It's really getting to the point where judges don't even go through the motions of respecting the Constitution any more. All they have to do is recite the magic words that "Society's Overwhelming Interest" in protecting its children, police officers, kitty cats, or whatever, overrides whatever Constitutional issues there are. So of course, society's interest in protecting police officers allows New Orleans police to search your home or business at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. As long as the cop mumbles something about making sure he's safe. Similarly, society's interest in ensuring the safety of airline passengers allows ID to be demanded and searches, and anyways, your right to freely travel is not being impeded, because there's always Greyhound. Of course, they can stop the bus and search everyone on it at will too. These problems stem directly from the horrible mistake, many years ago in the early days of our Republic, of letting what the Constitution says be what the judiciary claims the Constitution says, as opposed to what the Constitution itself states, thus giving the Judicial branch of government absolute power over the Legislative and Executive branches. As George Wallace once stated, "The country is run by thugs and federal judges." -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
At 10:22 AM 3/30/2004, Eric Cordian wrote:
So of course, society's interest in protecting police officers allows New Orleans police to search your home or business at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. As long as the cop mumbles something about making sure he's safe.
The NOLA PD spokescritter said their new powers "will be used judiciously", which is an entertaining phrase to use when you really mean "without asking a judge".
Similarly, society's interest in ensuring the safety of airline passengers allows ID to be demanded and searches, and anyways, your right to freely travel is not being impeded, because there's always Greyhound. Of course, they can stop the bus and search everyone on it at will too.
Greyhound demands ID at some locations as well; my brother got surprised when his trip, which hadn't demanded ID on the way out, got routed through Chicago on the return and they did demand ID.
These problems stem directly from the horrible mistake, many years ago in the early days of our Republic, of letting what the Constitution says be what the judiciary claims the Constitution says, as opposed to what the Constitution itself states, thus giving the Judicial branch of government absolute power over the Legislative and Executive branches.
Marbury vs. Madison was an entertainingly kinky case, but the ability of judges to declare laws or executive actions Unconstitutional and therefore void is the main thing that's made the Bill of Rights effective (to the extent it has been.) The courts have often failed in that duty, but it's rightly theirs. The alternative would be that the Constitution means whatever the executive branch of government says it means, and whatever the legislature says it means, and if the police wanted to keep you in jail and didn't need to obey writs of habeas corpus, you'd rot in jail, and if they didn't feel that they needed search warrants, like they generally didn't before the Exclusionary Rule, they wouldn't bother getting them, and if the legislature wanted to tax something that the Constitution didn't explicitly authorize them to tax, they'd just tax it and you'd have no recourse (ok, that one's not much different than today...)
As George Wallace once stated, "The country is run by thugs and federal judges." He was one of the thugs, of course...
Bill Stewart wrote:
Marbury vs. Madison was an entertainingly kinky case, but the ability of judges to declare laws or executive actions Unconstitutional and therefore void is the main thing that's made the Bill of Rights effective (to the extent it has been.) The courts have often failed in that duty, but it's rightly theirs.
The alternative would be that the Constitution means whatever the executive branch of government says it means, and whatever the legislature says it means, ...
I believe that the intent of the Founding Fathers was that an armed populace would be familiar with the letter of the Constitution, and tolerate no creative reinterpretation of it by any of the three branches of Guv'mint.
As George Wallace once stated, "The country is run by thugs and federal judges."
He was one of the thugs, of course...
He rehabiliated himself through terrible suffering, repented his racist views, and made friends with Jesse Jackson. People can change. I can still remember from back in the 60's Mike Wallace reporting with a perfectly straight face on the "Negroid Characteristics" of some monkey skull found by a archeological expedition. One of the nice things about ignorance is that it is curable. Unlike Neo-Conservatism. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 12:44:02PM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
Bill Stewart wrote:
Marbury vs. Madison was an entertainingly kinky case, but the ability of judges to declare laws or executive actions Unconstitutional and therefore void is the main thing that's made the Bill of Rights effective (to the extent it has been.) The courts have often failed in that duty, but it's rightly theirs.
The alternative would be that the Constitution means whatever the executive branch of government says it means, and whatever the legislature says it means, ...
I believe that the intent of the Founding Fathers was that an armed populace would be familiar with the letter of the Constitution, and tolerate no creative reinterpretation of it by any of the three branches of Guv'mint.
Yas, yas, yas -- and the only place we can see this being enacted is in Venezuela, where more people carry copies of their Constitution than carry the bible, and not only carry it, but know it by heart. How ironic that a leftist movement brought this about.
One of the nice things about ignorance is that it is curable. Unlike Neo-Conservatism.
Or politicians in general. I'll alway remember a professor correcting me when I said something about some pol being "so stupid", and he responded: "Don't ever think that they are stupid, they aren't stupid -- stupid people can be taught, they can be persuaded with facts -- these people aren't stupid, they are venal, they are evil." -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
93:
One of the nice things about ignorance is that it is curable. Unlike Neo-Conservatism.
Or more accurately - Neo CONfidence artist. Would be nice to turn those into NEO convicts, but we may as well dream of a free country. Many, many, thanks go to Richard Clarke for exposing the truth we all suspected. So, I'm not quite current about the Gilmore dismissal - is the subject line misspelled? Is there some URL regarding news of this? I take it from the gripes that John's lawsuit against Asscruft re: flying without ID was dismissed?
On Mar 30, 2004, at 13:22, Bill Stewart wrote:
Greyhound demands ID at some locations as well; my brother got surprised when his trip, which hadn't demanded ID on the way out, got routed through Chicago on the return and they did demand ID.
I was curious about that. I notice now that Amtrak requires ID as well: http://www.amtrak.com/idrequire.html Does anyone know when this happened, or have experiences with having to show ID on Amtrak? You need ID to drive, bus, train, or fly... I guess all that's left is walking and possibly biking. :P --bgt
I was curious about that. I notice now that Amtrak requires ID as well: http://www.amtrak.com/idrequire.html
Does anyone know when this happened, or have experiences with having to show ID on Amtrak?
Sometime before early January this year, at least (probably significantly before). However, from DC Union Station (and probably many other stations), you can use the automated ticket system which 'only' asks for a credit card, no govt ID needed. And all the conductors care about is if you have a ticket. Philadelphia's automated system doesn't accept my credit card for mysterious reasons, so I have had to present ID when buying a ticket there. I haven't observed them doing any sort of scanning on my ID when I show it; anyway my ID doesn't have a magnetic stripe like the ones issued by most states around here, just an optical code. They copy down the name at least (shows up on the ticket), but it's hard to get a good look at their hands as they type, so it's possible they also grab the state/license # pair, which ties back to who-knows-what databases. -Jack [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 04:18:29PM -0500, sunder wrote:
So, I'm not quite current about the Gilmore dismissal - is the subject line misspelled? Is there some URL regarding news of this? I take it from the gripes that John's lawsuit against Asscruft re: flying without ID was dismissed?
I sent excerpts from the decision to Politech earlier this week. -Declan
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 06:01:57PM -0500, Jack Lloyd wrote:
Sometime before early January this year, at least (probably significantly before). However, from DC Union Station (and probably many other stations), you can use the automated ticket system which 'only' asks for a credit card, no govt ID needed. And all the conductors care about is if you have a
That is still the case. I took Amtrak NYC-DC this week. -Declan
participants (7)
-
bgt -
Bill Stewart -
Declan McCullagh -
Eric Cordian -
Harmon Seaver -
Jack Lloyd -
sunder