New Laws in Oregon - "Land of the Legal betatest"
I sometimes think that Oregon is being used as a beta test for some of the more draconian laws due for the rest of the country. An example is the new law waiting to be signed by the Govenor. It would expand the reasons a cop can use to detain and search you. Currently they need to have probable cause that you committed a crime. The new law expands that to probible cause that you are about to commit a crime and a whole host of things they can detain and question you on. (The TV coverage has been less than good. The TV anchor they had covering it was pushing it as a good idea. Only until later did they bring up any reasons of protest.) Yet another tool to keep the masses down. alano@teleport.com | "Those who are without history are doomed to retype it."
At 11:00 AM -0700 6/20/97, Alan wrote:
I sometimes think that Oregon is being used as a beta test for some of the more draconian laws due for the rest of the country.
Well, California has a constant stream of such laws...I reported on some of them yesterday. I suspect most of the other states are doing the same thing.... An interesting set of issues about "states rights" and "local control." I used to think--indeed, this is what I was taught--that certain things stated in the U.S. Constitution, such as the various items in the Bill of Rights we mention so often, would block many local or state laws. Thus, if Nebraska passed a law restricting religious freedoms, making Islam a crime, for example, then this would be "struck down" by the Supremes. I no longer feel very secure in this belief. For example, many states, counties, and cities have laws which abridge the Second Amendment. Why are these local laws not unconstitutional? When I have raised these points I have been told by law professors (for example, on the Cyberia list) that surely I support "states rights," don't I? I now think it is likely that the 50 state legislatures, the thousands of county and city governments, will accelerate their lawmaking machinery. They have learned that the way to steady employment is to proliferate bureacracies, that despite various scattered attempts to limit such bureacratic growth, the expansion basically continues and even acclerates. This ensures a huge job pool for politicians and bureaucrats. (Even politicians who "retire" or are "voted out" find continued employment in regional and local bureaucracies.... (Just in my neck of the woods there is government from Washington, government from Sacramento, government from Santa Cruz County, government from the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), and government from the various City Halls that dot the landscape. Not to mention at least four separate "police forces" roaming the streets (local police, County Sheriffs, California Highway Patrol, and various Forest Service and Park Rangers, all armed, all dangerous, all looking to hassle any citizen-unit they take an interest in.) Plus an army of shakedown agencies which demand $1000 fees to merely process the paperwork for a replacement well on our own property, not even guaranteeing approval: "Well, the $1000 is to cover our overhead costs," meaning the 4-story concrete building housing several hundred County employees, all for a county having fewer than 75,000 residents!) The whole system is a corrupt shakedown racket. Cincinattus would not be surprised. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
One reason this is occuring is that there is no direct consequence to the legislators.
I suggest adopting two very popular memes to reach this goal - three strikes term limits. A legislator who votes for three different laws which are eventually struck down as unconstitutional shall be removed from office, and unable to serve in the legislature again for at least 25 years. Perhaps first offenders can be offered the opportunity to participate in a diversion program, whereby they're forced to [re]take classes in constitutional law and civics, and if they succesfully complete the program and don't reoffend within one year, the first violation will be ignored. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles@netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Greg Broiles wrote:
I suggest adopting two very popular memes to reach this goal - three strikes term limits. A legislator who votes for three different laws which are eventually struck down as unconstitutional shall be removed from office, and unable to serve in the legislature again for at least 25 years.
Perhaps first offenders can be offered the opportunity to participate in a diversion program, whereby they're forced to [re]take classes in constitutional law and civics, and if they succesfully complete the program and don't reoffend within one year, the first violation will be ignored.
How do you propose to deal with such things as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (which incidently included the CDA)? I can see a problem where one sentence or clause gets thrown out of a major bill (say a compromise budget, that someone screwed up one minor ammendment), and if you have that happen 3 times in 6 years, you've lost 90% of your senators! I'm not saying that your idea isn't without merit, just that it's got a few problems that strike me as somewhat major.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Anderson - <Pug Majere> "Who knows, even the horse might sing" Wayne State University - CULMA "May you live in interesting times.." randerso@ece.eng.wayne.edu Ohio = VYI of the USA PGP Fingerprint - 7E 8E C6 54 96 AC D9 57 E4 F8 AE 9C 10 7E 78 C9 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting set of issues about "states rights" and "local control." I used to think--indeed, this is what I was taught--that certain things stated in the U.S. Constitution, such as the various items in the Bill of Rights we mention so often, would block many local or state laws.
Thus, if Nebraska passed a law restricting religious freedoms, making Islam a crime, for example, then this would be "struck down" by the Supremes.
I no longer feel very secure in this belief. For example, many states, counties, and cities have laws which abridge the Second Amendment. Why are these local laws not unconstitutional? When I have raised these points I have been told by law professors (for example, on the Cyberia list) that surely I support "states rights," don't I?
I now think it is likely that the 50 state legislatures, the thousands of county and city governments, will accelerate their lawmaking machinery. They have learned that the way to steady employment is to proliferate bureacracies, that despite various scattered attempts to limit such bureacratic growth, the expansion basically continues and even acclerates. This ensures a huge job pool for politicians and bureaucrats. (Even politicians who "retire" or are "voted out" find continued employment in regional and local bureaucracies....
One reason this is occuring is that there is no direct consequence to the legislators. In those states which have referendums and where legislators waste taxpayers money by enacting a stream of laws which are subsequently ruled unconstitutional, why don't libertarians propose a law which would financially penalize those congressrats which voted in favor of passage. I'm sure it will be tough to write something which itself will pass constitutional muster, but think of the headlines! --Steve PGP mail preferred Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear | tel: (702) 658-2654 CEO | fax: (702) 658-2673 First ECache Corporation | 7075 West Gowan Road | Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | Internet: azur@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- I know not what instruments others may use, but as for me, give me Ecache or give me debt. SHOW ME THE DIGITS!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:00 AM 6/20/97 -0700, Alan wrote:
I sometimes think that Oregon is being used as a beta test for some of the more draconian laws due for the rest of the country.
That's what happens when you live in places settled by those "Scandahuvians." They're real control freaks. And they attract other control freaks.
An example is the new law waiting to be signed by the Govenor. It would expand the reasons a cop can use to detain and search you. Currently they need to have probable cause that you committed a crime. The new law expands that to probible cause that you are about to commit a crime and a whole host of things they can detain and question you on.
As in what? Since you can (and always should) refuse to answer cop's questions (beyond name, rank and serial number) they can ask all they want but since they aren't judges they can't order you to say anything much. Lying is considered obstruction of justice but silence isn't. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM6scMIVO4r4sgSPhAQFOPgP/ZXunn9jmDdqZkOW4PuLW9eGCHMJVbUIJ KbHUfdBzJa7hMgYPJ7r9NQ8Mw+CQhq72LlkHZxel3SmVBmfZnYpLsXHJLS80N+T4 P9Um+lXth+vRcOU3WWrSyGRpuIzjOYS/4nZwTfK5M+qg0w90475iaj0tqUH7zoPl pBW+NGkStTQ= =jHcQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (6)
-
Alan -
frissell＠panix.com -
Greg Broiles -
Ryan Anderson -
Steve Schear -
Tim May