Wait, are you really arguing that he didn't take up arms against the government of the United States? Because a US citizen doing so would fit the definition of a rebel quite well. Are you really insisting that to be a rebel, one must be on the territory of the United States? Really? And you go accusing others of rationalizations?
You don't need a declaration of war to recognize a group of people as "rebels" in the sense of Article 1, section 9. Since rebels are NOT entitled to the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, they may targeted as military targets.
"...The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it..."
Since the individual in question voluntarily left the country and provided training to those who would target American military personal, his actions fall within the language of "cases of rebellion." Section 9 clearly distinguishes those actions which are crimes (in response to which the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is not lost) and those which are more severe and require more urgent and less measured response. This is precisely why Lincoln could legally prosecute the Civil War. By declaring the Confederacy a rebellion, he was able to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus of the rebels. Anyone taking up arms against he US government can legitimately be considered a rebel. And rebels DO NOT enjoy the privilege (not right, but PRIVILEGE) of a court hearing (that's essentially what the Writ of Habeas Corpus is -- a written order to have a court hearing).
Constitution is not just your favorite line in it. It's all of it.
Whenever you see someone dismissing what you think is a genuine concern, it's not because they don't get it. It's because they don't care. Everyone has their own priorities. Dev's priority is functionality. Security is just a necessary burden. But no one prioritizes burdens. Managing priorities is a management job. So if you see a system in which important priorities are not given weight, that's just poor management. Management's job is identifying priorities and then creating an incentive structure (I don't mean salary, I mean day-to-day incentives) which emphasizes the important and de-emphasizing the unimportant. Btw, that doesn't mean that management gets to ask everyone "what are your priorities?" and pretend they have done their part. Asking that question is tantamount to shifting the burden of identifying the priorities to those who don't have that responsibility.
When people try to turn logical argument into gotcha phrases and slurs, I always take as their admission of having lost the argument. Just letting you know. Take as you will.
Income growth within a percentage of population, as subdivided by income class, is tautological. It attempts to prove that a certain income class doesn't see their lot in life improved. But it's not the case because the percentage of people who actually stay within that group is very small. There is great deal of mobility from income class to income class. Thomas Sowell did an actually study on this and showed it to be the case... not with rhetoric, but with actual data. And if the actual people see their incomes improve or diminish depending on how they do in life, then discussing how each quintile does is pointless (because MOST people don't remain within the same quintile). Besides, income INCREASE does not indicate (however small it is) an decrease in quality of life. Even if it's a relatively small increase, the fact that jealousy may make it seem unpleasant, doesn't remove the fact the actual life-enabling mechanisms available to those people have increased. We don't live in the world of man-v-man. We live in the world man's wits v nature. If we reduced the harshness to our lives that we all suffer from nature, than our lot still improved.
Just because something feels good, doesn't mean it's correct. Income disparity in a primitive society is very small. But even it's wealthiest members enjoy a worse life style than the poorest members of our society. Your insistence of using "happiness" as a metric diabolic (in the literal pejorative sense). I said in my post that it may not be good for the egos of those who advance less. And, well, not pinching the egos, not stoking the flames of jealousy may make people happy. But it's taking happiness in the worst of human vices. It is destructive to the core through and through.
So it has not been interpreted that way yet, then?
A stronger statement is true. It has been interpreted not to limit the zoning and policing powers of municipalities. It goes so far as to allow (this has been litigated and declared constitutional) counties to make it illegal to open a business to general public on Sundays.
as even speech that is widely regarded as "good" could be limited, if I understand correctly
Well, yes and no. If my community wants to be a sleeping town for commuters, they may disallow loud noises past 10pm. But if another town wants to host a red lights district, it probably wouldn't have such a requirements. These are municipal ordinances which certainly would be outside of what a state or the Federal government can allow or disallow. Of course, making such noises would be a form of free expression.
Not true. We have better access to healthcare, housing, clothing, communications, forms of entertainment and have a higher variety and amount of food available to us than people did 30 years ago. We have lower savings rate and work longer hours (so we have less leisure time). Money isn't wealth. Money is a token used to enumerate how the wealth is divided. If we have access to more of that which enables and improves life, then we are wealthier. And we are.
I was going to ask at which the 10 people realized that there were 11 of them. But fair enough. Your point about the extended prisoner's dilemma doesn't apply. It's just simply factually not true that attempting to make things more equal benefits everyone. It lowers the standards for the poor (who obviously suffer from it the most) and doesn't allow civilization to further advance. So it's a row deal for everyone. The fact that it may seem like a good idea is precisely the fault of the evolutionary biology. When we were finding things which we used to sustain life, the so-called pie was fixed in size. But now that we are building such things, the pie keeps growing. So hindering advancement of civilization is actually hindering the growth of the pie. As for the regulations, if they were simply employing less people they would not be attempting to regulate in such minute details. The only reason that top industry experts have to be hired by such agencies is that agencies try to regulate minutia instead of just providing top-level guidelines. It's a vicious circle in which power attracts expertise which is used to generate more power. The easiest way to stop is to reduce the power. But there are more subtle ways than just slashing agency employment (for example, instead of regulating everything only concentrate on identifying the most dangerous scenarios that may come out of business practices and regulate those).
I don't recall them having the power to override the constitution in the name of "keeping the peace."
Three points.
First, (and most importantly), the word PEACEABLY that you keep ignoring in your responses, but which is present in language of the amendment does open the language of the amendment to the interpretation that the government has a right to take measure to keep the peace even if it precludes free assembly.
Second, since the possibility of different interpretations has been broached, the correct interpretation becomes a matter of judicial opinion (that's just how the system is meant to work -- if the language needs to be interpreted it is SCOTUS' job to do the interpreting).
Third, the 10th amendment allows the power of the government to grow as the size of the constituency shrinks (with the most power and smallest constituency being with an individual). The ONLY exception to this arises from the 14th amendment which has been interpreted to (among other things) dictate that individual states must abide by the Bill of Rights. It does NOT dictate that the same is true of municipalities. As those are smaller constituencies, they can exercise more excessive powers. They can, for example, declare that every house must be painted white. They can establish all kinds of zoning laws. All of this has been litigated and declared constitutionally sound because of the very principle that the power grows as the size of the constituency shrinks.
That's not what I meant. I meant the act of requiring permits is what is harmful.
Ok, that was unclear. I thought you were referring to the actual physical harm caused to the attendees of the already in-progress protests.
then they should specifically go after the ones who are being destructive, I would think.
Wall street is fairly tight (physically). If a gathering is too large (and in a tight place that's not all that many people) police wouldn't be able to make it through to restore the peace if something were to break out. This is no different from fire department establishing maximum occupancy in buildings.
Where does the amendment mention that?
It mentions that by stating the it is a right to peaceably assemble rather than simply to assemble. City government can insist on that distinction since it is charged with keeping the peace.
I don't think harming honest protests
I don't think anyone argued for police harming honest peaceful protesters.
I feel like I have to explain this point just because I don't want to be pigeon holed as someone who advocates giving police excessive powers. I have personally been arrested once for denying a police officer's request just because I knew it was extra legal, so I don't exactly want to side on letting the police do "whatever they need to do."
Let me use another analogy. If a doctor's was trying to stop a bleeding of someone laying on the street, would you think that addressing the doctor in the imperative (yelling "what are you doing?", "stop!", etc.) would be interfering with the doctor's attempt to save someone? I hope you would. Well, the act of arresting someone is an inherently dangerous act. A police officer expects that a person (who in his opinion just violated a law) may violate more laws and possibly attempt to do something erratic or even harmful. If the police are not beating the guy down or violating them in some excessive physical way, then I think the bystanders should give the police as much benefit of the doubt (at that point in time) as they would to a doctor who would be trying to stop a bleeding.
There is absolutely nothing you could say that would "interfere" with a police officer's ability to arrest someone.
That's really not true. Addressing someone, especially in an imperative fashion, while they are in the middle of an attempt to control an inherently uncontrollable situation is a bona fide distraction. It's like intentionally yelling "stop" when a tennis player tries to serve. You know there is a good chance you'll be removed from the stadium for doing that. And you know that it interferes with the person's ability to concentrate on the situation at hand.
Yelling "stop" when a police officer is trying to arrest someone is interfering with the police. While I don't know why the original arrest took place (sounds like you don't either), you have admit that they weren't asking a policeman to stop beating someone... They were asking him to stop arresting someone. That's interfering with an action which police have a right to take. Interfering with a legitimate police action is at least a misdemeanor. Police have a leeway here for a reason. Arresting someone is an inherently dangerous procedure. They have a right to expect that law-abiding citizens will not interfere with this dangerous procedure if the police are not being excessively violent or aggressive during the act of arrest itself. Thinking that it's within the bounds of acceptable behavior to tell a police officer (who is going by the book) to stop arresting someone is way over the line. Macing, however, was probably excessive. Which only proves my original point: NYPD does not stay within the professional bounds and does not have good training on how to deal with provocations.
the same should have been applied to american revolutionaries back in 1774, and franklin, jefferson, revere et al should have been all jailed and beaten down
Any form of change is "destructive" to the original form.
While every positive change comes from creative destruction, not every destruction is creative. Some destruction is just that. I assert this protest is just this destructive in its goals.
And both the massive wealth disparity
Wealth disparity is irrelevant. If everyone is lifted up (as has indeed been the case), but those at the bottom are lifted less, than the outcome is positive for everyone (just not for everyone's ego).
regulatory capture in the governmental bodies
Well, employment at regulatory agencies is at all time high (even per capita of the population). So if you are arguing against crony capitalism, then your argument should be against excessive regulation used to raise the barrier of entry into the market place.
Doesn't requiring permits in order to protest violate our first amendment right to peacefully assemble?
That's a bit murky. Since the right is to "peaceably to assemble" rather than just assemble, and since the municipal government is charged with maintaining peace and civil order, it can require a permit in order to ensure that it is able to keep the peace during the protest. In other non-news, fire department puts maximum occupancy requirements on all enclosed public places. Getting into enclosed public places is also a form of assembly. What they can't do is deny the permit because they don't like the topic of the protest. They can only deny for compelling reasons. Not that they never abuse this requirement (like moving protests to another city borough during the Republican convention in NYC).
Either you a: allow people to protest or b: say that they break the law, causing civil disobedience and massive riots.
Depends on which law you disobey. If the actions they take are violent (in addition to being illegal), then it's not a civil disobedience. It's "violent protests." So your point is off key, while the gp's point is on key.
Probably whoever the editor of the video wanted to portray as destructive. I did mention that NYPD is not a civil police department. They respond to provocation all too aggressively. If there is provocation which is cut out of the video, it's easy to make the police look like the bad guys. But the job of police is to keep professional cool even in the face of provocation.
I have no doubts that NYPD is having more fun with it than a civil police department should, but I absolutely categorically do not believe that the protesters are civil. Their cause alone proves that they are violence-prone and violence-minded. I don't care how much karma this burns. Well-organized, peaceful, leftist -- pick any 2 of the 3, but you can't have all 3.
Slashdot Mirror
You call yourself a salesman, you son'f'bitch?!?
Wait, are you really arguing that he didn't take up arms against the government of the United States? Because a US citizen doing so would fit the definition of a rebel quite well. Are you really insisting that to be a rebel, one must be on the territory of the United States? Really? And you go accusing others of rationalizations?
Bieber is Canadian. The only controversy here is that Awlaki was an American citizen.
You don't need a declaration of war to recognize a group of people as "rebels" in the sense of Article 1, section 9. Since rebels are NOT entitled to the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, they may targeted as military targets.
Article 1. Section 9:
"...The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it..."
Since the individual in question voluntarily left the country and provided training to those who would target American military personal, his actions fall within the language of "cases of rebellion." Section 9 clearly distinguishes those actions which are crimes (in response to which the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is not lost) and those which are more severe and require more urgent and less measured response. This is precisely why Lincoln could legally prosecute the Civil War. By declaring the Confederacy a rebellion, he was able to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus of the rebels. Anyone taking up arms against he US government can legitimately be considered a rebel. And rebels DO NOT enjoy the privilege (not right, but PRIVILEGE) of a court hearing (that's essentially what the Writ of Habeas Corpus is -- a written order to have a court hearing).
Constitution is not just your favorite line in it. It's all of it.
Whenever you see someone dismissing what you think is a genuine concern, it's not because they don't get it. It's because they don't care. Everyone has their own priorities. Dev's priority is functionality. Security is just a necessary burden. But no one prioritizes burdens. Managing priorities is a management job. So if you see a system in which important priorities are not given weight, that's just poor management. Management's job is identifying priorities and then creating an incentive structure (I don't mean salary, I mean day-to-day incentives) which emphasizes the important and de-emphasizing the unimportant. Btw, that doesn't mean that management gets to ask everyone "what are your priorities?" and pretend they have done their part. Asking that question is tantamount to shifting the burden of identifying the priorities to those who don't have that responsibility.
supply-side church
When people try to turn logical argument into gotcha phrases and slurs, I always take as their admission of having lost the argument. Just letting you know. Take as you will.
Income growth within a percentage of population, as subdivided by income class, is tautological. It attempts to prove that a certain income class doesn't see their lot in life improved. But it's not the case because the percentage of people who actually stay within that group is very small. There is great deal of mobility from income class to income class. Thomas Sowell did an actually study on this and showed it to be the case... not with rhetoric, but with actual data. And if the actual people see their incomes improve or diminish depending on how they do in life, then discussing how each quintile does is pointless (because MOST people don't remain within the same quintile). Besides, income INCREASE does not indicate (however small it is) an decrease in quality of life. Even if it's a relatively small increase, the fact that jealousy may make it seem unpleasant, doesn't remove the fact the actual life-enabling mechanisms available to those people have increased. We don't live in the world of man-v-man. We live in the world man's wits v nature. If we reduced the harshness to our lives that we all suffer from nature, than our lot still improved.
Just because something feels good, doesn't mean it's correct. Income disparity in a primitive society is very small. But even it's wealthiest members enjoy a worse life style than the poorest members of our society. Your insistence of using "happiness" as a metric diabolic (in the literal pejorative sense). I said in my post that it may not be good for the egos of those who advance less. And, well, not pinching the egos, not stoking the flames of jealousy may make people happy. But it's taking happiness in the worst of human vices. It is destructive to the core through and through.
So it has not been interpreted that way yet, then?
A stronger statement is true. It has been interpreted not to limit the zoning and policing powers of municipalities. It goes so far as to allow (this has been litigated and declared constitutional) counties to make it illegal to open a business to general public on Sundays.
as even speech that is widely regarded as "good" could be limited, if I understand correctly
Well, yes and no. If my community wants to be a sleeping town for commuters, they may disallow loud noises past 10pm. But if another town wants to host a red lights district, it probably wouldn't have such a requirements. These are municipal ordinances which certainly would be outside of what a state or the Federal government can allow or disallow. Of course, making such noises would be a form of free expression.
Not true. We have better access to healthcare, housing, clothing, communications, forms of entertainment and have a higher variety and amount of food available to us than people did 30 years ago. We have lower savings rate and work longer hours (so we have less leisure time). Money isn't wealth. Money is a token used to enumerate how the wealth is divided. If we have access to more of that which enables and improves life, then we are wealthier. And we are.
I was going to ask at which the 10 people realized that there were 11 of them. But fair enough. Your point about the extended prisoner's dilemma doesn't apply. It's just simply factually not true that attempting to make things more equal benefits everyone. It lowers the standards for the poor (who obviously suffer from it the most) and doesn't allow civilization to further advance. So it's a row deal for everyone. The fact that it may seem like a good idea is precisely the fault of the evolutionary biology. When we were finding things which we used to sustain life, the so-called pie was fixed in size. But now that we are building such things, the pie keeps growing. So hindering advancement of civilization is actually hindering the growth of the pie. As for the regulations, if they were simply employing less people they would not be attempting to regulate in such minute details. The only reason that top industry experts have to be hired by such agencies is that agencies try to regulate minutia instead of just providing top-level guidelines. It's a vicious circle in which power attracts expertise which is used to generate more power. The easiest way to stop is to reduce the power. But there are more subtle ways than just slashing agency employment (for example, instead of regulating everything only concentrate on identifying the most dangerous scenarios that may come out of business practices and regulate those).
I don't recall them having the power to override the constitution in the name of "keeping the peace."
Three points.
First, (and most importantly), the word PEACEABLY that you keep ignoring in your responses, but which is present in language of the amendment does open the language of the amendment to the interpretation that the government has a right to take measure to keep the peace even if it precludes free assembly.
Second, since the possibility of different interpretations has been broached, the correct interpretation becomes a matter of judicial opinion (that's just how the system is meant to work -- if the language needs to be interpreted it is SCOTUS' job to do the interpreting).
Third, the 10th amendment allows the power of the government to grow as the size of the constituency shrinks (with the most power and smallest constituency being with an individual). The ONLY exception to this arises from the 14th amendment which has been interpreted to (among other things) dictate that individual states must abide by the Bill of Rights. It does NOT dictate that the same is true of municipalities. As those are smaller constituencies, they can exercise more excessive powers. They can, for example, declare that every house must be painted white. They can establish all kinds of zoning laws. All of this has been litigated and declared constitutionally sound because of the very principle that the power grows as the size of the constituency shrinks.
That's not what I meant. I meant the act of requiring permits is what is harmful.
Ok, that was unclear. I thought you were referring to the actual physical harm caused to the attendees of the already in-progress protests.
then they should specifically go after the ones who are being destructive, I would think.
Wall street is fairly tight (physically). If a gathering is too large (and in a tight place that's not all that many people) police wouldn't be able to make it through to restore the peace if something were to break out. This is no different from fire department establishing maximum occupancy in buildings.
Where does the amendment mention that?
It mentions that by stating the it is a right to peaceably assemble rather than simply to assemble. City government can insist on that distinction since it is charged with keeping the peace.
I don't think harming honest protests
I don't think anyone argued for police harming honest peaceful protesters.
I feel like I have to explain this point just because I don't want to be pigeon holed as someone who advocates giving police excessive powers. I have personally been arrested once for denying a police officer's request just because I knew it was extra legal, so I don't exactly want to side on letting the police do "whatever they need to do."
Let me use another analogy. If a doctor's was trying to stop a bleeding of someone laying on the street, would you think that addressing the doctor in the imperative (yelling "what are you doing?", "stop!", etc.) would be interfering with the doctor's attempt to save someone? I hope you would. Well, the act of arresting someone is an inherently dangerous act. A police officer expects that a person (who in his opinion just violated a law) may violate more laws and possibly attempt to do something erratic or even harmful. If the police are not beating the guy down or violating them in some excessive physical way, then I think the bystanders should give the police as much benefit of the doubt (at that point in time) as they would to a doctor who would be trying to stop a bleeding.
There is absolutely nothing you could say that would "interfere" with a police officer's ability to arrest someone.
That's really not true. Addressing someone, especially in an imperative fashion, while they are in the middle of an attempt to control an inherently uncontrollable situation is a bona fide distraction. It's like intentionally yelling "stop" when a tennis player tries to serve. You know there is a good chance you'll be removed from the stadium for doing that. And you know that it interferes with the person's ability to concentrate on the situation at hand.
Yelling "stop" when a police officer is trying to arrest someone is interfering with the police. While I don't know why the original arrest took place (sounds like you don't either), you have admit that they weren't asking a policeman to stop beating someone... They were asking him to stop arresting someone. That's interfering with an action which police have a right to take. Interfering with a legitimate police action is at least a misdemeanor. Police have a leeway here for a reason. Arresting someone is an inherently dangerous procedure. They have a right to expect that law-abiding citizens will not interfere with this dangerous procedure if the police are not being excessively violent or aggressive during the act of arrest itself. Thinking that it's within the bounds of acceptable behavior to tell a police officer (who is going by the book) to stop arresting someone is way over the line. Macing, however, was probably excessive. Which only proves my original point: NYPD does not stay within the professional bounds and does not have good training on how to deal with provocations.
the same should have been applied to american revolutionaries back in 1774, and franklin, jefferson, revere et al should have been all jailed and beaten down
They weren't leftist.
Any form of change is "destructive" to the original form.
While every positive change comes from creative destruction, not every destruction is creative. Some destruction is just that. I assert this protest is just this destructive in its goals.
And both the massive wealth disparity
Wealth disparity is irrelevant. If everyone is lifted up (as has indeed been the case), but those at the bottom are lifted less, than the outcome is positive for everyone (just not for everyone's ego).
regulatory capture in the governmental bodies
Well, employment at regulatory agencies is at all time high (even per capita of the population). So if you are arguing against crony capitalism, then your argument should be against excessive regulation used to raise the barrier of entry into the market place.
Doesn't requiring permits in order to protest violate our first amendment right to peacefully assemble?
That's a bit murky. Since the right is to "peaceably to assemble" rather than just assemble, and since the municipal government is charged with maintaining peace and civil order, it can require a permit in order to ensure that it is able to keep the peace during the protest. In other non-news, fire department puts maximum occupancy requirements on all enclosed public places. Getting into enclosed public places is also a form of assembly. What they can't do is deny the permit because they don't like the topic of the protest. They can only deny for compelling reasons. Not that they never abuse this requirement (like moving protests to another city borough during the Republican convention in NYC).
Either you a: allow people to protest or b: say that they break the law, causing civil disobedience and massive riots.
Depends on which law you disobey. If the actions they take are violent (in addition to being illegal), then it's not a civil disobedience. It's "violent protests." So your point is off key, while the gp's point is on key.
Probably whoever the editor of the video wanted to portray as destructive. I did mention that NYPD is not a civil police department. They respond to provocation all too aggressively. If there is provocation which is cut out of the video, it's easy to make the police look like the bad guys. But the job of police is to keep professional cool even in the face of provocation.
How can a cause, which is an abstract concept make you uncivil, I don't even know.
If the cause is itself destructive (or necessitates destructive outcome), of course.
could you be any more of a fascist?could you be any more of a fascist?
Yes, by being a little bit (a tiny, tiny bit) fascist I would be more fascist than I am.
I have no doubts that NYPD is having more fun with it than a civil police department should, but I absolutely categorically do not believe that the protesters are civil. Their cause alone proves that they are violence-prone and violence-minded. I don't care how much karma this burns. Well-organized, peaceful, leftist -- pick any 2 of the 3, but you can't have all 3.