The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 18, 2013, 06:45 PM   #426
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,068
Aren't we discussing the legal definition, though?

Quote:
interstate commerce

n. commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money, or transportation from one state to another, regulated by the federal government according to powers spelled out in Article I of the Constitution. The federal government can also regulate commerce within a state when it may impact interstate movement of goods and services and may strike down state actions which are barriers to such movement under Chief Justice John Marshall's decision in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). Theoretically commerce is regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (I.C.C.) under authority granted by the Interstate Commerce Act, first enacted by Congress in 1887. This authority has been diffused among various federal agencies, and the I.C.C. may soon be history.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1008
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 07:06 PM   #427
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,765
Background checks - controversy

We are.

But there's two points, what is and what should be.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 07:21 PM   #428
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
what should be.
So what's your argument to make what should be what is?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 07:58 PM   #429
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy View Post
So what's your argument to make what should be what is?
We convince people. Easier said than done, unfortunately.

The SCOTUS upheld slavery and segregation at one time so just because they interpret it one way, doesn't make it right. The 14th, for example, they gutted intentionally and with malice.

People need to learn history and hermeneutics.

The start is simple. Ask yourself one question... "Were the writers of the constitution trying to be cryptic and confusing or were they educated men who knew what they meant to say and said it?"

Then, read it.

Read each piece, each sentence or paragraph and ask yourself, "What does it say?"

When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.

That's the start.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 08:16 PM   #430
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
That's how you convince the other guy at the bar. To convince SCOTUS to disturb a prior decision and contradict itself will take more than that.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 08:20 PM   #431
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,765
It's not going to happen unless and until people who think like that get into SCOTUS.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 08:59 PM   #432
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
It's not going to happen unless and until people who think like that get into SCOTUS.
Well, then Brian, we just have to get you elected POTUS, so that you can appoint me and Frank as Justices.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 09:06 PM   #433
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
Despite excellent marketing to the contrary, the US military is not volunteer. It is professional.
When signing the papers you agree to a term of service with AND in the fine print it says the government can extend this term unilaterally. Now, you could easily convince me that any private company getting an 18 year old who received straight Ds through four years of HS English to sign such a contract would lose handily in court on the grounds the contract is abusive, but that obviously isn't going to happen with the military. Of course, an E1 is in the 87th percentile of yearly income globally. Yes, I put my asbestos suit on before posting.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; April 18, 2013 at 09:12 PM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 09:42 PM   #434
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,765
Quote:
Well, then Brian, we just have to get you elected POTUS, so that you can appoint me and Frank as Justices.
It's a deal!

Seriously though, that's what it will take. "Originalists" getting into office, elected and appointed.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 18, 2013, 11:09 PM   #435
Derius_T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: South West OHIO (boondocks)
Posts: 1,337
I have read through nearly all of the current pages of this thread. This subject, and the subject of rights in general interests me greatly, as I fought for them, and do not enjoy seeing them given away so freely for promises of compromise that either doesn't come, or isn't really compromise to begin with. As I have read this thread, and others it seems to me that there are two basic sides to this argument that keep popping up over and over.

One side feels that it is okay if a few "good" people are occasionally hindered, or restricted, or outright denied in some way, from exercising their Constitutional rights, as long as some "bad" people are stopped somewhere along the line.

The other side feels that it is never okay to hinder, restrict, or otherwise deny a Constitutional right from a person who is lawfully exercising that right, on the presumption that it "might" hinder a few bad guys along the way.

That about it?

Seems a very smart man once said: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And this by another: "Let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the constitution be reprehended. If defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence."

Last edited by Derius_T; April 18, 2013 at 11:23 PM.
Derius_T is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 01:49 AM   #436
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
Well, then Brian, we just have to get you elected POTUS, so that you can appoint me and Frank as Justices.
Hey, I want in too! I'm a better choice than Feinstein.
Quote:
One side feels that it is okay if a few "good" people are occasionally hindered, or restricted, or outright denied in some way, from exercising their Constitutional rights, as long as some "bad" people are stopped somewhere along the line.
I don't feel it's "okay", I feel it's inevitable given the fact that the system is designed and managed by human beings, subject to the foibles that define the human condition- and judge those hindrances in the spirit they happen in- and try to make the best of a bad situation.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 02:21 AM   #437
Derius_T
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2004
Location: South West OHIO (boondocks)
Posts: 1,337
So it's inevitable that some people's God given rights must be crushed or hampered in order that some perceived measure of safety for someone else might be achieved?

That's just an easy way of saying it's okay to trample the rights of some as long as you are doing good for some others.

I don't think it's inevitable at all. The only thing that is inevitable is that rights will continue to be stripped to the benefit of those in power, if good, honest men continue to allow it to happen.

There is no "making the best of a bad situation" when it comes to losing MY rights. (or anyone else's for that matter, that myself and many others shed blood for) That is simply not acceptable.
Derius_T is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 08:08 AM   #438
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Two very good posts, Derius T, thanks.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 08:58 AM   #439
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
So it's inevitable that some people's God given rights must be crushed or hampered in order that some perceived measure of safety for someone else might be achieved?

That's just an easy way of saying it's okay to trample the rights of some as long as you are doing good for some others.

I don't think it's inevitable at all. The only thing that is inevitable is that rights will continue to be stripped to the benefit of those in power, if good, honest men continue to allow it to happen.

There is no "making the best of a bad situation" when it comes to losing MY rights. (or anyone else's for that matter, that myself and many others shed blood for) That is simply not acceptable.
Yeah, it's inevitable.

Eventually the LEO's will get bad information.

Eventually someone will transpose two digits on a search warrant, mix up
street, avenue, boulevard, etc.

Eventually while apprehending one criminal that's a danger for society, bystanders wlll be shot, by one side or the other.

Eventually, the deaf man walking down the street will be tackled, assaulted, and detained when he doesn't respond in any way to the challenge of the law enforcement officer- because he was literally deaf to those orders.

We can argue theory all day long. Eventually theory has to be applied to reality. People make mistakes. It's in the nature of people. Being forcibly detained because you couldn't hear the LEO over the music in your earbuds doesn't rise to anywhere NEAR the same level of "mens rea" as using a phone book in an interrogation room to beat a confession out of someone.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 09:16 AM   #440
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
Quote:
This subject, and the subject of rights in general interests me greatly, as I fought for them, and do not enjoy seeing them given away so freely for promises of compromise that either doesn't come, or isn't really compromise to begin with.
Who exactly did you fight that was threatening the BoR in the USA?
Or, do you mean, you served in the military, in combat, for some President's most likely ill-advised and even questionably ethical war(s) like I did?
Kochman is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 09:33 AM   #441
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD
Yeah, it's inevitable.
I agree that infractions of civil liberties are inevitable. The question of how to handle them legally remains.

One answer is to legally sanction those violations, building exceptions into the law. This is the approach Alan Dershowitz takes to torture; he proposes that a state should obtain a warrant from a court for the use of torture.

Another answer is to be aware that states will infringe civil liberties, but not provide the cover of law for those infringements.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 09:39 AM   #442
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
It's not going to happen unless and until people who think like that get into SCOTUS.
Even a strict constructionist will need a legal argument to disturb a prior ruling, out of respect for stare decisis. Though it does happen, with the best example I can find being Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 09:43 AM   #443
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,765
Quote:
Even a strict constructionist will need a legal argument to disturb a prior ruling, out of respect for stare decisis.
A strict constructionist lawyer arguing before the court would be a "legal argument". A strict constructionist judge(s) just needs "I think that was wrong."

Even the lawyer, obviously, it's complicated but the base answer is "I've got an idea! How about words and phrases MEAN what they SAY!" That's a "legal" argument.

And in terms of rights "inevitably" getting trampled, it's one thing when it's a mistake, it's another thing entirely when it's a LAW.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 09:44 AM   #444
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
Another answer is to be aware that states will infringe civil liberties, but not provide the cover of law for those infringements.
I'm somewhere left? of not providing the cover of law and way right? allowing a warrant to waterboard some poor guy. I meantioned mens rea earlier, because I think that's an important part of the decision on what to do about it. If there was no malice involved- i.e. searching 1313 Mockingbird Lane instead of 3131 Mockingbird Lane when the really DID want to search 3131 Mockingbird Lane, we shouldn't be looking at jail time or punitive damages- just compensatory, though compensatory could justify a lot more things. Is there a class of damages between the two?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 09:57 AM   #445
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
. . . .I meantioned mens rea earlier, because I think that's an important part of the decision on what to do about it. If there was no malice involved- i.e. searching 1313 Mockingbird Lane instead of 3131 Mockingbird Lane when the really DID want to search 3131 Mockingbird Lane, we shouldn't be looking at jail time or punitive damages- just compensatory, though compensatory could justify a lot more things. Is there a class of damages between the two?
This is where you get off into qualified immunity, which is more than an immunity from damages. It's an immunity from the burdens of trial.
Quote:
When government officials abuse their offices, “action[s] for damages may offer the only realistic avenue for vindication of constitutional guarantees.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S., at 814, 102 S.Ct., at 2736. On the other hand, permitting damages suits against government officials can entail substantial social costs, including the risk that fear of personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties. Ibid. Our cases have accommodated these conflicting concerns by generally providing government officials performing discretionary functions with a qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages liability as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated. See, e.g., Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”); id., at 344–345, 106 S.Ct., at 1097–1098 (police officers applying for warrants are immune if a reasonable officer could have believed that there was probable cause to support the application); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (officials are immune unless “the law clearly proscribed the actions” they took); Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 191, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3017, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984); id., at 198, 104 S.Ct., at 3021 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra, 457 U.S., at 819, 102 S.Ct., at 2738. Cf., e.g., Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S. 555, 562, 98 S.Ct. 855, 859, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978). Somewhat more concretely, whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the action. Harlow, 457 U.S., at 819, 102 S.Ct., at 2739, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken, id., at 818, 102 S.Ct., at 2738)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638-39, 107 S. Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987).

Quote:
This is so because qualified immunity—which shields Government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights,” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)—is both a defense to liability and a limited “entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” Mitchell, supra, 472 U.S., at 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806. Provided it “turns on an issue of law,” id., at 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, . . .
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1945-46, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)

To put this into a somewhat more succinct package: if officers want to search 3131 Mockingbird, but their warrant says 1313 Mockingbird, then the owner of 1313 Mockingbird is probably out of luck.

Damages: there are basically two broad categories: compensatory (makes the Plaintiff "whole") and punitive (teaches a defendant "don't do that"). There are a few other things like special damages, liquidated damages, and the like, but I don't think that any of those are relevant to the issues at hand.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman

Last edited by Spats McGee; April 19, 2013 at 10:02 AM.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 10:22 AM   #446
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
A strict constructionist lawyer arguing before the court would be a "legal argument". A strict constructionist judge(s) just needs "I think that was wrong."
Without a legal argument of why it's wrong beyond the dictionary you'll never have it get to SCOTUS for Certiorari. You're still going to have to come up with other precedents you can cite to present the facts of the case in a new light to get it reconsidered.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 10:28 AM   #447
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
This is where you get off into qualified immunity, which is more than an immunity from damages. It's an immunity from the burdens of trial.
I'm not willing to go THAT far for the State. They've collectively employed more lawyers than Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe for centuries- which isn't as far a reason as judicial action is the only form of redress for an individual in many of these cases.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 10:28 AM   #448
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,765
Clearly, it can't be just SCOTUS. It requires a change in the way that the law is understood. I'm not saying it's going to happen. In fact, I really have no hope. I can see where our society has been, where it is and where it's being led and I see no likelihood that it's going to be stopped or reversed. The United States of America, as it was intended to be and as it was, is gone and will never be back. That doesn't mean we don't fight to put it back but it does mean that I realize that the likely best case scenario is slowly the decent.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 10:31 AM   #449
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
This is where you get off into qualified immunity, which is more than an immunity from damages. It's an immunity from the burdens of trial.
I'm not willing to go THAT far for the State. They've collectively employed more lawyers than Dewey, Cheetum, and Howe for centuries- which isn't as far a reason as judicial action is the only form of redress for an individual in many of these cases.
Go that far? You don't have to go that far. That's already law.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 19, 2013, 10:40 AM   #450
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
Go that far? You don't have to go that far. That's already law.
I was under the impression it was a hodge podge. Some aspects of government had qualified immunity, some didn't. Part of this is tickling the back of my brain over the Watergate scandal.. some of those guys weren't prosecuted because they had a reasonable belief what they were doing was lawful, or some such...
JimDandy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15092 seconds with 7 queries