At 9:21 PM -0500 7/22/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
>> At 12:32 PM -0500 7/21/01, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> >> We still live in a country that has laws, and we *should* expect the LEAs
>> >to enforce all laws that are on the books.
>> >>
>> >> If you have a problem with the laws, it's not the LEAs fault, it's the
>> >legislature and the Executive branch.
>> >
>> >
>> >And the Jewish population of Europe during WW2 had no right to complain
>> >about the Nazi soldiers just doing their job, right...
>>
>> If one can't distinguish between the enforcement of laws of
>> questionable constitutional validity (yes, *questionable*) and
>> genocide, then one should probably load the bong again, watch cartoons
>> on TV and stay far, far away from the ballot box.
>>
>> In the grand scheme of things, Ashcroft believes (or appears to)
>> in the Constitution. He may have some differences of opinion with many
>> or most on this list, but he believes in it.
>>
>> That is better than we've had in at least 6 years, probably more.
>
>You are arguing a mere degree of difference Petro. The fact that Ashcroft
>"believes in the constitution" (like YOU would have any way to be imbued
>with such knowledge!) is irrelevent.
>
>Even if we accept your assertion that Ashcroft believes, if he is willing
>to enforce clearly violative laws, then is the *enemy*.
My point, which I obviously did not make clearly enough, is that Ashcroft
appears, unlike at least his immediate predecessor, to believe in rule of law, rather
than rule by force.
This is not "a mere degree of difference", it is a fundamental difference.
Reno, by actions at least, demonstrated a clear lack of regard for the constitution
and the concept of "rule of law". This lead to things like Waco, and the DoJ arguing
that the sniper at Ruby Ridge couldn't be tried by the state since he was under
Federal orders.
Will Ashcroft prove to be any different? I don't know.
Another point you bring up is that a LEO should not enforce laws that
"clearly" violate the constitution.
A LEO cannot do that *and still be a LEO*. He can refuse by resigning, but if
he simply takes the position that he will only enforce laws he thinks are
constitutional he causes a violation of one of the fundamental underpinnings of the
constitution, that all people are equal under the law, and that the law is supposed to
be equally applied.
That may be less than clear, let me try it another way:
One of the fundamental features of a society that is built around the concept
of "rule of law" is that the law is knowable by the people, and that they have a
reasonable expectation of the consequences should they break that law. When you have a
situation where you give carte blanche to LEOs to decide for themselves what is
constitutional, you violate that. What one LEO may decide is perfectly constitutional,
another may believe is unconstitutional resulting in even more uneven application of
the law than we have today.
Let us take a constitutional amendment that is under debate, and one that
Ashcroft has recently made a statement about. The 2nd. It states that "the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now, this is, to some
people, fairly clear. The government cannot infringe on the right of the people to
keep and bear arms.
But it doesn't mean that the government cannot make any laws at all regarding
firearms, does it? Where is the line?
So then you have a situation where, for example, a County Sheriff could
interpret the constitution in a very broad way, ordering his officers *not* to arrest
anyone carrying a conceal weapon, even tho' it's nominally illegal in his state, while
the various city and town police departments take a slightly narrower
interpretation--that conceal weapons are illegal. Then you have a situation where what
is considered legal and proper changes depending on who pulls you over for speeding.
Furthermore, let's say that that Sheriff gets voted out of office, or is
replaced for some other reason, and you get a new Sheriff who disagrees *slightly*
with the old Sheriff, and orders his Deputies to start arresting people who violate
that states (possibly perfectly constitutional) prohibition against carrying a
concealed weapon. Now you have a situation where what was previously "legal" (in the
sense that you weren't going to get arrested for it) change without (or with little)
notice.
I'm sure that with a little thought I could come up with a better scenario
that more clearly elucidates the point.
It's far better to expect, and in fact *insist* that LEOs enforce the law
equally and to the letter than to insist that each one of them figure out for
themselves what is right and proper for them to enforce. Then pressure the Courts and
the Legislative/Executive branch to make the laws clear and rapidly judge them on
their constitutionality.
