7 ms·

I'm sure it would end badly, but sometimes I fantasize about the U.S. citizens having a LEO that actively investigates / prosecutes government officials who vio

I'm sure it would end badly, but sometimes I fantasize about the U.S. citizens having a LEO that actively investigates / prosecutes government officials who violate the constitution.

underseacables 3y ago
I could not think of something more that America needs. The government accountability office publishers reports all the time about government waste and malfeasance, but it is consistently, dare I say, pointedly, ignored. Having a separate independent agency, cast with investigating and prosecuting crime and criminals within the government itself would be amazing. Same with congress.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  This would be good, right up until it itself becomes as corrupted as the entities is prosecutes. The problem is that 'unconstitutional' is in the eye of the beholder. Take for example the classic "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Does this mean all gun control laws are unconstitutional or does it mean that gun control laws are implicit in what it means to be a 'A well regulated Militia'; the army for example has a ton of rules about guns. Good arguments can be made for either of these views (and others). Interpretation is everything.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >or does it mean that gun control laws are implicit in what it means to be a 'A well regulated Militia' People who use this argument are disingenuous because they wouldn't argue the same thing about press being limited to printing presses or speech being limited to the spoken word.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Perhaps because "the press" means journalism in general any way you cut it and you need to be very disingenuous to say otherwise as the spirit of the terms is obvious. Whereas "well regulated militia" absolutely doesn't mean "random redneck with a gun fetish" - the spirit is also obvious here.
      - pauldenton 3y ago
        People say the second amendment was made in the era of muskets so obviously an automatic rifle isn't what the founders were talking about While the first amendment was made in the era of newspapers, so obviously the right to speech doesn't extend to Telegrams, Radio, TV, or Digital communication
        coldtea 3y ago
        Not sure what the relevance of the above is. As I already said, people who say either of those are making a bad disingenuous argument. I'm not saying either of those though, and didn't in my comment you responded to. I said that people who say a "well regulated militia" is not the same as "random individual who likes guns" are making an argument exactly in the intended spirit of the constitution. Nothing to do with a disingenuous argument about "gun technology then vs now" or "press means just printing presses or newspapers". So, yeah, if those rednecks form a actual state-run or even citizen-run militia they could have their guns, nice modern guns, in the context of that militia and for the purposes of that militia (and with the proper precautions and rules like police or army has for its guns). I don't see where the constitutional's expression, as written, allows them to just have whetever guns they like as private individuals, even less so guns for fun and entertainment. I'd go one better: what some document from 4 centuries ago says, should have no absolute hold to what the law is in a country 4 centuries later. It was what they came up with at the time, to respond to the problems of the time, as they saw them in the viewpoints of the time. All of them are dead now, and the demographics and issues are absolutely not even close to being them same.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        The document from 4 centuries ago outlined a process for its continual refactoring, and the process has often been used since its passage. All we have to do is ammend the Constitution, and the entire 2A debate could easily be settled.
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    First off, you are too late for any comment about the text to hold any water. 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald settled that. It is an individuals right to keep and bear, not collective, never was. One term that came from Heller was “dangerous and unusual”, make note of the and. Next, well regulated never meant lots of regulations. It meant well trained and in good working order. 1800s Oxford dictionary.
    - comrh 3y ago
      The way the Court current works its just settled until the next turn over in court make up.
      - jfengel 3y ago
        The court make-up isn't expected to change for decades. The previous President appointed three young members who will be there for a very long time, adding to three existing members. It will be many, many years before the composition of the court is likely to shift significantly.
    - orwin 3y ago
      I'm pro-gun ownership but European. To me you're especially right about that part > It meant well trained and in good working order. In WV, I've seen people who barely knew how to handle hunting rifles, handle semi-automatique rifles. It's terrifying. Any hunter in my country seeing people handle firearms like those two would've reported them to have their license revoked and firearms locked until further training. (not that hunting permit/license are a big thing in the area btw, I think a lot are hunting kinda illegaly, but well, the woods are shared, and some really need basic training. ).
    - quesera 3y ago
      "Settled" does not mean what you think it means. There are good arguments that recent jurisprudence is not even justified from an Originalist perspective. This is neither the time nor place, but your confidence is unfounded.
      - 3y ago
  - underseacables 3y ago
    Interpretation is an issue, just look at the way President Biden, and President Trump are being treated with regards to retention of classified documents. One is being prosecuted, the other is not. That's a very broad and public example, but the party in power typically does not prosecute its own.
    - ikiris 3y ago
      Do you think this is a good faith argument? What might be differences in these situations that aren't based on simple "other party bad"?
    - bdzr 3y ago
      One turned over the classified documents.
    - bunabhucan 3y ago
      One is being charged with obstruction and retaining documents. There's no evidence of obstruction for Biden or Pence. If either of them told their attorney to "hide or destroy" documents then they would be receiving the same treatment.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        Yet Hillary did both as was not prosecuted.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      Well. One person retained said documents, bragged about having them, disclosed their contents to random, non-cleared people, lied about having declassified them, and then when the government asked them back, lied again and claimed he didn't have them, instructed his underlings to hide or destroy them, and obstructed the subsequent investigation. The other person didn't realize he had them, returned them promptly when they were found, and cooperated with the ensuing investigation. If you really think these two things are the same, I'm not sure you're going to have a productive conversation with anyone who wants to argue in good faith. Also note that it's not just Biden who fell into that second category; Pence did as well. Funny how you didn't see the need to mention Pence. And good on him for also cooperating and returning what he had.
- appleskeptic 3y ago
  This would be awful. Theft and bribery are already prosecuted aggressively. If anything, too much. It’s gotten to the point that high government officials can’t afford to be lobbied. Here they are, some of the most powerful people in the world, paid barely enough to live an hour drive away from DC, having to spend a fair bit of their personal income to go to lunch and dinner with leaders of private industry. As for criminalizing “waste”, you start to get dangerously close to criminalizing politics itself. Then it just becomes about controlling DOJ and using it to go after your enemies (this is already too true). The better thing to do would with regards to intelligence agency abuses would be to have more review of the decisions, mandatory discipline of rulebreakers, and prosecution of specific crimes committed for egregious cases. No need to generally criminalize every time a government official makes a bad judgment call.
  - superb_dev 3y ago
    > It’s gotten to the point that high government officials can’t afford to be lobbied. This is just nonsense, most members of congress take lobby money. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-recipients https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-recipients
    - jauer 3y ago
      Members of congress are a small subset of government officials. That they get away with corrupt behavior doesn't mean that people in the civil service should have to be anxious about trivial things. If a government employee can be influenced by something as minor as a pen or lunch, they are in the wrong line of work.
      - account42 3y ago
        Yes, and making even small bribes illegal and enforcing that is how you get people who are influenced by them out of that line of work.
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    > It’s gotten to the point that high government officials can’t afford to be lobbied. Of all the sad things I’ve read today, this one is surely the saddest. Good thing it isn’t based on a reality I have observed… where do you think those billions “to” Ukraine are really going?
yieldcrv 3y ago
Developed nations laugh at our checks and balances, because we believe in them bUt aT LeAst wE cAN tALK aBoUt It
- Throw10987 3y ago
  Believe me it is not laughing in a good way, it is more a nervous laughter with a permanent sinking feeling in the stomach kind of way. The collective 'we' developed nations have our own set of problems, but broadly speaking from time to time self correct away from polarisation to hopefully enough of a degree. A unique kind of leadership needs to be allowed to grow in America to stear a less polarised course.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    I know, theyre laughing at us because we think our compromisestitution is a feature
photochemsyn 3y ago
It's certainly possible, but the U.S. Supreme Court has been working against the exposure of such crimes by government officials: https://whyy.org/articles/temple-professor-suing-fbi-for-wrongful-prosecution-expected-in-court/ https://whyy.org/articles/temple-professor-suing-fbi-for-wro... > "Xi’s team has a very high legal hurdle to clear because recent Supreme Court decisions make it very difficult to sue federal officials for damages for violating constitutional rights."
advisedwang 3y ago
I'm not sure having police investigating our elected officials is such a good thing. If you look at corruption investigations of high level officials in history, they are very frequently partisan attacks. For example, the investigation into Lula da Silva turned out to have been driven by a group of right wing judges and prosecutors that had his ouster as a goal, not justice. It's not even a question of whether corruption happens! Of course it does. E.g. maybe Lula did some kind of wrongdoing. However frequent and highly publicized corruption investigations put the power in the hands of police, prosecutors and judges and takes it away from democratic means. Frankly, I'd rather have a little bit of corruption than allow police to say who is an acceptable leader. Part of the issue is that there is a lot of grey area in what even counts as corruption. What counts as "violating the constitution" is even greyer, especially in the US where the constitution itself is short, vague and poorly phrased leaving decisions on what is constitutional to be a political question in itself.
mchanson 3y ago
I would prefer a government that investigates all the bad acts of LEOs. I would prefer a government that investigates the rich. I would prefer a government that investigates wage theft.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  I would prefer a government that enforces the law blindly. Our legal system is fundamentally broken as long as we consider wealth, career, politics, personal connections, etc before filing charges and trying a case.
  - account42 3y ago
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread."
matheusmoreira 3y ago
It will be fine so long as there's no corruption. But if there's even a hint that one group is getting persecuted...
candiddevmike 3y ago
Wasn't that supposed to be the fourth estate?
ssalka 3y ago
What's hilarious is that in an ideal world, the FBI is exactly the organization that should be doing this. Two of the bureau's top priorities are 1) Combat public corruption at all levels, and 2) Protect civil rights
_heimdall 3y ago
We could get really far simply by changing the incentives of our legal system.
sneak 3y ago
Law enforcement in the US exists to enforce the existing social order (including that of class and race), not to pursue justice or universally/fairly enforce laws. This isn’t some conspiracy theory, but is well documented in the history of policing in the USA, both at the local and federal level. It is a tool used by the ownership class (via selective enforcement) to legally mitigate threats to their social, economic, and political dominance. This is why minorities are disproportionately represented in prison for disproportionately minor crimes, and why rich white people doing the same drugs don’t generally get in any trouble. This is also why police, the essential enforcers in the system, are generally permitted to commit as much minor crime (except against members of the ownership class) as they wish. The system falls down without their cooperation. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

I'm sure it would end badly, but sometimes I fantasize about the U.S. citizens having a LEO that actively investigates / prosecutes government officials who violate the constitution.

underseacables 3y ago

I could not think of something more that America needs. The government accountability office publishers reports all the time about government waste and malfeasance, but it is consistently, dare I say, pointedly, ignored. Having a separate independent agency, cast with investigating and prosecuting crime and criminals within the government itself would be amazing. Same with congress.

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
This would be good, right up until it itself becomes as corrupted as the entities is prosecutes. The problem is that 'unconstitutional' is in the eye of the beholder. Take for example the classic "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Does this mean all gun control laws are unconstitutional or does it mean that gun control laws are implicit in what it means to be a 'A well regulated Militia'; the army for example has a ton of rules about guns. Good arguments can be made for either of these views (and others). Interpretation is everything.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >or does it mean that gun control laws are implicit in what it means to be a 'A well regulated Militia' People who use this argument are disingenuous because they wouldn't argue the same thing about press being limited to printing presses or speech being limited to the spoken word.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Perhaps because "the press" means journalism in general any way you cut it and you need to be very disingenuous to say otherwise as the spirit of the terms is obvious. Whereas "well regulated militia" absolutely doesn't mean "random redneck with a gun fetish" - the spirit is also obvious here.
    - pauldenton 3y ago
      People say the second amendment was made in the era of muskets so obviously an automatic rifle isn't what the founders were talking about While the first amendment was made in the era of newspapers, so obviously the right to speech doesn't extend to Telegrams, Radio, TV, or Digital communication
      - coldtea 3y ago
        Not sure what the relevance of the above is. As I already said, people who say either of those are making a bad disingenuous argument. I'm not saying either of those though, and didn't in my comment you responded to. I said that people who say a "well regulated militia" is not the same as "random individual who likes guns" are making an argument exactly in the intended spirit of the constitution. Nothing to do with a disingenuous argument about "gun technology then vs now" or "press means just printing presses or newspapers". So, yeah, if those rednecks form a actual state-run or even citizen-run militia they could have their guns, nice modern guns, in the context of that militia and for the purposes of that militia (and with the proper precautions and rules like police or army has for its guns). I don't see where the constitutional's expression, as written, allows them to just have whetever guns they like as private individuals, even less so guns for fun and entertainment. I'd go one better: what some document from 4 centuries ago says, should have no absolute hold to what the law is in a country 4 centuries later. It was what they came up with at the time, to respond to the problems of the time, as they saw them in the viewpoints of the time. All of them are dead now, and the demographics and issues are absolutely not even close to being them same.
        hellojesus 3y ago
        The document from 4 centuries ago outlined a process for its continual refactoring, and the process has often been used since its passage. All we have to do is ammend the Constitution, and the entire 2A debate could easily be settled.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  First off, you are too late for any comment about the text to hold any water. 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald settled that. It is an individuals right to keep and bear, not collective, never was. One term that came from Heller was “dangerous and unusual”, make note of the and. Next, well regulated never meant lots of regulations. It meant well trained and in good working order. 1800s Oxford dictionary.
  - comrh 3y ago
    The way the Court current works its just settled until the next turn over in court make up.
    - jfengel 3y ago
      The court make-up isn't expected to change for decades. The previous President appointed three young members who will be there for a very long time, adding to three existing members. It will be many, many years before the composition of the court is likely to shift significantly.
  - orwin 3y ago
    I'm pro-gun ownership but European. To me you're especially right about that part > It meant well trained and in good working order. In WV, I've seen people who barely knew how to handle hunting rifles, handle semi-automatique rifles. It's terrifying. Any hunter in my country seeing people handle firearms like those two would've reported them to have their license revoked and firearms locked until further training. (not that hunting permit/license are a big thing in the area btw, I think a lot are hunting kinda illegaly, but well, the woods are shared, and some really need basic training. ).
  - quesera 3y ago
    "Settled" does not mean what you think it means. There are good arguments that recent jurisprudence is not even justified from an Originalist perspective. This is neither the time nor place, but your confidence is unfounded.
    - 3y ago
- underseacables 3y ago
  Interpretation is an issue, just look at the way President Biden, and President Trump are being treated with regards to retention of classified documents. One is being prosecuted, the other is not. That's a very broad and public example, but the party in power typically does not prosecute its own.
  - ikiris 3y ago
    Do you think this is a good faith argument? What might be differences in these situations that aren't based on simple "other party bad"?
  - bdzr 3y ago
    One turned over the classified documents.
  - bunabhucan 3y ago
    One is being charged with obstruction and retaining documents. There's no evidence of obstruction for Biden or Pence. If either of them told their attorney to "hide or destroy" documents then they would be receiving the same treatment.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      Yet Hillary did both as was not prosecuted.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Well. One person retained said documents, bragged about having them, disclosed their contents to random, non-cleared people, lied about having declassified them, and then when the government asked them back, lied again and claimed he didn't have them, instructed his underlings to hide or destroy them, and obstructed the subsequent investigation. The other person didn't realize he had them, returned them promptly when they were found, and cooperated with the ensuing investigation. If you really think these two things are the same, I'm not sure you're going to have a productive conversation with anyone who wants to argue in good faith. Also note that it's not just Biden who fell into that second category; Pence did as well. Funny how you didn't see the need to mention Pence. And good on him for also cooperating and returning what he had.
appleskeptic 3y ago
This would be awful. Theft and bribery are already prosecuted aggressively. If anything, too much. It’s gotten to the point that high government officials can’t afford to be lobbied. Here they are, some of the most powerful people in the world, paid barely enough to live an hour drive away from DC, having to spend a fair bit of their personal income to go to lunch and dinner with leaders of private industry. As for criminalizing “waste”, you start to get dangerously close to criminalizing politics itself. Then it just becomes about controlling DOJ and using it to go after your enemies (this is already too true). The better thing to do would with regards to intelligence agency abuses would be to have more review of the decisions, mandatory discipline of rulebreakers, and prosecution of specific crimes committed for egregious cases. No need to generally criminalize every time a government official makes a bad judgment call.
- superb_dev 3y ago
  > It’s gotten to the point that high government officials can’t afford to be lobbied. This is just nonsense, most members of congress take lobby money. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-recipients https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-recipients
  - jauer 3y ago
    Members of congress are a small subset of government officials. That they get away with corrupt behavior doesn't mean that people in the civil service should have to be anxious about trivial things. If a government employee can be influenced by something as minor as a pen or lunch, they are in the wrong line of work.
    - account42 3y ago
      Yes, and making even small bribes illegal and enforcing that is how you get people who are influenced by them out of that line of work.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  > It’s gotten to the point that high government officials can’t afford to be lobbied. Of all the sad things I’ve read today, this one is surely the saddest. Good thing it isn’t based on a reality I have observed… where do you think those billions “to” Ukraine are really going?

yieldcrv 3y ago

Developed nations laugh at our checks and balances, because we believe in them bUt aT LeAst wE cAN tALK aBoUt It

Throw10987 3y ago
Believe me it is not laughing in a good way, it is more a nervous laughter with a permanent sinking feeling in the stomach kind of way. The collective 'we' developed nations have our own set of problems, but broadly speaking from time to time self correct away from polarisation to hopefully enough of a degree. A unique kind of leadership needs to be allowed to grow in America to stear a less polarised course.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  I know, theyre laughing at us because we think our compromisestitution is a feature

photochemsyn 3y ago

It's certainly possible, but the U.S. Supreme Court has been working against the exposure of such crimes by government officials: https://whyy.org/articles/temple-professor-suing-fbi-for-wrongful-prosecution-expected-in-court/ https://whyy.org/articles/temple-professor-suing-fbi-for-wro... > "Xi’s team has a very high legal hurdle to clear because recent Supreme Court decisions make it very difficult to sue federal officials for damages for violating constitutional rights."

advisedwang 3y ago

I'm not sure having police investigating our elected officials is such a good thing. If you look at corruption investigations of high level officials in history, they are very frequently partisan attacks. For example, the investigation into Lula da Silva turned out to have been driven by a group of right wing judges and prosecutors that had his ouster as a goal, not justice. It's not even a question of whether corruption happens! Of course it does. E.g. maybe Lula did some kind of wrongdoing. However frequent and highly publicized corruption investigations put the power in the hands of police, prosecutors and judges and takes it away from democratic means. Frankly, I'd rather have a little bit of corruption than allow police to say who is an acceptable leader. Part of the issue is that there is a lot of grey area in what even counts as corruption. What counts as "violating the constitution" is even greyer, especially in the US where the constitution itself is short, vague and poorly phrased leaving decisions on what is constitutional to be a political question in itself.

mchanson 3y ago

I would prefer a government that investigates all the bad acts of LEOs. I would prefer a government that investigates the rich. I would prefer a government that investigates wage theft.

_heimdall 3y ago
I would prefer a government that enforces the law blindly. Our legal system is fundamentally broken as long as we consider wealth, career, politics, personal connections, etc before filing charges and trying a case.
- account42 3y ago
  "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread."

matheusmoreira 3y ago

It will be fine so long as there's no corruption. But if there's even a hint that one group is getting persecuted...

candiddevmike 3y ago

Wasn't that supposed to be the fourth estate?

ssalka 3y ago

What's hilarious is that in an ideal world, the FBI is exactly the organization that should be doing this. Two of the bureau's top priorities are 1) Combat public corruption at all levels, and 2) Protect civil rights

_heimdall 3y ago

We could get really far simply by changing the incentives of our legal system.

sneak 3y ago

Law enforcement in the US exists to enforce the existing social order (including that of class and race), not to pursue justice or universally/fairly enforce laws. This isn’t some conspiracy theory, but is well documented in the history of policing in the USA, both at the local and federal level. It is a tool used by the ownership class (via selective enforcement) to legally mitigate threats to their social, economic, and political dominance. This is why minorities are disproportionately represented in prison for disproportionately minor crimes, and why rich white people doing the same drugs don’t generally get in any trouble. This is also why police, the essential enforcers in the system, are generally permitted to commit as much minor crime (except against members of the ownership class) as they wish. The system falls down without their cooperation. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.