Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 457 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#441

Post by ataturk »

milesvp wrote: post #204
KorematsuFred wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this very remarkable about American legal system. The supreme court could have technically showed some bleeding heart by not showing judicial restraint. Instead they just did their job. Americans must thank this judicial culture.

Yes actually. The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature. Also by limiting their ruling to the narrowest ruling they can, they keep decisions as local as possible. Courts handle exceptional circumstances, and it’s important they not rule too broadly, else there can be huge overarching unintended side effects of their ruling. The parallel in programming would be some god class that handles every e…

Yeah, I mean it's not like we would want the incorporation of the 8th Amendment to have any additional implications such as the incorporation of the 4th, 2nd or 1st Amendments, right? I mean, where would that take us?

The only Amendment still holding up is the 3rd and that's only because quartering soldiers in people's homes in order to control their lives hasn't become fashionable in modern times. But just wait, they're somehow going to cross the line on that again, too. Every single right that people fought and died to obtain is either under attack or already dead. So while it's great that the SC made this ruling, don't think for a second that it means the pendulum is swinging back towards freedom because it's not.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#442

Post by michaelt »

jcranberry wrote: post #410
wallace_f wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea... But I think this comment puts them in better light than perhaps is deserved. There are arguments SCOTUS are not defenders of the constitution. Look at Clarence Thomas's dissent on Gonzalez vs Raich, where somehow SCOTUS defended the Fed's oppressing someone for growing their own medical marijuana... In a state with legal medical marijuana. There is no constitutional basis for that. Using the Commerce Clause is…

There's a quote right in the Wikipedia article which talks about the practical reasoning and historical basis for the decision: > Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 193…

If reading to my children reduces aggregate demand for audiobooks, and therefore could impact interstate market prices, is reading to my children interstate commerce?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#443

Post by School-Cotton »

int_19h wrote: post #282
School-Cotton wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you say that the ability to vote is the most important privilege? For example, I'd happily give up my right to vote before my right to legal due process. I'd rather live in undemocratic Singapore than in somewhere with free elections but widespread corruption and poor rule of law like India, Turkey, or Mexico.

Because your right to vote ultimately affects all those other rights. With enough people voting for such, protection for rights can be repealed, or even ignored outright.

Not really, since a lot of them are pretty unpopular. For example, things like "making it illegal to burn the flag" or "stopping Neo-Nazis from marching" poll very well in the US -- people would happily vote to get rid of freedom of speech if they could.

As for rule of law, there are examples of non-democracies with solidly developed rule of law, like present-day Singapore and Hong Kong, or Britain in the 19th century (and before).

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#444

Post by spacemanmatt »

ionised wrote: post #440
mensetmanusman wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t have data about the right in Australia, but in the U.S., the term arises due to the prevalence of virtue signaling by left leaning Hollywood that doesn’t align with the reality of all the statistics pointing to far greater levels of charity as a percentage of income/wealth exhibited by those on the ‘right’. This mismatch results in some of this derisive language in the U.S.

> due to the prevalence of virtue signaling by left leaning Hollywood that doesn’t align with the reality of all the statistics pointing to far greater levels of charity as a percentage of income/wealth exhibited by those on the ‘right’. Gonna need numbers on that mate, because everything I've read suggests conservatism is correlated with reduced amount, degree and frequency of charitable behaviour.

Also, virtue signaling is common among self-described conservatives. I don't know what a MAGA hat is, if not a tangible virtue signal.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#445

Post by noarchy »

How is it that some articles, like this one, manage to stay on the front page for more than a day, while others (which seem to be popular, based on points and comments) seemingly vanish within hours? Is the human intervention in these rankings stronger than I realize?

Edit: I'm not opposed to this article's longevity, by the way. Far from it, it is a very important topic.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#446

Post by cat199 »

int_19h wrote: post #425
cat199 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a state with legal medical marijuana umm.. not familiar with this case, but: from a federal position there is no such thing as legal marijuana, and from a constitutional position federal law trumps state law - which is not to say i disagree about the sheer human folly of regulating the existence of plants via legislation.

Federal law trumps state law when they're in conflict. There's no conflict between federal law saying that it's illegal, and state law not saying that it's illegal. And when state legalizes it, all that means is that they're repealing state laws making it illegal. The case itself wasn't about whether federal law trumps state law, though. It was about whether the federal law in question is constitutional in the first…

you definately sound informed on this case for sure and i'm certainly not

but it seems like there are 2/3 threads being comingled in the case:

a) illegality of marijuana itself b) interstate commerce-related issues pertaining to private growth

the 'b' parts you mention definately seem like flawed, unconstitutional reasoning (e.g. expanding the definition of commercial and therefore regulated to include things that actually arent)

as for 'a' - "And when state legalizes it, all that means is that they're repealing state laws making it illegal."

this can't be true true - otherwise there would be no regulation/taxes on dispensaries, etc. in legalization states, which there certainly is..

so it's not like there is a federal law and a 'blank' at the state.. there are contradicting state laws treating it as legal, and federal ones which say it is illegal..

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#447

Post by darkarmani »

cat199 wrote: post #446
int_19h wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal law trumps state law when they're in conflict. There's no conflict between federal law saying that it's illegal, and state law not saying that it's illegal. And when state legalizes it, all that means is that they're repealing state laws making it illegal. The case itself wasn't about whether federal law trumps state law, though. It was about whether the federal law in question is constitutional in the first…

you definately sound informed on this case for sure and i'm certainly not but it seems like there are 2/3 threads being comingled in the case: a) illegality of marijuana itself b) interstate commerce-related issues pertaining to private growth the 'b' parts you mention definately seem like flawed, unconstitutional reasoning (e.g. expanding the definition of commercial and therefore regulated to include things that ac…

The federal law requires b or it isn't valid. The only reason the Feds are allowed to regulate drugs at all is through 'b' and the ICC.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#448

Post by SerLava »

michaelt wrote: post #442
jcranberry wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a quote right in the Wikipedia article which talks about the practical reasoning and historical basis for the decision: > Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 193…

If reading to my children reduces aggregate demand for audiobooks, and therefore could impact interstate market prices, is reading to my children interstate commerce?

Pretty much.

The current legal definition seems to make the assumption that when the founders sat around writing the constitution, one of them looked up and asked for a nice punchy way to say "the complete domain of reality from the ground to the infinite reaches of the heavens above" and the reply was "oh, just say interstate commerce."

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#449

Post by cryptonector »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #431
cryptonector wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are people associating freely, however, which is protected under the First Amendment.

> the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances I believe current law is that people have the right to peaceably assemble only for the purpose of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. It sounds wrong, but there it is.

That's part of a longer list of rights. Clearly they are not all about petitioning the government.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Puts Limits on Police Power to Seize Private Property

#450

Post by cryptonector »

posterboy wrote: post #421
cryptonector wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then there's common law, which is essentially judge-made law. Case law is very much law. Judges are not supposed to invent law from whole cloth, sure, but they are supposed to make law in a very specific and important sense: by interpreting law (including constitutional law) when its meaning isn't clear. The fact that some judges abuse this to set policy does not mean that judges shouldn't make law -- it only mea…

The problem is one of semantics. Law is an ambiguous term and commentators have different interpretations --let's appreciate the irony for a second.

Ha, good point. It's worth knowing the difference between law and statute...
Post reply on HN