6 ms·

I could not think of something more that America needs. The government accountability office publishers reports all the time about government waste and malfeasa

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.
      - kelnos 3y ago
        It seems perfectly reasonable for someone from the 1700s to think "hmm, muskets, yeah, that's something everyone should have on hand", but then get sent forward to the 2000s, have modern firearms shown to them, and say "oh whoa, yeah, no way, that seems like a terrible idea". It also seems perfectly reasonable for someone from the 1700s to think that freedom of speech and the press is a good idea, and then get sent forward to the 2000s, see all of our modern forms of communication and speech, and say, "yeah, that's just a reasonable evolution of things, and should be covered". Obviously we'll never know; so far we can't do time travel, so we don't know what they'd think today. This is why I think this sort of reasoning about the constitution is kinda dumb. Even if we could divine what the Founders thought, frankly I don't think it's all that relevant. They are not exactly experts on how government should work. Yes, they did the best they could at the time, but with all the biases and issues of the time. As an example, they also thought that only white landowners should vote, but advocating for that today would get you smacked down pretty quickly. And regarding 2A, it'd also be reasonable to expect that same person from the 1700s didn't actually think every random person should have a musket, but that only people who are a part of a "well-regulated militia" should have access to one.
- 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?

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.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      It seems perfectly reasonable for someone from the 1700s to think "hmm, muskets, yeah, that's something everyone should have on hand", but then get sent forward to the 2000s, have modern firearms shown to them, and say "oh whoa, yeah, no way, that seems like a terrible idea". It also seems perfectly reasonable for someone from the 1700s to think that freedom of speech and the press is a good idea, and then get sent forward to the 2000s, see all of our modern forms of communication and speech, and say, "yeah, that's just a reasonable evolution of things, and should be covered". Obviously we'll never know; so far we can't do time travel, so we don't know what they'd think today. This is why I think this sort of reasoning about the constitution is kinda dumb. Even if we could divine what the Founders thought, frankly I don't think it's all that relevant. They are not exactly experts on how government should work. Yes, they did the best they could at the time, but with all the biases and issues of the time. As an example, they also thought that only white landowners should vote, but advocating for that today would get you smacked down pretty quickly. And regarding 2A, it'd also be reasonable to expect that same person from the 1700s didn't actually think every random person should have a musket, but that only people who are a part of a "well-regulated militia" should have access to one.
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?