Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: zxcvbob on June 06, 2011, 11:04:29 AM
-
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-06-02/news/os-homeless-feedings-arrests-20110601_1_group-feedings-feedings-in-public-parks-orlando-police
Members of Orlando Food Not Bombs were arrested Wednesday when police said they violated a city ordinance by feeding the homeless in Lake Eola Park. Jessica Cross, 24, Benjamin Markeson, 49, and Jonathan "Keith" McHenry, 54, were arrested at 6:10 p.m. on a charge of violating the ordinance restricting group feedings in public parks. McHenry is a co-founder of the international Food Not Bombs movement, which began in the early 1980s. The group lost a court battle in April, clearing the way for the city to enforce the ordinance.
I'll have to look up the court case that they lost to see how the judge decided this did not violate their 1st Amendment freedom of assembly. Looks like a case tailor-made for the ACLU.
-
It's a short jump from squirrels to homeless in some minds...
-
i generally am supportive of this kinda aid but have seen firsthand why it needs to be done wisely. unless your desire is to create a homeless encampment that makes the park a no go zone for everyone else
-
My understanding is that the courts have long upheld that requiring some kind of permit for an assembly doesn't violate the First Ammendment.
I would imagine that the ordinance "restricting" the feeding puts some sort of permitting burden on the feeding that the group could not/did not meet.
-
in the cases of conflict i've seen its been the folks feeding think "we don't need no stinking permits!" and its part and parcel of their image/identity. on the other side the folks being fed can be problematic and will set up camp close to a food source. they are often not fun to live near. the local salvation army had conflicts when they set up a feeding program in a residential area. guys would hang around between meals they solved it by serving lunch at one locale and dinner at another
-
My understanding is that the courts have long upheld that requiring some kind of permit for an assembly doesn't violate the First Ammendment.
I would imagine that the ordinance "restricting" the feeding puts some sort of permitting burden on the feeding that the group could not/did not meet.
The city has said it will only issue them 2 permits per year. (or maybe it was 2 every 6 months, I don't remember the exact detail)
-
Sounds more like they were arrested for disrespecting the authority of the cops and the city council....the "illegal feeding" charges are just for the paperwork....
-
sounds like they don't want them feeding the homeless there. my experiences are shaded by seeing the nonsense the ccnv pulled in dc and its impact on life in the city
-
Sounds more like they were arrested for disrespecting the authority of the cops and the city council....the "illegal feeding" charges are just for the paperwork....
Or, alternativly:
The citizens (owners of the park) have professed through their duely elected representitives a desire to limit the number of days per year that there are large groups of homeless people in the park. The self-rightous feeders have decided that they don't care and will do as they please. And got arrested for it.
It seems to me that figuring out and enforcing the citizens desires vis-a-vis city park usage is an appropriate use of city government.
-
statist! >:D
homeless activists are "interesting"
-
Or, alternativly:
The citizens (owners of the park) have professed through their duely elected representitives a desire to limit the number of days per year that there are large groups of homeless people in the park. The self-rightous feeders have decided that they don't care and will do as they please. And got arrested for it.
It seems to me that figuring out and enforcing the citizens desires vis-a-vis city park usage is an appropriate use of city government.
"The park would be a whole lot nicer without all those black people. Make them go away..." (cue the storm troopers)
With a stupid name like "Food Not Bombs", it's hard be sympathetic, but 2 meals a week hardly seems like they are taking over the park.
-
"The park would be a whole lot nicer without all those black people. Make them go away..." (cue the storm troopers)
With a stupid name like "Food Not Bombs", it's hard be sympathetic, but 2 meals a week hardly seems like they are taking over the park.
"The park would be a whole lot nicer without all those strawmen. Make them go away..."
;/
Not purposfully attracting homeless people to a recreation site =/= carting away black people.
Let's not be naive here, there are valid, non-naziesque, non police state reasons that a city government might go this route. It's no different from ordinances dis-allowing people sleeping in city parks. That doesn't make the city the fourth reich, and it doesn't mean homeless are sub-human. It just means that we don't want a bunch of homeless folks in the park.
-
Whenever I've helped feed homeless ppl, we did it in the basement of a big downtown church. The homeless didn't have so far to walk, and we had access to a proper kitchen. 'Course it doesn't make as loud a political statement...
-
Me too.
Every time I've volunteered it was either in a church, or some kind of dedicated soup kitchen. It gave the folks not only something to eat, but a place to eat it and a place to put the trash. Non of the places I volunteered at ever had a problem with their respective cities either.
I think (non governmental) charity to feed the homeless is a great thing. But I wouldn't want it doen in a city park in my city either.
-
Jonathan "Keith" McHenry once cornered me in San Francisco, you see as a bicycle messenger we carried the same kind of radios cops did ( circa 89/90 ) for no reason at all he started calling me "pig" & a bunch of other epithets,(thinking I was LE!) the guy is always spoiling for a fight, I am willing to bet a respectable group that did everything above board could feed the homeless every day of the week.
I once had a girl friend in "food not bombs" ( I used to be a punk rocker ) & first hand saw the facilities they were using at the time to feed people, they were not professional at all, no idea about hygiene WRT feeding large groups, & would "dumpsterdive" food too.
So, while it makes great press ( oh those repressive cops/gov't!!11 ) the facts are clear, they like to make trouble and they might accidentally poison somebody
-
I once had a girl friend in "food not bombs" ( I used to be a punk rocker ) & first hand saw the facilities they were using at the time to feed people, they were not professional at all, no idea about hygiene WRT feeding large groups, & would "dumpsterdive" food too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freegan
-
I was thinking I heard of a local outfit that was told not to feed the homeless due to lack of a permit. I believe it was a permit to sell or make food that had to do with health inspections and all that. I guess you might say that beggars can't be choosers, but setting some standard is likely not a bad idea.
-
It's hard to find a good guy in this story. I still think someone's 1st Amendment rights were violated -- not sure if it's the homeless or the Freegans (probably both.)
-
It's hard to find a good guy in this story. I still think someone's 1st Amendment rights were violated -- not sure if it's the homeless or the Freegans (probably both.)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and serve roo_ster yummy Dickies BBQ(1), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(1) Sims BBQ when in Little Rock.
-
It's hard to find a good guy in this story. I still think someone's 1st Amendment rights were violated -- not sure if it's the homeless or the Freegans (probably both.)
I still disagree. The right to peaceably assemble does not mean you can do whatever you want, wherever you want.
Controling the use of public parks is an appropriate role for city governments.
-
It sounds more like a public health issue if these people were doling out food of questionable origin.
Food scraps from dumpsters contaminated with rodent/insect diseases/waste fed to hungry people is just begging for a serious disease outbreak.
-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and serve roo_ster yummy Dickies BBQ(1), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Founding Fathers had low standards when it comes to BBQ....
-
It sounds more like a public health issue if these people were doling out food of questionable origin.
Aren't we the ones who are always saying that people should be charged with a crime if they commit one and not for some manufactured precursor to maybe committing one?
Did they serve refuse as food or not? Negligently poisoning someone is not the same thing as trespassing.
-
The Founding Fathers had low standards when it comes to BBQ....
Name better BBQ in N Dallas up through Allen Plano area. Not oriental BBQ, but something with roots from Texas to the Carolinas. I will give it a try, I promise. If you are temped to reply, "Spring Creek BBQ," slap yourself for a silly fool.
Two Podners across the street from Fair Park is very respectable, but a long ways away.
Used to go to Vern's Place after church before she retired(1), but it is in Deep Ellum.
In Little Rock, Sims BBQ is unbeatable.
(1) I wept, bitterly.
-
Name better BBQ in N Dallas up through Allen Plano area.
For a chain BBQ, you can start and finish here.... http://www.coltersbbq.com/locations/locations.htm (http://www.coltersbbq.com/locations/locations.htm) ....and it's worth the drive.....
The best BBQ comes from the mom-&-pop joints off the main roads....takes a spirit of adventure to find the good ones......
-
Aren't we the ones who are always saying that people should be charged with a crime if they commit one and not for some manufactured precursor to maybe committing one?
Oh I definately agree.
OTOH, if the people involved tried doing the same thing that they did out of a privately owned building, they would have been shut down for health code violations.
-
For a chain BBQ, you can start and finish here.... http://www.coltersbbq.com/locations/locations.htm (http://www.coltersbbq.com/locations/locations.htm) ....and it's worth the drive.....
Disappointed.
I thought you knew someplace I was overlooking in the area. Colters is nothing to write home about, no better than Dickies, and less convenient.
-
Disappointed.
I thought you knew someplace I was overlooking in the area. Colters is nothing to write home about, no better than Dickies, and less convenient.
Again, Coulters is good for chain BBQ....you gotta explore & find the hidey-hole places to get the good stuff....a good BBQ joint and a good crack house will look a lot alike....but the BBQ place will smell better and have a bigger crowd.... =D
-
Again, Coulters is good for chain BBQ....you gotta explore & find the hidey-hole places to get the good stuff....a good BBQ joint and a good crack house will look a lot alike....but the BBQ place will smell better and have a bigger crowd.... =D
Here, you can feel my pain. Formerly Vern's, best soul food & BBQ in Dallas:
http://goo.gl/maps/M0n7
http://goo.gl/maps/ndZb
Old review:
Vern's has the type of soul food that will "make you sl*p your mama"!
<sob, sniffle>
-
This is about one thing: getting permission. From the "authorities." Unfortunately, it's part of a pattern that has come to define American life. If you don't have a permit, a license, a writ, you are a "criminal." Imagine America in ten years. Which one of us will not be a felon?
-
This is about one thing: getting permission. From the "authorities." Unfortunately, it's part of a pattern that has come to define American life. If you don't have a permit, a license, a writ, you are a "criminal." Imagine America in ten years. Which one of us will not be a felon?
Of course they need permission. It's not [soley] their land. Given that the land belongs in some sense to the voters, shouldn't they have a say in how it's used?
Lemme tell you this: If you were to come up and start feeding homeless on my front lawn without my permission, a ticket would be the least of your worries.
-
Of course they need permission. It's not [soley] their land. Given that the land belongs in some sense to the voters, shouldn't they have a say in how it's used?
No. Resoundingly NO! And it is for the example you listed that the constitution has been so liberally laced with various phrases such as "shall not be infringed." You may not like a message, or a particular act, and neither are you required to like, or even to remain present and witness such messages and acts, but you are never allowed, either singly, or as a group democratically, to deny another citizen their rights.
With that stated, I've been mulling over this particular story because I find several of my principles and thoughts at odds but I think I've managed to come to a conclusion that resolves them to each other. The first is that it is both unlawful, constitutionally, and immoral for the City to pass an ordnance prohibiting the feeding of those who are otherwise starving or undernourished. The second however is that the constitution does not allow you to cause harm to another person through intentional acts or negligence. As my personal take on liberty states, personal liberty ends only when one causes physical or financial harm to another person. If these people were doing such things as pulling discarded food out of dumpsters and not maintaining appropriate cleanliness and hygiene standards in the preparation of the food, then that is where they should have been hit by the City.
-
Way to go, Squirrel.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg214.imageshack.us%2Fimg214%2F6991%2Fclapping.gif&hash=ad807e26f84050cc23c462b33d5ff0eb483cdb22)
I've been biting my lip (especially after Dogmush's last post) waiting for someone else to "get it". The park is public property. The majority doesn't get to decide to throw the minority out (at least when the park is open) because they smell bad. If the freegans are creating a public health hazard, go after them for that, but they don't need a permit (which the city says it won't give them anyway) to use the park for its intended purpose -- to have a picnic.
-
yup, as much as I dislike them for nearly assaulting me & yelling "pig" at me in the erroneous assumption I was LE, & for gleaning their history from comic books
( I kid you not ) - they have certain rights, A restaurant I used to work for would give away unsold food at the end of the night, perhaps they could try negotiation with the city to provide some way to enable restaurants/groceries to donate food they have to get rid of in a day or two & have health inspectors look at their facilities, maybe engage a Church kitchen.
If they did all that though, it wouldn't be as fun as snubbing society, being leftwing anarchist, and smoking weed while they cook & dumsterdive ( & not washing their hands because, you know. societies rules are like all wrong man,you know?! )
-
No. Resoundingly NO! And it is for the example you listed that the constitution has been so liberally laced with various phrases such as "shall not be infringed." You may not like a message, or a particular act, and neither are you required to like, or even to remain present and witness such messages and acts, but you are never allowed, either singly, or as a group democratically, to deny another citizen their rights.
With that stated, I've been mulling over this particular story because I find several of my principles and thoughts at odds but I think I've managed to come to a conclusion that resolves them to each other. The first is that it is both unlawful, constitutionally, and immoral for the City to pass an ordnance prohibiting the feeding of those who are otherwise starving or undernourished. The second however is that the constitution does not allow you to cause harm to another person through intentional acts or negligence. As my personal take on liberty states, personal liberty ends only when one causes physical or financial harm to another person. If these people were doing such things as pulling discarded food out of dumpsters and not maintaining appropriate cleanliness and hygiene standards in the preparation of the food, then that is where they should have been hit by the City.
not saying you can't feed em just can't feed em there. and predictably the activist react with tantrum.
you familiar with mitch snyder? or he before your time?
-
not saying you can't feed em just can't feed em there. and predictably the activist react with tantrum.
you familiar with mitch snyder? or he before your time?
not saying you can't walk just can't walk there.
not saying you can't protest just can't protest there.
not saying you can't pray just can't pray there.
not saying you can't own guns just can't own guns there.
not saying you can't have a jury just can't have a jury there.
not saying you can't live free just can't live free there.
you familiar with the Constitution? or is it before your time?
-
Is it, or is it not, a public park? Would this person be free to hold a Neo-Nazi rally in that park, under the 1st amendment, a la Skokie vs. Illinois?
-
Is it, or is it not, a public park? Would this person be free to hold a Neo-Nazi rally in that park, under the 1st amendment, a la Skokie vs. Illinois?
with a permit sure
-
not saying you can't walk just can't walk there.
not saying you can't protest just can't protest there.
not saying you can't pray just can't pray there.
not saying you can't own guns just can't own guns there.
not saying you can't have a jury just can't have a jury there.
not saying you can't live free just can't live free there.
you familiar with the Constitution? or is it before your time?
does that mean yes you never heard of mitch snyder? patron saint of the homeless? i couldn't tell?
-
does that mean yes you never heard of mitch snyder? patron saint of the homeless? i couldn't tell?
That means you shouldn't be apologizing for policies that trample constitutional rights, but I suppose that was a wasted effort as you have roundly declared your stance to be for only partial liberty as graciously granted by the State to it's subjects.
-
not saying you can't walk just can't walk there.
not saying you can't protest just can't protest there.
not saying you can't pray just can't pray there.
not saying you can't own guns just can't own guns there.
not saying you can't have a jury just can't have a jury there.
not saying you can't live free just can't live free there.
you familiar with the Constitution? or is it before your time?
There are plenty of places I am not allowed to walk. Is it an infringement of my rights that I can't just take a stroll through a government sponsored nuclear plant anytime I wish?
There are plenty of places I can't protest. If I go into congress and begin shouting in protest and get escorted out by the capital police, is that an infringement of my rights?
If I go into the middle of a courtroom and begin loudly praying (because I don't think you can ban silent prayer and you'd REALLY be stretching to try to make that connection), do you think it's an infringement of my rights when the judge holds me in contempt and the baliff escorts me to jail?
Owning guns, a private action that implies nothing off my own property and a jury trial and you're comparing that to saying you create a public nuisance by feeding homeless people? Wow. I'm sure I don't want to live in your "utopia".
If there were on private property, I'd be agreeing with you that the government has no role. It isn't, though. I suppose the "no skateboarding" signs in public parks where small children play are a tyranny as well, huh?
-
I suppose the "no skateboarding" signs in public parks where small children play are a tyranny as well, huh?
They're a great way to make sure childhood obesity remains a fixture. "Go outside, kids! Just don't run, or skate, or skateboard..." :laugh:
-
if you aren't willing to run from the cops you don't deserve the joy of skate boarding
-
There are plenty of places I am not allowed to walk. Is it an infringement of my rights that I can't just take a stroll through a government sponsored nuclear plant anytime I wish?
Comparing nuclear plants to city parks is why we cannot have nice things.
-
...
http://tinyurl.com/75l4l
-
worst thing about a warm climate? the homeless stay in a cold place the fly south fot the winter. or at least some do
-
worst thing about a warm climate? the homeless stay in a cold place the fly south fot the winter. or at least some do
Oh the terror.
-
how about you? you familiar with mitch snyder? his tactics and what they meant to dc?
-
how about you? you familiar with mitch snyder? his tactics and what they meant to dc?
Pray tell us all about it.
-
saint mitch went out for milk and never came back. he abandoned his wife and 2 young sons to care for the homeless. he was a great tactician and cared lil about anything but results. his tactic worked with what passes for government in dc. he orchestrated busing in hundreds of new york city homeless folks for one of his big protests he did not bus them home. he ironically helped to overload the system. i was on the street for a while during his heyday and got to see the ccnv style. was not good for anyone. he was a tuff nut to figure i think he was a bit off and really lived for the attention. when that faded he did the world a favor and hung himself. and ccnv stopped being a pain in the tail
-
not saying you can't walk just can't walk there.
not saying you can't protest just can't protest there.
not saying you can't pray just can't pray there.
not saying you can't own guns just can't own guns there.
not saying you can't have a jury just can't have a jury there.
not saying you can't live free just can't live free there.
you familiar with the Constitution? or is it before your time?
http://tinyurl.com/75l4l
-
lol you caught the irony too? :facepalm:
-
Comparing nuclear plants to city parks is why we cannot have nice things.
squirrel implied that restrictions on freedom of movement were tyranny. There are different reasons (and, different restrictions!!) for the restrictions in a public park and in a nuclear plant, but neither represents tyranny.
You also can't take a dump in a public park (outside of the bathrooms.) In fact, I doubt you could even get a permit to do that!!!
You also can't put on a rock performance without a permit.
You also can't walk your dog without a leash AND without cleaning up after him!
You also can't create an improvised shooting range in a public park.
You also can't go for a swim in many public parks or fountains. You also can't take a bath in public parks or fountains.
Is this tyranny?
-
squirrel implied that restrictions on freedom of movement were tyranny. There are different reasons (and, different restrictions!!) for the restrictions in a public park and in a nuclear plant, but neither represents tyranny.
On your logic, what limits, if any, are there on restrictions we may impose on individuals in public parks?
-
My point is because the park is there for the enjoyment of the public at large, we put restrictions on the use of the park so that the park can be enjoyed by the most people.
Thus we prohibit activites that carry with them large externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality). Skateboarders tend to be young, immature children who take risks not only to themselves, but to other children around them. Thus, we tend to place restrictions on that (aside from lawsuit problems.) Bathing in public represents problems of disease, as does human and canine waste. Rock concerts create a noise externality.
All this is to point out that feeding the homeless creates an externality beyond "they look bad and make me feel uncomfortable". Attracting the homeless to an area creates increased risks of disease and crime.
Thus, the owner of a property who wishes to use it for other purposes is right to limit the attractiveness of that property to the homeless. This applies whether the locality owns the property or a private citizen.
-
whatever the locals decide. its their park. there is an inherent problem with a good program for homeless support. it draws more folks. my town is experiencing that trouble. its ironic in that i help with several of their programs and believe in helping, but at the same time i see the impact they have on the quality of life in some areas and in particular some merchants. we are fortunate to have struck a good balance between those who help the homeless and folks who think that buying homes and businesses and paying taxes entitles them to some rights too. the selfish sob's think they have a right to raise there families without someone camping in their ally and crapping in their carport
-
whatever the locals decide. its their park.
Ah, majority rule. Such a nice thing.
-
On your logic, what limits, if any, are there on restrictions we may impose on individuals in public parks?
As a firm believer federalism, I don't think localities should be prevented from placing any restrictions on local parks. *(Obviously subject to the votes of that locality.)
I do believe that the way our Constitution has been interpreted has limited the power of localities, though. Obvious ones are: no prohibitions to entry based on race, creed, sex, etc...; no prohibitions as to permitting based on same...
-
This is becoming far more interesting.
Do you believe that the Constitution - not, the constitution as read by the courts, but the real Constitution - places no limits on the power of localities?
-
This is becoming far more interesting.
Do you believe that the Constitution - not, the constitution as read by the courts, but the real Constitution - places no limits on the power of localities?
Very few. In fact, the Constitution, minus the Amendments, places few restrictions on localities. (Mostly in dealing with foreign affairs/interstate relations.) Many of the amendments do.
Particularly, I don't believe the First Amendment applies to states or localities. The language is clear: CONGRESS shall make no law...
The rest of the Bill of Rights makes no such specifications. "shall not be infinged", "no soldier shall", "shall not be violated", "no person shall be held", "the accused shall enjoy", "shall be preserved, "shall not be required".
The framers didn't choose the words "Congress shall make no law" for variety. They were specifically enjoining the Federal government without enjoining the States (or localities.)
Other than the rights specifically protected in amendments 2-8, the specific protection of those rights in 13-15 for persons of all races, and the voting amendments 19, 24 and 26. (18 would apply were it not for the fact 21 repealed it) are all that should apply to states and localities.
Of course, the Constitution clearly states in Amendment 10 there may be more rights held by the people.
-
not saying you can't walk just can't walk there.
not saying you can't protest just can't protest there.
not saying you can't pray just can't pray there.
not saying you can't own guns just can't own guns there.
not saying you can't have a jury just can't have a jury there.
not saying you can't live free just can't live free there.
you familiar with the Constitution? or is it before your time?
There are plenty of places I am not allowed to walk. Is it an infringement of my rights that I can't just take a stroll through a government sponsored nuclear plant anytime I wish?
There are plenty of places I can't protest. If I go into congress and begin shouting in protest and get escorted out by the capital police, is that an infringement of my rights?
If I go into the middle of a courtroom and begin loudly praying (because I don't think you can ban silent prayer and you'd REALLY be stretching to try to make that connection), do you think it's an infringement of my rights when the judge holds me in contempt and the baliff escorts me to jail?
Owning guns, a private action that implies nothing off my own property and a jury trial and you're comparing that to saying you create a public nuisance by feeding homeless people? Wow. I'm sure I don't want to live in your "utopia".
If there were on private property, I'd be agreeing with you that the government has no role. It isn't, though. I suppose the "no skateboarding" signs in public parks where small children play are a tyranny as well, huh?
I presented a list of increasingly tyrannical encroachments on civil liberties with no qualifiers on location or context, fashioned in the same manner as C&SD's statement that destroying one liberty was alright as long as it could be practiced somewhere else, which also had no qualifier on location or context, this juxtaposition having the obvious purpose of showing that one act of despotism, despite being considered trivial, is the same as greater oppressions, and are very likely to precede them. Your response was to substitute the non-contextual juxtaposition with extreme and unequivalent examples, the very definition of a strawman argument. Perhaps next time you should take a moment to read the definition.
-
I presented a list of increasingly tyrannical encroachments on civil liberties with no qualifiers on location or context, fashioned in the same manner as C&SD's statement that destroying one liberty was alright as long as it could be practiced somewhere else, which also had no qualifier on location or context, this juxtaposition having the obvious purpose of showing that one act of despotism, despite being considered trivial, is the same as greater oppressions, and are very likely to precede them. Your response was to substitute the non-contextual juxtaposition with extreme and unequivalent examples, the very definition of a strawman argument. Perhaps next time you should take a moment to read the definition.
His statement had context:
not saying you can't feed em just can't feed em there.
We are discussing restricting the feeding of homeless in a public park. His word "there" had the understood antecedent "the public park at the center of this issue."
You, then, "substitute[d] the non-contextual juxtaposition with extreme and unequivalent examples, the very definition of a strawman argument."
I merely took your non-contextual strawman and answered it. It's not a strawman to answer your question as you asked it.
-
And, if you will note, I go on to explain the relevance of those examples I gave while providing more.
...
...
-
So what, in your view, does the 9th Amenndment do?
-
So what, in your view, does the 9th Amenndment do?
Leaves the door open that there may be more rights. It does not enjoin the localities, though, as required to respect those "rights".
They wanted to be clear that they may not have covered everything. That does not then follow that it's ok for the federal government now to prohibit localities from infringing on "rights" that we have since made up (or even existed at the time.) The framers wanted localities with broader powers so that disparate peoples could be joined under a single governing state.
The ninth amendment was also a recognition that more amendments may be necessary.
-
Leaves the door open that there may be more rights. It does not enjoin the localities, though, as required to respect those "rights".
They wanted to be clear that they may not have covered everything. That does not then follow that it's ok for the federal government now to prohibit localities from infringing on "rights" that we have since made up (or even existed at the time.) The framers wanted localities with broader powers so that disparate peoples could be joined under a single governing state.
And yet the constitution was altered, after the civil war. Obviously, in 1801, the Bill of Rights was not meant to apply directly to the states (except to the extent that some courts used it as a guideline to understand common law). In 1869, though, the American people have rejected the framers' viewpoint at least to some extent, and altered the constitution. I think the early court readings and the Congressional debates seem clear that the intent of Congress at the time was to have the 14th Amendment protect at least SOME rights beyond those directly outlined.
-
And yet the constitution was altered, after the civil war. Obviously, in 1801, the Bill of Rights was not meant to apply directly to the states (except to the extent that some courts used it as a guideline to understand common law). In 1869, though, the American people have rejected the framers' viewpoint at least to some extent, and altered the constitution. I think the early court readings and the Congressional debates seem clear that the intent of Congress at the time was to have the 14th Amendment protect at least SOME rights beyond those directly outlined.
That may very well be the case, but as Scalia is wont to point out, vagueness should be rectified by the legislature, not the courts.
-
Vagueness in this case is not a bug. It is a feature.
-
not saying you can't feed em just can't feed em there. and predictably the activist react with tantrum.
you familiar with mitch snyder? or he before your time?
Was he the dude who made up on the spot a figure for the number of homeless that lefty policritters and journalists used until the end of the then current Republican administration(1)?
Ah, majority rule. Such a nice thing.
No, federalism.
Very few. In fact, the Constitution, minus the Amendments, places few restrictions on localities. (Mostly in dealing with foreign affairs/interstate relations.) Many of the amendments do.
Particularly, I don't believe the First Amendment applies to states or localities. The language is clear: CONGRESS shall make no law...
The rest of the Bill of Rights makes no such specifications. "shall not be infinged", "no soldier shall", "shall not be violated", "no person shall be held", "the accused shall enjoy", "shall be preserved, "shall not be required".
The framers didn't choose the words "Congress shall make no law" for variety. They were specifically enjoining the Federal government without enjoining the States (or localities.)
Other than the rights specifically protected in amendments 2-8, the specific protection of those rights in 13-15 for persons of all races, and the voting amendments 19, 24 and 26. (18 would apply were it not for the fact 21 repealed it) are all that should apply to states and localities.
Of course, the Constitution clearly states in Amendment 10 there may be more rights held by the people.
Wow, it looks like mak actually read the COTUS rather than emoted it. Or pulled it from his fourth point of contact.
(1) Homeless folk disappear when Dems are elected
-
Vagueness in this case is not a bug. It is a feature.
I would disagree. If a right is so important as to require enjoining localities from infringing upon it, it should warrant a mention by the legislature.
Our constitution was wisely set up (in terms of power/freedom):
1) Individuals: most free/most power
2) Localities
3) States
4) Federal government: least power
We have not quite inverted that idea, but I would say we are now:
1) Individuals: most free/most power (though significantly less)
2) Federal government
3) States
4) Localities
This encourages polarization and polemics. It creates zero-sum games where one party (group) wins and another loses.
Instead, we need more power in localities so that, although zero-sum games exist, EXIT of those games is far more easy.
Some stupid locality prohibits minorities in their public parks? (To try to tie this back into the point of the thread.) Move and stop supporting that locality.
Yes, we'd have a few racist, sexist, "intolerant" places. We have that now, too. I believe conflict would decrease if we stopped using the federal government against those behaviors, ugly as they may be.
-
would a better title be arrested for defying court order? albeit a poor sound bite it would be accurate
-
Ah, majority rule. Such a nice thing.
Well, there is one utopic theory that gives everyone an equal share in everything. I think it's called Communism.
Brad
-
This encourages polarization and polemics. It creates zero-sum games where one party (group) wins and another loses.
I don't see why polarization and polemics are bad. Isn't it inherent in politics that games are zero-sum?
Also, I don't think that the Constitution anywhere makes reference to what internal structure states should have. It is entirely possible for, say, Indiana to prevent localities from legislating on a certain issue, or even to abolish local home rule altogether.
It was not possible for the founders to mention every single right guaranteed by common law, and in fact common law was an assume, traditional structure at their time. It was expected that courts would recognize certain basic rights even if they were not outlined. I do not think there is any reason to dispute, for example, that the 14th Amendment protects a 'right to travel' and indeed that freedom of movement is a basic right, even though it's not listed explicitly.