[Mentalist]

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

Ment, that's the thing about the US. There isn't that much worry about rights.

If it's for the greater good, they'll remove your rights. But who decides what the greater good is, and how far right removal will go?

The doddering old fools in the white house. Hello Patriot Act.

you guys make me appreciate our Charter all the more.

whatever happened to the Bill of Rights?

edit: I'm still a bit perplexed how they are planning to sue foreign content hosts, tbh. I can really see this just leading to the "isolation" of American Internet. which would essentially lead to corporate censorship.

man, seriously, the more I think about this, the more ridiculous this idea sounds. there is so much wrong with this, I can hardly think of where to begin.
my closest analogy would be passing a law that allowed both police officers and concerned citizens, upon seeing anyone in possession of any amount of a drug, to shoot them on sight. That's how much blown out of proportion these measures seem to me.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 03 December 2011 - 02:38 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

Mentalist, on 03 December 2011 - 02:17 AM, said:

Silencer, on 03 December 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

Oh shush, O Chicken of Hate. I'd just blocked her out of my memory seeing as she hasn't been around for ages, and before that she locked herself out of the DB. As I said, it was obvious once I realized.

she was all right in mafia..... but we're getting a bit off-topic.

HD, what is the process of challenging a bill as unconstitutional in the US? because i'm sure its implementation's gonna affect some basic rights.

It gets taken to trial court when ripe and a decision is rendered. Said decision is appealed through its layers (state courts or federal courts). It then gets appealed to SCOTUS and they grant Writ of Certiori (they'll hear it). Generally they require Appeals courts or individual states to have taken different stances on the law such that there is a disagreement about how to interpret or apply it within different sections of the U.S., thereby creating a conflict in the law.

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

Ment, that's the thing about the US. There isn't that much worry about rights.

If it's for the greater good, they'll remove your rights. But who decides what the greater good is, and how far right removal will go?

The doddering old fools in the white house. Hello Patriot Act.

There are mechanisms in place, but they need to be abused for your rights to be taken away. The fact that you are free to say such things is an argument against your position.

Do some research on Material Witness Warrants and you'll get an eye-opener. Good and necessary mechanism that has been abused. I challenge you to figure out a solution that doesn't fundamentally hurt the state's right to prosecute or the individual's due process.

[Mentalist]

HoosierDaddy, on 03 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 03 December 2011 - 02:17 AM, said:

Silencer, on 03 December 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

Oh shush, O Chicken of Hate. I'd just blocked her out of my memory seeing as she hasn't been around for ages, and before that she locked herself out of the DB. As I said, it was obvious once I realized.

she was all right in mafia..... but we're getting a bit off-topic.

HD, what is the process of challenging a bill as unconstitutional in the US? because i'm sure its implementation's gonna affect some basic rights.

It gets taken to trial court when ripe and a decision is rendered. Said decision is appealed through its layers (state courts or federal courts). It then gets appealed to SCOTUS and they grant Writ of Certiori (they'll hear it). Generally they require Appeals courts or individual states to have taken different stances on the law such that there is a disagreement about how to interpret or apply it within different sections of the U.S., thereby creating a conflict in the law.

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

Ment, that's the thing about the US. There isn't that much worry about rights.

If it's for the greater good, they'll remove your rights. But who decides what the greater good is, and how far right removal will go?

The doddering old fools in the white house. Hello Patriot Act.

There are mechanisms in place, but they need to be abused for your rights to be taken away. The fact that you are free to say such things is an argument against your position.

Do some research on Material Witness Warrants and you'll get an eye-opener. Good and necessary mechanism that has been abused. I challenge you to figure out a solution that doesn't fundamentally hurt the state's right to prosecute or the individual's due process.

Am I correct in thinking that only the SCOTUS can render a law unconstitutional, then?

or is it similar to Canada, where the Trial court can do it, but it's not binding until the SCC says so?

[JLV]

Mentalist, on 03 December 2011 - 02:34 AM, said:

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

Ment, that's the thing about the US. There isn't that much worry about rights.

If it's for the greater good, they'll remove your rights. But who decides what the greater good is, and how far right removal will go?

The doddering old fools in the white house. Hello Patriot Act.

you guys make me appreciate our Charter all the more.

whatever happened to the Bill of Rights?

edit: I'm still a bit perplexed how they are planning to sue foreign content hosts, tbh. I can really see this just leading to the "isolation" of American Internet. which would essentially lead to corporate censorship.

man, seriously, the more I think about this, the more ridiculous this idea sounds. there is so much wrong with this, I can hardly think of where to begin.
my closest analogy would be passing a law that allowed both police officers and concerned citizens, upon seeing anyone in possession of any amount of a drug, to shoot them on sight. That's how much blown out of proportion these measures seem to me.

@the bolded part, the constitution allows for changes to be made, and it can be interpreted in many ways. That's why rights are taken away for the greater good. It makes sense, it's just done wrong sometimes.

[JLV]

HoosierDaddy, on 03 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 03 December 2011 - 02:17 AM, said:

Silencer, on 03 December 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

Oh shush, O Chicken of Hate. I'd just blocked her out of my memory seeing as she hasn't been around for ages, and before that she locked herself out of the DB. As I said, it was obvious once I realized.

she was all right in mafia..... but we're getting a bit off-topic.

HD, what is the process of challenging a bill as unconstitutional in the US? because i'm sure its implementation's gonna affect some basic rights.

It gets taken to trial court when ripe and a decision is rendered. Said decision is appealed through its layers (state courts or federal courts). It then gets appealed to SCOTUS and they grant Writ of Certiori (they'll hear it). Generally they require Appeals courts or individual states to have taken different stances on the law such that there is a disagreement about how to interpret or apply it within different sections of the U.S., thereby creating a conflict in the law.

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

Ment, that's the thing about the US. There isn't that much worry about rights.

If it's for the greater good, they'll remove your rights. But who decides what the greater good is, and how far right removal will go?

The doddering old fools in the white house. Hello Patriot Act.

There are mechanisms in place, but they need to be abused for your rights to be taken away. The fact that you are free to say such things is an argument against your position.

Do some research on Material Witness Warrants and you'll get an eye-opener. Good and necessary mechanism that has been abused. I challenge you to figure out a solution that doesn't fundamentally hurt the state's right to prosecute or the individual's due process.

I agree that the system we have offers the greatest range of being able to handle any kind of conflict that may appear. Unfortunately, it has been abused (Patriot Act, when we put the Japanese in camps during WWII.)

I don't think the system is flawed, I think the PEOPLE we allows to run the system are flawed. There's a turning point coming in the next 20 years. The tolerant generation will rise, I hope. I hope things change.

This post has been edited by JLV: 03 December 2011 - 02:59 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

Mentalist, on 03 December 2011 - 02:43 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 03 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 03 December 2011 - 02:17 AM, said:

Silencer, on 03 December 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

Oh shush, O Chicken of Hate. I'd just blocked her out of my memory seeing as she hasn't been around for ages, and before that she locked herself out of the DB. As I said, it was obvious once I realized.

she was all right in mafia..... but we're getting a bit off-topic.

HD, what is the process of challenging a bill as unconstitutional in the US? because i'm sure its implementation's gonna affect some basic rights.

It gets taken to trial court when ripe and a decision is rendered. Said decision is appealed through its layers (state courts or federal courts). It then gets appealed to SCOTUS and they grant Writ of Certiori (they'll hear it). Generally they require Appeals courts or individual states to have taken different stances on the law such that there is a disagreement about how to interpret or apply it within different sections of the U.S., thereby creating a conflict in the law.

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

Ment, that's the thing about the US. There isn't that much worry about rights.

If it's for the greater good, they'll remove your rights. But who decides what the greater good is, and how far right removal will go?

The doddering old fools in the white house. Hello Patriot Act.

There are mechanisms in place, but they need to be abused for your rights to be taken away. The fact that you are free to say such things is an argument against your position.

Do some research on Material Witness Warrants and you'll get an eye-opener. Good and necessary mechanism that has been abused. I challenge you to figure out a solution that doesn't fundamentally hurt the state's right to prosecute or the individual's due process.

Am I correct in thinking that only the SCOTUS can render a law unconstitutional, then?

or is it similar to Canada, where the Trial court can do it, but it's not binding until the SCC says so?

No, it can be ruled unconstitutional at trial (generally 1st amendment cases) and appeals courts, but SCOTUS has the final say. Oftentimes Cert isn't granted because there is no conflict amongst the states or appellate courts or they don't think a case would present a unique situation requiring their attention.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 03 December 2011 - 02:50 AM

[Mentalist]

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 02:43 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 03 December 2011 - 02:34 AM, said:

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

Ment, that's the thing about the US. There isn't that much worry about rights.

If it's for the greater good, they'll remove your rights. But who decides what the greater good is, and how far right removal will go?

The doddering old fools in the white house. Hello Patriot Act.

you guys make me appreciate our Charter all the more.

whatever happened to the Bill of Rights?

edit: I'm still a bit perplexed how they are planning to sue foreign content hosts, tbh. I can really see this just leading to the "isolation" of American Internet. which would essentially lead to corporate censorship.

man, seriously, the more I think about this, the more ridiculous this idea sounds. there is so much wrong with this, I can hardly think of where to begin.
my closest analogy would be passing a law that allowed both police officers and concerned citizens, upon seeing anyone in possession of any amount of a drug, to shoot them on sight. That's how much blown out of proportion these measures seem to me.

@the bolded part, the constitution allows for changes to be made, and it can be interpreted in many ways. That's why rights are taken away for the greater good. It makes sense, it's just done wrong sometimes.

that in itself is a flaw of every system. I wouldn't blame the US for it.
hell, section 1 of the Charter provides a way to circumvent it. ofc, it requires the government to pass a rigorous test to prove that first of all, the proposed rule is in fact supposed to be for the common good, and secondly, that infringment of the right in question is minimal and justifiable to the amount of good it'll do. and even then it's up to the court to buy that.
ofc, there's always the nonwithstanding clause that can be invoked to make a piece of legislature unquestioanlble for a year. but that's a great way to lose political support...

[Mentalist]

HoosierDaddy, on 03 December 2011 - 02:49 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 03 December 2011 - 02:43 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 03 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 03 December 2011 - 02:17 AM, said:

Silencer, on 03 December 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

Oh shush, O Chicken of Hate. I'd just blocked her out of my memory seeing as she hasn't been around for ages, and before that she locked herself out of the DB. As I said, it was obvious once I realized.

she was all right in mafia..... but we're getting a bit off-topic.

HD, what is the process of challenging a bill as unconstitutional in the US? because i'm sure its implementation's gonna affect some basic rights.

It gets taken to trial court when ripe and a decision is rendered. Said decision is appealed through its layers (state courts or federal courts). It then gets appealed to SCOTUS and they grant Writ of Certiori (they'll hear it). Generally they require Appeals courts or individual states to have taken different stances on the law such that there is a disagreement about how to interpret or apply it within different sections of the U.S., thereby creating a conflict in the law.

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

Ment, that's the thing about the US. There isn't that much worry about rights.

If it's for the greater good, they'll remove your rights. But who decides what the greater good is, and how far right removal will go?

The doddering old fools in the white house. Hello Patriot Act.

There are mechanisms in place, but they need to be abused for your rights to be taken away. The fact that you are free to say such things is an argument against your position.

Do some research on Material Witness Warrants and you'll get an eye-opener. Good and necessary mechanism that has been abused. I challenge you to figure out a solution that doesn't fundamentally hurt the state's right to prosecute or the individual's due process.

Am I correct in thinking that only the SCOTUS can render a law unconstitutional, then?

or is it similar to Canada, where the Trial court can do it, but it's not binding until the SCC says so?

No, it can be ruled unconstitutional at trial (generally 1st amendment cases) and appeals courts, but SCOTUS has the final say. Oftentimes Cert isn't granted because there is no conflict amongst the states or appellate courts or they don't think a case would present a unique situation requiring their attention.

right. so if a Cali appeal court says its unconstitutional, will the producers shut up?

[HoosierDaddy]

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 02:48 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 03 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 03 December 2011 - 02:17 AM, said:

Silencer, on 03 December 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

Oh shush, O Chicken of Hate. I'd just blocked her out of my memory seeing as she hasn't been around for ages, and before that she locked herself out of the DB. As I said, it was obvious once I realized.

she was all right in mafia..... but we're getting a bit off-topic.

HD, what is the process of challenging a bill as unconstitutional in the US? because i'm sure its implementation's gonna affect some basic rights.

It gets taken to trial court when ripe and a decision is rendered. Said decision is appealed through its layers (state courts or federal courts). It then gets appealed to SCOTUS and they grant Writ of Certiori (they'll hear it). Generally they require Appeals courts or individual states to have taken different stances on the law such that there is a disagreement about how to interpret or apply it within different sections of the U.S., thereby creating a conflict in the law.

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

Ment, that's the thing about the US. There isn't that much worry about rights.

If it's for the greater good, they'll remove your rights. But who decides what the greater good is, and how far right removal will go?

The doddering old fools in the white house. Hello Patriot Act.

There are mechanisms in place, but they need to be abused for your rights to be taken away. The fact that you are free to say such things is an argument against your position.

Do some research on Material Witness Warrants and you'll get an eye-opener. Good and necessary mechanism that has been abused. I challenge you to figure out a solution that doesn't fundamentally hurt the state's right to prosecute or the individual's due process.

@Ment

I agree that the system we have offers the greatest range of being able to handle any kind of conflict that may appear. Unfortunately, it has been abused (Patriot Act, when we put the Japanese in camps during WWII.)

Can you name specific instances of the Patriot Act that you think are being abused?

You list Japanese Internment as another example, as well.

The history of laws enacted during times of war that people think unnecessarily, unfairly, unconstitutionally, or corruptly "take away a person's rights" is a vast one.

Further, no right is so fundamental that you can't be deprived of it with reason, even the right to live.

Quote

I don't think the system is flawed, I think the PEOPLE we allows to run the system are flawed. There's a turning point coming in the next 20 years. The tolerant generation will rise, I hope. I hope things change.

People will always be flawed. It is in our nature, you see. Fortunately we have a legal system that allows for growth and evolution of the law.

@Ment: No, they won't shut up. They'll appeal it until they can appeal it no more. Be interesting to see how a group of older people will view the "immediacy" of the problem. Hell, if it passes you might get ACLU cases against it that pass the "imminent harm" portion of the standing test before sites are even shut down.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 03 December 2011 - 02:58 AM

[Mentalist]

Call me idealistic, but I have enough faith in the common sense of the courts to realize the can of worms they'd open if something like this is allowed to stand.
that being said, i'm not so optimistic of your legislature. No offence, but it seems both parties are supporting this...

[JLV]

The Patriot Act isn't in effect anymore, is it? I thought that ended but I could be wrong.

It allowed the US government to do certain things (tap phones is the first thing that pops to my mind) without a warrant, based on loose "suspicion that someone has been involved in terrorist activity. IE: Your skin is brown.

I don't buy into that hippy shit, but America doesn't seem like she will ever learn that people who have a similar color to the aggressors are still US citizens.

And you two are getting into territory far beyond my knowledge, so I should probably step back.

I have my opinion on different rights, and what is worth the removal of them.

Piracy, regardless of if it makes a loss or a gain for any industry, is NOT so big of a problem that the American government needs to attack providers that should have no responsibility to monitor every site that is attached to their service. <---- In my opinion, of course.

[JLV]

Mentalist, on 03 December 2011 - 03:04 AM, said:

Call me idealistic, but I have enough faith in the common sense of the courts to realize the can of worms they'd open if something like this is allowed to stand.
that being said, i'm not so optimistic of your legislature. No offence, but it seems both parties are supporting this...

It's looking like it'll pass. There's word that a veto from Mr President may be possible, but I don't know..

[HoosierDaddy]

Mentalist, on 03 December 2011 - 03:04 AM, said:

Call me idealistic, but I have enough faith in the common sense of the courts to realize the can of worms they'd open if something like this is allowed to stand.
that being said, i'm not so optimistic of your legislature. No offence, but it seems both parties are supporting this...

Doesn't matter what Congress does if it is found to be unconstitutional. Unless they nuclear option it and take away the courts right to hear it in the first place, but the odds of that are ridiculously low.

I'd be surprised if Obama vetoed it, but glad nonetheless.

[Mentalist]

would show some serious political will to stand up to a bunch of major corps like that.

I can see the headlines of "US President condones Piracy!" already.....

[HoosierDaddy]

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 03:07 AM, said:

The Patriot Act isn't in effect anymore, is it? I thought that ended but I could be wrong.

It allowed the US government to do certain things (tap phones is the first thing that pops to my mind) without a warrant, based on loose "suspicion that someone has been involved in terrorist activity. IE: Your skin is brown.

I don't buy into that hippy shit, but America doesn't seem like she will ever learn that people who have a similar color to the aggressors are still US citizens.

And you two are getting into territory far beyond my knowledge, so I should probably step back.

I have my opinion on different rights, and what is worth the removal of them.

Piracy, regardless of if it makes a loss or a gain for any industry, is NOT so big of a problem that the American government needs to attack providers that should have no responsibility to monitor every site that is attached to their service. <---- In my opinion, of course.

This is grossly off-topic so I'll leave it at this response unless you want to start a thread about it.

I asked for specific instances because the Patriot Act is a horrifyingly long bill with a LOT of different stuff, not because I didn't know what it was, but thanks for responding with at least one specific detail.

I'd ask you to research the exigent circumstances that exist for these sort of things (warrant-less searches and seizures for one) that would astound you with how easily they are corruptible by police in your every day life. We must assume they will use these mechanisms in good faith else we doom ourselves to paralysis of cynicism and nothing gets done.

[Mentalist]

HoosierDaddy, on 03 December 2011 - 03:20 AM, said:

JLV, on 03 December 2011 - 03:07 AM, said:

The Patriot Act isn't in effect anymore, is it? I thought that ended but I could be wrong.

It allowed the US government to do certain things (tap phones is the first thing that pops to my mind) without a warrant, based on loose "suspicion that someone has been involved in terrorist activity. IE: Your skin is brown.

I don't buy into that hippy shit, but America doesn't seem like she will ever learn that people who have a similar color to the aggressors are still US citizens.

And you two are getting into territory far beyond my knowledge, so I should probably step back.

I have my opinion on different rights, and what is worth the removal of them.

Piracy, regardless of if it makes a loss or a gain for any industry, is NOT so big of a problem that the American government needs to attack providers that should have no responsibility to monitor every site that is attached to their service. <---- In my opinion, of course.

This is grossly off-topic so I'll leave it at this response unless you want to start a thread about it.

I asked for specific instances because the Patriot Act is a horrifyingly long bill with a LOT of different stuff, not because I didn't know what it was, but thanks for responding with at least one specific detail.

I'd ask you to research the exigent circumstances that exist for these sort of things (warrant-less searches and seizures for one) that would astound you with how easily they are corruptible by police in your every day life. We must assume they will use these mechanisms in good faith else we doom ourselves to paralysis of cynicism and nothing gets done.

I realize we're veering off topic, but this inevitably triggers in me a memory from my undergrad days. I took an eyewitness psych course, and we had a chapter on confessions. reading some of the cases where the cops got a false confession out of the suspect was scary. made me promise myself i'd never get arrested in the States.
I realize we need to have faith in the system, in order for it to work, but that was an eye-opener.

[JLV]

Okay, one final off-topic response on the warrant-less searches thing.

I'm a big proponent of standing up to Police when they're bullying. Refusing to let them search your car is our constitutional right. That's why they form their commands as questions.

"Would you step out of the car?" "Why don't you step out of your car?" "How about we search your car?"

It works. Kinda. I've refused 3 times. 2 times, they just let me move on. The third time, the police officer arrested me. And there were no repercussions for the unnecessary arrest. (I didn't have anything in my car, nor I was I driving under the influence of anything).

I love America, and I love the flexibility of our laws so as to protect rights in a way. But sometimes it goes bad, know what I mean?

[Silencer]

Can I suggest a new topic be opened at this point, if the new issue has more to be said on it? It's definitely interesting in its own right (though I feel we may have covered it before, somewhere...) but it is kinda getting detached from the source. Though it's not too bad, so the occasional add-on response to a post probably isn't too much of a problem.

[JLV]

I have no idea what the topic of the new thread would even be. If you want to, open it Silencer

[Silencer]

Dammit, there's a reason I left the sentence vague, JLV! I have no idea either, and was rather hoping someone else would do it.

But that being said, I do think we've covered the ground in various threads, like on police brutality, misuse of power, etc...we'd probably end up going over the same stuff again, wherein we have that pesky international distinction (HD, Ment and Morgy are *much* better versed in the politics and laws of the US than I am, so I have to preface most of my posts/points with "well, in NZ..." and that makes things kinda moot, save for comparative value ) cropping up again. Not to say I don't like the debates we still manage to have, it's just probably going to be a rehash, is all I'm saying.