Slashdot Mirror

Federalist 10 deals somewhat with the issue of political parties.

Federalist #10 explores how true democracy would be susceptible to faction: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm. The "founding fathers" were very concerned about how easily swayed the common people are; in fact "mob" comes from "mobile vulgaris," the movable herd. I think Nietzsche's considerations on class resentment apply here too. Think about the true but disturbing populist movements like the French Revolution, the Stalinist and Maoist revolutions and so on. They're nasty things. Populism can become ugly quickly.

+5 to you & +5 to the parent.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Montesqieu 1740 (http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol.txt) wrote many unexpected things on climate and temper. Here is one from the link above:

Effects arising from the Climate of England. In a nation so distempered by the climate as to have a disrelish of everything, nay, even of life, it is plain that the government most suitable to the inhabitants is that in which they cannot lay their uneasiness to any single person's charge, and in which, being under the direction rather of the laws than of the prince, it is impossible for them to change the government without subverting the laws themselves.

And if this nation has likewise derived from the climate a certain impatience of temper, which renders them incapable of bearing the same train of things for any long continuance, it is obvious that the government above mentioned is the fittest for them.

There are lot more fun to read in this English translation from the French language version.

A police officer serving a search warrant cannot be held liable for any civil damages resulting from that action unless he had reason to believe the warrant was not valid or he went about serving it in a grossly incompetent fashion.

The statute in question is: 42 U. S. C. s 1983. Qualified Immunity of Police Officers.

I suggest you start your research here.

No, it really doesn't. If you read the words and decide, based on a reasonable interpretation (which the militia clause certainly gives you), that the Constitution explicitly allows the government some regulation over guns, it seems perfectly reasonable to say so, even if you believe that it doesn't explicitly allow regulation of some other things.

First no one said the Constitution prohibits all "regulation" of firearms. That's not true. It simply sets a very high bar for this, just as it sets a very high bar for "regulating" speech. (I keep putting quotes around "regulate" because the word has come to be used today in a way it was certainly not used in the 18th century - the word just meant "to make regular." A common procedure for a gunsmith in those days was to "regulate" a bore that had deteriorated, for instance, which just meant eliminating the irregularities in it. When the federal government was supposed to "regulate" interstate commerce this meant to eliminate irregularities such as one state charging protectionist tarrifs on the produce of another state. It's been twisted and expanded beyond all recognition to where today anytime congress sticks its nose into something it is said to be "regulating" it even when there is no other connection at all with the root meaning of the word, but I digress.)

Now that said, the militia clause absolutely does NOT in ANY way make it "reasonable" to interpret the amendment away. This is one of the most frustrating myths to deal with because it's so easily and thoroughly debunked by a simple grammatical analysis a normal 6th grader should have no trouble with, and keeps getting spread by people who clearly should know better - more evidence of that general hypocrisy I mentioned earlier. It really holds no water at all. A subordinate clause just doesnt function that way in English, and certainly didnt function that way in 18th century English. See here if you really dont understand what I'm talking about.

The U.S. was never conceived to be any such thing. The first amendment (along with the other 9) was only tacked on to the Constitution because the Federalists knew it was the only way to achieve popular ratification of the Constitution--with its stronger, more centralized government. They didn't give a shit about the ideology behind this amendment, it was designed purely to appease a suspicious populace. If you want a good example of how little the Federalists really thought of "free speech," you need only look at the Sedition Act, passed just a few years later at the behest of Federalist President John Adams--which outlawed any form of public criticism of the President or U.S. government.

If he wanted a semi-auto he could just build 15-25 AR-15s for what he's spend on that single select fire M-16, which, although very tempting is satisfying in a much different way.

I presume he wants an M-4 for the barrel length and not the select fire capability. Otherwise he could have just said M-16 which would indeed be very expensive. The former is still a restricted weapon being a short barreled rifle, but at least one can register and pay the tax on it. Just this past year someone posted their form 1140 for a 11.5 inch barreled M-15 stating "Zombies" as the reason why they intend to make the firearm.

It's funny how a law in the Internal Revenue Code for the collection of tax revenue can be used for prohibition.

The separation of powers defined in the Constitution do not make for an *equal* separation of powers. Congress has much more authority than the other two branches of federal government.

Hamilton would disagree with you. If anything, he says that the President should be MORE powerful than the Congress, the role of the Congress to be a check on him, not the other way around.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa70.htm

it's funny to see the FBI encouraging such behavior

It reminds me to the series of letters of George Mercies, about "Invisible Contracts".

[For example, in the U.S.S.R., the KGB is known to have secretly "created" (sponsored is more like it) -- various protester groups for the sole purpose of throwing out some attractive philosophy designed to attract a certain type of individual, and then having "extracted" those individuals from society, and having thus identified them -- then shutting down the organization and arresting the members. This practice is a utilization of the principle known as the "Doctrine of False Opposition."]

Note that "general welfare" is not a power granted to the federal government. According at least to the people who helped write it, that phrase is absolutely not "an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare." It's just an introductory phrase leading to the rest of the sentence, which lists the enumerated powers. That's why it says "common defense" and then goes on to specify that Congress can create a military; reading "common defense" as a power would make that part redundant. So, when we talk about federal spending, we should be looking at what legal authority there is for it -- if any.

When has it ever worked? When have the people ever used their guns to stop the executive? Answer: Never.

Matewan, or the Battle of Athens?

Pieces of history that don't get taught anywhere because it is...."disturbing". These things do happen, and in the relatively recent past.

The passage you mention (beginning "The money of the state...") is not in the US Constitution (although it probably should be).

http://constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm

I believe that's from the NY state constitution.

I hope that the US Constitution becomes more to the people than a stumbling block in the way of popular (and well-marketed) legislation. I fear that a stumbling block is all that it is, however.

Our ancestors didn't dream up the electoral college for those reasons. They did it out of practical reasons of governing such a large country.

Who told you this? The reality is there were fierce arguments over all aspects of the constitution. States were being asked to give up power to the federal government, and they needed something in return for this. The electoral college was, in fact, a compromise between those seeking to elect the president with the state legislature, those who were concerned about giving legislatures too much power, and those seeking an independent presidency. Only a small number of delegates pushed for popular vote, and they were not accommodated.

You don't have to believe me, if you've been taught otherwise, but you'll have trouble arguing with James Madison:

The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is national, not federal. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is federal, not national. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features.

Notice no talk in the whole of the Federalist Papers about practical matters of administration? He says straight-out that the Legislature is meant to be half-popular and half-state, and the Presidency is a mix of the two.

I regularly listen to a podcast that calls for the end of the United States Federal government. Am I a terrorist? Or is the host of the show a terrorist? Were the anti-federalists terrorists?

More accurately what it requires is overwhelming opposition to existing security forces. That's really the difficulty here, in Seattle N30 the anti-globalization movement managed to pull it off - primarily by surprise. But as seen at the Miami FTAA protests, the government wised up and thanks to 'homeland security' initiatives has significantly beefed up its numbers.

The lacking ingredient here is not so much training or arms, its commitment. Mark Rudd put it best when he said that the state has claimed a monopoly on violence, and any violence NOT sanctioned by the state is considered criminal or insane. If you have that viewpoint it doesn't matter how many guns you own.

Anyways, Battle of Athens linksies because it is a REALLY cool story: http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

We may not like how they're exercising that power, but there's absolutely no question that they have it to anyone who's studied Supreme Court precedent on the matter.

Right, but just because they've adopted a binding system of stare decisis in a manner incompatible with Constitutional rule doesn't make it Constitutional. A persuasive system would allow the judges to uphold their oaths.

If you assume that Congress has UNLIMITED AUTHORITY, then why do we have a Constitution at all? The Constitution is a compact between the people, of the comity of the people, WITH EACH OTHER which vests certain defined and limited portions of the absolute sovereignty of the people in a Congress, etc. That power is clearly and explicitly limited. What part of 'reserved to the people' is not clear here?

When Congress assumes for itself powers not vested in it they are overthrowing the authority of the people. MY ancestors stood literally in the face of British cannon fire in order to guarantee EVERYONE the protection of those rights. Now, does anyone doubt that it does us dishonor if we fail to respect that? I WILL NOT yield those rights, not to Congress nor to anyone else. And if fools insist on giving them away, then I will withdraw my permission for those people to use those rights, and there is NO LIMIT to my right to do so, nor to the just means which I may avail myself of in that cause.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm

The word "rights" does not exist in the Fourteenth Amendment. "Privileges and Immunities" does. They are exclusive terms.

Go ahead, argue against what the Supreme Court has found over and over again. While the 14th has been held to be selectively applied to the protection of rights from State interference, only the 2nd and 5th amendments have not been affirmatively upheld wrt state law.

Here's some analysis that may help you, and it includes additional writings that clarify the intent of the 14th amendment.

If you have sources that contravene this, please provide, I'd be glad to read them.

And that, ladies gentlemen and geek masses, is just one reason why the "...to overthrow the government if they turn into a tyranny!" argument in support of the 2nd Amendment is baloney. Try it and see whether the general public see you as a terrorist or a patriot.

First, just because things aren't bad enough yet doesn't mean they can't get there. Second, it doesn't have to be a full-scale revolution against the federal government to be effective. When the federal government refused to assist the locals in Athens, Georgia, they used force to remove the corruption from their county government (see http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm for example).

Oh yeah, and even if you DID somehow manage to raise a large, angry mob of enraged disenchanted ex-mainstreamers, how well d'you think you'd do against a modern military?

Perhaps Iraq could serve as a good example? With a small population of anti-US revolutionaries and a portion of the population quietly in support, they have inflicted thousands of casualties on the best military money can buy.

And, just because you are uncomfortable with the thought of protecting yourself against an oppressive government, you ought not take that right from others who are willing to fight for their liberty.

To quote John Swinton:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

All this discussion about crime statistics doesn't matter. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms was to ensure the American citizens would always have, as a last resort, a means of stopping an out of control government. This was to prevent the types of abuses the colonists had faced under the British government and what they saw happening in other European kingdoms and countries of the time.

A good source of the history of the purpose behind the 2nd amendment can be found at this site which is actually a Congressional Subcommittee report on the Constitution from 1982.

Some interesting quotes provided include:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. Noah Webster

that a well regulated militia, composed of gentlemen and freemen, is the natural strength and only security of a free government.... Patrick Henry

In Federalist Paper 46, Madison, later author of the Second Amendment, mentioned

The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of all other countries

and that

notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

The report lists many others.

The point is, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not just for an individual to be able to defend themselves from criminals, but as a means of defending themselves from an overly oppressive government. An example of the type of abusive government envisioned is available today in Zimbabwe.

It is worth pointing out that those groups that radically oppose personal gun ownership also seem to be the same groups that believe the federal government should be able to control more aspects of an individual's life. And how interesting is it that the very vocally opposed politicians such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley don't mind having armed body guards for themselves while denouncing the Supreme Court upholding the rights of the citizenry to have similar protection.

Federalist #46 has this to say:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

and

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

It is a logical conclusion that faced with an armed populace, even without the most modern weapons, that the numbers of those armed would concern any abusive power, and the first precedent would be to disarm them.

I wonder what the criminal on the street with an unlicensed firearm thinks of the ruling today. The day I got my gun was the day I realized I was now armed like a criminal. I actually felt privileged, not like I was doing a duty or exercising a right as an American. I felt judged by the state. I shouldn't have felt that way.

You never had that "right". If you're a US citizen, your rights are delineated in exquisite detail here:

Bill of Rights

Also note that there is a history of legal rulings which shape how delineated rights are to be implemented and secured by government.

You never had a "right" to USENET to begin with.

So one needn't "abuse children" in order to lose a right one never had. This is a very important distinction and is not said to patronize.

The Constitution was designed such that elections are left for the states to control - see Article 1 Section 4. Before the 17th Amendment, US Senators were chosen by the state legislatures as a type of balance against the power of the federal government over the states - by the Senators depending upon reelection by the "state" - see Article 1 Section 3 (this is something I believe we should consider returning to).

The 17th Amendment didn't need to specify any further "how" the Senators should be elected other than by the people of the each state and was worded specifically to fit with the original wording.

On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud -- forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies -- by the local political boss. They got no help.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

You see, the local gov't should be afraid of it's citizens and the Feds should be afraid of the states. That is the only thing I regret about the Civil War, the Fed asserted itself as a controlling body rather than a forum of regulation.

It has only gotten worse, to the point that the 10th Amendment is nullified by pandering SCOTUS.

I've said it before. Like every other Amendment, the 10th is vitally important even if it doesn't support your goals like making pot illegal, universal health care, or making abortion legal/illegal.

Each of those issues are clearly outside of the domain of the Fed, but we've had enough justices that assert power that should not be within the gov't to establish their puissance and preeminence in the DC scene.

Not all rebellions have to be a nationwide, overthrow the federal government type. The last successful armed revolution was in 1946 in Athens, Tennessee.

So, if that justification for the second amendment is obsoleced, then the only real justifications are hunting, protection, and for sport. Which makes me feel fine tolerating pretty restrictive gun control.

I could see someone supporting an amendment revoking the second amendment. But are you really ok with laws that go against the Constitution of the US? Just because gun laws don't bother you personally, they are still a violation of our explicit legal rights in the same sense that warrantless wiretapping is.

See http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htminstead.

Unfortunately, Slashdot is a terrible forum for extended debates. I would heartily recommend that you read or listen to Bastiat's "The Law" for a different perspective on the proper function of law and government. When I read "The Law" it brought about a revolution in my thinking on the proper domain of the government and the law. Perhaps you will find something interesting in it as well.

"The Law" holds answers to all of the questions you pose below, and does so more eloquently than I ever could. However, in the interest of discourse I will do my best to answer your points.

You make an excellent point, so let me flip it on you. The law is nothing more than an averaging medium. Again, as always, I speak outside of matters of bodily harm. It simply sets the environment to a known standard if you will.

Who could argue that this is what the law has become? Yet, this is a perversion of the law in my eyes. Law's purpose is to prevent injustice, and thus ensuring a reign of freedom and justice for everyone. The Law is the extension of man's natural right to his life, liberty and his property. How can the law can be extended any further than this without violating man's other natural rights is beyond me.

If the law is merely an arbitrary framework of rules that we make up, how can it's existence be justified? Without morale authority the law will inevitably become arbitrary, irrational, and the tool of the few to plunder and suppress the many.

No one is punishing anybody here. We're saying that the majority of people want music sharing to be legal. Therefore, by the rules of democracy, it must become legal.

Because something is popular and made into law, does that make it just? History is littered with popular policies that upon reflection were profoundly wrong and unjust.

I wonder how can you say no one is being punished when you take money from someone and give it to another? Tell me, is the law just, merely because it is the law? If the law becomes the instrument of injustice, then it becomes a tool of the few to plunder the many. Laws of this sort should be abolished without delay.

Look at driving. I pay for inssurance -- I'm forced to. ...

Look at health care. Another wonderful thing, ...

We cannot use the status quo to defend a new law. The status quo may not be just.

So over-all, our country is better. Welcome to Canada. Instead of seeing everything as someone else punishing us, we tend to see things as our helping someone else. There's a Karma modifier on your profile. There's another one on our passports. It reads: "Canadian"; and it comes with a little flag.

This is what Bastiat called "false philanthropy". Government cannot give something to someone, without by force taking it from someone else. Additionally, you rely upon the "wise and virtuous legislator" to mold man into something better than what he would become, left to his own devices.

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally sup

What illegal acts? The levy makes downloading perfectly legal.

What is proposed is the following:
It is illegal to freely download the movie "Return of the King".
It is legal to freely download the soundtrack "Return of the King".

If the law is to be just, it must be consistent and applicable to all. The above policies makes no rational sense and makes the law arbitrary, and therefore not just. The failure to maintain justice makes the law immoral. It forces the citizen to choose between that which is respectable and just, and that which is lawful. How can the law be defended when it institutionalizes injustice?

Why should I pay for the illegal acts of people buying guns? Owning guns is only legal in my country (Germany) if you have proper training and the proper permissions. If we stopped issuing those permissions, the country could save a bit of money. Guns would become illegal, but that's not a problem. I don't own one.

I submit that you should not have to pay for any such regulation, and that regulation should be repealed without delay. If someone is irresponsible with their weapon, they should be punished according to their deeds, that is all.

Newsflash, countries do things even if only relatively few people actually profit from that. The relatively few people downloading msuic are still absolutely many, so Canada decides that they should be helped and not criminalized. That makes everything a bit more expensive for everyone else. That's the cost of living in a social (not socialist) country as opposed to a everyone-fights-for-themselves country like the USA.

Then you would make the law arbitrary, not respectable, and revoke its morale authority. If you apply the law unevenly then how can you say that this is justice? For some crimes, all must share in the punishment, but for others, only those responsible are held accountable. How can this be reasonably argued? Because something is popular, it does not follow that it is just and respectable.

As I have done elsewhere I would heartily recommend that you read or listen to Bastiat's "The Law" for a different perspective on the proper domain of law and government. I hope you will find it as interesting as I did when I first read it.

Also note that New Hampshire was a focus of the 1992 book Votescam (full text) regarding the 1988 election:

Then came a widely reported promise made by Bush to his campaign manager, Gov. Sununu. It happens that Sununu's computer engineering skills approach 'genius' on the tests. If Sununu could "deliver" New Hampshire, and Bush didn't care how and didn't want to know how -- then Sununu would become his chief of staff in the White House.

[...]

Washington Post: [...] For Vice President Bush and his supporters, Tuesday's 9-percentage-point victory over Sen. Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) in New Hampshire was a delightful surprise; for Andrew Kohut, it was a horror story.

Kohut is president of the Gallup poll, whose final New Hampshire urvey was wrong by 17 points: it had put Dole ahead by 8; Bush won by 9. "I was dismayed," Kohut acknowledged yesterday.

Try some Diesel Therapy, as experience by George Hansen.

The other effect of jury nullification is also important. William Penn once was brought into court for preaching a Quaker sermon. A jury refused to convict him for his illegal actions. http://www.constitution.org/trials/penn/penn-mead.htm (Actually a fascinating read.) Were the members of this jury delinquent in their duty? Were they criminals? I say they weren't (and the law agrees). I say that, more importantly, they were doing precisely their duty when they refused to convict a man unjustly, based on an unjust law.

I am not an American but http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm says:

Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

"Apparently your belief in individual responsibility doesn't extend to the level that you refuse to post AC."

Apparently you have to resort to Ad Hominem attacks (or are you unaware that you did that?) when you can't make a coherent argument.

Referring to qualities of a speaker does not make it an ad hominem attack. In this case, I was noting a possible instance of hypocrisy in the difference between your posting AC and championing individual responsibility. To learn more about why this is not an ad hominem attack, I would suggest you read this article.

And why is it you assholes who hide behind pseudonyms think that makes you so much more credible than AC's?

And, believe it or not, even your use of 'asshole' here does not qualify as ad hominem. (See the linked article). To answer your question, I'm not claiming 'much' more credibility, but merely 'some'; I've posted a fair bit, and interested parties can at least decide if what I'm posting in this thread is consistent with what I've held elsewhere. Even that (fairly low) level of personal identity is not met by ACs.

"The government is responsible because it equipped this person with a uniform, badge, gun, and (most importantly) training, as well as giving him a mandate to enforce the law."

Except THAT IS NOT THE LEGAL TEST YOU DULLARD SO STOP PRESUMING YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE LAW HAS ANY BEARING ON THE ACTUAL LAW ITSELF.

I'm still not getting your point. Perhaps a larger font size would help?

I never said anything about a legal test. The one point that I was trying to make is that I don't find it 'sad' that the relevant government may have to offer financial restitution in this case, because it is apparently the only efficacious way to hold a government, and by extension the citizens who voted that government into office, responsible for its role in the violation of civil rights that occurred. You don't believe that the government holds any responsibility; fine. I happen to think that your opinion can't be made consistent with most reasonable ideas about government. Our disagreement, at least as I see it, is one of political philosophy, not one about the current state of law.

"But he 'arrested' someone, which is the act of a government..."

No, IT IS NOT. Citizen's arrest is an example that shows you're full of shit.

So now you're claiming that this 'individual', employed as a police officer, on duty, was actually making a citizen's arrest, because he was in error? If you read up on citizen's arrest, you will find that among the many restrictions on this concept is the requirement to turn the 'arrestee' over to proper authorities as soon as is practicable. There is no "citizen's judicial system" of which citizen's arrest is a part; it's merely a stopgap measure to hold the guy until you call a cop.

But because you're clearly too dimwittd to grasp the point, being an agent of the government DOES NOT ALWAYS AND IRREVOCABLY MAKE THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS.

Ah, finally an actual ad hominem! Unfortunately, your grammar makes it somewhat of a nonsequitur -- my level of dimwittedness, whatever it is, clearly has no effect on whether or not 'being an agent of the government, etc., etc. ' Further, I never claimed that it was 'always and irrevocably' so, I just was claiming that in this case -- an officer, on duty, in uniform, dispached to the scene in response to a call to the police -- was acting in his capacity as an agent of the government. I'll concede that there are many actions performed by someone who is an agent of the government for which the governm

It so turns out that unless you're a member of the National Guard or something called the "naval militia", you're in what's called the "unorganized militia". But you're still in the militia. This is good--this means that, if there's some sort of horrible security threat, part of being a good citizen and being a member of the militia is to use physical force to preserve a free state. The passengers on Flight 93 did this, for instance. (This is also the same way that the Constitution allows for conscription--while the federal government does not have the power of committing people to involuntary labor, it does have the power to "call up the militia" and form them into an organized military. That doesn't just mean the National Guard. The basic idea, of course, is that citizens have a basic duty to defend the state and the society they live in.)

Now, "well regulated" didn't mean "micromanaged by bureaucrats" back in the heyday of The Constitution. It was a common phrase, and seemed to mean "in good working order"--this usage is attested in the OED well around the era. Indirect citation, check the OED on me if you don't believe it..

The whole idea was that, by protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, we would have a well-regulated militia--i.e. the subset of the population capable of defending a free state would be capable of doing so. Even as late as World War II, people in coastal areas discussed how they would defend their county from the Japanese if need be.

Extreme justice is extreme injustice. [Lat., Summum jus, summa injuria.]
Author: Cicero (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
Source: De Officiis (I, 10) In this text it was translated as: More law, less justice.

Ideal? Ha!

Have you read what the founding fathers wrote?

From Federalist #51

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
-Madison

The whole point is for government to control the people. That was what the constitution was written for.

Ask and ye shall receive: ;)

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/05/12/19/greensla de.htm

http://mason.gmu.edu/~nlund/Pubs/WklyStd2dAmd.pdf

http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/prim er_on_const.php#c4

Just to clarify, in the United States, the Constitution NOWHERE makes claims regarding the presumption of innocence. It is however, presumed as such, due to inferral from 5th, 6th and 14th ammendments, as a result of the 1895 case Coffin vs United States. http://www.constitution.org/ussc/156-432.htm.

I have four words for you: high crimes and misdemeanors

First three google hits:

From http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A07


What are High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of high crimes and misdemeanors is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category

From http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

"the key to understanding [this term] is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons...

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform...

Therefore, the appropriate subject matter for an impeachment and removal proceeding is the full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied."

According to http://www.c-span.org/questions/week119.htm

"Lawyers and historians are still arguing about the exact meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors," dividing into three schools of thought about the appropriate definition: (1) serious criminality evidenced by breaking existing law; (2) an abuse of office, and (3) the Alexander Hamilton standard (Federalist 65) of "violation of public trust."

historically, Congress had issued Articles of Impeachment in three broad categories: (1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain."

Given these definitions, can Bush and Cheney be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Hell yes!

Now here's the answer to the question you should have asked: support for the concept that the original intent of the Framers was that non-criminal acts be impeachable --- Madison's Speech in Congress on Presidential Removal Power June 16, 1789. Notice the discussion of impeachment as a remedy for the non-criminal removal of meritorious officials.

The "right to privacy" doesn't NEED to be enumerated: Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The text of the Constitution http://constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm is pretty clear; the Federal government has only the 19 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8, and the States (or the people) have all the other rights and powers. The People have a right to privacy; the Federal government has no authority to ban it. Just as, absent the 18th Amendment, the government had no authority to ban alcohol, and the government has NEVER had the authority to ban drugs. (The STATES do, but that's another story.)

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

I agree with both of your other points though -- yes, I think that a judge signing for a punishment for someone later found innocent should be subject to the same punishment for that; and do not get me started on the whole "hate crime" idea!

Paul B.

I've heard this before, and disagree partly because it ignores a distinction between a respect for the freedom of the individual that exists by default (in Locke's "state of nature") and a "right" to take things by force from other people.

That is, under a social contract theory of government, each person gives up some range of the things they would be able to do under anarchy, such as shooting anyone who annoys them. A relatively small government takes away only a limited range of that freedom of action, creating a framework of rules by which people can form enforceable contracts and protect themselves from violence. The purpose of that framework is to protect the remainder of individuals' freedom. A large and intrusive government does something fundamentally different: it invents new rights to receive goods and services at others' expense. Taxation -- taking wealth by force -- becomes not just a necessary evil to fund basic regulation of society, but a way of redistributing wealth.

So, failing to distinguish between a right not to be robbed and a right to rob others seems to me a failure to distinguish between what we could plausibly call "natural rights" and a series of invented rights. These invented rights actually limit individual freedom rather than protecting it.

(See Frederic Bastiat's The Law.)

There's a lot that congress could do to stop the war.

• The could impeach Bush
• They could cut off funding
• They could grant blanket amnesty (and provide transportation home) to any National Guard Member that wanted to "de-enlist"
• They could, for that matter, simply order the troops be brought home.
• They could rule that the UN resolutions had been satisfied, and end the authorization for use of force.
• ...and so forth.

But I, like many other, doubt that they have the balls to do it.

Which brings us back to the question: if they are unwilling to take steps (or even admit that they have the power to take steps) to do something as popular and visable as ending the war in Iraq, what does the article summary comment about "giving some countries a bye" possibly mean.

--MarkusQ

Now - please show me in the Constitution itself (the supreme law of the US) where exactly it says the Supreme court has sole authority to interpret the Constitution?