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

331–340 of 457 posts

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

#331

Post by adt2bt »

int_19h wrote: post #278
da_chicken wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, Commerce Clause abuse and the effective neutralization of the 10th Amendment has created the opposite situation where the government can do anything it wants as long as it isn't specifically prohibited, and citizens are only guaranteed rights if they are specified. I mean, that's true, but it's also true that it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump forward at the same time, particularly whe…

> I mean, that's true, but it's also true that it's extremely difficult to get 50 states to jump forward at the same time To what extent do we actually need to have all states do exactly the same? It's a common argument, but there are many independent sovereign states out there that are smaller than many of US states, and they're doing fine solving their national problems despite their size. Sometimes - quite often -…

> The even bigger difference is that those representatives then go and vote on far more issues than they did when the system was originally devised, which increases the dilution of individual voices, by bringing more important issues to the level where their vote is at it most diluted - as opposed to state level. Of course it's going to be overwhelmed.

Part of the reason the issue has gotten out of hand is the relative weakness of states to enforce the cost of negative externalities on business. As soon as one state passes regulations, it’s too easy for many companies to pack up and leave for ‘greener’ pastures where the politicians would rather tout economic improvement at the expense of those negative externalities. As a result, problems like this often end up hoisted to the next level of government to solve issues in a more equal manner.

Just look at the ways cities were tripping over themselves to look attractive to Amazon for HQ2 to see this phenomenon in action.

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

#332

Post by stonogo »

mikekchar wrote: post #291
alasdair_ wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Anyone can become President Somewhat irritatingly, I (and a large number of other American Citizens) cannot ever become president because we were not citizens at birth.

Is there not also a weird clause where you have to agree in the existence of a supreme being (it can be any supreme being, I think) because otherwise you can't take the oath of office? I suppose an atheist is very unlikely to become president of the US any time soon, but I always wondered what would happen if one did get voted in.

There are states outlawing atheists from holding state offices, but the oath of office for US president does not contain religious references. It is specified in the Constitution.

Oaths of office for other federal positions do contain the phrase "so help me God," but so far as I know there has never been a problem omitting it; I had several friends in Federal service do so.

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

#333

Post by outworlder »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #123
lostapathy wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing, though, is that once a civil right is established and incorporated against the states, it's basically unassailable under our system. So while it takes a long time to get those rights properly enshrined, at least they seem to be safe.

>So while it takes a long time to get those rights properly enshrined, at least they seem to be safe. Our rights are so unassailable that I need to repeatedly pay a non-negligible amount of money to the government bear arms and get the approval of my local police chief if I want said arms to be reasonably modern. /s Some animals are more equal than others. Some rights are more unassailable than others. At least I can…

> Our rights are so unassailable that I need to repeatedly pay a non-negligible amount of money to the government bear arms and get the approval of my local police chief if I want said arms to be reasonably modern.

Well-regulated militia. Not sure if you would qualify as a militia, but the regulation part seems to be working, right? :)

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

#334

Post by KorematsuFred »

xxpor wrote: post #295
milesvp wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature I hate this meme. This is explicitly not true in the American legal system, as well as similar systems evolved from the British one. Case law is just as much part of the law as statutes are. This is the fundamental difference between common law systems and civil law systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Common_law_legal_sy...

It is not a meme. It is the very definition of American courts. Brits dont even have a constitution and have a very different system from that of USA. Other than appearance there is no similarity between British and American courts.

I remember a famous case where a British judge refused to punish a Muslim man who use to beat his wife claiming, that is how the man is cultured and beating wife is part of his religion. Such a disaster is unlikely to happen in USA.

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

#335

Post by dragonwriter »

kortilla wrote: post #321
dragonwriter wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not really a 'meme' It is, in fact, a self-replicating unit of behavior. (It's also true in one sense, which is one of the bases of it's relative reproductive fitness as a meme.)

That’s like claiming any knowledge is a meme. Kinda destroys the meaning if it just means any time someone repeats a fact.

> That’s like claiming any knowledge is a meme.

No, beliefs—whether true and justified (hence, knowledge) or otherwise—are not memes. Behaviors—including ones by which beliefs (including knowledge) are transmitted—are memes. If memes are viewed as analogous to genes (which is the whole point of the concept), beliefs (again, including knowledge) are among the features analogous to aspects of phenotype.

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

#336

Post by kortilla »

mikekchar wrote: post #291
alasdair_ wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Anyone can become President Somewhat irritatingly, I (and a large number of other American Citizens) cannot ever become president because we were not citizens at birth.

Is there not also a weird clause where you have to agree in the existence of a supreme being (it can be any supreme being, I think) because otherwise you can't take the oath of office? I suppose an atheist is very unlikely to become president of the US any time soon, but I always wondered what would happen if one did get voted in.

No, that’s not a thing.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That’s it.

“So help me god” is not part of it, despite some tradition. Not all presidents have used bibles or sworn to a god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_Presiden...

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

#337

Post by kortilla »

keko039ndnfm wrote: post #238
sathackr wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a welcome check on the Executive and Legislative branches. Anyone can become President, and anyone can become a lawmaker. It takes a lifetime of respect to earn a seat on the Supreme Court bench.

The second statement is false. How much a candidate raises has been correlated to ability to win. That eliminates anyone that can’t raise money. And Kavanaugh’s nomination casts doubt on the third statement. You can be a vile POS, but become a SCOTUS judge so long as you’re networked with the right people.

Correlated != caused. As candidates gain popularity they always bring in more money.

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

#338

Post by KorematsuFred »

da_chicken wrote: post #310
keko039ndnfm wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary We got James Madiso…

>They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system > They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases > Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself It's literally their job to do work within the system. The SCotUS is explicitly restricted to interpreting the laws that already exist and were passed by…

We must also remember that once we accept the position that SCOTUS can create new law, it can go both ways and not sure your way.

Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams both give examples of poker. Imagine a standard Poker game where everyone knows the rule, some win some lose and yet there are no fights. Change the Poker game rules such that the dealer can change the rules at his whim and we will have fights (even though the dealer might not actually affect anyone's earnings).

SCOTUS not going out of their way is good for society.

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

#340

Post by KorematsuFred »

dragonwriter wrote: post #240
KorematsuFred wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes good point. Kavanaugh's appointment showed us that if you aspire to be a SC judge you better make sure you behave well right from your teens. Some dubious instant from 30 years ago might come to hurt you.

The sexual assault allegations addressed by the reopening of his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court seem to have made everyone forget the fairly blatant perjury about his role in Bush Admin torture policy in his confirmations hearings for the D.C. Circuit that was addressed (but let slide) in the first round of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

True. There were many serious concerns about his competence as a judge which were not even discussed and everyone focused on his sex life.
Post reply on HN