Trump lashes out against cross border shopping

I think you are out of your depth. Perhaps my your failings as a student is my failing as a teacher but, I can not make it any more clear to you.

 

"We the People" .. as opposed to God/Divine Right/ Bloodline and so on.

 

And HOW do "we the people" decide what "essential liberty" is?

 

You said that the SC has made many errors in its time. Why is Roe v Wade not one of them?

 

If it is the proceeds of crime, how is it a legitimate asset?

 

This is getting repetitive and circular and dumb .. go read previous posts. I have explained this numerous times already in great detail.

 

Because banning abortion is not within the legitimate purview of Gov't nor is there overwhelming agreement among (we the people) that Gov't should be given the power to use physical violence to punish women who have abortions. (this answers the question above as well).

Such a law is then an anathema to the principles on which this nation was founded - the principles on which law and the constitution are to be interpreted.

 

Innocent until proven guilty. Assets are seized prior to the person being convicted of a crime. There are many cases where this power has been horribly abused.

In one case 2 gamblers were stopped illegally and an illegal search was conducted. During the search the police found roughly 100,000 in cash - they also found a pipe but no drugs. The police seized the money claiming proceeds from crime. The 2 eventually got the money back (sans a portion .. something like 8 grand if memory served that the State kept - no reasons were given for why the state kept that portion of the money).

There have been cases where people who own large apartment blocks have had their assets confiscated - because one of the renters was involved in drug crime.

Here are some other cases - https://listverse.com/2015/06/29/10-egregious-abuses-of-civil-asset-forfeiture/

I get the feeling that you are not a big fan of essential liberty .. more of an "ends justifies the means" mentality.

 

What if money was seized from someone who received money that was identified as coming from the bank account of a convicted organised crime gang? The recipient is still innocent and not presumed guilty, its just that they have been blocked from receiving the proceeds of crime.

 

I'm sorry, but you act as if all of the people of the land are engaged in an ongoing national survey about what they think the government should be given the power to make laws on. You are assuming that the "overwhelming majority" are in agreement with you! How convenient!

By the way, I don't believe that government should punish women for having a abortion, I just don't believe that the state should have to include abortions as part of its health system. Since when was there a right to healthcare? And if there is no right to healthcare, how was Roe v Wade able to say that abortion is a right?

 

You were given numerous examples .. quit being an idiot.

 

Assume the majority agree with me in relation to what ? No clue what you are talking about.

Good that you do not agree with laws banning abortion. What the Gov't chooses to spend monies collected via wealth redistribution on has little to do with rights.

 

Well in this case, abortion. In another case, drink driving citations.

Is abortion something that is covered under the very partially socialised healthcare in the US, at least in some states?

 

Sorry, I should've said that I agree that the examples that you gave are a total abuse of power. However, in a different scenario entirely, if money was seized from someone who received money that was identified as coming from the bank account of a convicted organised crime gang, would you say that this is also unreasonable? The recipient is still innocent and not presumed guilty, its just that they have been blocked from receiving the proceeds of crime.

 

In every poll - there is more than 50% who do not think abortion should be banned. Second. You do not need "overwhelming support" to rescind a law. You need overwhelming support 2/3rds majority to make a law messing with individual liberty. Thus .. I am only claiming that 1/3 agrees with me ...

No clue what you are talking about in relation to drunk driving .. and what part of "we do not get to choose how the Gov't allocates tax dollars .. did you not understand. This has nothing to do with a rights issue (whether someone has a right). Do you have a right to a road, infrastructure and so on ?

 

There are going to be exceptions and grey areas in "Extreme circumstances" - this is not a completely black and white issue.

Despite disagreeing with legalized torture .. most agree that if someone has knowledge of a nuclear bomb set to go off in a US city that torture should be used. This is not a justification for a general law legalizing torture.

This is a case of a general law legalizing asset forfeiture and an obvious and unequivical unjustified increase in Gov't power which is being heavily abused.

Quit creating Black vs White paradigms and pretending there is no middle ground. We do not live in a Black and White world.

 

What's the Bloviator-in-Chief complaining about? Here are the rules for Americans returning from Canada...

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/454/related/1/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNTMzNDA1NzE1L3NpZC8tKlQ1SG9Ubg%3D%3D​

I live part of the year in Canada and I can get more goods into Canada than the U.S. limits for this country. I have a Nexus Pass and always declare EVERYTHING, no matter how small.

I bought a $300 Gortex golf jacket, returned to Canada the same day, and Canadian officials didn't bat an eye. They're a lot more relaxed than our guys.

Likewise, U.S. duties on Canadian goods being bad for Canadian retailers and U.S. consumers.

 

And you would suggest that the government uses third party polling to make laws? Surely you can't be serious.

Actually, I went back and checked - you weren't talking about drink driving citations, but you said,
"When you get stopped for a DUI checkstop ... this is a violation of arbitrary detainment." Was there a poll conducted on this too?

Weren't you talking about the government spending "monies collected via wealth redistribution" on abortion related stuff?

 

1) I never said or implied that
2) DUI - is recognized by the courts as arbitrary detainment .. is a statement of fact ... I have also stated that in some cases it is OK for the Gov't to assume overwhelming consent if it is arbitrary but in grey areas there should be a referendum. You also missed the main point which is that at a checkstop they should not be doing anything other than checking if your drunk and letting you go - no asking for license - no checking for broken tail light and so on = fruit of the poisoned tree. The point was about the slippery slope - while I realize you do not care - this was the point .. one you failed to respond to in your never ending quest to deflect.
3) I was talking about wealth redistribution .. correct - what is your point.

 

So my understanding is that your ideal system of law making is to have laws which are approved by the majority of "we the people." Correct? Practically speaking, how would this system actually work? Without polling results, how would we know what the majority of "we the people" think on any given issue?

And is that a problem for you? I have to say, it doesn't sit too comfortably with me either, but then again neither does the thought of sharing the road with drunk scumbags.

Wouldn't it be difficult to define what is "arbitrary" and what is a "grey area?"

What about if an officer notices totally bald tyres? Would it be wise to let that car go and potentially kill someone?

Your assessment of me is wrong. I just didn't quite see where you were coming from.

Were you talking about wealth redistribution being put towards abortion services?

 

1) its not a majority - the bar is "overwhelming majority. It is not all law - it is law that messes with individual liberty outside the legitimate purview of Gov't. It is not my idea - it is how this country is supposed to be run as per the founders - principle on which this nation was founded. Lastly - if the issue is contentious you have a referendum.

2) You are conflating the risk of harm from DUI with that of Bald tires - a false dichotomy. There is overwhelming agreement for checkstops for DUI. There is no overwhelming agreement (and none even claimed) that individual liberty should be violated for bald tires.

3) wealth redistribution gets put towards what ever the Gov't deems it gets put towards. Your argument "I don't want it going towards this" is a non started as you do not get to decide. Some people do not have children and say "why should I pay for schools". Another says " I don't like war" don't want my tax dollars going towards military. Some do not like abortion.

 

Then I will rephrase the question. Practically speaking, how would this system actually work? Without polling results, how would we know what the overwhelming majority of "we the people" think on any law that messes with individual liberty outside the legitimate purview of Gov't?

No, I'm treating it as a separate matter. It stems from you saying that during a DUI stop, nothing else should happen other than the DUI procedure. And I am attempting to find out what it would take for you to take a different view. What about if the officer hears scream from the trunk? Do nothing?

How is this known?

Sure, so its sounds as if in the US, government money is put towards abortion. Correct? Its just that I imagined that it would be covered under private health given that it is the US. I guess abortion is one of those few things that the government covers for people.

 

1) its called a referendum
2) do you think the "overwhelming majority" would have a problem with the officer taking further action on the basis of a scream from the Trunk ?

 

Didn't you only say that it should be a referendum if the issue is contentious?

My guy feeling would be no, but are you willing to go on gut feeling? Wouldn't it require a referendum to know for certain?

 

In many cases there is a referendum ... take pot for example. The problem is that for some reason they did this on the basis of 50+1= Tyranny of the majority. In some cases the vote was very close (high forties agree)/(low 50s disagree). It is then absurd for the Gov't to claim the use of physical violence is legitimate.

Obviously - if nearly 1 in 2 people (and many of the negatives on the basis of propaganda) do not think pot is not such a huge danger that physical violence and coercion should be allowed ... this is an illegitimate use of Gov't power.

Interestingly - when a few states did legalize - the propaganda war decreased. I read the other day that those supporting decriminalization/legalization = 90% (according to polls).

In the case of city council making some bylaw - there it is not feasible to have a referendum every time (or is it ? .. with the internet we should be able to pull this off). In some cases municipalities will use a referendum and the bar will be 2/3rd's.

In the case of the guy screaming in a trunk - obviously the law can not predict every hypothetical. In this case, once the person who had the dude in the trunk was convicted in court ... if the people had an issue they could have a referendum ( they would do this in the basis of getting a relatively small number to sign a petition).

Good luck getting enough signatories in this case.