The Constitution - The Best and the Worst of It

[PKT_VOL]

I am not an advocate of anarchy; however, I am also not an advocate of preventive law enforcement and/or preventive legislation. Given the option between anarchy or a state which uses preventative law enforcement methods, would choose anarchy.

What exactly do you mean by preventive legislation?

Preventative law enforcement...death penalty?

 

[therealUT]

What exactly do you mean by preventive legislation?

Preventative law enforcement...death penalty?

Preventive legislation and preventive LE are legislating and enforcing, respectively, those statutes which are written because one in violation of said statute might pose a greater risk to actually inflict harm on another person or another person's property. As I see it, all policing by the state should take place post-crime (real crime; not simply the violation of arbitrary statutes).

This, of course, still allows for one to provide for their own personal protection, whether that be through gun ownership, home security, night-watches, etc. I also think that for most crimes which are not crimes of passion (e.g., not murder), stiffer penalties are a deterrence. So, I have no problem with very severe penalties for manslaughter in the event that you kill someone because you were speeding, running a stop sign, etc. However, I do have a problem with someone being pulled over and charged with a crime where there has been no victim except some amorphous entity called 'society'.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Preventive legislation and preventive LE are legislating and enforcing, respectively, those statutes which are written because one in violation of said statute might pose a greater risk to actually inflict harm on another person or another person's property. As I see it, all policing by the state should take place post-crime (real crime; not simply the violation of arbitrary statutes).

This, of course, still allows for one to provide for their own personal protection, whether that be through gun ownership, home security, night-watches, etc. I also think that for most crimes which are not crimes of passion (e.g., not murder), stiffer penalties are a deterrence. So, I have no problem with very severe penalties for manslaughter in the event that you kill someone because you were speeding, running a stop sign, etc. However, I do have a problem with someone being pulled over and charged with a crime where there has been no victim except some amorphous entity called 'society'.

I agree mostly. To test how rigorous you are in your position, let me set up a hypothetical. Attempted murder. A person, for whatever reason, chases you (unarmed) down and shoots a round at point blank range at your head. They miss. Just barely, but you can see the craze in their eyes. Nothing? No wrong has truly been committed. For the sake of the hypothetical, it is a jealous ex who is a really bad shot and has no concept of torso first shooting.

 

[therealUT]

I agree mostly. To test how rigorous you are in your position, let me set up a hypothetical. Attempted murder. A person, for whatever reason, chases you (unarmed) down and shoots a round at point blank range at your head. They miss. Just barely, but you can see the craze in their eyes. Nothing? No wrong has truly been committed. For the sake of the hypothetical, it is a jealous ex who is a really bad shot and has no concept of torso first shooting.

This is a good test, and there are two ways to look at this situation:

1. No harm, no foul. Invest in your own measures to protect yourself in the future.

2. You were coerced through both the intent and the act of violence to radically change your behavior. In so doing, you were physically stripped of your freedom by another individual. This goes to court and a jury of peers decides both the facts of what happened and whether or not it constitutes a crime. If they find that it does constitute criminal behavior, flog the guilty party and return her to society.

 

[PKT_VOL]

This is a good test, and there are two ways to look at this situation:

1. No harm, no foul. Invest in your own measures to protect yourself in the future.

2. You were coerced through both the intent and the act of violence to radically change your behavior. In so doing, you were physically stripped of your freedom by another individual. This goes to court and a jury of peers decides both the facts of what happened and whether or not it constitutes a crime. If they find that it does constitute criminal behavior, flog the guilty party and return her to society.

The latter is such a slippery slope and somewhat counters the original intent of your laws. You advocated that there shouldn't be preventive laws or legislation because they are based on what could happen, not what did happen. The same can be said about the latter scenario.

 

[therealUT]

The latter is such a slippery slope and somewhat counters the original intent of your laws. You advocated that there shouldn't be preventive laws or legislation because they are based on what could happen, not what did happen. The same can be said about the latter scenario.

This is true and I prefer the former. I also believe that without preventive law enforcement and preventive legislation, detective work would be much easier. LE would be seen as much more of a service than a deterrent and LEO would be received much more kindly than they are now.

 

[PKT_VOL]

This is true and I prefer the former. I also believe that without preventive law enforcement and preventive legislation, detective work would be much easier. LE would be seen as much more of a service than a deterrent and LEO would be received much more kindly than they are now.

I agree with the latter. However, the latter statement does not necessitate or validate the previous statement in my opinion.

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

This is the problem. Someone makes a statement that something is 'best for them' and then makes that statement universal, 'it is best for everyone'.

If you want to secure yourself, I have no problem with that. Buy a gun, fortify your house, etc. Do not support a reduction in liberties for all because in doing so you will secure yourself.

You are wrong here. I never said that "it was best for everyone" you spoke out of turn there. All I am saying is that there is some leeway FOR ME as far as relinquishing some liberties. I am not at all advocating things that TSA has been doing lately, or even detaining US Citizens without cause. I am saying that in order to have one the other must diminish. I have secured myself as far as my household goes but unfortunatley most of us do not live in that box 24/7 so we must in exchange for some security give up some liberty. Simple example is that you cant encite panic yelling certain phrases in a public forum. So for us to have security someone must have that LIBERTY surpressed. You live in a democracy and as such there will find yourself sometimes being in the minority. The government was entrusted to provide for the COMMON defence and GENERAL welfare. But again I was not at all trying to advocate any less liberty for you just that I would give up certain liberties for MYSELF so as to be more secure.

 

[therealUT]

You are wrong here. I never said that "it was best for everyone" you spoke out of turn there.

True, I made an assumption. Do you think that an individual who drinks twenty beers, gets in their car, and starts driving should be arrested? Fined? Forcibly removed from the street?

All I am saying is that there is some leeway FOR ME as far as relinquishing some liberties. I am not at all advocating things that TSA has been doing lately, or even detaining US Citizens without cause. I am saying that in order to have one the other must diminish. I have secured myself as far as my household goes but unfortunatley most of us do not live in that box 24/7 so we must in exchange for some security give up some liberty.

I thought this was about you, though? Now you are saying that I must also give up my liberty?

Simple example is that you cant encite panic yelling certain phrases in a public forum.

Read that again. I should legally be allowed to yell whatever I want in public; now, if I am on private property, said property owner should legally be allowed to remove me for any reason said property owner deems.

So for us to have security someone must have that LIBERTY surpressed.

Negative.

You live in a democracy and as such there will find yourself sometimes being in the minority.

Unfortunately, the US has devolved into a democracy. It did not begin that way, though.

The government was entrusted to provide for the COMMON defence and GENERAL welfare. But again I was not at all trying to advocate any less liberty for you just that I would give up certain liberties for MYSELF so as to be more secure.

You can voluntarily give up any liberties you want to give up; I draw the line when you want the government to step in and force me to give up my liberties.

As for the Common Defense part of the Constitution, that applies to defending the citizens of the United States against both foreign enemies and potential tyrants in said states. It is not in any way for setting up a Federal Police force or for mandating that each state set up police forces.

As for the General Welfare, this is provided by ensuring that opportunities are not forcibly stripped away from other citizens either by the state or by fellow citizens. It is not meant to endorse preventive legislation nor preventive law enforcement.

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

True, I made an assumption. Do you think that an individual who drinks twenty beers, gets in their car, and starts driving should be arrested? Fined? Forcibly removed from the street?



I thought this was about you, though? Now you are saying that I must also give up my liberty?



Read that again. I should legally be allowed to yell whatever I want in public; now, if I am on private property, said property owner should legally be allowed to remove me for any reason said property owner deems.



Negative.



Unfortunately, the US has devolved into a democracy. It did not begin that way, though.



You can voluntarily give up any liberties you want to give up; I draw the line when you want the government to step in and force me to give up my liberties.

As for the Common Defense part of the Constitution, that applies to defending the citizens of the United States against both foreign enemies and potential tyrants in said states. It is not in any way for setting up a Federal Police force or for mandating that each state set up police forces.

As for the General Welfare, this is provided by ensuring that opportunities are not forcibly stripped away from other citizens either by the state or by fellow citizens. It is not meant to endorse preventive legislation nor preventive law enforcement.

Well respectfully that is all your OPINION (with exception to common defence) and I disagree. Oh and I realize that it is /was a Constitutional Republic. As for the WE, freudian slip I suppose.

So hypothetically, if someone went into a crowded mall and yelled "He was going to kill everyone in it" you would have no problem. Set said individual free because you are in public and free to say those things, but if he came to your house and yelled "I am going to kill everyone on this property" you have the right to take whatever actions you see neccessary? I understand individual liberty and fully support home defense laws, just trying to understand your opinion a bit better.

 

[therealUT]

Well respectfully that is all your OPINION (with exception to common defence) and I disagree. Oh and I realize that it is /was a Constitutional Republic. As for the WE, freudian slip I suppose.

So hypothetically, if someone went into a crowded mall and yelled "He was going to kill everyone in it" you would have no problem. Set said individual free because you are in public and free to say those things, but if he came to your house and yelled "I am going to kill everyone on this property" you have the right to take whatever actions you see neccessary? I understand individual liberty and fully support home defense laws, just trying to understand your opinion a bit better.

If someone goes into a crowded mall and yells, "I am going to kill everyone" and another person, who feels immediately and imminently threatened, kills that person first, I would be fine if that person's actions were excused. I still do not see such actions as justifiable; however, I would say that a jury of their peers should decide on both the facts of the case and as to whether or not the person's actions constitute a crime. I do not think law enforcement should step in and arrest the person because they yelled, threatened, and/or looked menacing.

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

I do not think law enforcement should step in and arrest the person because they yelled, threatened, and/or looked menacing.

Why is that? Do you think that infringes on their liberties? I noticed earlier that you said that preventive LE hinders Detectives or at least they could do a better job without it, why is that?

What do you think of preventitive measures in other areas such as foreign policy or what the intel community suggests on occassion that the federal government should do to reduce chances of threats.

 

[therealUT]

Why is that? Do you think that infringes on their liberties?

It does infringe on their liberties. You have the freedom to be a jackass. Now, a mall is private property, so the property managers can certainly remove said individual from their private property; however, it is non-governmental problem.

I noticed earlier that you said that preventive LE hinders Detectives or at least they could do a better job without it, why is that?

Say there is a drug-related murder. If drugs are illegal, most of the individuals involved and with knowledge of the situation are going to have to either omit certain parts of stories or flat out lie if and when a detective tracks them down. If drugs are legal, these individuals can come forward and tell the whole truth without having to worry about the legal consequences of what they are saying.

What do you think of preventitive measures in other areas such as foreign policy or what the intel community suggests on occasion that the federal government should do to reduce chances of threats.

A strong enough military to defend the homeland within the homeland.

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

Now, a mall is private property, so the property managers can certainly remove said individual from their private property; however, it is non-governmental problem.



Say there is a drug-related murder. If drugs are illegal, most of the individuals involved and with knowledge of the situation are going to have to either omit certain parts of stories or flat out lie if and when a detective tracks them down. If drugs are legal, these individuals can come forward and tell the whole truth without having to worry about the legal consequences of what they are saying.

I can agree with the first half of this post. Should have thought of a better example. I do bellieve it should be up to the property managers to have the individual removed.

On to the second part. You are taking these situations in general. Just because someone is involved with a illegal substances does not in turn mean they will or have to lie to authorities regarding a murder. In fact there are protections for these individuals so that they can come forward to ehlp with the investigation. Also there is obstruction worst case.

If all drugs were legal doesnt at all mean that those individuals would come forrward. Alcohol is legal, yet you still have individuals who commit heinous acts and there are most certainly witnesses in some cases. Often individuals still do not come forward.

 

[therealUT]

If all drugs were legal doesnt at all mean that those individuals would come forrward. Alcohol is legal, yet you still have individuals who commit heinous acts and there are most certainly witnesses in some cases. Often individuals still do not come forward.

Oh, I agree. That is because many individuals, myself included, are suspicious of law enforcement. Most of this suspicion is aroused as a result of preventive law enforcement.

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

Oh, I agree. That is because many individuals, myself included, are suspicious of law enforcement. Most of this suspicion is aroused as a result of preventive law enforcement.

Its hard to say why people do not come forward as witnesses but this reminds me of the bystander effect to some degree. People do not come forward because someone else will.

I do think that in some cases people are suspicious of LE but often I think this is because they have committed an illegal act themself. Before you argue your point about drug users, there are protections in place to aide the police to obtain such information.

The last point I want to make here is that there is another reason for individuals not coming forward. It has a lot to do with the stigma that society puts on people that inform on individuals who have committed a crime. Or fear of retribution by the offender.

 

[KiffinKiller]

snitches. I hate em

 

[OsbourneBROS83]

snitches. I hate em

+1 My Point. Everyone does

 

[RespectTradition]

Some people are way too cavalier with my liberties.

 

[RespectTradition]

Here is one that I wonder if I am the only person who thinks about:

Article II Section 1 Clause 3

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President

was replaced by the 12th amendment

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.14 --The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

I don't like the amendment. I was taught in school that the founders were too naive and that they thought the loser of the election would allow patriotism to overcome self-interest and they would work to be the best VP they could for the Potus.

I say baloney.

I think this was another check and balance that we did away with. I think the idea was to put a fly in the ointment. I think they wanted the man who ran the senate to be in opposition to the executive to further limit the power of the executive. I think that they didn't want a winner takes all kind of executive. I think they wanted a voice for the opposition to be in power. I think this was a great idea.

What thinks ya'll?