In the last week, there have been two incidents of police brutality using a Taser in circumstances where it was completely unnecessary. In the two incidents in Florida and California, a peaceful person was arrested for questionable reasons and then tasered for insufficiently quick compliance with police orders.
I am particularly scared by this since in the past, police would be careful to have no witnesses when they used excessive force. In both instances, they did this in front of numerous witnesses and did not mind multiple people video taping close up. This means to me that they believe that the police state is so far advanced that they no longer have to worry about consequences.
I watched three separate videos of the incident in Gainesville FL from different angles. The victim was asking questions politely of John Kerry when, quite suddenly, he was pulled away forcibly by police. He was clearly astonished. I guess he thought that we still live in a free country where there was no penalty for asking a politician an embarrassing question. Well I guess he now knows better. The police state is upon us and torture is OK, not just for Muslims in GITMO but for US citizens as well.
The other astonishing item is that Kerry appeared totally unaware of what was happening. He was actually answering the student's question as he was being tasered in the back of the room. I don't think that he heard the answer.
I think that it is our responsibility right now to visit our respective city councils, county commissions, etc to be sure that they put rules in place to prevent this casual use of Tasers. Police have got this story that they are not lethal and can be used freely. Torture or pain compliance is OK with them. Well torture or pain compliance is not OK with me.
We also have to stress that deaths have occurred and they are not entirely non-lethal. There is risk based on the health of the victim. The officer will likely not know the health of his victim at the time so using a Taser should be considered the use of lethal force. It should not be used except where lethal force would be clearly justified.
One more important point. The neo-con talk radio and TV contingent: Hannitty, O'Reilly and Glen Beck are all laughing at "Taser Boy". They are all down with the police state.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
An American History Teachers asks
A comment from a teacher of American History
As a teacher of American history I never cease to be impressed with how little the American people understand their history, particularly the relationship between government and society. Many citizens equate "freedom" with the unfettered right to "do their own thing", and that government regulation constitutes an abuse of personal liberty. To me, this is not "liberty", but "license"; excessive undisciplined freedom, constituting an abuse of liberty. Our freedom as a people has always been tempered by the government's "power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.) I would submit that regulating where smoking is permitted falls within the province of protecting the "general welfare" of society. We would all do well to heed the whole of the U.S. Constitution's provisions, rather than employing a selective "buffet table." Instead of picking and choosing of those liberties which emphasize individual rights we should not subordinate the best interests and general welfare of the whole society.
That a teacher of American History has these opinions is not surprizing. It is also not surprizing that our freedoms are melting away like a snowball in the Florida sun when our kids are taught this.
In so far as the powers of the federal government, they are strictly limited by Article 1 Section 8. It was the intent of the founders to ensure that ordinary citizens would have little contact with the federal government or its laws and that most areas of daily life would be regulated by the states. This desire was reinforced in the Tenth Amendment.
It is certainly true that the government has been able, through disengenuous arguments, to slip the leash of the constitution and we suffer as a result. I remember, even lo these many years later, when I was in the sixth grade, reading an American history book that extolled the virtues of the "elastic clause". They were refering to the commerce clause of Article 1 Section 8 and how just about everything could be turned into commerce and thus regulated. The courts ran with that and concurred that congress could even regulate what a farmer planted on his land for his own use and call it commerce.
The intention of the founders and the definition of freedom is that the default position is that people did what they wanted and it was not the business of government, at any level, to interfere unless others rights were being violated in the process. This left some grey areas, but they were to be resolved at the state or lower lever. Certainly not at the federal level.
They also set up a system with checks and balances. Every power had a check, and no law which contradicted the constitution had any effect. Those laws would provide no protection and impose no penalties.
So what was the check they had in mind for silly laws passed by the legislature? It was the twice repeated right to trial by jury for ALL CRIMINAL TRIALS (no deminimus) and ALL CIVIL TRIALS (where more than $20 was at stake). Is that in effect today? Do juries know that they are supposed to judge the law as well as the facts? Of course not! They have never been educated in the basics of what our freedom means and how we are to maintain it. Most don't even know that it needs maintenance.
Now. moving on to the states and their sub divisions, we again have some limits imposed by the Federal constitution and some limits imposed by the state constittuion. We also have the same checks and balances between the Governor, the legislature, the courts and the people through the ballot box and the jury box.
Now to the specific matter of smoking limitations: We have specific protections for our property rights. In both the 5th and 14th amendment. We were promised that we would never be deprived of our property without due process. When the city or county government tells the owner of a bar, restaurant, or such how he may use his property, they diminish its value and deprive him of property without his having committed any prior crime. The proposed statute and that in other cities in the area impose fines for violating this law that will be adjucated in municipal court without benefit of trial by jury.
Yes, I am saying that every single charge needs to be adjudicated by a jury so that the people will have their check on what I consider an unjust law. Will it be very hard to get a conviction? You bet! That is because there is a significant minority that will defend the rights to property and hung juries will be the order of the day. Prosecutors will stop bringing charges and the law will melt away. That is what is supposed to happen to unjust laws. That is how minorities can protect themselves from overbearing, politically driven, majorities. It is a key ingredient to keeping a government in check and governments must be kept in check.
History shows us that, with the passage of time, power leaves the people and goes to government. Government must protect us from all manner of evil. This is why we must always have some demon to fear. In my lifetime it was communists, terrorists, Kadaffi, Saddam, Osama, Islamofascists, druggies, homosexuals, foreigners in general and on without end. Government makes new laws to violate our rights in order to protect us from the demon of the day and the people cheer. "Thus is freedom lost, to wild applause."
Do you teach about the function of juries in your American History class? WHY NOT?
As a teacher of American history I never cease to be impressed with how little the American people understand their history, particularly the relationship between government and society. Many citizens equate "freedom" with the unfettered right to "do their own thing", and that government regulation constitutes an abuse of personal liberty. To me, this is not "liberty", but "license"; excessive undisciplined freedom, constituting an abuse of liberty. Our freedom as a people has always been tempered by the government's "power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.) I would submit that regulating where smoking is permitted falls within the province of protecting the "general welfare" of society. We would all do well to heed the whole of the U.S. Constitution's provisions, rather than employing a selective "buffet table." Instead of picking and choosing of those liberties which emphasize individual rights we should not subordinate the best interests and general welfare of the whole society.
That a teacher of American History has these opinions is not surprizing. It is also not surprizing that our freedoms are melting away like a snowball in the Florida sun when our kids are taught this.
In so far as the powers of the federal government, they are strictly limited by Article 1 Section 8. It was the intent of the founders to ensure that ordinary citizens would have little contact with the federal government or its laws and that most areas of daily life would be regulated by the states. This desire was reinforced in the Tenth Amendment.
It is certainly true that the government has been able, through disengenuous arguments, to slip the leash of the constitution and we suffer as a result. I remember, even lo these many years later, when I was in the sixth grade, reading an American history book that extolled the virtues of the "elastic clause". They were refering to the commerce clause of Article 1 Section 8 and how just about everything could be turned into commerce and thus regulated. The courts ran with that and concurred that congress could even regulate what a farmer planted on his land for his own use and call it commerce.
The intention of the founders and the definition of freedom is that the default position is that people did what they wanted and it was not the business of government, at any level, to interfere unless others rights were being violated in the process. This left some grey areas, but they were to be resolved at the state or lower lever. Certainly not at the federal level.
They also set up a system with checks and balances. Every power had a check, and no law which contradicted the constitution had any effect. Those laws would provide no protection and impose no penalties.
So what was the check they had in mind for silly laws passed by the legislature? It was the twice repeated right to trial by jury for ALL CRIMINAL TRIALS (no deminimus) and ALL CIVIL TRIALS (where more than $20 was at stake). Is that in effect today? Do juries know that they are supposed to judge the law as well as the facts? Of course not! They have never been educated in the basics of what our freedom means and how we are to maintain it. Most don't even know that it needs maintenance.
Now. moving on to the states and their sub divisions, we again have some limits imposed by the Federal constitution and some limits imposed by the state constittuion. We also have the same checks and balances between the Governor, the legislature, the courts and the people through the ballot box and the jury box.
Now to the specific matter of smoking limitations: We have specific protections for our property rights. In both the 5th and 14th amendment. We were promised that we would never be deprived of our property without due process. When the city or county government tells the owner of a bar, restaurant, or such how he may use his property, they diminish its value and deprive him of property without his having committed any prior crime. The proposed statute and that in other cities in the area impose fines for violating this law that will be adjucated in municipal court without benefit of trial by jury.
Yes, I am saying that every single charge needs to be adjudicated by a jury so that the people will have their check on what I consider an unjust law. Will it be very hard to get a conviction? You bet! That is because there is a significant minority that will defend the rights to property and hung juries will be the order of the day. Prosecutors will stop bringing charges and the law will melt away. That is what is supposed to happen to unjust laws. That is how minorities can protect themselves from overbearing, politically driven, majorities. It is a key ingredient to keeping a government in check and governments must be kept in check.
History shows us that, with the passage of time, power leaves the people and goes to government. Government must protect us from all manner of evil. This is why we must always have some demon to fear. In my lifetime it was communists, terrorists, Kadaffi, Saddam, Osama, Islamofascists, druggies, homosexuals, foreigners in general and on without end. Government makes new laws to violate our rights in order to protect us from the demon of the day and the people cheer. "Thus is freedom lost, to wild applause."
Do you teach about the function of juries in your American History class? WHY NOT?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)