Author Topic: You have no right  (Read 18258 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #50 on: May 21, 2020, 04:19:35 PM »
A Natural Right is something that is inherent to you, and something you can accomplish on your own without needing to impose upon the rights or resources of others against their will. So while in keeping with the recent post walking through how the "right to not get shot" is subservient to the "right to self defense" the "right to life" itself is actually a function of the "right to self defense."

Skipping back up to this to further poke at this construction.

So, given that a infant or a fetus cannot accomplish anything on their own without imposing on the rights or resources of others, they have no natural rights? If parents chose, of their own will, not to feed their children that's just unfortunate?

Well, that would be a logical extension from the other post where I added in that while self-defense is a natural right, having a government is not.

From a "natural law" standpoint, it'd be a valid position to take.

Thankfully, the Social Contract definitely has things to say on that particular matter.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #51 on: May 21, 2020, 04:24:48 PM »
Well, that would be a logical extension from the other post where I added in that while self-defense is a natural right, having a government is not.

From a "natural law" standpoint, it'd be a valid position to take.

Thankfully, the Social Contract definitely has things to say on that particular matter.

So your "natural rights" are conditional and changeable. Which seems to make them insufficient as a foundation. What value is there in a theory of rights that does not grant those rights to everyone?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #52 on: May 21, 2020, 05:22:01 PM »
Well, that would be a logical extension from the other post where I added in that while self-defense is a natural right, having a government is not.

From a "natural law" standpoint, it'd be a valid position to take.

Thankfully, the Social Contract definitely has things to say on that particular matter.

So your "natural rights" are conditional and changeable. Which seems to make them insufficient as a foundation. What value is there in a theory of rights that does not grant those rights to everyone?

It wasn't conditional and changeable. They're still in possession of their natural right to defend themselves, they're just utterly incapable of doing so.

I've already previously stated that those situations where people's inability to enforce their own natural rights would be why you have a government. Or as the founders would put "for these reasons, governments are instituted among men."

But it doesn't make the government itself a natural right, it is a social contract enacted between individuals realizing that "we can either all hang separately, or we can all hang together" when it comes to dealing with (would be) tyrants. And as such, we get "the social contract" which stipulates which things will not be tolerated. And mistreatment of the young and defenseless is certainly high on that list. But again, that's a construct of the social contract, and not a natural right.

but I'll give you props for phrasing, I walked right into that trap. I didn't notice that booby trap.

A Natural Right is something that is inherent to you, and something you can accomplish on your own without needing to impose upon the rights or resources of others against their will. So while in keeping with the recent post walking through how the "right to not get shot" is subservient to the "right to self defense" the "right to life" itself is actually a function of the "right to self defense."

Skipping back up to this to further poke at this construction.

So, given that a infant or a fetus cannot accomplish anything on their own without imposing on the rights or resources of others, they have no natural rights? If parents chose, of their own will, not to feed their children that's just unfortunate?

As the infant or fetus cannot accomplish anything on its own, it cannot defend its natural rights, or take care of own interests for that matter. There is no "natural right" for them to be fed or cared for by a parent against the parents will. The are plenty of other reasons why they should be fed or cared for, but "natural law" isn't one of them.

Just because you have a natural right doesn't mean you're going to be able to protect it. And this happens to be an interesting edge case that I can see a pro-choice advocate jumping on and going see "you just made a natural law argument for pro-choice" which would be partly correct. But if they're going to use that logic to justify abortion, they cannot then disallow that logic to be used to justify the government not paying for their birth control or abortion services.

And that is before we even get into that whole "social contract" side of things where we can visit the argument that the core purpose of the social contract is to enable self-defense to be realized in situations it would not otherwise be possible. Where we then get to haggle over whether or not that fetus is party to that social contract or not.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #53 on: May 21, 2020, 05:34:33 PM »
If I can walk down the street and not get sick or attacked I experience the freedom of movement at the cost of agreeing not to attack the person walking towards me.

If you're just walking around attacking people, you're not practicing any natural right. You're practicing "might makes right."

Your right to self-defense would limit you to "defensive acts" only, which means you cannot just go around randomly attacking people because "they looked at you funny" and you "felt threatened" even if some people may try to construe such scenarios.

So attacking someone for now reason isn't a natural right or freedom? So natural rights place is a natural boundary of freedom - which we then create laws to address adding additional boundaries to the experience of freedom. The moment you are establishing a 'natural right' and or Law your are also impacting 'freedom'

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #54 on: May 21, 2020, 05:51:01 PM »
Quote
It wasn't conditional and changeable. They're still in possession of their natural right to defend themselves, they're just utterly incapable of doing so.

This reminds me of when Stan asserted his right to have babies, even though he was a man. MPFC - Life of Brian.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #55 on: May 21, 2020, 06:03:59 PM »
If I can walk down the street and not get sick or attacked I experience the freedom of movement at the cost of agreeing not to attack the person walking towards me.

If you're just walking around attacking people, you're not practicing any natural right. You're practicing "might makes right."

Your right to self-defense would limit you to "defensive acts" only, which means you cannot just go around randomly attacking people because "they looked at you funny" and you "felt threatened" even if some people may try to construe such scenarios.

So attacking someone for now reason isn't a natural right or freedom? So natural rights place is a natural boundary of freedom - which we then create laws to address adding additional boundaries to the experience of freedom. The moment you are establishing a 'natural right' and or Law your are also impacting 'freedom'

It is an interesting question. The founding fathers went with the theory of a natural system created by (the Christian) God for all intents. So in that context, NobleHunter's scenario about the infant or fetus likely would be considered a "natural law" item for the founders, as they'd consider it part of God's Law, but I'm trying to stick to natural law as we understand nature absent moving into divinity arguments.

Going with the divinity route the founders would likely take, it would be self-defense only for all meaningful intents because "that's god's will" near as they can tell. You need look no further than the ten commandments for that. (with emphasis on the don't murder, and the don't steal parts)

Going with "nature as we understand it" we get stuck with a bigger problem. Nest/den abandonment with young still needing care does happen in nature, it's very rare, but it happens. You can even have a rival mate come along and kill the young of the other. Which isn't to mention a few other nasty things that can be found in nature if you pick the right species.

For packs and even many herds, "natural law" does clearly allow for, and even expect, fights for dominance to happen between rival "alphas." Obviously that is not something we as a society care to emulate, so even if "natural law" may support the claim, we're simply "not going there." Just because nature supports "doing a thing" doesn't mean we need, or want, to emulate it. But more noteworthy is those behaviors are no universal(although the male dominance thing is pretty darn close, even if not all forms of it resort to violence). However, Self-Defense is universal(even if flight/fleeing is a favored method for most), and you can even see defense-of-others happen in the wild.

And for seeking a stable society where people basically have the right to be left alone, self-defense is perhaps the best thing "in nature" to center everything else around. So in that respect "the social contract" is at its core, a mutual defense pact, with economic cooperation attachments.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #56 on: May 23, 2020, 08:47:45 AM »
Quote
Michigan’s 83 county sheriffs are part of a law enforcement system sworn to uphold the laws of their community and the state.

But Leaf and a growing chorus of sheriffs – some linked to a controversial, right-wing national movement that asserts a sheriff’s unique authority ­— are testing the limits of Whitmer’s executive orders. The “constitutional sheriff” movement essentially holds that sheriffs — not the governor, nor the federal government — are the final word on interpreting the constitution within their county. 

Crazy, no?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #57 on: May 23, 2020, 10:23:30 PM »
Quote
Michigan’s 83 county sheriffs are part of a law enforcement system sworn to uphold the laws of their community and the state.

But Leaf and a growing chorus of sheriffs – some linked to a controversial, right-wing national movement that asserts a sheriff’s unique authority ­— are testing the limits of Whitmer’s executive orders. The “constitutional sheriff” movement essentially holds that sheriffs — not the governor, nor the federal government — are the final word on interpreting the constitution within their county. 

Crazy, no?

I guess you never heard of the Nuremberg Trials? A soldier is not allowed to follow illegal orders. Period. The Constitution is the highest law we have. No One is exempt from following it.

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.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #58 on: May 24, 2020, 08:53:47 AM »
Quote
Michigan’s 83 county sheriffs are part of a law enforcement system sworn to uphold the laws of their community and the state.

But Leaf and a growing chorus of sheriffs – some linked to a controversial, right-wing national movement that asserts a sheriff’s unique authority ­— are testing the limits of Whitmer’s executive orders. The “constitutional sheriff” movement essentially holds that sheriffs — not the governor, nor the federal government — are the final word on interpreting the constitution within their county. 

Crazy, no?

I guess you never heard of the Nuremberg Trials? A soldier is not allowed to follow illegal orders. Period. The Constitution is the highest law we have. No One is exempt from following it.

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.

So, everybody is free to interpret all laws according to their own careful analysis of the strictures and guidelines laid out in the Constitution?  There is no sovereign government?  If so, laws are optional everywhere and nobody can be found liable when they have violated a law if they believe in good conscience that what they did is Constitutional.  Do I understand that right?  I have a couple of challenge scenarios for you if you want to go there.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #59 on: May 24, 2020, 10:12:53 AM »
No. You completely misrepresented it. Strawman fallacy ....again

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #60 on: May 24, 2020, 10:33:11 AM »
No. You completely misrepresented it. Strawman fallacy ....again
Explain what part, specifically, you think is a strawman

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #61 on: May 24, 2020, 10:36:37 AM »
smh

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #62 on: May 24, 2020, 11:00:43 AM »
Unfortunately, that's as good as it gets.  Disagreeing with him is a sign of hate, and he can't or won't explain why he feels that way.  When we ask my granddaughter why she says things we don't understand, she sometimes says "I don't know", as if to say "Why are you asking me?".  Crunch's responses remind me of that sometimes.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #63 on: May 24, 2020, 12:08:05 PM »
Unfortunately, that's as good as it gets.  Disagreeing with him is a sign of hate, and he can't or won't explain why he feels that way.  When we ask my granddaughter why she says things we don't understand, she sometimes says "I don't know", as if to say "Why are you asking me?".  Crunch's responses remind me of that sometimes.

Again, that is projection. You never answered the Nuremberg Trial comment, because you can't. You tried to negate that the individual is sovereign by asking if that individual breaks the law, then is he innocent? Of course not. The point is the individual is preeminent over elected officials, but must follow the law, he and his society has agreed to if it is legal. The individual is sovereign, not the State. If an order is not legal, he is responsible to resist it, but also to stand and suffer the consequences if he is wrong.

Crunch is just returning fire. You attack him, and he responds minimally that what you said is nonsense. Then you write a few hundred more words digging yourself deeper. If he points out the evident TDS, by saying that your motto is: "Orange man bad," then you blame him for your motto.

You think disagreeing with him is a sign of hate, and you might be accurate, You certainly don't respond on point. Must be some reason for that.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #64 on: May 24, 2020, 03:01:28 PM »
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.

Can you cite a law in the Constitution?

Citizens are not sovereign, else they wouldn't be citizens, because citizens are subject to a state (country, etc.).  If you or a sheriff can interpret the Constitution however you see fit, do you have government id, obey traffic laws, use a passport or pay taxes?  Who made those laws and what gives them the right to impose them on you?

And why does a sheriff have the right to arrest you for breaking a law that you don't think is legitimate?  Can you resist and claim self defense?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #65 on: May 24, 2020, 03:17:26 PM »
Kasandra,

He's talking about the nature of a constitutional republic, not about who has the authority to enforce laws. It means that there is no person who can approach you and just give you orders that you have to follow. If the President tells you to get him a coffee you can tell him to jump in a lake without ipso facto being a criminal. Whereas under a monarchy if the king gives you an instruction then following it is by definition legal. If the President tells you to shoot an unarmed civilian and you do it, you are the criminal. So each citizen is sovereign in terms of having the full powers to determine how they will live, within the restrictions of the law. They are not subjects of the state, and this kind of gross misunderstanding is probably why many people feel like their rights are granted to them by government like gifts. They are, however, subject to (in the grammatically other sense of the word) the laws decided upon by their fellow man, made on their behalf by their representatives. This distinction is why I get so up in arms about what happens when government ceases to actually represent anyone other than power players, and why 'fake elections' consisting of two propped up puppets basically constitutes a breach of democracy. In that case the citizens really do end up being subjects of the state, since their voice ceases to have any relevance in governance, at least at the federal level.

The other touchy point is when laws are passed to do enforce actions and obligations on you, that otherwise would have been your domain. An example of this could be a military draft.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #66 on: May 24, 2020, 04:18:40 PM »
Kasandra,

He's talking about the nature of a constitutional republic, not about who has the authority to enforce laws.

You're confusing things.  He specifically refers to the Sheriff having the responsibility to interpret laws in light of Constitution, not the people who write the laws and not the citizens on whom they are imposed.  What is the job of the state and federal government, to throw laws against the wall to see if they stick?  Remember that he said the following:

Quote
The “constitutional sheriff” movement essentially holds that sheriffs — not the governor, nor the federal government — are the final word on interpreting the constitution within their county.

He references Nuremburg, but then asserts that the least level of enforcement of laws has the ultimate authority to interpret them, not citizens.

Quote
It means that there is no person who can approach you and just give you orders that you have to follow.

Again, I don't follow.  We're not talking about another citizen attempting to force you to violate a law, are we?  This discussion started with 83 sheriffs, not citizens, let alone what he labelled as "sovereign" individuals.  Laws are promulgated in light of higher laws and ultimately the Constitution.  Sheriffs don't get to decide which laws they'll enforce in this Constitutional republic.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #67 on: May 24, 2020, 04:29:33 PM »
Again, I don't follow.  We're not talking about another citizen attempting to force you to violate a law, are we?  This discussion started with 83 sheriffs, not citizens, let alone what he labelled as "sovereign" individuals.  Laws are promulgated in light of higher laws and ultimately the Constitution.  Sheriffs don't get to decide which laws they'll enforce in this Constitutional republic.

Presumably the position they are stating (I'm not familiar with the movement) is that a governor or Congressman doesn't have the authority to tell them to do things that they see as unconstitutional. The essence of this is that each person must uphold constitution, and that it's not just a guidebook for legislators. A Sheriff as the 'authority' to interpret constitution insofar as they can't be told to enforce laws that they know are more fundamentally 'illegal laws'. Obviously this is a position rife with possible abuse, since any joker can claim to the the final arbiter and do anything he likes. But at the same time, the essence of constitutional democracy is, I think, actually supposed to assume that each citizen should enjoy the sovereignty to exercise his own conscience under the constitution. Naturally this begs the question of "what happens if people are stupid or self-interested"? But that question actually speaks to the validity of the entire form of government, since an unsuited populace won't be able to sustain a free democracy anyhow.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #68 on: May 24, 2020, 04:48:06 PM »
Let me just preface my response by saying that I've been part of more than one act of civil disobedience and worked actively to resolve injustices in the legal system.  But, as a citizen who might choose on my own to violate a law, I've never encountered a sheriff who chose on my behalf to encourage me to break a law.  That's not how it's supposed to work.  As far as enforcement goes, the sheriff is the law.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #69 on: May 24, 2020, 05:02:07 PM »
Quote
Michigan’s 83 county sheriffs are part of a law enforcement system sworn to uphold the laws of their community and the state.

But Leaf and a growing chorus of sheriffs – some linked to a controversial, right-wing national movement that asserts a sheriff’s unique authority ­— are testing the limits of Whitmer’s executive orders. The “constitutional sheriff” movement essentially holds that sheriffs — not the governor, nor the federal government — are the final word on interpreting the constitution within their county. 

Crazy, no?

I guess you never heard of the Nuremberg Trials? A soldier is not allowed to follow illegal orders. Period. The Constitution is the highest law we have. No One is exempt from following it.

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.

So, everybody is free to interpret all laws according to their own careful analysis of the strictures and guidelines laid out in the Constitution?  There is no sovereign government?  If so, laws are optional everywhere and nobody can be found liable when they have violated a law if they believe in good conscience that what they did is Constitutional.  Do I understand that right?  I have a couple of challenge scenarios for you if you want to go there.

The Federal Government has its own enforcement arms, many of them in fact. In fact, as the Obama Admin demonstrated, they'd really rather that local law enforcement not get involved in enforcing Federal Laws.

State Governments also have law enforcement arms of their own, some are larger than others, but they do exist. Just because they ask that the local law enforcement agencies comply with enforcing a State Law doesn't mean they must comply with that enforcement request. At that point, enforcement responsibility belongs with the state which is how the system is structured in most of the country.

This is even before you get into the matter of somebody in the 19th Century passing a Constitutional Amendment which SCotUS in the 20th Century decided applied to all levels of Government, and now you have local law enforcement being beholden to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

And as has already been pointed out, the legal precedence now stands that "willfully carrying out an unlawful order" without respect to your knowing it was unlawful, makes you liable for your own actions. This is also a juxtaposition that Active Duty Military have to contend with regularly as well. They're sworn to both "obey the (lawful) orders of those appointed over me" while also being charged to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America"

Which raises all kinds of fun legal questions over what happens should a Military Member(or now, Sheriff) refuses to carry out an order they feel is unlawful? In one respect, the refusal to obey a direct order by one "lawfully appointed over them" is mutiny. In the other respect, obeying an unlawful order by said authority makes you a criminal at best, a traitor to your oath at worst, or a mutineer for a middle ground.

At which point it becomes a judicial question which would need to handled in the courts. Assuming the case ever makes it way to court in a military context, as there may be a real chance of one side or the other finding a terminal case of "dead" from "enemy action," or some other form of freak accident. But with the County Sheriff's, the recourse is obviously for the matter to go to court and let them determine if the law in question is in fact Constitutional. People can complain about lack of enforcement all they want, but the reality is that police departments routinely ignore any number of legal violations on a daily basis. This situation would be little different.

And the reality is, for many of those "Sheriff's movements" that you're mentioning, most of those movements are happening in states that have enacted very restrictive Gun Control laws that they expect the city and county Police Departments to enforce. That most of those counties also happen to be in rural areas where a deputy may not even be able to respond in 20 to 30 minutes may be "totally irrelevant" to the reason why those law enforcement officers take exception to the idea of disarming their residents.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #70 on: May 24, 2020, 05:06:01 PM »
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.

Can you cite a law in the Constitution?

Citizens are not sovereign, else they wouldn't be citizens, because citizens are subject to a state (country, etc.).  If you or a sheriff can interpret the Constitution however you see fit, do you have government id, obey traffic laws, use a passport or pay taxes?  Who made those laws and what gives them the right to impose them on you?

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Strange, it seems to me that the preamble of the Constitution suggests that the Constitution itself derives its authority upon the consent of the people. Rather than saying "We the Government" or "we the states" (And there were a few high profile people who took exception to it being "We the people" instead of "We the states")

If you really want, we can invoke the Declaration of Independence as well, and I'm sure the Federalist Papers will provide plenty of writing supporting the sentiment that the people have a moral imperative to resist an unjust law.

Which would be very consistent with my earlier suggestion that the "social contract" is a mutual defense pact. ;)
« Last Edit: May 24, 2020, 05:10:08 PM by TheDeamon »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #71 on: May 24, 2020, 05:12:23 PM »
Presumably the position they are stating (I'm not familiar with the movement) is that a governor or Congressman doesn't have the authority to tell them to do things that they see as unconstitutional.
Not familiar, yet you felt it necessary to try to interpret wmLambert's incisive as usual post, and debate Kasandra's dispute of that post's contents...

So what is the 'movement about? google is your friend...
Quote
A debate centering around New Mexico Senate Bill 8, which would call for universal background checks for gun buyers in New Mexico, ignited a fervor among county sheriffs who said such laws are unconstitutional as they infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights – the right to "keep and bear arms." 

The bill was passed by the New Mexico Senate of Friday.
So no, it's not about the right to ignore a governor or Congressman, it is literally about sheriffs having the authority to decide when to ignore laws passed by legislatures - the people. Either sheriffs have no authority to enforce state laws, or they are responsible for enforcing them all (at least, those under their jurisdiction) - and if they have a problem with that, they do have an option - and it isn't ignoring the laws that they don't want to enforce.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #72 on: May 24, 2020, 05:16:04 PM »
Not familiar, yet you felt it necessary to try to interpret wmLambert's incisive as usual post, and debate Kasandra's dispute of that post's contents...

So what is the 'movement about? google is your friend...
Quote
A debate centering around New Mexico Senate Bill 8, which would call for universal background checks for gun buyers in New Mexico, ignited a fervor among county sheriffs who said such laws are unconstitutional as they infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment rights – the right to "keep and bear arms." 

The bill was passed by the New Mexico Senate of Friday.
So no, it's not about the right to ignore a governor or Congressman, it is literally about sheriffs having the authority to decide when to ignore laws passed by legislatures - the people. Either sheriffs have no authority to enforce state laws, or they are responsible for enforcing them all (at least, those under their jurisdiction) - and if they have a problem with that, they do have an option - and it isn't ignoring the laws that they don't want to enforce.

So while we're at it, can we also discuss states and cities passing laws instructing their agents to ignore Federal Law  with regards to pot legalization and "sanctuary cities?" It's really weird to see a side that is all for such efforts to do "a la carte" legal enforcement suddenly getting bent out of shape when it comes to the second amendment.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #73 on: May 24, 2020, 05:40:27 PM »
I'm unclear if you are referring to the quoted evidence of sheriffs ignoring legislatures as somehow evidence of anti-second amendment animus, but if so, let me put your mind at ease - that was just an example showing that the sheriffs we're proposing to ignore duly passed laws, not governors' fiats.

As for disputes between legislatures, my understanding is those are brought before your judicial system when a conflict arises. 

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #74 on: May 24, 2020, 06:06:15 PM »
Quote
Strange, it seems to me that the preamble of the Constitution suggests that the Constitution itself derives its authority upon the consent of the people. Rather than saying "We the Government" or "we the states" (And there were a few high profile people who took exception to it being "We the people" instead of "We the states")

From which laws are derived, but are not spelled out.  The Constitution stipulates rights (of people) and restraints (on government), NOT LAWS.  To insist that a sheriff can choose which part of the Constitution oversees his implementation of laws is perverse.  Basically, sheriffs who ignore the laws in this case are violating the laws and themselves are liable to arrest and prosecution.  I can't see how it can be seen any other way.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #75 on: May 24, 2020, 06:21:52 PM »
Quote
Strange, it seems to me that the preamble of the Constitution suggests that the Constitution itself derives its authority upon the consent of the people. Rather than saying "We the Government" or "we the states" (And there were a few high profile people who took exception to it being "We the people" instead of "We the states")

From which laws are derived, but are not spelled out.  The Constitution stipulates rights (of people) and restraints (on government), NOT LAWS.  To insist that a sheriff can choose which part of the Constitution oversees his implementation of laws is perverse.  Basically, sheriffs who ignore the laws in this case are violating the laws and themselves are liable to arrest and prosecution.  I can't see how it can be seen any other way.

But we're also right back to the Constitution is the supreme law of the land for all levels of government. If the state enacts a law which contradicts the Constitution, the Constitution wins. If a law is unconstitutional, it is not actually a law. It's a piece of paper whose time simply hasn't come for being struck down.

And we're back to the "can be held liable for enforcing an illegal order" (or "enforcing an illegal law," as oxymoronic as that sounds, "illegal laws" happens).

And yes, their decision to ignore the law renders them vulnerable to prosecution for failure to comply. Much like a soldier refusing to obey an unlawful order could be charged with mutiny, and a few other things to boot.

But that would be an item for the courts to resolve. They say the law is unconstitutional, and thus refuse to enforce it. Until a court says otherwise, they cannot be compelled to enforce that law. If SCotUS disagrees with them, and they still refuse, then we're talking a very different ball game, but as they're not in defiance of SCotUS on the matter, it's a legal issue pending resolution.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #76 on: May 24, 2020, 06:27:41 PM »
Quote
But we're also right back to the Constitution is the supreme law of the land for all levels of government.

That being so, laws are challenged in the reverse direction.  A person is arrested for violating a law at the lowest level of its implementation.  A conviction is then challenged on appeal and may eventually reach the Supreme Court for its ultimate interpretation.  Sheriffs don't get to decide for citizens which laws to uphold, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, which these are not.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #77 on: May 24, 2020, 06:29:40 PM »
That being so, laws are challenged in the reverse direction.  A person is arrested for violating a law at the lowest level of its implementation.  A conviction is then challenged on appeal and may eventually reach the Supreme Court for its ultimate interpretation.  Sheriffs don't get to decide for citizens which laws to uphold, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, which these are not.

So you say, but as it remains a legal issue with a still pending resolution, as SCotUS hasn't ruled on the matter, they have legal grounds to carry on with what they're doing.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #78 on: May 24, 2020, 06:32:53 PM »
Where is legal resolution being litigated?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #79 on: May 24, 2020, 06:35:42 PM »
Where is legal resolution being litigated?

Don't know, you're the one who identified the problem.

The only way it would be resolved is if someone has brought a case against one of the Sheriffs that is refusing to comply so that a ruling can be made on the matter. If nobody "of standing" is bothering to bring forward such a case, that probably speaks volumes about either what they think the judicial outcome may be, or what they think the voter reaction would be to such an action on their part.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #80 on: May 24, 2020, 06:55:14 PM »
In other words, this is a purely hypothetical argument from wmLambert (supported by you). You can say anything you want about rights and laws, but so far no sheriff has violated the law (that I have heard about, and this is in my state of Michigan), and Republican efforts to delegitimize Whitmers emergency declarations have all failed in the courts.  So, forgive me if I say that this is just posturing at this point.

Perhaps we can move on to the equally silly argument he tried to make about "sovereign" citizens and somehow tying that to Nuremburg.  That is an even more specious argument which he hasn't so far chosen to defend.  That would fall apart even faster, so unless you have a practical case to bring forward I suggest you let him flounder on that on his own.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #81 on: May 24, 2020, 07:30:58 PM »
In other words, this is a purely hypothetical argument from wmLambert (supported by you). You can say anything you want about rights and laws, but so far no sheriff has violated the law (that I have heard about, and this is in my state of Michigan), and Republican efforts to delegitimize Whitmers emergency declarations have all failed in the courts.  So, forgive me if I say that this is just posturing at this point.

Ah, but the second amendment disputes are currently ongoing and the laws are already being defied in Virginia, Washington, and New Mexico it seems. The Covid19 variant is new, and has a less sure legal footing as the court has precedents in place for curtailments of certain rights in the event of an emergency. But it does present an interesting case law scenario to see play out in the courts in regards to local authority re: public safety vs State level authority on the same issue.

Quote
Perhaps we can move on to the equally silly argument he tried to make about "sovereign" citizens and somehow tying that to Nuremburg.  That is an even more specious argument which he hasn't so far chosen to defend.  That would fall apart even faster, so unless you have a practical case to bring forward I suggest you let him flounder on that on his own.

I've been pretty much linking to it with the constant pointing to the soldiers/active duty military. "I was just following orders" does not constitute a valid legal defense under international law, as per Nuremburg. It doesn't matter if there was a law on the books saying what you did was legal, if there are other "higher laws" (like international treaties--or in this case the Constitution) then you can be held accountable to violating those higher laws.

Generally speaking in the event of something being ruled unconstitutional. The person enforcing the unconstitutional act is rarely held personally liable, so long as they were acting in a governmental capacity and in accordance with government policy at the time. But there is always a first time.

And your argument isn't as sound as you'd like it to be. I can take your assertion that "because a state has enacted a law, it must be enforced" and take it to the hyperbolic extreme and have a state enact a law instructing law enforcement officers to shoot every third white male they find who has committed a traffic violation. Obviously an unconstitutional law, but it somehow made it through the legislative process and the Governor signed it into law, so it must be enforced according to the dictates of Kassandra.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2020, 07:34:45 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #82 on: May 24, 2020, 08:52:59 PM »
Of course, I guess the "other thing" that can brought to bear in support of the sheriffs would be that whole idea of "prosecutorial discretion" that Obama introduced.

ICE was instructed to not enforce certain federal laws, laws which still remain on the books nearly a decade later mind you. The Obama Admin then went another step further and took action to prevent other local and state agencies from enforcing those federal laws. And even got the SCotUS to sign off on most of that.

So hey, if it's good enough for the PotUS of the United States to be able to pick and choose which Federal laws "his" agencies are going to enforce. Why shouldn't a County Sheriff be able to use his own executive authority to direct his people as to what their enforcement priorities are going to be, or not be, as the case may be?

This is a Pandora's box the Democrats opened with Pot Legalization, Sanctuary Cities, and Executive Discretion. Our legal system is now fully enabled and actualized as "pick and chose" based on the whims of the agencies which are supposed to be enforcing the laws.

If you're going to complain about one such example of it, you'd best start complaining about all of them. But remember, Sancutary Cities don't have a leg to stand on by claiming they're serving as a "sanctuary" from violations of constitutional rights. At least pot legalization efforts are skirting the matter by keeping to [intra[/i]-state commerce which means they're paying lip service to the commerce clause of the constitution. Even if there are other very broad commerce clause interpretations which say otherwise(*). It's moot for now, as the Federal Government has said they'll not enforce that law so long as it remains intra-state.

(*)Remember, the commerce clause has now been interpreted to mean that if an activity involves anything which is a product of interstate commerce, it qualifies. So if you want to avoid federal prosecution for that medicinal pot plant you're growing, you'd best make sure that you're only using locally source products in growing it. If you're using potting soil, it cannot come from out of state. Likewise for any fertilizer products. Whatever you're using to water it better have been sourced within your own state as well. If you've been using gloves while tending to the plant, better make sure those came from your state as well. If you're using artificial light, you're quite possibly screwed, as it's unlikely that light-bulb came from your state, and its very possible the electricity you're using didn't either. Might even be able to also zing you if you've gone online to look for literature on how to care and tend for your medicinal plant--as that internet traffic likely crossed state lines as well. If you're a larger grower and you're using a greenhouse, you'd also need to ensure ALL structural elements of the greenhouse was sourced from within your state. Sorry, but if those glass panels came from out of state, your medicinal hemp is a product of inter-state commerce.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #83 on: May 24, 2020, 09:48:57 PM »
Quote
Ah, but the second amendment disputes are currently ongoing and the laws are already being defied in Virginia, Washington, and New Mexico it seems.

You're making the case that all laws are only interpretations of the Constitution and all violations of individual laws can be defended as expressions of personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  Do you really want to go there?  Because my fist would no longer have to respect the right of your face if I decide you are a threat to me.

Let's suppose an armed man, Ted, walks into a bar wearing a mask to protect himself from the coronavirus.  He sees someone walking toward him not wearing a mask who says something that sounds like "I got the virus and I don't feel so good."  Ted shoots him before he gets within 6 feet of him because he was threatening to infect him with COVID-19.  Someone else pulls out a gun to try to intervene and Ted shoots him, too, out of concern that he was going to shoot him instead.  That's also self defense.  After that it starts to get ugly. 

There's nothing more important and sacred than one's sovereign rights, so after Ted finishes his glass of white wine he leaves the bar, gets in his truck and peels away from the curb.  In doing so, he runs over a woman pushing a baby stroller, but he was in fear for his life, so that's ok.  It gets much worse after that, but that's a story for another day in the life of the sovereign Constitution.

You're falling into the Seriati rabbit hole of positing thing after thing, looking for contradictions and omissions.  If you want to have a give and take, pick one scenario and stick with it.  Personally, I'm fine with sticking with the hypothetical COVID sheriff refusing to do his job.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #84 on: May 25, 2020, 04:21:34 AM »
Quote
Ah, but the second amendment disputes are currently ongoing and the laws are already being defied in Virginia, Washington, and New Mexico it seems.

You're making the case that all laws are only interpretations of the Constitution and all violations of individual laws can be defended as expressions of personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  Do you really want to go there?  Because my fist would no longer have to respect the right of your face if I decide you are a threat to me.

Nope, that example is settled law, you don't have the right to punch me in the face.

Quote
Let's suppose an armed man, Ted, walks into a bar wearing a mask to protect himself from the coronavirus.  He sees someone walking toward him not wearing a mask who says something that sounds like "I got the virus and I don't feel so good."  Ted shoots him before he gets within 6 feet of him because he was threatening to infect him with COVID-19.  Someone else pulls out a gun to try to intervene and Ted shoots him, too, out of concern that he was going to shoot him instead.  That's also self defense.  After that it starts to get ugly.

See, there is this legal construct called proportionate response. Shooting someone for coming near you in a public space, even if you have every reason to think they have Covid19, is a good way to get in prison for a lengthy stay.  Shooting someone else for pulling a gun in response to you shooting someone else for no discernable reason also would be a disproportionate response on your part, NOT self-defense, and grounds for another charge of attempted homicide or murder depending on it your victims survive.

Quote
There's nothing more important and sacred than one's sovereign rights, so after Ted finishes his glass of white wine he leaves the bar, gets in his truck and peels away from the curb.  In doing so, he runs over a woman pushing a baby stroller, but he was in fear for his life, so that's ok.  It gets much worse after that, but that's a story for another day in the life of the sovereign Constitution.

Settled law. It's amazing that you evidently don't have the concept that certain things are even now still unique circumstances that don't have a precedent established in regards to either a Supreme Court ruling, or SCotUS refusing to hear the appeal. Interpretation of the law, in particular with regards to Constitutional challenges, are not "Settled" until the issue has been ruled on by SCotUS. And even then, rulings can be subject to revision over time.

Quote
You're falling into the Seriati rabbit hole of positing thing after thing, looking for contradictions and omissions.  If you want to have a give and take, pick one scenario and stick with it.  Personally, I'm fine with sticking with the hypothetical COVID sheriff refusing to do his job.

You're the one who brought up the Gun Rights case as well? Besides which, the general legal theory between the two is much the same, although the Covid19 thing is on a lot more shaky ground(public emergency), as I've already commented on. Except we can then look into specifics of some of those situations, as I understand that a number of Governors are exercising "Executive Authority" which they may not actually have granted to them by the state constitution or other statutory laws for their states. In which case the Sheriff's disobeying the order is a case of the Governors issuing orders which they literally have no legal means of enforcing, but would still likely tie up the people who get cited with legal issues for weeks or even months afterwords.

But I'm also being very correct in saying that the Covid19 thing with these Sheriffs is a direct response to, and extension of, the same legal theory that allows for sanctuary cities and a number of other things that Democrats were pushing while Obama was in office. They just happen to be the other side of that proverbial coin.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #85 on: May 25, 2020, 07:09:21 AM »
Quote
Nope, that example is settled law, you don't have the right to punch me in the face.

Why should it be settled?  There is no authority but the Constitution, so law can't be used to thwart my rights.  Stare decisis is not itself settled law, so any SC ruling can be overturned by a subsequent SC ruling.  If I punched you, you needed punching. Just ask me.   In the case of COVID-19, the threat includes death.  People who have sex knowing they have AIDS are committing a crime in virtually all states law.  If that sounds absurd, how absurd is it for a sheriff to assert that people in his town have the right to infect others with coronavirus knowingly or unknowingly?

Quote
See, there is this legal construct called proportionate response.

But you can't be sure the extent of the threat.  You say that's a gub, but I know better.  You say that's just a cough, but I know better.

Quote
Settled law. It's amazing that you evidently don't have the concept that certain things are even now still unique circumstances that don't have a precedent established in regards to either a Supreme Court ruling, or SCotUS refusing to hear the appeal. Interpretation of the law, in particular with regards to Constitutional challenges, are not "Settled" until the issue has been ruled on by SCotUS. And even then, rulings can be subject to revision over time.

In other words, no state can impose restrictions until a case regarding it has reached the Supreme Court and been decided?  Since each state has implemented its own policies, there could be a lot of different decisions the SC will have to make.  Are you ok to wait one or two years for the SC to make decisions during a crisis on principle?  This notion conjures up the idea that the captain of the Titanic might have acted illegally during the sinking because he didn't get authorization from the ship's owner, White Star Line, which was owned by JP Morgan before he tried to save it.  We don't know if any passengers picketed the ship's captain's deck trying to prevent him from acting too quickly on his own authority.

Quote
...as I understand that a number of Governors are exercising "Executive Authority" which they may not actually have granted to them by the state constitution or other statutory laws for their states. In which case the Sheriff's disobeying the order is a case of the Governors issuing orders which they literally have no legal means of enforcing, but would still likely tie up the people who get cited with legal issues for weeks or even months afterwords.

Can you name a state that doesn't allow the Governor to declare a state-wide health emergency?  I don't know of one.  This Lawfare article provides detailed descriptions of state Constitutions that allow the Governor to declare the state of emergency and use force to maintain compliance with orders.  This article provides descriptions of states' authority to enforce quarantine or isolation restrictions.  In most states the authority to require quarantine or isolation rests with the Governor, and in the rest (as near as I can tell) with a health board that advises the Governor.  Sheriffs in Michigan (where this discussion started) are violating the law if they don't enforce Whitmer's isolation restrictions.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2020, 07:14:23 AM by Kasandra »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #86 on: May 25, 2020, 09:37:57 AM »
Quote
Sheriffs in Michigan (where this discussion started) are violating the law if they don't enforce Whitmer's isolation restrictions.

Should law enforcement have to adhere to the law?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #87 on: May 25, 2020, 09:40:29 AM »
Quote
Sheriffs in Michigan (where this discussion started) are violating the law if they don't enforce Whitmer's isolation restrictions.

Should law enforcement have to adhere to the law?

It's a good idea.  Do you agree?  If not, why not?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #88 on: May 25, 2020, 09:51:53 AM »
I ask because you say that here yet on another thread are deeply supportive of law enforcement destroying evidence, fabricating evidence, etc.

It seems your standard for law enforcement is highly situational.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #89 on: May 25, 2020, 10:47:51 AM »
I ask because you say that here yet on another thread are deeply supportive of law enforcement destroying evidence, fabricating evidence, etc.

It seems your standard for law enforcement is highly situational.

You need to show me where I said that, as you make up things right and left (mostly left).

You didn't say what you think.  Should law enforcement have to adhere to the law?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #90 on: May 25, 2020, 10:55:45 AM »
We are talking about whether there is such a thing as an illegal piece of legislation (or an illegal order), and what that means in terms of the force of its effect on a citizen (or sheriff). We are not talking about every citizen being a private interpreter of law and making it all up on a whim. That this is a difficult issue should go without saying. I don't think there has ever been an easy answer to when a person is told to do something that has "the law" behind it and goes against their conscience. In theory we would hope that the constitution is well enough constructed that it roughly aligns with what we would call a good conscience, but I think at the root of it the idea is that there is no such thing as a binding law requiring you to do wrong. Anything called 'a law' that requires you to do bad things is probably something you should reject, is the idea.

Again, this justifies the idea of a civilly disobedient act, but does not address the execution of it. Obviously a nutjob who says these things isn't going to be sitting on firm ground, even though morally there is possible ground to refuse to accept a law as valid.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #91 on: May 25, 2020, 11:36:01 AM »
We are talking about whether there is such a thing as an illegal piece of legislation (or an illegal order), and what that means in terms of the force of its effect on a citizen (or sheriff). We are not talking about every citizen being a private interpreter of law and making it all up on a whim.

Go back up and read wmLambert's first post on this and TheDeamon's defense of his post.  This is about sovereign citizens deciding for themselves what is Constitutional or not.  wmLambert then made sheriffs the arbiter of legality wrt the Constitution.  Even though they are sworn to uphold the law, he gives them the authority to ovderride that oath when they choose to do so.

Quote
That this is a difficult issue should go without saying. I don't think there has ever been an easy answer to when a person is told to do something that has "the law" behind it and goes against their conscience. In theory we would hope that the constitution is well enough constructed that it roughly aligns with what we would call a good conscience, but I think at the root of it the idea is that there is no such thing as a binding law requiring you to do wrong.  Anything called 'a law' that requires you to do bad things is probably something you should reject, is the idea.

Agreed.

Quote
Again, this justifies the idea of a civilly disobedient act, but does not address the execution of it. Obviously a nutjob who says these things isn't going to be sitting on firm ground, even though morally there is possible ground to refuse to accept a law as valid.

IMO, a sheriff who chooses to ignore his responsibility to uphold a law is liable for criminal arrest.  In saying that I'm not suggesting that the sheriff can violate a person's Constitutional rights or other laws while enforcing laws.

Laws are promulgated for different reasons, mainly to protect property and the greater public welfare.  Protection of rights falls into the second category, but are always open to further interpretation.  It's weird to see armed protesters holding rallies to defend their presumed right to endanger the public welfare.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #92 on: May 25, 2020, 11:50:18 AM »
Go back up and read wmLambert's first post on this and TheDeamon's defense of his post.  This is about sovereign citizens deciding for themselves what is Constitutional or not.

Yes, what's so mysterious about this? It means that the only person who can tell you what to do in America is you. You should base your actions ideally on some combination of staying within the law and doing good things, but the law gives you your boundaries; you are sovereign to decide how you will comport yourself. Why, do you think there is someone who can come to your house and tell you what to do each day?

Quote
wmLambert then made sheriffs the arbiter of legality wrt the Constitution.  Even though they are sworn to uphold the law, he gives them the authority to ovderride that oath when they choose to do so.

Maybe he can elaborate on this point, but I didn't think meant that sheriffs are uniquely the arbiters of the Constitution. What exact part of his post made you come to this conclusion? All he said, unless I'm reading the wrong post, is that the Nuremberg Trials should demonstrate to us that "just following orders" doesn't fly, even if you were serving under an autocratic fascist government at the time. That means the actual state of government and the laws in place have nothing to do with whether you are committing an offense. You can do something within the law of the land, even following an executive order, and still be a criminal in the deeper sense (i.e. according to the constitution, or international law, or natural law, or whatever). So the conclusion you ought to draw is that each of us is both sworn to uphold this standard, and to override the law when necessary if it's unjust. The thing we are sworn to uphold is constitution, not individual laws. And insofar as sheriffs are supposed to enforce the law, that actually puts them in a far stickier situation than most of us, they they are supposed to uphold both the law and the constitution. When those are in conflict a regular citizen can reject the law 'easily', but when it's your actual job to enforce the law it's less easy.

Clearer?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #93 on: May 25, 2020, 03:41:27 PM »
I tend to suspect that there are plenty of Sheriffs who refused to enforce prohibition, and that was explicitly constitutional.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #94 on: May 25, 2020, 04:05:54 PM »
I tend to suspect that there are plenty of Sheriffs who refused to enforce prohibition, and that was explicitly constitutional.

And also explicitly outside the scope of a mutual defense pact aka "the social contract" which is why it failed so utterly.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #95 on: May 25, 2020, 04:45:38 PM »
I tend to suspect that there are plenty of Sheriffs who refused to enforce prohibition, and that was explicitly constitutional.

Prohibition was a bad idea, but how could it have been Constitutional when the 18th Amendment was in effect?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #96 on: May 25, 2020, 08:01:39 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.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #97 on: May 25, 2020, 09:45:18 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.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #98 on: May 25, 2020, 09:48:51 PM »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: You have no right
« Reply #99 on: May 25, 2020, 09:49:51 PM »
I tend to suspect that there are plenty of Sheriffs who refused to enforce prohibition, and that was explicitly constitutional.

Prohibition was a bad idea, but how could it have been Constitutional when the 18th Amendment was in effect?

Oops, bad reading on my part.  Too late to edit this post.  I agree with TheDrake's point.