Author Topic: You have no right  (Read 3719 times)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #100 on: May 25, 2020, 09:55:49 PM »
You never did explain, if citizens are sovereign, why sheriffs are the arbiter of Constitutionality and not the citizens themselves.

I think you missed a few posts if you're asking this...

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #101 on: May 25, 2020, 10:09:10 PM »
...you're falling into the Seriati rabbit hole of positing thing after thing, looking for contradictions and omissions.

Wow! More projection. I've seen few posters who makes as much effoert to get it right than Seriati does, and then you have the audacity to insult?

After all the new documentation and released statements from the FBI and various swamp monsters, there is no possible way you can continue to ignore the facts and bully everyone into your disinformational view. You can't search and not find all this out.

You are a master of posturing.  Seriati "get(s) it right" every time, but not in the way that you mean.  You're right even more than he is.

You never did explain, if citizens are sovereign, why sheriffs are the arbiter of Constitutionality and not the citizens themselves.

Uh, Seriati's "batting average" is a fair bit higher than wmLambert's on that front, not sure what you've been sniffing lately, but it must be "good stuff."

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #102 on: May 25, 2020, 10:41:55 PM »
Quote from: Kasandra
...You never did explain, if citizens are sovereign, why sheriffs are the arbiter of Constitutionality and not the citizens themselves.

Uh, Seriati's "batting average" is a fair bit higher than wmLambert's on that front, not sure what you've been sniffing lately, but it must be "good stuff."

The individual is sovereign, each individual sheriff is required to follow the law, and refuse to follow illegal orders. (Refer back to Nuremberg Trials.)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #103 on: May 25, 2020, 11:33:06 PM »
Uh, Seriati's "batting average" is a fair bit higher than wmLambert's on that front, not sure what you've been sniffing lately, but it must be "good stuff."
This might help:
Quote
Seriati get(s) it "right" every time, but not in the way that you mean.  You're "right" even more than he is.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #104 on: May 26, 2020, 05:08:06 AM »
You never did explain, if citizens are sovereign, why sheriffs are the arbiter of Constitutionality and not the citizens themselves.

I think you missed a few posts if you're asking this...

No, I've read them all.  Here's wmLambert's problematic declaration:

Quote
Just so you understand fully: We are a nation where the individual is sovereign - not a mayor, a governor, nor a president. An individual Sheriff must follow what he knows to be the law, regardless of what a politician says.

...and my two problems with it are:

1. What does it mean to be a sovereign individual?  I don't think he means that everyone has the right to control what happens to their own body, which is used to justify a woman's rights to an abortion.  It's more likely he means something like "sovereign citizen", for which this is a common interpretation:

Quote
Self-described "sovereign citizens" see themselves as answerable only to their particular interpretations of the common law and as not subject to any government statutes or proceedings. In the United States, they do not recognize U.S. currency and maintain that they are "free of any legal constraints".

If he meant something else, he should be able to say what that is, which he hasn't yet done.

2. His interpretation of a sheriff's authority is "An individual Sheriff must follow what he knows to be the law, regardless of what a politician says."

Laws are made by governments, not politicians.  Mayors, Governors and the President aren't politicians, they are dutifully elected officers of government.  wmLambert hasn't explained where sheriffs get the authority to override a lawfully elected official exercising their own authority to execute laws.  Whitmer hasn't told any Michigan sheriff to execute an "illegal law," because there is no such thing.  I think he means "a law they know to be unconstitutional," but that's equally problematic because that turns every sheriff (and, of course, every other person burdened with the obligation to enforce laws) into their very own Constitutional skoller.  What Whitmer has done is exercise her authority to issue Executive Orders in a time of a public health emergency, which she is legally authorized and required to do.  If a sheriff doesn't feel like following those orders, they are breaking the law, not following some other law.

To sum up the two problems I have with what wmLambert said, a sheriff enforces the laws that are on the books and the individual exercises his/her rights to challenge the appropriateness, legality or Constitutionality of the application of the law to themselves.

wmLambert's argument and his explanations so far are both muddled and wrong, unless of course he can explain what he means in a way that makes sense.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2020, 05:12:51 AM by Kasandra »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #105 on: May 26, 2020, 05:29:51 AM »
And I forgot to mention the lunacy of his Nuremberg argument, which is a favorite scare tactic of the right.  The Nuremberg trials were used to prosecute Nazi war criminals.  The difference between a Nazi war criminal who aided and abetted the holocaust has absolutely nothing in common with the Governor issuing Executive Orders in a public health emergency, which are designed and intended to save lives, not end them.  Every Democrat is a Nazi to the people who blithely toss off that phrase when they're told to follow laws they want to ignore.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #106 on: May 26, 2020, 10:26:23 AM »
Laws are made by governments, not politicians.  Mayors, Governors and the President aren't politicians, they are dutifully elected officers of government.  wmLambert hasn't explained where sheriffs get the authority to override a lawfully elected official exercising their own authority to execute laws.

Uh, if they're elected into their position, they're a politician by definition. It should also be noted that not every mayor's office is an elective position, strange as that may be for some people when they encounter it.

As to where the sherrif derives their power? Probably from their exercise of their own authority as a "lawfully elected official exercising their own authority" as the chief law enforcement officer for their county or parrish?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #107 on: May 26, 2020, 10:35:06 AM »
Laws are made by governments, not politicians.  Mayors, Governors and the President aren't politicians, they are dutifully elected officers of government.  wmLambert hasn't explained where sheriffs get the authority to override a lawfully elected official exercising their own authority to execute laws.

Uh, if they're elected into their position, they're a politician by definition. It should also be noted that not every mayor's office is an elective position, strange as that may be for some people when they encounter it.

You mean they're not elected government officials who take an oath to faithfully carry out the obligations of their office, including the enforcement of laws?  You don't have to be elected to have authority; in fact, many of Trump's top officials have never even been vetted or approved by Congress.  What authority do they have?

Quote
As to where the sherrif derives their power? Probably from their exercise of their own authority as a "lawfully elected official exercising their own authority" as the chief law enforcement officer for their county or parrish?

And you think that lets them pick and choose which laws they think should be enforced?  Does the Governor have the same discretion to ignore laws that s/he doesn't like?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #108 on: May 26, 2020, 10:52:20 AM »
And you think that lets them pick and choose which laws they think should be enforced?  Does the Governor have the same discretion to ignore laws that s/he doesn't like?

Well, people seemed to think Obama had the power to do a lot more than that when it came to DACA and related action around it. Where in effect Obama was acting as "the nation's sheriff" in regards to how "his agencies" would carry out enforcement of Immigration Law, by not enforcing it when it came to DACA recipients. Even though Congress didn't actually change any laws to allow it.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #109 on: May 26, 2020, 10:54:41 AM »
What's with the waddaboutism? We're taking about present tense.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #110 on: May 26, 2020, 11:15:32 AM »
What's with the waddaboutism? We're taking about present tense.

What's with your complete avoidance of addressing DACA?

Was DACA a valid executive decision by Obama or not?

If you don't want to answer the question, then your interest in discussing the Sheriff's is entirely partisan in nature, and further engagement on this matter is pointless.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #111 on: May 26, 2020, 11:33:48 AM »
The difference between a Nazi war criminal who aided and abetted the holocaust has absolutely nothing in common with the Governor issuing Executive Orders in a public health emergency, which are designed and intended to save lives, not end them. 

Yet, all the actual facts show that the blue state democrats that issued those executive orders had much higher body counts than the more open red states. If they really were intending to save lives, they really, really fvked up, epically. Cuomo's order to house the infected with the elderly was arguably criminal is was such a massive fvckup - you cannot in any way argue he did that to save lives.

So which is it? Gross incompetence or something else? I'm going with something else.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #112 on: May 26, 2020, 12:39:13 PM »
What's with the waddaboutism? We're taking about present tense.

What's with your complete avoidance of addressing DACA?

Was DACA a valid executive decision by Obama or not?

If you don't want to answer the question, then your interest in discussing the Sheriff's is entirely partisan in nature, and further engagement on this matter is pointless.

Why that one?  Why not go back and discuss the Emancipation Proclamation or Roosevelt's WPA?  Waddabout Truman's armed forces desegregation EO?  Johnson's EEO order?  Bush's order creating the DHS?

Let's work our way through some of those to establish precedents and then come to DACA.  When we've disposed of that one we can consider some of the 44 EOs Trump issued in 2019 and 23 already in 2020.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #113 on: May 26, 2020, 12:43:12 PM »
The difference between a Nazi war criminal who aided and abetted the holocaust has absolutely nothing in common with the Governor issuing Executive Orders in a public health emergency, which are designed and intended to save lives, not end them. 

Yet, all the actual facts show that the blue state democrats that issued those executive orders had much higher body counts than the more open red states. If they really were intending to save lives, they really, really fvked up, epically. Cuomo's order to house the infected with the elderly was arguably criminal is was such a massive fvckup - you cannot in any way argue he did that to save lives.

So which is it? Gross incompetence or something else? I'm going with something else.

Good, you should go with population demographics, travel, urban density....

Why are meat packing plants being hit so hard?  Gross incompetence or something else?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #114 on: May 26, 2020, 01:08:07 PM »
Yet, all the actual facts show that the blue state democrats that issued those executive orders had much higher body counts than the more open red states.

Correlation is not causation.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #115 on: May 26, 2020, 02:01:44 PM »
Yet, all the actual facts show that the blue state democrats that issued those executive orders had much higher body counts than the more open red states.

Correlation is not causation.

Ordering infected people into a nursing home is pretty solid for causing the disease to spread there among the most vulnerable to the disease.  ::)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #116 on: May 26, 2020, 02:04:41 PM »
The difference between a Nazi war criminal who aided and abetted the holocaust has absolutely nothing in common with the Governor issuing Executive Orders in a public health emergency, which are designed and intended to save lives, not end them. 

Yet, all the actual facts show that the blue state democrats that issued those executive orders had much higher body counts than the more open red states. If they really were intending to save lives, they really, really fvked up, epically. Cuomo's order to house the infected with the elderly was arguably criminal is was such a massive fvckup - you cannot in any way argue he did that to save lives.

So which is it? Gross incompetence or something else? I'm going with something else.

Good, you should go with population demographics, travel, urban density....

Why are meat packing plants being hit so hard?  Gross incompetence or something else?

So if we ask Cuomo and Murphy, those reasons are what they'll say? Right?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #117 on: May 26, 2020, 02:30:04 PM »
Yet, all the actual facts show that the blue state democrats that issued those executive orders had much higher body counts than the more open red states.

Correlation is not causation.

Ordering infected people into a nursing home is pretty solid for causing the disease to spread there among the most vulnerable to the disease.  ::)

Poor support for your argument. You're quoting one state and an order that was not a restrictive order.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #118 on: May 26, 2020, 04:27:14 PM »
What's with the waddaboutism? We're taking about present tense.

What's with your complete avoidance of addressing DACA?

Was DACA a valid executive decision by Obama or not?

If you don't want to answer the question, then your interest in discussing the Sheriff's is entirely partisan in nature, and further engagement on this matter is pointless.

Why that one?  Why not go back and discuss the Emancipation Proclamation or Roosevelt's WPA?  Waddabout Truman's armed forces desegregation EO?  Johnson's EEO order?  Bush's order creating the DHS?

Let's work our way through some of those to establish precedents and then come to DACA.  When we've disposed of that one we can consider some of the 44 EOs Trump issued in 2019 and 23 already in 2020.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime declaration and only had effect in the areas "under rebellion" which left all kinds of legal grey-zone in regards to pacified areas of the Confederacy. But anyhow, not directly comparable to DACA in any way.

The WPA was congressionally authorized? So not sure how that even plays into "selective enforcement" on the part of the head of a law enforcement organization..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration#Establishment
Quote
A joint resolution introduced January 21, 1935,[8] the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 was passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 8, 1935. On May 6, 1935, FDR issued executive order 7034, establishing the Works Progress Administration. The WPA superseded the work of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, which was dissolved. Direct relief assistance was permanently replaced by a national work relief program—a major public works program directed by the WPA.

Johnson's EEO order appears to have been an extension of the Civil Rights Act, "extra-legal" it may in that it happened outside the legislative process, but it wasn't him actively ignoring existing law, as happened with DACA.

Truman's Desegregation of the Armed Forces was an executive action which undid the Executive Actions of the Wilson Administration. So again, not an action resulting in the head of a law enforcement agency directing his subordinates to ignore existing statutory law.

The DHS creation was also supported legislatively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_Security_Act

Quote
The Department of Homeland Security was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 on November 25, 2002. It was intended to consolidate U.S. executive branch organizations related to "homeland security" into a single Cabinet agency. The Gilmore Commission supported by much of congress and John Bolton helped further solidify need for the department. The following 22 agencies were incorporated into the new department

So I'm not sure how that's relevant to what the Sheriffs are doing? Again, Bush(43) wasn't instructing anyone to ignore any statutory laws, if anything, he directed them to recognize it.

But as your response to the direct query was a whole lot of irrelevant "whataboutism" of your own that answered nothing. I guess we can safely say you're only interested in the partisan aspect of things on the topic of the Sheriffs and enforcement of (allegedly) unconstitutional laws or otherwise illegal directives from higher authorities.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2020, 04:29:30 PM by TheDeamon »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #119 on: May 26, 2020, 04:34:29 PM »
At the moment, yes.  That's the subject of this thread. 

I'll say that what I don't like about bringing in unrelated topics is the same as when I try to use an analogy to explain something to my wife.  She always - ALWAYS - responds by saying, "That's not the same thing!"  She's right, but I'd never say that to her.  DACA is not the same thing!

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #120 on: May 26, 2020, 04:38:37 PM »
DACA was the President of the United States, as the nations top law enforcement officer. Much like a Sheriff is a county's top LEO, instructing the other law enforcement agents who work under him that they are no longer to take actions to enforce statutory laws that are on the books.

How the two things are not directly comparable in your world is mind boggling.

The only way they're not comparable is in the instances of the Country Sheriff's who are refusing to enforce certain gun control laws as they cite possible violations of Second Amendment Rights. Which would at least stand some scrutiny as a legally valid reason to ignore a law.

Meanwhile, I'm not seeing the Constitutional Rights that were being violated in order to justify DACA.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #121 on: May 26, 2020, 05:43:33 PM »
...The only way they're not comparable is in the instances of the Country Sheriff's who are refusing to enforce certain gun control laws as they cite possible violations of Second Amendment Rights. Which would at least stand some scrutiny as a legally valid reason to ignore a law.

Meanwhile, I'm not seeing the Constitutional Rights that were being violated in order to justify DACA.

Agree. Obama always thumbed his nose at limits for what was within his authority. His use of 34 Czars, because he couldn't get his activist friends into power positions that needed confirmation, is one example. Saying he was "the most transparent President of all time", when he would not release his college records or birth certificate, shows him as a hypocrite. Hillary's minion, Berg, filed the lawsuit to force him to release his birth certificate, yet it still has never been seen. Trump can mention Hillary's attack on the birth certificate and get reamed for it. Hillary never will be.

There are laws that the individual has allowed to be made, and there are dictates by executives that only claim legality. The Second Amendment, for example, is law. The idea of "gun-free zones" that attract mass murderers is the worst kind of non-law.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #122 on: May 26, 2020, 09:31:12 PM »
Quote
So I'm not sure how that's relevant to what the Sheriffs are doing?

Neither is DACA.  Start a thread if you want to talk about that.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #123 on: May 27, 2020, 06:41:29 AM »
Quote
The Second Amendment, for example, is law. The idea of "gun-free zones" that attract mass murderers is the worst kind of non-law.

The Constitution is not "law", but the framework and charter from which laws are derived.  That creates a body of Constitutional law that interprets and applies the Constitution as a set of guidelines.  Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which was later amended (but is still in effect), and states have further refined it with their own "gun-free zone" laws.  This is a good example of how both the federal government and states can create laws to limit types of guns and where/how they are used, despite the "shall not be infringed" tag on the 2A text.

The 2A has been reinterpreted significantly in the past 75 years and the "individual right" didn't take precedence over militial interpretations until Heller.  The wheel is still in spin, so some future Supreme Court case could roll back or rescind that interpretation.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #124 on: May 27, 2020, 12:20:37 PM »
Quote
The Second Amendment, for example, is law. The idea of "gun-free zones" that attract mass murderers is the worst kind of non-law.

The Constitution is not "law", but the framework and charter from which laws are derived. 

More like suggestions, huh?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #125 on: May 27, 2020, 12:26:56 PM »
Quote
The Second Amendment, for example, is law. The idea of "gun-free zones" that attract mass murderers is the worst kind of non-law.

The Constitution is not "law", but the framework and charter from which laws are derived. 

More like suggestions, huh?

More like a framework and a charter from which laws are derived.  What do you think it is?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #126 on: May 27, 2020, 12:36:06 PM »
More like a framework and a charter from which laws are derived.  What do you think it is?

I think it makes sense to call it a framework and a charter, but I do not believe laws are derived from it. Laws are derived out of necessity; situations that arise which must be solved. The constitution is the thing creating boundaries the laws can't cross, but afaik it doesn't serve as the origin of those laws. The origin are the various legislative bodies at various levels that need to govern. In other words, you can't trace back laws to the constitution, although you can check to see how concordant they are with the constitution.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #127 on: May 27, 2020, 01:09:01 PM »
More like a framework and a charter from which laws are derived.  What do you think it is?

I think it makes sense to call it a framework and a charter, but I do not believe laws are derived from it. Laws are derived out of necessity; situations that arise which must be solved. The constitution is the thing creating boundaries the laws can't cross, but afaik it doesn't serve as the origin of those laws. The origin are the various legislative bodies at various levels that need to govern. In other words, you can't trace back laws to the constitution, although you can check to see how concordant they are with the constitution.

Don't forget "common law" in all of this, we inherited it from the Brits and there are a number of things lurking about in our legal system that was never legislated on because of that very reason.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #128 on: May 27, 2020, 01:15:59 PM »
Fair enough to you both, and also consider natural law and religious law.  All of these can come in conflict with the Constitution if they ignore it when those laws are made.  So if you want to say that laws don't derive (downward) from the Constitution, they have to look upward toward it.  It works out the same either way.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #129 on: May 27, 2020, 01:31:00 PM »
So if you want to say that laws don't derive (downward) from the Constitution, they have to look upward toward it.  It works out the same either way.

Well, not quite. The difference of it having to look upward is that unlike a good piece of computer programming, there is no auto-checking mechanism in laws. A law can be made that is totally bogus but it will only get that check-back if challenged or a lawsuit made. So in the sense of philosophy of law a bogus law was "never really a law" in the sense that it was illegal. Obviously it was a law in the technical sense that it hit paper and was signed. But the "look upward" difficulty is that it requires active work to verify. It was derived downwards it could be an article of faith that if the law exists it must be legit, which is actually the outlook many people have. There are some some people where if they tell you "you have the follow the law!" and you say to them "not if it's not legit" they will look at you funny, as if you're one of those militia nuts. This can create sticky situations on a day-to-day basis, which is why I view with great suspicion the lawful-neutral attitude of "follow the law because it's the law." That brings us back to the Nuremberg analogy.

Bear in mind through all this I'm endorsing the Sheriffs and whatever it is they think they're doing. Just helping explicate what I think wmLambert was saying.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #130 on: May 27, 2020, 01:43:47 PM »
Quote
Well, not quite. The difference of it having to look upward is that unlike a good piece of computer programming, there is no auto-checking mechanism in laws. A law can be made that is totally bogus but it will only get that check-back if challenged or a lawsuit made. So in the sense of philosophy of law a bogus law was "never really a law" in the sense that it was illegal.

Until a law is challenged and overturned it is a law.  Frequently, people who are jailed or otherwise punished for violating those laws receive some sort of compensation or redress, but not always.

Quote
Bear in mind through all this I'm endorsing the Sheriffs and whatever it is they think they're doing. Just helping explicate what I think wmLambert was saying.

I don't know what that means.  You think that sheriffs are the final arbiters of what is and is not legal???

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #131 on: May 27, 2020, 01:56:09 PM »
Quote
Well, not quite. The difference of it having to look upward is that unlike a good piece of computer programming, there is no auto-checking mechanism in laws. A law can be made that is totally bogus but it will only get that check-back if challenged or a lawsuit made. So in the sense of philosophy of law a bogus law was "never really a law" in the sense that it was illegal.

Until a law is challenged and overturned it is a law.  Frequently, people who are jailed or otherwise punished for violating those laws receive some sort of compensation or redress, but not always.

Re-read bolded part. I put that in specifically to route the objection that you made anyhow...

Quote
Quote
Bear in mind through all this I'm [NOT] endorsing the Sheriffs and whatever it is they think they're doing. Just helping explicate what I think wmLambert was saying.

I don't know what that means.  You think that sheriffs are the final arbiters of what is and is not legal???

A very unfortunate typo  :o

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #132 on: May 27, 2020, 03:39:36 PM »
Quote
So in the sense of philosophy of law a bogus law was "never really a law" in the sense that it was illegal.
Quote
Re-read bolded part. I put that in specifically to route the objection that you made anyhow...

I pride myself on being obscure when the urge takes me, but you o'ershot me with this.  Your objection has no meaning outside of a classroom, except perhaps as a sheriff might interpret it for me.

Quote
A very unfortunate typo  :o

Whew! I was *this* close to ranting on you....