5 ms·
I would suggest that if the White House was really concerned that these police officers had violated the Constitution, that the President should order the Natio
by chris_mahan 14y ago
I would suggest that if the White House was really concerned that these police officers had violated the Constitution, that the President should order the National Guards to arrest the officers involved (including their supervisors all the way to the chief of police for failure to properly supervise) and deliver them to a Federal Grand Jury and charge them with sedition against the United States. Then other police officers around the country would think twice before violating the law.
Right now they're just washing their hands of their responsibility and essentially saying that the US constitution is not law.
- tptacek 14y agoProblem: Civil liberties concerns. Solution: Re-introduce enforcement of seditious conspiracy statutes. This is creative legal problem solving a caliber only found on HN political threads.
- mpyne 14y ago> I would suggest that if the White House was really concerned that these police officers had violated the Constitution, that the President should order the National Guards to arrest the officers involved (including their supervisors all the way to the chief of police for failure to properly supervise) and deliver them to a Federal Grand Jury and charge them with sedition against the United States. You cannot possibly be serious. The President is supposed to mobilize military assets and compel a grand jury to issue his chosen indictment? You're completely missing the forest for the trees here, not to mention knowledge of the Posse Comitatus Act.
- chris_mahan 14y agoSo then who is supposed to enforce violations of the constitution?
- mpyne 14y agoThe courts. Failing that, the people. How lame would it be to attempt to uphold the Constitution by blatantly breaching it?
- chris_mahan 14y agoIf the courts fail to uphold the constitution, how exactly are the people supposed to? By armed rebellion? By voting different people in office? I see a problem with that line of reasoning, when candidates and parties cater to the needs of monied corporations rather than the demands of the people... Rather, the President, elected by the People, has a solemn duty to the Constitution, as evidenced by the oath of office they must take upon taking office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (from wikipedia) Well, if a police officer in a small town violates the Constitutional right of a United States Citizen, does not the President of the Unites States have the right, even the obligation, to come to the aid of such citizen, and counter the actions of the police officer? Yikes, you guys read your history?
- mpyne 14y agoAmerican history says that we are not very fond of Kings.
- chris_mahan 14y agoOh, but there are plenty of Royalists in America. Lots of them want the Jewish carpenter to Rule All.
- chris_mahan 14y agoI see this as no different than President Johnson using the Alabama National Guards to protect the marchers in 1963, to protect their constitutional rights.
- mpyne 14y agoWell that's part of your problem right there, is that you see no difference at all between protecting citizens from the oppression of a racist state, and using the Department of Defense to usurp the powers of the DoJ and the judiciary. These would hardly be the first cops to have done something wrong in the U.S., and we've not needed to use military before. Let the system work as it was intended to work.