Arrested for feeding homeless people

[makattak]

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

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

lol  you caught the irony too?

[makattak]

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?

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[makattak]

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. 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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[MicroBalrog]

whatever the locals decide.  its their park.

Ah, majority rule. Such a nice thing.

[makattak]

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...

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[makattak]

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.

[kgbsquirrel]

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.

[makattak]

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.

[makattak]

And, if you will note, I go on to explain the relevance of those examples I gave while providing more.

...

...

[MicroBalrog]

So what, in your view, does the 9th Amenndment do?

[makattak]

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.  

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[makattak]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

Vagueness in this case is not a bug. It is a feature.

[roo_ster]

 

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

[makattak]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

would a better title be arrested for defying court order? albeit a poor sound bite it would be accurate

[Brad Johnson]

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

[MicroBalrog]

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.