5 ms·

There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself. States almost-by-definition have total power should they wish to exercise it. Western st

There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself. States almost-by-definition have total power should they wish to exercise it. Western states generally have limited their exercise of power, and they have structured themselves to make it difficult for one government to obtain and exercise total power. That is now changing.

maerF0x0 5y ago
I'm reading this book "You have the right to remain innocent" [1] And it brings up amazing cases where the system is definitely not limiting it's powers and it's leading to false convictions. Here's a youtube of more or less the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-right-to-remain-innocent https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-ri... EDIT: errm actually that YT video is actually a little scant on details. The TLDR is say nothing except make an absolute demand for your 6th amendment rights (a lawyer). And don't be soft about it like "maybe I can get a lawyer?" ... say "I have a right to a lawyer and will not answer anything without first speaking to my lawyer" People might be thinking "I thought it was the 5th ?" Ironically , the same conservatives that have been trumpeting the 2nd have concurrently been undermining the 5th and now can be used against you as evidence of guilt.
- lisper 5y ago
  Both sides of the political spectrum cherry-pick the Constitution. Liberals hate the second amendment. Conservatives hate the ninth.
- falcrist 5y ago
  The content in the book you're talking about is probably better represented by Professor Duane's original viral video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE I think he wrote that book in part because he was frustrated by the lack of nuance in his presentation and the fact that it sort of "went viral". 13 million views for a lecture about law is pretty astonishing.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    Yes, but iirc the best advice at the time of the viral video was invoke the 5th, but it has since evolved to do not invoke the 5th. Insist on your 6th .
    - falcrist 5y ago
      There's quite a bit of nuance in that recommendation. It's also very much about how you invoke your rights.
    - cryptonector 5y ago
      Since Salinas v. Texas you cannot stay quiet. You must invoke your 5th amendment right to not speak to the police, else they can use your silence against you at trial(!). Professor Duane has a video on that topic.
      - falcrist 5y ago
        I seem to recall the correct thing to do is to ask for council.
        cryptonector 5y ago
        That too. "I will not speak without a lawyer present" should do.
- munk-a 5y ago
  > Ironically , the same conservatives that have been trumpeting the 2nd have concurrently been undermining the 5th and now can be used against you as evidence of guilt. Just out of curiosity - are you possibly confusing civil vs. criminal cases? The 5th amendment does apply in civil cases to the extent that you cannot be compelled to testify - but a judge can interpret your lack of response in a negative light in a civil setting. This differs from criminal cases where the lack of testimony is not admissible nor can it be considered in determination or sentencing.
  - cryptonector 5y ago
    I think GP must be referring to Scalia's vote in Salinas v. Texas, which decided that a defendant's silence can be used against them at trial unless they specifically invoked their 5th amendment right to be quiet.
    - maerF0x0 5y ago
      Most directly I am referring to Duane's advice, of which I do not know his direct source (but I'm sure it's in the book as there are extensive notes). Just thought I'd help clarify where I was coming from. That trial does seem to fit the scenario though.
javajosh 5y ago
Indeed. To say it another way, state power is total by default. Every individual right is carved out of that default total power.
- kook_throwaway 5y ago
  The 9th and 10th amendments to the US constitution limits the US government only to the powers explicitly enumerated in article 1 section 8. But in the real world, unfortunately, you are absolutely correct. Even the idea that there are only a short list of things that a government can do is a foreign concept to most folks.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Unfortunately, a depressing number of people believe that an all-powerful government is the solution to all their problems. "There outta be a law" runs rampant.
hammock 5y ago
>There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself. Correction: there is no legal defense. There are other defenses, historically.
- sirmike_ 5y ago
  >There are other defenses, historically. Indeed. Revolution, rebellion. None of these *have* to be violent per se. The Pax French have handled massive changes in gov without armed conflict in the 20th Century (not counting WWII and Nazis occupation.) It will be very interesting to see how well their democracy will counter this.
- dbcurtis 5y ago
  While you are correct, these other defenses are messy and miserable to live through. Let’s hope we find a less bloody path forward.
- xenophonf 5y ago
  Don't be coy. You're talking about the violent overthrow of the government. And you know what? If you live in any one of the western liberal democracies, this response is bullshit and you know it. In a democracy, the government is _you_ and the _people around you_, and we have all kinds of legal defenses against wanna-be autocrats: - speeches - rallies - op-eds - letters - phone calls - commercials - campaign contributions - strikes - sit-ins - marches - education - lawsuits - appeals But above all: - voting So get up on your soap box, and get people to the ballot box.
  - 8372049 5y ago
    This is true. Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook discusses this further and talks about how seizing power in most modern, western democracies is very hard.
  - TrevorJ 5y ago
    > So get up on your soap box, and get people to the ballot box. I think it's important to understand the context of a statement like this as it pertains to the United States at least. At some point in the last 6 years, the average person on both sides of the aisle has felt as if they have some reason to be quite skeptical of the security of our electoral system. It has been one of the defining issues of two consecutive election cycles. Setting aside the question of whether or not that skepticism is warranted, the rather worrying fact remains: as a whole, our belief in the mechanism of voting is probably approaching an all time low. This is quite concerning.
bserge 5y ago
They've limited themselves because people wanted it (often violently). Now the majority of people are complacent and that's when the "leaders" accumulate power. In Europe for example, complacent with the police taking away the homeless, complacent with the laws slowly eroding everyone's freedoms, complacent with the healthcare systems they pay for believing it helps people. It's the same old tired trope of "first they came for X, and I didn't speak out". In the end there will be no one to speak for the majority, either. We have it coming and we'll get it.
- swader999 5y ago
  And just because you are comfortable with the current regime having these powers and all knowing insight into your life, it doesn't mean you will be with the next and the next...
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  >complacent with the healthcare systems they pay for believing it helps people. Odd choice of topics to be outraged about.
  - bserge 5y ago
    I wake up every day hating I'm alive and can only sleep with alcohol. Apparently, I'm far from the only one being denied proper mental healthcare. I'm not talking therapy, just medicaiton. So close, yet out of reach. So yeah.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    i will add anecdata that I know many healthcare professionals in Canada and they are down right burnt out and angry (even before Covid19) about how the system is giving terrible care to people. They want to do a better job but cannot with quotas and rules dictated by the rule makers. Canada may have better outcomes on average, because it picks up the very bottom (imagine how easy it is to help the bottom quartile of health). But I think it also drops the ball on people who are proactively trying to optimize their health because then the answer becomes "Not indicated, you're not sick enough for us to care", and then it's outright illegal to say "fine I'll pay out of pocket for the care!" (save for going international)

maerF0x0 5y ago

I'm reading this book "You have the right to remain innocent" [1] And it brings up amazing cases where the system is definitely not limiting it's powers and it's leading to false convictions. Here's a youtube of more or less the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-right-to-remain-innocent https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30532856-you-have-the-ri... EDIT: errm actually that YT video is actually a little scant on details. The TLDR is say nothing except make an absolute demand for your 6th amendment rights (a lawyer). And don't be soft about it like "maybe I can get a lawyer?" ... say "I have a right to a lawyer and will not answer anything without first speaking to my lawyer" People might be thinking "I thought it was the 5th ?" Ironically , the same conservatives that have been trumpeting the 2nd have concurrently been undermining the 5th and now can be used against you as evidence of guilt.

lisper 5y ago
Both sides of the political spectrum cherry-pick the Constitution. Liberals hate the second amendment. Conservatives hate the ninth.
falcrist 5y ago
The content in the book you're talking about is probably better represented by Professor Duane's original viral video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE I think he wrote that book in part because he was frustrated by the lack of nuance in his presentation and the fact that it sort of "went viral". 13 million views for a lecture about law is pretty astonishing.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  Yes, but iirc the best advice at the time of the viral video was invoke the 5th, but it has since evolved to do not invoke the 5th. Insist on your 6th .
  - falcrist 5y ago
    There's quite a bit of nuance in that recommendation. It's also very much about how you invoke your rights.
  - cryptonector 5y ago
    Since Salinas v. Texas you cannot stay quiet. You must invoke your 5th amendment right to not speak to the police, else they can use your silence against you at trial(!). Professor Duane has a video on that topic.
    - falcrist 5y ago
      I seem to recall the correct thing to do is to ask for council.
      - cryptonector 5y ago
        That too. "I will not speak without a lawyer present" should do.
munk-a 5y ago
> Ironically , the same conservatives that have been trumpeting the 2nd have concurrently been undermining the 5th and now can be used against you as evidence of guilt. Just out of curiosity - are you possibly confusing civil vs. criminal cases? The 5th amendment does apply in civil cases to the extent that you cannot be compelled to testify - but a judge can interpret your lack of response in a negative light in a civil setting. This differs from criminal cases where the lack of testimony is not admissible nor can it be considered in determination or sentencing.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  I think GP must be referring to Scalia's vote in Salinas v. Texas, which decided that a defendant's silence can be used against them at trial unless they specifically invoked their 5th amendment right to be quiet.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    Most directly I am referring to Duane's advice, of which I do not know his direct source (but I'm sure it's in the book as there are extensive notes). Just thought I'd help clarify where I was coming from. That trial does seem to fit the scenario though.

javajosh 5y ago

Indeed. To say it another way, state power is total by default. Every individual right is carved out of that default total power.

kook_throwaway 5y ago
The 9th and 10th amendments to the US constitution limits the US government only to the powers explicitly enumerated in article 1 section 8. But in the real world, unfortunately, you are absolutely correct. Even the idea that there are only a short list of things that a government can do is a foreign concept to most folks.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Unfortunately, a depressing number of people believe that an all-powerful government is the solution to all their problems. "There outta be a law" runs rampant.

hammock 5y ago

>There is no defense against a legal power that does not limit itself. Correction: there is no legal defense. There are other defenses, historically.

sirmike_ 5y ago
>There are other defenses, historically. Indeed. Revolution, rebellion. None of these *have* to be violent per se. The Pax French have handled massive changes in gov without armed conflict in the 20th Century (not counting WWII and Nazis occupation.) It will be very interesting to see how well their democracy will counter this.
dbcurtis 5y ago
While you are correct, these other defenses are messy and miserable to live through. Let’s hope we find a less bloody path forward.
xenophonf 5y ago
Don't be coy. You're talking about the violent overthrow of the government. And you know what? If you live in any one of the western liberal democracies, this response is bullshit and you know it. In a democracy, the government is _you_ and the _people around you_, and we have all kinds of legal defenses against wanna-be autocrats: - speeches - rallies - op-eds - letters - phone calls - commercials - campaign contributions - strikes - sit-ins - marches - education - lawsuits - appeals But above all: - voting So get up on your soap box, and get people to the ballot box.
- 8372049 5y ago
  This is true. Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook discusses this further and talks about how seizing power in most modern, western democracies is very hard.
- TrevorJ 5y ago
  > So get up on your soap box, and get people to the ballot box. I think it's important to understand the context of a statement like this as it pertains to the United States at least. At some point in the last 6 years, the average person on both sides of the aisle has felt as if they have some reason to be quite skeptical of the security of our electoral system. It has been one of the defining issues of two consecutive election cycles. Setting aside the question of whether or not that skepticism is warranted, the rather worrying fact remains: as a whole, our belief in the mechanism of voting is probably approaching an all time low. This is quite concerning.

bserge 5y ago

They've limited themselves because people wanted it (often violently). Now the majority of people are complacent and that's when the "leaders" accumulate power. In Europe for example, complacent with the police taking away the homeless, complacent with the laws slowly eroding everyone's freedoms, complacent with the healthcare systems they pay for believing it helps people. It's the same old tired trope of "first they came for X, and I didn't speak out". In the end there will be no one to speak for the majority, either. We have it coming and we'll get it.

swader999 5y ago
And just because you are comfortable with the current regime having these powers and all knowing insight into your life, it doesn't mean you will be with the next and the next...
idiotsecant 5y ago
>complacent with the healthcare systems they pay for believing it helps people. Odd choice of topics to be outraged about.
- bserge 5y ago
  I wake up every day hating I'm alive and can only sleep with alcohol. Apparently, I'm far from the only one being denied proper mental healthcare. I'm not talking therapy, just medicaiton. So close, yet out of reach. So yeah.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  i will add anecdata that I know many healthcare professionals in Canada and they are down right burnt out and angry (even before Covid19) about how the system is giving terrible care to people. They want to do a better job but cannot with quotas and rules dictated by the rule makers. Canada may have better outcomes on average, because it picks up the very bottom (imagine how easy it is to help the bottom quartile of health). But I think it also drops the ball on people who are proactively trying to optimize their health because then the answer becomes "Not indicated, you're not sick enough for us to care", and then it's outright illegal to say "fine I'll pay out of pocket for the care!" (save for going international)