Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[Eriol]

That's not scary Eriol. Scary is to NOT disobey laws which we see as unjust.

As Kim Davis did? She didn't see the Obergefell ruling as just, so she disobeyed. By your logic, she was every bit as right as those who refuse to obey immigration law - or marijuana policy. To say otherwise is to get into Eriol's territory of "rule of those who agree."

I think your statement is more properly emphasized as "Scary is to not disobey laws which WE see as unjust."

And that's where "Civil Disobedience" lies. But where is that versus "I don't like these, so I'm not obeying it"? The MLK quotes is one possible path, fine, but it very quickly gets into rule of those who agree with you, and not rule of law.

I'm not saying it's an easy issue, but only that the principle of "rule of law" is quite different from what you're advocating for Krisken. If you literally can NOT advocate any other way than disobeying a law, then there's a case to be made, and/or get arrested, and get your day in court to hopefully get it overturned. To say "I don't agree, but there's nothing unconstitutional about it, but I'm going to disobey anyways and should not be arrested" should get you thrown in prison. You can advocate for change without breaking laws.

And since @Ravenpoe already Godwin'd this argument, most of what Hitler did SHOULD have been resisted. It's just when do you say "I am rebelling against my government" as the right thing to do? The degredation of Rule of Law that some here seem to advocate leads to many many more abuses to all, which is arguably more damaging than an actual rebellion. You're saying that when government doesn't work, get people in power (judges) to rule the way you want, rather than what the law/constitution says. And you don't see that as scary?

The most "on the nose" way of putting this whole argument is IMO from the late Antonin Scalia:

What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we'd like it to say?

• Address to Chapman University students (2005).

So... ya

 

[DarkAudit]

Hate isn't just. She's just a bigoted twat.

 

[mikerc]

Yeah, I'm with @Eriol on this one. If there's a law in your country that you feel is unjust, don't just pretend that law doesn't exist. Write to whoever represents you in Government. Encourage your friends & family to do the same. Contact the media. Stage peaceful protests. Tell your Government "This law is unjust. Either you change it or the first chance we get we will vote you out & replace you with people who will." If there are no alternatives standing for election who agree with you get into politics yourself & try to change the system from the inside.

Basically if it ain't broken, don't fix it. If it is broken, don't ignore it - *fix it*!

 

[Hailey Knight]

You must always civilly disobey or you must never civilly disobey. There cannot be some circumstances where it's right and other circumstances where it's wrong; it either is right or isn't, at all times, absolutism, we're at war pick a side

 

[Eriol]

You must always civilly disobey or you must never civilly disobey. There cannot be some circumstances where it's right and other circumstances where it's wrong; it either is right or isn't, at all times, absolutism, we're at war pick a side

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. I really want to believe that you are.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. I really want to believe that you are.

It's my hyperbolic strawman impression of what you're saying. Your posts suggest that one person's civil disobedience cannot be right if another's is wrong and vice versa. I think there's room in the world to say that Kim Davis is wrong and MLK was right.

EDIT: You'd think it was obvious with the "we're at war, pick a side" Colbert reference, but Trump has ruined that kind of humor because it's so hard to tell anymore.

 

[Eriol]

It's my hyperbolic strawman impression of what you're saying. Your posts suggest that one person's civil disobedience cannot be right if another's is wrong and vice versa. I think there's room in the world to say that Kim Davis is wrong and MLK was right.

EDIT: You'd think it was obvious with the "we're at war, pick a side" Colbert reference, but Trump has ruined that kind of humor because it's so hard to tell anymore.

I was more saying that the general principal should be "obey the law, even if you disagree, but there are exceptional circumstances in which you should not." A number of others here seem to be more "if you think the law is wrong, disobeying it should be one of the first things you do." There's quite a lot of difference between those two perspectives IMO, and one is FAR more dangerous than the other due to the "law" (yes a pun) of unintended consequences.

 

[ScytheRexx]

exceptional circumstances in which you should not.

What do you deem an "exceptional" circumstance?

Should we wait until Death Squads are roaming the streets before we are "allowed" any form of protest? You can't say "we should all follow the law" and then say "Well except when it's over this line, but only this line built around my own circumstances and opinions". Believe it or not, other people have different circumstances that are exceptionally important to them, and have dire ramifications for their families and people close to them, that may not fall under your own opinion on "exceptional".

 

[GasBandit]

Every private citizen should decide for themselves alone whether or not following the law is just, and on your head be the consequences. But if you are a government employee, you either enforce the law or you resign.

That is true whether it is Kim Davis on the topic of gay marriage, or every single government employee in a sanctuary City on the topic of illegal immigration.

 

[MindDetective]

Every private citizen should decide for themselves alone whether or not following the law is just, and on your head be the consequences. But if you are a government employee, you either enforce the law or you resign.

That is true whether it is Kim Davis on the topic of gay marriage, or every single government employee in a sanctuary City on the topic of illegal immigration.

Hmm, I think I will (for now) disagree with this. As our republic is designed as a union of relatively autonomous states, I think there needs to be room for cities or states to protest federal laws in the same way individuals can protest any laws.

 

[Eriol]

What do you deem an "exceptional" circumstance?

Should we wait until Death Squads are roaming the streets before we are "allowed" any form of protest? You can't say "we should all follow the law" and then say "Well except when it's over this line, but only this line built around my own circumstances and opinions". Believe it or not, other people have different circumstances that are exceptionally important to them, and have dire ramifications for their families and people close to them, that may not fall under your own opinion on "exceptional".

I'm trying to draw the conversation AWAY from hyperbole, not towards it. And since protest isn't illegal (as long as you're peaceful) you really don't have that problem either. That you think the result of my suggestion is to do nothing until "Death Squads roam the streets" shows you're not exactly reading what I'm writing.

 

[Necronic]

So Gas I know I was a bit hair trigger this weekend but it comes down to us having some really deep fundamental differences in our political views. At the end of the day though I'm sure there are issues out there that I think we can find common ground on. Such as this:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-dai...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[Gruebeard]

Every private citizen should decide for themselves alone whether or not following the law is just, and on your head be the consequences. But if you are a government employee, you either enforce the law or you resign.

That is true whether it is Kim Davis on the topic of gay marriage, or every single government employee in a sanctuary City on the topic of illegal immigration.

Does a mayor and city council count as government employees, or as a government?

 

[ScytheRexx]

I'm trying to draw the conversation AWAY from hyperbole, not towards it. And since protest isn't illegal (as long as you're peaceful) you really don't have that problem either. That you think the result of my suggestion is to do nothing until "Death Squads roam the streets" shows you're not exactly reading what I'm writing.

My comment was taking an extreme to try and understand what you consider "the line". Protests are right now legal, they might not be soon.

So again, I ask, what do you consider "exceptional" circumstance? What has to happen for you to deem a law something that shouldn't be followed?

A healthy nation must allow some civil disobedience. Those that don't are what we call police states, in which the rule of law (as made by those in power) is without question and recourse. I would rather have a nation in which laws are flexible (even in some cases were I would disagree with laws being broken) rather then one in which laws are rigid. It's why I find minimum sentences for drugs the stupidest idea we have had in years.

Hmm, I think I will (for now) disagree with this. As our republic is designed as a union of relatively autonomous states, I think there needs to be room for cities or states to protest federal laws in the same way individuals can protest any laws.

This actually brings up one of my big issues with Libertarians. They usual champion the power of State Rights while wishing for a much smaller Federal government, but often forget that the government structure isn't just federal and state. We also have divisions based on counties, and then in those counties are cities, each with it's own governments making laws and ordinances. Uber backed out of Austin awhile back due to laws that forced it to do things like background checks, but they can still work fine in Houston or Dallas, because those laws are only in Austin.

If you are for the states having more autonomy from the Federal government, why not allow the cities themselves to make more autonomous choices outside of the state government? It seems that should be something Libertarians should champion, consider it further reduces "big government" in favor of self-run city states. Yes, that means a city has the right to consider themselves a "Sanctuary City" at the city government level.

 

[AshburnerX]

 

[Eriol]

My comment was taking an extreme to try and understand what you consider "the line". Protests are right now legal, they might not be soon.

So again, I ask, what do you consider "exceptional" circumstance? What has to happen for you to deem a law something that shouldn't be followed?

A healthy nation must allow some civil disobedience. Those that don't are what we call police states, in which the rule of law (as made by those in power) is without question and recourse. I would rather have a nation in which laws are flexible (even in some cases were I would disagree with laws being broken) rather then one in which laws are rigid. It's why I find minimum sentences for drugs the stupidest idea we have had in years.

I think the law proposed above "smells" really bad. Virtually every problem I mention with the way the "system" works (or doesn't) is OK with protests, as long as they're peaceful. Most of the "bad stuff" is already covered under other laws, so such a bill would not have my support.

On your second point though, "flexibility" is what the judiciary is there for IMO, but even then it should be on a relatively short leash. The alternative (which most of us have lived with our entire lives) is that those who have money can beat the system at every turn, and those that don't pay the price (literally) or are in jail, ruining their lives forever (criminal record). The price of prison is WORST for those in the middle of the scale, as I literally couldn't get my type of job with a criminal record, whereas those at the bottom, it destroys their way of life, but "minimum wage" was the most likely outcome anyways, and those at the very top (Martha Stewart for instance) aren't affected by a jail sentence, as their employment doesn't care if they were in jail. Assuming they get there in the first place, as expensive lawyers can "just about" (or perhaps can) keep you out of prison even for murder.

So we ALREADY have a "loose" system where it's most often money that makes the difference on the laws. You seem to have an impression that with more "interpretation" that "justice" would be better, but IMO that just gives even more power to those with money to influence both the lawmakers and the judiciary, making it an even more skewed playing field.

When it comes down to "do we have the right people in the right places" rather than "what does the law say" you know you're in a pay-to-win system.

 

[GasBandit]

Hmm, I think I will (for now) disagree with this. As our republic is designed as a union of relatively autonomous states, I think there needs to be room for cities or states to protest federal laws in the same way individuals can protest any laws.

Perhaps not cities as such, but when it comes to federal law, states have direct input at the federal level - their senators and representatives.

Kim Davis had the support of her community (and even some federal figures), too. Was her protest a matter of states' rights that should have been allowed?

This actually brings up one of my big issues with Libertarians. They usual champion the power of State Rights while wishing for a much smaller Federal government, but often forget that the government structure isn't just federal and state. We also have divisions based on counties, and then in those counties are cities, each with it's own governments making laws and ordinances. Uber backed out of Austin awhile back due to laws that forced it to do things like background checks, but they can still work fine in Houston or Dallas, because those laws are only in Austin.

If you are for the states having more autonomy from the Federal government, why not allow the cities themselves to make more autonomous choices outside of the state government? It seems that should be something Libertarians should champion, consider it further reduces "big government" in favor of self-run city states. Yes, that means a city has the right to consider themselves a "Sanctuary City" at the city government level.

The thing is, immigration is firmly a federal matter. There are a few things that are such and cannot be relegated to the states. Things like printing currency, raising an army, immigration policy, and matters involving "full faith and credit." Can you imagine the chaos if immigration policy was decided or enforced at the county level? If every city printed its own currency? How many HoustonBucks make a SanFranRuble?

When libertarians gripe about the size of government, it's usually because the 10th amendment is being ignored - the one that states "anything not explicitly the power of the federal government is reserved for the states." It's not hard to find examples of the federal government violating this principle - but immigration is definitely the purview of the federal government.

 

[Krisken]

Perhaps not cities as such, but when it comes to federal law, states have direct input at the federal level - their senators and representatives.

Kim Davis had the support of her community (and even some federal figures), too. Was her protest a matter of states' rights that should have been allowed?

I believe this has been answered already. Her resistance was based on denying rights to others in the name of her religious beliefs and was not just. But I assume you are just playing devils advocate here.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Throwing this out there: I don't think most politicians want to actually solve any illegal immigration problems. Just pretend enough so they can please voters and blame problems on the illegal immigrants, whether true or false.

 

[Covar]

Throwing this out there: I don't think most politicians want to actually solve any illegal immigration problems. Just pretend enough so they can please voters and blame problems on the illegal immigrants, whether true or false.

Call me cynical, but I think that's the case with nearly every political issue. Strife and unrest is good for their careers.

 

[Necronic]

I'm not sure what the argument is here. Kim Davis had every right to do what she did. She is not a slave and can't be compelled. But she absolutely deserved to be removed from her position.

 

[MindDetective]

I'm not sure what the argument is here. Kim Davis had every right to do what she did. She is not a slave and can't be compelled. But she absolutely deserved to be removed from her position.

Right. As was stated earlier, such protests exact consequences. That will be true for cities or states that protest too.

 

[GasBandit]

I'm not sure what the argument is here. Kim Davis had every right to do what she did. She is not a slave and can't be compelled. But she absolutely deserved to be removed from her position.

And it is my assertion that those government employees in sanctuary cities likewise are to be removed if they refuse to enforce immigration policy.

I believe this has been answered already. Her resistance was based on denying rights to others in the name of her religious beliefs and was not just. But I assume you are just playing devils advocate here.

Her motivations are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is she was a government employee refusing to enact duly legislated and executed government policy. She had the right to protest, but not to keep her position.

Now addressing the others in the forum talking about protest, especially Ash's "stop demonizing riots" post, I had another thought just now while I was in the shower.

A protestation is not a get out of jail free card.

There's a street where I live, 5 lanes, speed limit 35mph. I think that's a stupidly low speed limit. I drive 40mph in protest. If I get pulled over and issued a citation, I still have to deal with the consequences of breaking that law. I still have to go before a judge and pay a fine. The fact that I disagree with the statute and am "protesting" it does not shield me from the consequences of my actions, even given that this is probably the least consequential legal infraction in the entire country. And really, this is as it should be. Otherwise every abortion clinic bomber would no longer be guilty of murder, and Rosa Parks might have just been a cantankerous woman history forgot - and black people might have been told to sit in the back for a lot longer than they were.

Consider this, also, when it comes to a "city" being treateed as an entity for the purposes of protest. That sounds dangerously like what one might call "municipal personhood." As in, assigning the rights of an individual to a nonhuman entity. Not to put too fine a point on it, it's the same pitfall as "corporate personhood."

 

[Krisken]

I vehemently disagree that motives are irrelevant, especially since motives is a cornerstone of our justice system.

 

[GasBandit]

I vehemently disagree that motives are irrelevant, especially since motives is a cornerstone of our justice system.

You haven't learned the lesson then, that just because you agree with the reasoning behind something doesn't make it right or legal. Trump's in the driver's seat now, and he and his supporters are doing what they believe to be right and legal.

The fact of the matter is that Kim Davis had every right to protest, just not to keep her job - in fact, "resigning in protest" is practically a trope. And it is the exact. Same. Thing. For government employees of so-called "sanctuary cities."

Otherwise there is no rule of law, only rule of man. And that can get very, very ugly if the man in question is not on your side.

 

[Krisken]

You haven't learned the lesson then, that just because you agree with the reasoning behind something doesn't make it right or legal. Trump's in the driver's seat now, and he and his supporters are doing what they believe to be right and legal.

The fact of the matter is that Kim Davis had every right to protest, just not to keep her job - in fact, "resigning in protest" is practically a trope. And it is the exact. Same. Thing. For government employees of so-called "sanctuary cities."

Otherwise there is no rule of law, only rule of man. And that can get very, very ugly if the man in question is not on your side.

That's not what I said Gas. I said that motives have meaning and are even part of the basis of our justice system. I have no idea where you got the other stuff from of my ideas on protests as I didn't say anything about it, let alone sanctuary cities. Please stop assuming my positions on things before I've spoken on them.

 

[GasBandit]

That's not what I said Gas. I said that motives have meaning and are even part of the basis of our justice system. I have no idea where you got the other stuff from of my ideas on protests as I didn't say anything about it, let alone sanctuary cities. Please stop assuming my positions on things before I've spoken on them.

Ok, maybe I've misunderstood, then. Perhaps you can clarify.

Do you believe that government employees in "sanctuary" cities are acting legally by not enforcing immigration law, or should they step down, or failing that, be removed from their positions? Why or why not?

 

[Necronic]

And it is my assertion that those government employees in sanctuary cities likewise are to be removed if they refuse to enforce immigration policy.

I think there's one distinction here. Davis specifically took an action to flaunt the law. In sanctuary cities the situation is that leaders are refusing to take an action or are deprioritizing.

I know it doesn't seem like a difference but I think it is one.

 

[GasBandit]

I think there's one distinction here. Davis specifically took an action to flaunt the law. In sanctuary cities the situation is that leaders are refusing to take an action or are deprioritizing.

I know it doesn't seem like a difference but I think it is one.

That, to me, falls in the same area as a lie of omission. If Davis had said she was merely deprioritizing marriage licenses for gay couples ("TFN" in her head, just like sanctuary cities), she still would have needed to go.

 

[Krisken]

My thought is this- It doesn't much matter what the issue is, actions have consequences, some I agree with, some I don't. When it comes to public protests, people are free to protest until it becomes illegal. I also don't think it's ok to force someone to step down from their position. Davis refused a court order, meaning her protest was against the law and the law chose to pursue action against her, she appealed, and it was rejected by the Supreme Court, so she stepped down. Now with sanctuary cities, I don't know what actions are being taken by the government to oppose them. What exactly leaders in sanctuary cities doing which is against the law? From what I'm seeing, they are cities which refuse requests to detain, pursue or report undocumented immigrants who reside in those cities and have contact with law enforcement.

I'm going to avoid the list of problems this causes (of which there are many) and instead focus on what the officials in these cities should or shouldn't do. The real problem lies in that the court system has not said these officials are breaking the law of the land. The position of these cities was upheld in 2013 federal appeals court which said local agencies are not required to detain undocumented immigrants when requested to do so and the act does not require local or state officials to detain suspected aliens subject to removal.

So for now, the actions of Kim Davis and the sanctuary cities here are not equal. Kim Davis was found to be breaking the law while the appeals court decided the cities are not. This may change if the Senate, House, and POTUS can come to an agreement and provide a law to require local law enforcement and state officials to follow these orders.[DOUBLEPOST=1487610476,1487610405][/DOUBLEPOST]Sorry fellas, I like to gather my thoughts and lay them out. Being sick gives me time to look over all the evidence and provide the information needed. Unfortunately it means I'm not as 'off the cuff' as normal and it takes me longer to respond.

 

[Necronic]

That, to me, falls in the same area as a lie of omission. If Davis had said she was merely deprioritizing marriage licenses for gay couples ("TFN" in her head, just like sanctuary cities), she still would have needed to go.

So the difference is that a local government is always going to be underfunded in one way or another. You can argue that you are deprioritizing for budget reasons. Like the whole "decriminalization" of marijuana.

You can't make that same argument about denying marriage certificates to a specific class of people.

I will say though that the "priority" argument is a lot harder to make when certain politicians choose to run on sanctuary cities as an issue. I'm sure there are countless cities out there that have quietly and successfully deprioiritized immigration enforcement. Doing it on a loudspeaker is foolish and begging for a crackdown.

 

[GasBandit]

My thought is this- It doesn't much matter what the issue is, actions have consequences, some I agree with, some I don't. When it comes to public protests, people are free to protest until it becomes illegal. I also don't think it's ok to force someone to step down from their position. Davis refused a court order, meaning her protest was against the law and the law chose to pursue action against her, she appealed, and it was rejected by the Supreme Court, so she stepped down. Now with sanctuary cities, I don't know what actions are being taken by the government to oppose them. What exactly leaders in sanctuary cities doing which is against the law? From what I'm seeing, they are cities which refuse requests to detain, pursue or report undocumented immigrants who reside in those cities and have contact with law enforcement.

I'm going to avoid the list of problems this causes (of which there are many) and instead focus on what the officials in these cities should or shouldn't do. The real problem lies in that the court system has not said these officials are breaking the law of the land. The position of these cities was upheld in 2013 federal appeals court which said local agencies are not required to detain undocumented immigrants when requested to do so and the act does not require local or state officials to detain suspected aliens subject to removal.

So for now, the actions of Kim Davis and the sanctuary cities here are not equal. Kim Davis was found to be breaking the law while the appeals court decided the cities are not. This may change if the Senate, House, and POTUS can come to an agreement and provide a law to require local law enforcement and state officials to follow these orders.[DOUBLEPOST=1487610476,1487610405][/DOUBLEPOST]Sorry fellas, I like to gather my thoughts and lay them out. Being sick gives me time to look over all the evidence and provide the information needed. Unfortunately it means I'm not as 'off the cuff' as normal and it takes me longer to respond.

I actually prefer this sort of answer to "off the cuff" ones and it's no skin off my nose if it takes you longer to reply - I mean, I am technically supposed to be at work doing work stuff right now.

And I'm going to need time to read the linked PDF and understand the legalese.

But "off the cuff" I wouldn't be opposed to there at least being the requiring of a court order, first.

 

[Krisken]

I do too, but most of the time I'm not laid up and sick, looking for something to do

 

[GasBandit]

Alright, if I'm understanding the quoted court ruling correctly, here's how it went down -

A guy got picked up wrongfully as part of a group in a criminal investigation for a crime he did not commit. He posted bail, but the local PD worried he might be illegal... for no ostensible reason other than he was of puerto rican descent. They called ICE, ICE said "yeah, hang on to him while we investigate," he's detained for 3 days while they figure out he's a natural born citizen, at which point he is released and sues for wrongful imprisonment. Local PD says "whoa hey, wait, we're not culpable here, ICE told us to hold him!" So the court says "no, they asked you to hold him, you didn't have to." And that is now setting precedent for the loophole that lets sanctuary cities wiggle through.

If you ask me, this ruling is addressing things from the wrong way around. The root of this problem is that the local PD arrested a man wrongfully, and then got ICE involved with no other probable cause than "suspect is brown." The real answer to fixing this situation is that the local PD needs to have actual evidence as would be required for a warrant before detaining and getting ICE involved. Or, at the very least, in order to detain the suspect. If they have immigration concerns, they should still report them even if they don't hold the suspect.

 

[Gruebeard]

If you ask me, this ruling is addressing things from the wrong way around. The root of this problem is that the local PD arrested a man wrongfully, and then got ICE involved with no other probable cause than "suspect is brown." The real answer to fixing this situation is that the local PD needs to have actual evidence as would be required for a warrant before detaining and getting ICE involved.

That's my understanding of how the Sanctuary Cities are essentially operating - that they're essentially telling their employees not to dig into a person's citizenship status. In this case, that would be directing their police to not bother collecting that evidence to begin with, that spotting illegal immigrants is just not part of their job - or as low a priority as enforcing those "Can you believe this is still on the books!" kind of law that they ignore in favor of writing parking tickets.

A sort of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.