Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-09-2015, 09:40 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,734 posts, read 16,341,054 times
Reputation: 19829

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
The third branch of government doesn't pass laws

And which of the almost 1000 new state laws a year accomplishes those goals? Everyman would not know .1% of the laws they are relegated to follow. Here are a few examples

18 U.S.C. §1793 makes it a federal crime to go to a federal prison without permission.
18 U.S.C. §879(a)(3) & (b)(1)(B)(i) makes it a federal crime to threaten to harm a presidential candidate's mother in law.
18 U.S.C. §484 makes it a federal crime to connect part of one dollar bill to part of another dollar bill and pass it off as a single bill.
18 U.S.C. §1728 makes it a federal crime to intentionally send heavy things in the mail so that the mail carrier gets paid more.
18 U.S.C. §2278 makes it a federal crime to have a dangerous amount of dynamite on a steamship carrying passengers.
7 U.S.C. §282 & 7 C.F.R. §322.8 make it a crime to import a package of honeybees if the package contains honey (but it may contain candy).

And this one is for you
18 U.S.C. §2274 makes it a federal crime to let someone stay on your boat if he's preparing to commit a federal crime himself.
One of those laws IS well known, and sensible, and important: connecting separate pieces of money.
Several others make good sense, even if obscure. Like dynamite on a passenger ship. And staying on my boat - for any reason

But none of that changes the point I made anyway: humans in large complex societies can't handle the kind of freedom you're talking about. Regrettably.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-09-2015, 09:46 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,734 posts, read 16,341,054 times
Reputation: 19829
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Technically, it is which laws are constitutional.
Yeah, "technically". Like "technically" awarding the Presidency to the loser of an election.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Woah, woah, what? The 3rd branch of gov't doesn't pass laws? The branch of gov't that doesn't consist of elected officials, that branch of gov't? It doesn't pass laws?? It exists to make laws! It's' all about laws.

WTF??
No, the Judicial doesn't pass legislation into laws. It rules on the constitutionality of laws. Which obviously has the power to grant power to laws - or strike them down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2015, 10:01 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,819,598 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
One of those laws IS well known, and sensible, and important: connecting separate pieces of money.
Several others make good sense, even if obscure. Like dynamite on a passenger ship. And staying on my boat - for any reason

But none of that changes the point I made anyway: humans in large complex societies can't handle the kind of freedom you're talking about. Regrettably.
Humans can handle more freedome than they have now. We are over regulated and over burdened. Even worse than the laws is the regulations passed by the unchecked "4th" branch of government like the epa which can destroy people's lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2015, 10:08 PM
 
3,216 posts, read 2,230,637 times
Reputation: 1224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
Please do write us all wherever you find this political nirvana. Send pictures if possible. My bet is ...........
Your bet would be ....Montana? Where they don't tolerate the crap that passes for political correctness in the great, cough, cough, state of California?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 12:35 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,202 posts, read 107,859,557 times
Reputation: 116113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
Yeah, "technically". Like "technically" awarding the Presidency to the loser of an election.

No, the Judicial doesn't pass legislation into laws. It rules on the constitutionality of laws. Which obviously has the power to grant power to laws - or strike them down.
The judicial has made some hairy laws in the past. Some very contentious laws. They don't legislate, they rule by fiat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 12:39 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,819,598 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
The judicial has made some hairy laws in the past. Some very contentious laws. They don't legislate, they rule by fiat.
I think you need to read article III of the constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 12:50 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,202 posts, read 107,859,557 times
Reputation: 116113
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
I think you need to read article III of the constitution.
Really? What about the 1830's law that said Indian tribes are sovereign nations? Where's that in the Constitution? What's the Constitutional basis for that? Prez Andrew Jackson wasn't too happy about that one. He defied it, and ran the southeastern tribes off to Oklahoma, after famously saying, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his law. Now let him enforce it!". What about the one that said Indian preference hiring is the law under certain circumstances, ruled in the mid 1960's? What about the one that said "separate but equal" education is ok, later reversed in Brown vs. Board of Education? How could 2 completely opposing decisions both be Constitutional?

They don't just rule by fiat, they flip-flop all over the place. What about the one that said tribal courts aren't allowed to prosecute non-members of the tribe living in their community? What happened to the "sovereign nations" deal? Since when doesn't a local court have jurisdiction over local residents? What's the Constitutional precedent for that? What's any precedent for that? There isn't one. What about the law the Supremes made that said the US Constitution doesn't apply on Indian reservations? Did you know that? You have no Constitutional rights on rez. That has no basis in the Constitution.

They don't make laws? Really?

Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 01-10-2015 at 01:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 01:53 AM
 
5,151 posts, read 4,526,492 times
Reputation: 8347
Barbara Boxer is pro-choice, something that, frighteningly, is disappearing from the state and the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 09:04 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,262 posts, read 47,023,439 times
Reputation: 34060
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45 View Post
BTW, this is what gun "enthusiasts" are calling a "carbine" these days (you know, like for 'hunting' purposes…)?!
And YouTube even offers tips on how to easily convert it into fully automatic "assault" mode!
Your point? Making something illegal doesn't make it impossible to have. Conn banned them altogether and only a % of people turned them in. Same with NY.

As Many As One Million Armed New Yorkers Are About To Break The Law - Forbes

Evolution, we weren't going to hunt with a smoothbore musket forever.

So, the ? is, what do you do with your neighbor when they don't turn in or register their ar colt?

Last edited by 1AngryTaxPayer; 01-10-2015 at 09:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 09:24 AM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,588 posts, read 27,384,877 times
Reputation: 9059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Well, the gun-control topic was already covered. That's the only reason that's been given for viewing her as "too far left". I'm waiting for other reasons. I'm getting the impression there are no other reasons. So she must have been a pretty good senator.

Why would anyone need to own an assault weapon, anyway? Never mind....
Ruth, you're asking rational and logical questions to a bunch of......you're right...nevermind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:27 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top