I have. It's pretty common around here (common practice in the LAPD, apparently, although I've only seen cars from the Sheriff's Dept. do it a few times.)
quote:In the last eight months of 2007, Montgomery County's new speed cameras recorded 224 cases in which police vehicles were recorded traveling more than 10 mph over the speed limit, according to department records.
Supervisors dismissed 76 of those citations after determining the officers were responding to calls or had valid reasons to break the speed limit.
But that left 148 who didn't have that excuse, and about two-thirds of those citations haven't been paid, said police Lt. Paul Starks.
This kind of irks me. The officers' union is arguing that citations are issued to the owner, not the driver, so in this case that's the county, and the officers shouldn't have to pay.
I say bunk. If the county has to pay their speeding tickets then the county should take the damages out of their pay. Perhaps I'd be okay with an amnesty period, just dismissing the fines so far, but making it clear that unless they are on their way to a call or in otherwise mitigating circumstances they should NOT break traffic laws. Anyone caught after that would be responsible for the fines.
It just always irks me to see a cop speed, ignore traffic rules, take a right-of-way he doesn't have-- and pull into Starbucks or Jack-in-the-Box or something. I think departments should make it a clear and enforced policy that police officers need to set an example to the community of the CORRECT way to drive courteously and lawfully, unless there are circumstances that require speed. Then maybe people would be happier to pull over and give them the right-of-way if they saw a cop speeding, thinking, "Oh, he must be going somewhere important," not, "Dang cops think they're above the law."
Anyway, sorry. Guess that got a little rant-y. Can you tell I see far too many police cars being driven inappropriately, and not near enough of them responding to calls we put in about things like illegal fireworks?
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
What I see most often is cops coming up to a light as it changes to yellow, and then they flip on their lights so they don't have to stop at a red light.
That just bothers me.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Me too! Especially if, as I said, they then turn them off, and pull into Starbucks. Grrr.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They don't bother turning on their lights here, they just go through the yellow or slightly red light. Once in awhile I'll see a cop zipping down the road without his lights on, but it's impossible to tell if he's headed anywhere or not.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*nods*
I'm really a good-natured person (mostly.) I want to believe that when I see them zipping through reds and yellows and going 20 mph faster than everyone else, they're on their way to help someone, and are keeping the sirens off because they don't need them right that second to get through and are trying not to disturb the neighborhood.
I've just seen them do that for their own convenience far too many times to not at least have the thought that they're in a big hurry for their dinner break or comped coffee. *sigh* And especially the LAPD, as I said-- well, I have more issues than their driving with them. Including a couple of very wrong shootings, very near me. And I live in a pretty good neighborhood. Really.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I saw a cop turn from the wrong lane.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yup, all the time. No signal, either.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I once saw a cop going the speed limit in the left lane, keeping pace with a car on his right. So I PIT maneuvered his a** into the ditch.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
All people in government are above the law.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Don't me started.
(The really bad ones are the state police. Those people are maniacs on the road!)
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I saw a Maui PD van make an illegal U-turn last week. I have no idea whether it was on its way to a call or not. I noticed it because I've never seen an egregious traffic offense committed by a cop before - in any place I've ever lived. Maybe I just don't pay attention, but it doesn't seem to be too much of an issue to me.
Posted by cassv746 (Member # 11173) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: All people in government are above the law.
Yep, so they can do whatever they want. Makes me sick. I've lost most of my respect for cops.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
And yet, I know my share of cops who are just good cops. Far be it from me to dissuade ya'll from your ranting, but it's worth noting that there are some genuinely good people out there doing their jobs well.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: And yet, I know my share of cops who are just good cops. Far be it from me to dissuade ya'll from your ranting, but it's worth noting that there are some genuinely good people out there doing their jobs well.
I used to whine about cops a lot, but when I recently had to call one, I was very impressed. I would say 90% of drivers break the rules at some point and I would expect the same amount of cops.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I used to whine about cops a lot, but when I recently had to call one, I was very impressed. I would say 90% of drivers break the rules at some point and I would expect the same amount of cops.
I think that those paid to enforce the rules should be expected to follow them. Crazy idea!
I see cops breaking traffic rules all the time, and it sickens me.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
...maybe some of the laws are the problem, too?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
But think about why you break traffic rules when you do. I personally don't think, I feel like speeding today. I just suddenly look down and realize I am going x speed. When I run a light, it is usually because I misjudged the timing. It isn't a conscious choice.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: And yet, I know my share of cops who are just good cops. Far be it from me to dissuade ya'll from your ranting, but it's worth noting that there are some genuinely good people out there doing their jobs well.
If many cops are good, we shouldn't complain about the cops who do bad things?
I don't think that cancels or balances the bad things out. I've had my share of cops who did ugly, humiliating things to me for reasons that turned out to have nothing to do with the law and a lot to do with their own frustrations. Thus, I don't have much tolerance or sympathy for cops who think the presence of exemplery peers excuses them into slumming.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: If many cops are good, we shouldn't complain about the cops who do bad things?
It means people should try to avoid generalizations.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:If many cops are good, we shouldn't complain about the cops who do bad things?
It also means people should try to avoid putting words in my mouth.
On that note, however, I have no problem with people complaining about bad cops. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Sorry if I offended, but I find people rarely use the word "ranting" in a neutral sense when referring to the opinions of others.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: All people in government are above the law.
I disagree. It's mostly the porcine variety of government workers.
Posted by Luv2ReadProductions (Member # 11502) on :
The last two times I was pulled over, I was let off with warnings. As a result, I don't complain anymore when I see a cop go a few miles over the speed limit. Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Puffy Treat, my apologies. I did not consider the negative connotation of 'ranting' when I chose that word. Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I often drive home on a two-lane, no-passing highway with a speed-limit of 45 miles per hour. Most people go about 55, but for reasons of my own, I make a conscious effort to go about 43-45 miles per hour along that road. The other night, as I was driving along just below the speed limit, I was being tailgated by the driver behind me who kept flashing his brights at me. After about five minutes of this, the person behind me turned on his flashers (woah, it's a cop!). I pulled partway over (there's no parking on this road either); the cop pulled into the other lane, went around me and through a yellow light, and then turned off his lights and sped off at about the standard 55 miles per hour most people go on that road. I have no idea if he was going someplace important, but I think, more likely, that it was just that, like most people, he was frustrated by having to go the speed limit on that road.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:The officers' union is arguing that citations are issued to the owner, not the driver, so in this case that's the county, and the officers shouldn't have to pay.
Wouldn't that be considered getting off on a technicality? Don't most cops hate it when someone they've arrested gets off on a technicality? I know that if I got a ticket while driving a company car there would be no question as to who would be paying that ticket.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:...maybe some of the laws are the problem, too?
Some of the laws, yes. I don't have a problem with cops traveling the prevailing speed if it's above the speed limit. I have a problem withe cops using their lights to run red lights and make illegal turns. And yes, I see them doing that all the time. Especially heading toward the police headquarters.
Part of what bothers me about this is that I've also noticed a gradual slippage away from "yellow means make a reasonable attempt to come to a stop," to "about five cars can go through a light just after it turns red." That seems to be the rule around here, to the point that people have no problem doing it right in front of a cop, because they know the cops do it, and the cops don't give them tickets (I assume) because they know that they have no moral authority to give people tickets for things they do themselves.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I've seen that too, Glenn. In another thread I'm complaining about how I hate drivers who go the speed limit in the left lane, but I still generally prefer that everyone follow the rules. That's something that really bugs me, and I don't remember it always being this way.
It always happens on the left turn arrow, probably because the same person who is holding up traffic in the left lane on the highway by going the speed limit and pacing a car or truck to their right, is also failing to closely follow the person in front of him when the left arrow light turns green (so I'm still blaming you slowpokes.) But regardless, I see my green light come up and another 2, 3, 4,what? 5 cars? go past.
This is true, I've gotten so frustrated with this that I've been at the front and seen my light turn green, and seen cars still coming, that I just went ahead and gunned it. The car slams on his brake and swerves back straight. (I give him the finger as I pass, needless to say.) I see in my mirror that now he's blocking traffic, and the only way he can quickly get out of the way, rather than completing his left turn, is to continue straight, which he does.
I know I'm the bigger jerk in this particular instance, by the way. But seriously, if people don't stop driving like obnoxious idiots, I'm gonna start dragging people out of their cars and beat them in the street.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Slightly related, you know how when you have an intersection where the left turn lane has a green light, and you can go when oncoming traffic clears? I hate when the car in front of me does not bother pulling into the middle of the intersection to wait for a gap (or for the light to turn red.) If you're just sitting there, you're gonna need a much bigger gap to get through, and it's probably not even gonna happen so you're just gonna have to sit there until you get a green arrow again (unless it's one of those intersections where all you get is a green light and you just have to take your opportunity. I've found myself sitting through 2 cycles, and the car at the front of the line just sits there, the driver is just probably just wondering: "What should I do? Why does that guy keep honking his horn?")
This is the person most in danger of the treatment I described in my last post, as they're already just sitting there, ready to feel my wrath.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:[County Police Chief] Manger is demanding that officers pay the fines, a request that has met stiff opposition from union leaders and has been ignored by some sergeants who were asked to investigate whether officers nabbed by the cameras had a valid reason to speed.
"We are not above the law," Manger said in an interview. "It is imperative that the police department hold itself to the same standards that we're holding the public to."
Officials at the county's fire department, sheriff's office and four municipal police departments said employees who have been caught speeding in government vehicles have paid the fines.
"The only time we don't make them pay the fine is if they're on an emergency call," Sheriff Raymond M. Kight said. "We haven't had any resistance at all."
I can understand not wanting to pay, but when I get ticketed, I pay up. So does the County Commissioner, so do the fire fighters and other other county personnel. So I think these officers need to grow up and either stop speeding or pay the fines and stop flipping the bird at the cameras.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
A couple of times, I've seen a police car exceeding the speed limit. I have definite proof, because I was exceeding the speed limit, and they caught up to me.
Then they requested that I pull off to the shoulder so that we could discuss my driving habits. I was polite enough not to mention that even if I was going too fast, they must have been going even faster.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: It just always irks me to see a cop speed, ignore traffic rules, take a right-of-way he doesn't have-- and pull into Starbucks or Jack-in-the-Box or something.
It bears mentioning that often (or maybe just sometimes, depending) officers will begin to respond to a call and then get called off by dispatch because another unit's closer. In that case, they're instructed to pull over for a few minutes to let the adrenaline wear off before getting back on the road. So sometimes you might see an officer speed through an intersection and swing into 7/11 and that's what just happened.
However, anytime I see a cop breaking traffic laws and they don't have their lights and siren on I call and report them. I consider it my civil duty.
I do agree that a lot of the time they break the law just because they can, and I agree that that's wrong.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Civiv.
Civic duty.
I'm sure you're civil about doing it.
*grin*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: Civiv.
Civic duty.
I'm sure you're civil about doing it.
*grin*
Davidson's Law strikes again! Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: All people in government are above the law.
I disagree. It's mostly the porcine variety of government workers.
Really now... You don't think politicians don't take whatever special treatment they get offered?
Or prison guards, or social workers, or judges or anyone else in a position of legal authority over others?
People single out the police because they have the most contact with them and usually it's in an unsavoury situation. But any position in gov't is susceptible to abuse and the people who are their to prevent it are likely abusers themselves.
Don't be so blind and naive to think that people get into gov't because they want to help anyone but themselves.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Don't be so blind and naive to think that people get into gov't because they want to help anyone but themselves.
Don't be so bitter and cynical that you can't believe goodness in any other human beings. I know a lot of people who work for government, and most earn (much) less than they would in the private sector and most work for the government instead because they think what they do is important.
This, by the way, includes your congresspeople. Every letter gets read, and every letter that isn't a form letter gets passed on to the congress person. They have meetings about what letters are coming in every week.
That's why the cynicism is so frustrating - it turns people off from doing things that actually can make a difference, like writing to your congressperson. Otherwise, I don't care - you can be as cynical as you like. However, by proclaiming it is useless to vote/work for change, you're actively damaging the citizenry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Don't be so blind and naive to think that people get into gov't because they want to help anyone but themselves.
I know many people who have given up literally hundreds of thousands of dollars and haven't gotten anything out of it for themselves other than the satisfaction of doing some good in the world.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Pixiest: you've said before that you think people will do things like provide for the poor absent gov't help, so why do you not think people could get into gov't out of a desire to help people?
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
I have to admit that I'm feeling pretty insulted and I don't work for the government anymore.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I, of course, only work for the Library so I can help my to their sweet, sweet collection of books. If only there were places ordinary citizens could go where they could borrow books for free. Too bad those lofty privileges are available only for government employees.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Fugu: Because if they wanted to help people, they wouldn't get into government, they'd just help people. Getting into government means they want to FORCE others to help people rather than doing the job themselves.
Dag: I'm sure there are exceptions, but I would have to see it to believe it. And I haven't yet.
Kath: Congress people are especially In It For Themselves. They're arrogant and principle-less. They'll sell out the world to get a building, airport of highway named after them. Do anything to buy a vote. There's a reason "Politician" is a swear word. (Ron Paul is the exception to this, but I still didn't vote for him.)
I don't have a problem with Librarians. I think, for those who get a kick out of Library Science, public libraries are probably the only place they can find a job.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pixiest: That you vehemently believe your nihilistic rhetoric doesn't make it true. What are you basing your opinion of congresspeople on? Do you actually know any personally, or is this from the We Hate The Government quarterly?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kath: I've seen their votes, I've heard their speeches. Their lack of any sort of consistency precludes principle.
Kerry got in trouble last election for waffling. But they're all like that. They're all more about their power than their convictions.
Like I said before, though, Ron Paul seems to be the exception.
btw, I don't hate "The Government" I hate how our government has been twisted. Small, unintrusive, inobstructive government is a good and necessary thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You don't actually know, do you?
More importantly, you don't actually have an alternative method to propose. You like librarians? Who and what do you think funds the librarians?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kath: I've known people who have run for office (and failed) yes. I saw what the power did to them before they even had it.
I don't like where the libraries' funding comes from. I don't have a problem with Librarians.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So you like the fruit but hate the tree? Maybe your perceptions about the tree could be a little more nuanced.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kath: In the context of this thread, I don't think Libarians are Out For Themselves in the same way most other gov't people are.
Is that clear? I seem to have trouble expressing myself today. Which isn't good because I have an interview with a social worker in an hour and a half...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My point is that those who fund the librarians and the libraries they staff are also not only Out For Themselves - otherwise we'd have a government like Zimbabwe's.
And why aren't Librarians Out For Themselves? They get to hang out with books all day, they don't have to maximize efficiency or worry about a bottom line, they don't produce anything, and they are reasonably paid and get better benefits than most jobs that don't require critical thinking skills. What makes librarians different from, say, firefighters or people who work at the DMV in your view?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't have a problem with firefighters either.
You are making a convincing argument to have a problem with Librarians though. DO go on.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It gets worse. Firefighters get to retire with a generous pension, guaranteed to be available by law. A lot of the time, they aren't even fighting fires - they are just hanging out at the firehouses, watching movies. They get paid to do nothing at all, and then, if a fire isn't controlled, they don't even have to pay for the damages. You can't sue a fireman for not going into a burning building to get your dog. Can you believe that? And they are paid regardless of how many people they've saved or whether or not they even did risk their lives.
Firefighters are clearly in it just to get onto those calendars anyway - it's all about sex and looks for them. I know this because I've heard about calendars with firefighters on them.
---
You stances seem to be less than nuanced and cursiouly ferocious considering your lack of first-hand knowledge and refusal - how about you defend your love of safety and free learning while bashing the elected creators of that safety and free learning.
In other words, let go of the black and white view of the world and tell us about something that is recognizably realistic. What would you do instead, and how would that retain the benefits you enjoy from a government you loathe?
[ March 10, 2008, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kat: I've said that about a brazilian times. Keep police/fire, army, roads, courts/jails and get rid of *all* social programs. I'd axe the libraries too, just so you know, even though Librarians seem to be good people (or so I thought before your evidence to the contrary.) I would limit the power of elected officials to a strict interpretation of the constitution.
I realize you violently disagree with me and that you have a history of venom, but I have to take off in 15 minutes for my appointment so you'll likely get the last word here.
Have Fun!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How librarians do you know? Or do you base this on liking books and assuming that everyone who is like you (likes books) are good people while everyone who is not like you is clearly bad?
That still doesn't solve the problem of Congress, though, who, according to you, is filled with rotting pustules of dank corruption and are worthy of nothing but scorn. What would you do about that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would limit the power of elected officials to a strict interpretation of the constitution.
A strict interpretation of the constitution allows for federal spending on libraries and social programs.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Quick response. Good.
I dated a librarian. She was pretty and sweet and smart, and best of all, quick witted. She could always make me laugh. Things didn't work out, unfortunately, but I still hold her in high regard.
The reason I would close the public libraries is because I don't hold it as an ethical use of public funds. It doesn't protect us from anything. If someone wanted to build a library and privately fund it for the good of the public, I'd applaud that person.
The problems with presidency and the congress are unsolvable so long as people hold their hands out for more free goodies and/or demand that everyone follow their religion whether they believe or not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So your complaint is that everything is so hopelessly corrupted that nothing can be done so you would do nothing?
While I find that incredibly nihilistic and simple, it does contain its own solution, which is you not participating in the process, so that works out.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
So you want to get rid of libraries because they don't protect us from anything, but you'd keep roads because . . . ?
Also, what about public schools?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
She has said before that she'd like to eliminate public schools.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Seems like a simple solution is to move somewhere like the place you wish America was.
Good luck with that.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: Are you referring to the "General Welfare" clause or is there a specific reference to libraries and social programs or something else I missed? (I admit, it's been a while since I gave the constitution a thorough and complete reading.)
Kath: I don't think you know what "Nihilistic" means. I am by no means a Nihilist. I participate in the process by voting for the least evil of the evils provided. If I were in the middle of the ocean in a sinking boat, I'd still bail.
Rabbit: Are you sure you're not confusing me with Lisa? I'm torn on the topic of Public Schools. On the one hand, they're hopelessly corrupt and not part of the "force and fraud protection" mandate of the government. On the other hand I shudder to think just how stupid the general populous would be with out it. (Believe it or not, they COULD be stupider.)
Jon Boy: Roads are part of the national defense. Further they allow speedy responses for fire and police. The roads are a necessary part of protecting us.
Spang: There is no where left to Flee.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Pixiest: perhaps not all those who wish to do good view gov't as an illegitimate avenue to doing good.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag: Are you referring to the "General Welfare" clause or is there a specific reference to libraries and social programs or something else I missed? (I admit, it's been a while since I gave the constitution a thorough and complete reading.)
The General Welfare clause, but not the one in the preamble.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Dag: The general welfare clause is a horrible loophole. The rest of the document is all about limiting power, but then they come in with "But you can do ANYTHING you like so long as you claim it's for the 'General Welfare.'" It's the letter of the law that provides for violating the spirit of the law. It's two little words, taken out of context used to validate anything the gov't does.
Does anyone really believe that the founding fathers had our bloated gov't in mind? Remember these are the people who rioted over a tiny Tea tax.
Further, if you read on in section 8, it lays out what the gov't may do in regards to defense and general welfare.
Borrow money, Regulate interstate and foreign commerce, Navies, Naturalization, Make Money, Post offices and roads, Copyrights and Patents, make courts, Armies, Militias... It ENUMERATES what it means by Common Defense and General Welfare.
It does not list Libraries or Social programs. Unless one can show how libraries and social programs are necessary to one of the listed powers.
quote: To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
I realize I'm playing on your home field here, Dag.. Please don't hurt me too badly...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The general welfare clause is a horrible loophole. The rest of the document is all about limiting power, but then they come in with "But you can do ANYTHING you like so long as you claim it's for the 'General Welfare.'" It's the letter of the law that provides for violating the spirit of the law. It's two little words, taken out of context used to validate anything the gov't does.
No, it specifically does not say you can do "ANYTHING." It says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to ... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"
It can spend money to provide for the general welfare.
quote:Further, if you read on in section 8, it lays out what the gov't may do in regards to defense and general welfare.
Borrow money, Regulate interstate and foreign commerce, Navies, Naturalization, Make Money, Post offices and roads, Copyrights and Patents, make courts, Armies, Militias... It ENUMERATES what it means by Common Defense and General Welfare.
It does not list Libraries or Social programs. Unless one can show how libraries and social programs are necessary to one of the listed powers.
I disagree with your textual analysis. Each of these powers is placed on equal terms, separated by semicolons. There's no indication that the tax and spend power is meant to be merely introductory or a general summary.
If one were to accept your analysis, then Congress would have had no power to tax until the income tax amendment.
It's clear that the first listed power is "to tax..." and one of the allowable reasons for taxing is to "provide for the general welfare."
quote:I realize I'm playing on your home field here, Dag.. Please don't hurt me too badly...
That's a decent textual analysis, even though I disagree with it. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: If "General Welfare" is undefined by the following sentence fragments (as I contend it is) then it is INDEED open ended and one can legislate anything based on claiming it's for "the general welfare."
Jim Crow laws? Sure, if racists get back in power and decide segregation is in the general welfare.
Seize 100% of every one's money for equal redistribution? Sure, if literal communists get into power and decide that communism is in the general welfare.
It can justify anything.
I contend that the following lines ARE an enumeration, despite punctuation, because it DOES list things that are easily covered by "Common Defense and General Welfare."
Why would one need to list Armies, Navies and Militia if "Common Defense" covered it? Why would one need to list Post offices and Post Roads if "General Welfare" already covered it?
The 2nd and following phrases in Section 8 also fit in better, contextually, with the rest of the document when read as an enumeration of what is allowed by the first phrase. The founders were VERY careful to limit the power of government. Such an open ended backdoor is not something they would have included.
(thanks for not hurting me =)
Oh! and they WOULD have the power to tax, even before the income tax amendment, but only for the things listed. But they didn't have the power to levy a progressive income tax.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Jim Crow laws? Sure, if racists get back in power and decide segregation is in the general welfare.
Seize 100% of every one's money for equal redistribution? Sure, if literal communists get into power and decide that communism is in the general welfare.
It can justify anything.
Pixiest, "provide for the general welfare" is only a justification exercises of the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," not for any act of Congress.
quote:Why would one need to list Armies, Navies and Militia if "Common Defense" covered it?
Because establishing an army involves more than merely spending money. It involves exerting specific authority.
quote:Oh! and they WOULD have the power to tax
Where would the tax power come from if the first item isn't an actual power.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Oh! and they WOULD have the power to tax, even before the income tax amendment, but only for the things listed. But they didn't have the power to levy a progressive income tax.
Why do you say they didn't have the power to levy a progressive income tax? Nothing in the constitution specified the types of taxes that were or were not permissible. Perhaps you could point to the specific language that would have restricted progressive taxation?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Dag: Hmm... No, my interpretation allows for taxes for everything in the list.
Your interpretation would say, for instance "You can raise a navy, but you can't tax for it." Because your interpretation has every line being equal. If every line is equal, then the Tax part only applies to Defense and General Welfare, which are completely undefined.
My interpretation has the first line being the umbrella. The Gov't can levy taxes defense and general welfare: Navies, Armies, Post offices <rest of section 8>. What defense and general welfare are are spelled out. Defined.
You're the expert, and the courts have ruled your way. But that interpretation doesn't make sense.
Rabbit: What Orlox said.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If one's opposition to the definition of "General Welfare" arises from the assumption that many people will have one quirk or other inclining them to abuse it, then democratic republicanism must seem like a bad idea altogether.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps it would be useful to bring in other sources of data about what the authors of the Constitution intended. For instance, the federalist papers and what they did upon coming into power.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
In a diversion back to the original topic. About 20 years a go, my husband was very nearly hit by a police officer who ran a stop sign at high speed in reverse.
My husband was on a bicycle and could have been killed.
An ordinary citizen would have been charged with wreckless driving for such an act but the police officer was not even cited for running the stop sign despite my husbands complaints.
In my mind the thing that differentiates police officers from other public officials is that they first line of defense for the laws. When they aren't held to the highest possible standard by the law, it undermines the entire legal system.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Please excuse the thread necromancy... Someone on another forum pointed out a couple of founding father quotes that support my argument.
quote: With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
quote: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
These are the exact same arguments I made to Dag.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pixiest: In regards only to Tom's quote, (as in Jefferson) he went against that very belief when he became president with the Louisiana Purchase. I think it's a believe he would have disassociated himself from. Not to mention, he was not even at the constitutional convention.
I'm still thinking about the Madison quote.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Taking quotes out of context to support arguments? Are we in a homosexuality/abortion/theism thread now?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
A quick google search on the louisianna purchase turned up this:
quote: But Jefferson's immediate concern was defensive: the prospect of a strong French presence at the mouth of the Mississippi and the volatility of loyalties in its vast hinterland threatened the survival of the American Union. The first law of nature, self-preservation, demanded decisive action. Jefferson's misgivings about Louisiana focused on incorporating "foreign" territory into the Union without violating a strictly construed federal Constitution
The article goes on to say that he had to strike while the iron was hot before Napoleon changed his mind. And that, to Provide For the Common defense (NOT the General Welfare) it behooved us not to have a foreign power at our back door.
I'm sure he'd have prefered to amend the constitution before doing it.
Of course, I've often wondered what his exact rationale would be. If I could ask one question of Thomas Jefferson, I'd ask him about his thoughts and caveats on the Louisianna Purchase. (A purchase that, ultimately, made my home state part of the union.)
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
So, just to bump it back to what we may have seen in police officer -- traffic behavior:
The charming rookie police officer that so kindly gave me a warning about fully stopping at the stop sign in my neighborhood a few months ago, slid through a stop sign himself yesterday -- no lights, no emergency -- while talking on his handheld cell phone. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
The firefighters here take the ladder trucks out for snacks all the time, parking in the bus stop pullout at safeway. Grr...
The cops around here mostly just don't use turn signals, but it seems 75% of regular people don't use them either.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Nato,
Firefighters have to take their trucks with them so if they have a call, they can respond immediately. We see ours parked in front of the local gym and grocery store all the time.
Not that they should park in bus stop lane though.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: The firefighters here take the ladder trucks out for snacks all the time, parking in the bus stop pullout at safeway. Grr...
As brojack said, the firefighters have to take the truck out with them so they can respond quickly to calls. I used to work at a grocery store near a fire station, and they would frequently come by with their truck to pick up food...and would often get called away and have to just leave their stuff with us (we would put it in one of our big coolers) while they went off to do the call. Believe me, its not a job I'd want to have.
Of course, they should still drive safely, and the same goes for police officers. Their job is to make us safer, not to endanger us.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: So, just to bump it back to what we may have seen in police officer -- traffic behavior:
The charming rookie police officer that so kindly gave me a warning about fully stopping at the stop sign in my neighborhood a few months ago, slid through a stop sign himself yesterday -- no lights, no emergency -- while talking on his handheld cell phone.
You should've immediately called the station house and reported it to the watch commander. The only way stuff like that gets curtailed is if you report it.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
I'd just like to note, for the record, that a police officer's lights do not necessarily have to be on for them to be responding to a call. Even a real emergency. Sometimes there are valid reasons to leave them off. This sometimes leads to people calling in to the police station to report officers breaking traffic laws while "not on their way to a call." Just saying.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That makes absolutely no difference. If a citizen reports an officer who is, in fact, responding to a call at the time, no disciplinary action will be taken. Which means that you should report it whenever you see it -- there are no false positives in this case.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
I say bunk. If the county has to pay their speeding tickets then the county should take the damages out of their pay. Perhaps I'd be okay with an amnesty period, just dismissing the fines so far, but making it clear that unless they are on their way to a call or in otherwise mitigating circumstances they should NOT break traffic laws. Anyone caught after that would be responsible for the fines.
This doesn't strike anyone as having the slightest possibility of backfiring? Next thing, you have cops claiming they didn't make it somewhere because of the cameras. It seems to me to be the general issue involved with automated speed enforcement is that an officer pulls you over for doing something dangerous, a camera is just there on your mind all the time- and the law, at least in California, clearly states that the 65mph highway speed is a guideline, and that drivers must drive at the speed most safe for the conditions they are in.
Personally, I've sped through intersections in my town that are particularly wide and have cameras in them. I'm very concerned about having to battle a ticket I shouldn't get- whether because I was stuck behind another car, or the light turned yellow after I entered the intersection. And at almost 400 dollars a pop, that represents a sizable portion of my personal income- all so that I don't run red lights? I've never seen anyone run a red light in my life.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: That makes absolutely no difference. If a citizen reports an officer who is, in fact, responding to a call at the time, no disciplinary action will be taken. Which means that you should report it whenever you see it -- there are no false positives in this case.
It doesn't make "absolutely no difference," why would you say that? I think you should, you know, use your judgement before calling into the police if the officer you see is breaking a law. He may look like he's on a way to a call, and if he's not doing anything dangerous, then honestly who cares? I only wish that officers didn't give out tickets for non-dangerous driving, now that would be completely fair. But why sit around obsessing about what the cops are doing and tying up their phone lines with stuff that the watch commanders aren't going to care about anyway? Just saying.
But then again, I have been pulled over seven times and never issued a single citation. So I think some of the cops are obviously reasonable.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I explained why I said that. Just because you weren't able to understand isn't enough reason for me to try to explain it any further. I used the smallest words I could think of, but I can only do so much when butting against people with no logical reasoning skills.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Jt, I did understand. I pointed out why I thought you were wrong. Oh, but I disagree because I have no logical reasoning skills, not because I thought your rhetoric was flawed. Makes sense. You have the logical reasoning skills AND all the rhetorical skills to boot.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)