decisions; took 50 years to rule that wiretaps are "search" and need warrant.

jeff,

Based upon your opening post, and comment regarding Muslims, its my impression that you're opposed to government's incrementally chipping away at our civil liberties, generally. What I'm don't get, is your seeming willingness to allow government to chip away at the civil liberty recognized in our Second Amendment.

That Amendment doesn't require membership in a State's militia for one to assert the Right to bear arms. That Right is recognized, both by the text, and interpretation, of our Constitution as pertaining to the people. Insofar as there is no restriction in that Amendment regarding to which of the people the Right pertains; it must be taken as pertaining to all the people whose Right has not been restricted in accordance with due process of law.

I won't deny the existence of the introductory clause; nor that it is the reason we decided that the individual's Right to bear arms is recognized as such. However, I can't get to the point of view, that the reason for recognition of that Right is a condition for the exercise of that Right.

My concern is not that I want to bear arms; but rather, that if I allow well intentioned people to circumscribe our individual Right to do, which of our other Rights will other well intentioned people next put on the block. Perhaps the Right of a U.S. citizen, in the U.S., to not suffer indefinite military detention, without charge or trial?

Please explain your position regarding the Second Amendment. You may very well hold the philosopher's stone.

And for what its worth; the Supreme Court is always right. Justice Jackson told us so.

We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.

Thanks for any help in understanding your position.

-------------

Steve,

You may have a point.

Regrettably, I cannot respond intelligently as my copy of our Constitution doesn't have the quote you attribute to jeff.

I must have an old edition. Could you send me a copy of the one you're referencing.

Thanks.

TomR

TomR -

Here's the entirety of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If the framers had not intended this right specifically, and solely, for the purpose of providing a well regulated militia, there is no conceivable reason why they would have included the first two clauses of the sentence. If the right were a more general, more expansive one, there would have been no justification for "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and it would have been edited out by one or more of that notoriously picky and disputatious bunch.

Don't forget the background - it was the framers' intent that the United States not maintain a standing army - instead local and state militias would be raised at need.

jeff,

As I wrote above, I do not contest that a well regulated militia was the reason that the smart dead guys wrote down that our Right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

I still can't get to your point of view that said reason for recognizing that Right, is a condition for an individual's exercise of that Right.

They could have written something else like "So long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State" but they didn't, and as written, the Amendment says, in sum and substance: this is the reason we think the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please explain how you get to the point that you equate: enunciating the reason for the Right, to a condition for the exercise of that Right.

TomR

P.s., Its good to see that you and I are working from the same edition of our Constitution. Do you think that both of ours are editions predating Steve's?

TomR - your sarcasm is noted. Don't know why you're continuing to post in this manner. Your earlier comment was wholly uncalled for and suggested that Jeff was making up language concerning a well-regulated militia.

At the end of the day, you (and others, notably certain members of the Supreme Court), choose to simply read those words out of the Second Amendment. In law, all words are presumed to have a purpose - "[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992).

So, what do those words mean?