Proof Positive, New Jersey is run by idiots

[LIIRISHMAN]

So Irish tell me where do we as a society draw the line on laws that help us as a people. When ASA comes down with a Rule that's comparable to a Law ,isn't it? We as umpires enforce safety issues every game we do. When indivuals can't or won't protect themselves then it's up to Government to step in. Otherwise wejust as well should be in IRAQ!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by LIIRISHMAN

So Irish tell me where do we as a society draw the line on laws that help us as a people. When ASA comes down with a Rule that's comparable to a Law ,isn't it? We as umpires enforce safety issues every game we do. When indivuals can't or won't protect themselves then it's up to Government to step in. Otherwise wejust as well should be in IRAQ!

What utter BS. Read my previous answer to WMB.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by LIIRISHMAN

When indivuals can't or won't protect themselves then it's up to Government to step in.

Please support this by quoting any relevant portions of the US or any state's constitution.

[FUBLUE]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Please support this by quoting any relevant portions of the US or any state's constitution.

I had my government class read this thread and comment on it...while they mostly think it is stupid to even consider this type of legislation, they were able to find parts of the Constitution of the United States that would argue that creating this legislation would be acceptable.

The Preamble mentions "general welfare." Safety may fall under general welfare clause.

Article I, Section 8 mentions "...all laws necessary and proper..." This may well be used to argue for allowing this type of legislation.

Not bad for a bunch of emotionally disturbed, learning disabled children!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

The Preamble mentions "general welfare." Article I, Section 8 mentions "...all laws necessary and proper..."

True enough, but the Bible also gives us this command, "Thou shalt ... kill". You just have to ignore the context.

[FUBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dakota

True enough, but the Bible also gives us this command, "Thou shalt ... kill". You just have to ignore the context.

I shared your comment with them just now...and they took rather heated offense, as if you were insulting them. I informed them that you were NOT trying to insult them; rather, it is just in your nature to be rude . They are currently preparing a rebuttal on why it is WOULD be in context of the constitution (and as an extension, case law decisions) for this type of law to be made.

The "average" kid (if you can call a triple-homicide committing, drug-dealer average) even said, "man, they're getting what they THINK the government can and can't do mixed up with what the government LEGALLY can do." Then again, this guy has more experience with the legal system than many practicing lawyers!

Of course, you would probably just blow them off because their opinion disagrees with yours.

It's sad that kids with an IQ of 60 can get the connection, and adults can't (or refuse to)!

HAVE A GREAT DAY!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

I shared your comment with them just now...and they took rather heated offense, as if you were insulting them. I informed them that you were NOT trying to insult them; rather, it is just in your nature to be rude .

The "average" kid (if you can call a triple-homicide committing, drug-dealer average) even said, "man, they're getting what they THINK the government can and can't do mixed up with what the government LEGALLY can do."

You are completely misunderstanding my position here, so with you as the conduit, it is no doubt so are your little darlings.

I have no doubt that case law and court precedence would uphold such a law. But that is because courts in the 20th century have done great violence to the constitution with the reading of the commerce clause to mean, basically, "any darn thing that congress wants to regulate." We are at a position in this country where there are no surviving limits on federal power left in the constitution because neither the congress nor the executive nor the people have the guts to stand up for THEIR rights under the constitution and instead allow the courts to be the final arbitor of all things. Hell, we even have recent Supreme Court rulings based on European law, fer cryin' out loud!

If you want to have a meaningful debate, make it about the constitutional concept of limited federal powers. Start with what the founders actually wrote, and debate how much of that is left intact at the beginning of the 21st century.

Besides, this OP is about New Jersey, not the federal government. The constitution grants far more powers to the states than it does to the feds (as if that even matters anymore).

Of course, you would probably just blow them off because their opinion disagrees with yours.

No, but I will blow your opinion off, since, ...

It's sad that kids with an IQ of 60 can get the connection, and adults can't (or refuse to)!

...it is even sadder when an instructor in government does not even recognize (or worse, refuses to recognize; or pretends to not recognize) when a debate is about strict constructionism vs. living document schools of constitutional rulings.

HAVE A GREAT DAY!

You, too.

[FUBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You are completely misunderstanding my position here, so with you as the conduit, it is no doubt so are your little darlings.

I have no doubt that case law and court precedence would uphold such a law. But that is because courts in the 20th century have done great violence to the constitution with the reading of the commerce clause to mean, basically, "any darn thing that congress wants to regulate." We are at a position in this country where there are no surviving limits on federal power left in the constitution because neither the congress nor the executive nor the people have the guts to stand up for THEIR rights under the constitution and instead allow the courts to be the final arbitor of all things. Hell, we even have recent Supreme Court rulings based on European law, fer cryin' out loud!

If you want to have a meaningful debate, make it about the constitutional concept of limited federal powers. Start with what the founders actually wrote, and debate how much of that is left intact at the beginning of the 21st century.

Besides, this OP is about New Jersey, not the federal government. The constitution grants far more powers to the states than it does to the feds (as if that even matters anymore).

No, but I will blow your opinion off, since, ...
...it is even sadder when an instructor in government does not even recognize (or worse, refuses to recognize; or pretends to not recognize) when a debate is about strict constructionism vs. living document schools of constitutional rulings.

You, too.

I cannot respond for my class, although I know how they're going to respond.

I can reply for me: I've been one of the best government teachers in the state for years...teachers ask ME how to debate items...I know pretty much every side of every issue...for you to judge me based on what you read here is, well, ignorant. Are you sure you're not from New Jersey? (please understand this is a little humor...very little) Like many people, you fail to the reality of the situation, and you (at least via your posts) apply only what you want to apply to the situation. But what else can I expect? Like every American who ever attended school, you know better than any teacher, right? (Lots of sarcasm here)

I'm having a great day, how about you?

[Dakota]

You believe wrong, but, hey, I'm just a poor slob who has the temerity to challenge a school teacher. (OK, increase your insult count by one. I thought I should tell you that since you seem incapable of recognizing the real insults. Now increase it by another one.)

Let's see, in my first reply to you, all I said was your recounting of what your darlings said was out of context. It was. Just because they are of the mentality that they took this "as if" I was insulting them does not mean I was. But, street thugs probably have a different definition of being insulted. Then, you then said, among other things,

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

...it is just in your nature to be rude . ... Of course, you would probably just blow them off because their opinion disagrees with yours. ... It's sad that kids with an IQ of 60 can get the connection, and adults can't (or refuse to)!

I generally (but not completely) ignored these digs, and instead focused on this comment...

The "average" kid (if you can call a triple-homicide committing, drug-dealer average) even said, "man, they're getting what they THINK the government can and can't do mixed up with what the government LEGALLY can do."

Which told me you (and therefore, they) did not understand my point. I was expressing a political opinion on the proper interpretation of the consitution, not stating what I think our current legislatures can do or what the courts would find legal.

I did, indeed, respond in kind to your IQ of 60 dig. But, you started it.

You still have not addressed the issue of enumerated powers. Do you not understand the issue, or do you just not wish to address it?

[Skahtboi]

I have oft read, and marvelled at the wisdom of Mr. Jefferson. Here is a quote that really seems to fit this original post:

"Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

I had my government class read this thread and comment on it...while they mostly think it is stupid to even consider this type of legislation, they were able to find parts of the Constitution of the United States that would argue that creating this legislation would be acceptable.

The Preamble mentions "general welfare." Safety may fall under general welfare clause.

Article I, Section 8 mentions "...all laws necessary and proper..." This may well be used to argue for allowing this type of legislation.

Not bad for a bunch of emotionally disturbed, learning disabled children!

Now define "general welfare" and "necessary and proper".

There is a reason that only titanium bats have been banned based on the alloy used. It is the only alloy that could be proven to increase the speed of the ball. No other alloy or composite carries that distinction in the world of softball. IOW, there is absolutely no proof that the bat itself causes a dangerous environment. IOW, this law cannot be proven as a remedy, so how would this law be to the benefit of the general welfare, or necessary or proper to enact?

In my mind, it would be "necessary and proper" to return to the whipping post as a means of punishment for convicted criminals because it benefits the "general welfare" of the community. And I have an argument to accompany this. Would a criminal (dealer, user, thief, etc.) knowingly commit a crime in your community where the punishment would be 30 lashes and 5 years or go down down the road where the punishment would be 5-7 years? Granted, many criminals are not that smart and think doing the time is easy, but they know pain.

I'm sure some in your class would be repulsed by the idea of a whipping post. Then ask them, if they had to commit a crime to survive, and had an option of a jurisdiction with flogging as opposed to one without, where would they commit the crime

[FUBLUE]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Now define "general welfare" and "necessary and proper".

There is a reason that only titanium bats have been banned based on the alloy used. It is the only alloy that could be proven to increase the speed of the ball. No other alloy or composite carries that distinction in the world of softball. IOW, there is absolutely no proof that the bat itself causes a dangerous environment. IOW, this law cannot be proven as a remedy, so how would this law be to the benefit of the general welfare, or necessary or proper to enact?

In my mind, it would be "necessary and proper" to return to the whipping post as a means of punishment for convicted criminals because it benefits the "general welfare" of the community. And I have an argument to accompany this. Would a criminal (dealer, user, thief, etc.) knowingly commit a crime in your community where the punishment would be 30 lashes and 5 years or go down down the road where the punishment would be 5-7 years? Granted, many criminals are not that smart and think doing the time is easy, but they know pain.

I'm sure some in your class would be repulsed by the idea of a whipping post. Then ask them, if they had to commit a crime to survive, and had an option of a jurisdiction with flogging as opposed to one without, where would they commit the crime

I think this is a great response, Mike. You bring up points already debated in class. Can you give supporting documentation (and, further, enough public support) to return the whipping post? Can you document that it would actually deter crime? Or, would it cause criminals to, as you put it, go to one without it? This is the MEANINGFUL conversation that happens in a good debate!

I do not have the document in front of me, but I will look for it, so you know I'm not making this up. A study done several years ago showed that punishments do not deter most crimes. The study was about the death penalty (the ultimate punishment in the minds of some). It showed that most murders will openly admit that they did not care what the penalty was; they were going to commit the murder. Having talked to several muderers (as their teacher) they honestly did not care what the penalty was...they were going to do it.

Crimes of necessity? A great topic for debate! Having already debated this, my class decided that there should still be a penalty, but (again, from their experiences) it was still worth it to commit the crime (i.e. stealing money for food or rent or whatever they deemed necessary).

They only way to truly and accurately define necessary and proper is to ask the person who wrote it...and they've been gone for 200 years, so it's up to our ELECTED officials to determine the meaning of necessary and proper.

Then again, with enough public support, any rule can be changed (see ASA men's FP pitching rule over the last 10 years)!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Actually, being from the last state to give up the whipping post, I have been involved in the discussion of the deterent, but that was 35+ years ago. I don't have the time for research, at least not at this time, but if memory serves me correctly, the statistics showed a substantial increase in crime in the state once the judiciary stopped sentencing people to a public flogging/whipping.

As far as people commiting the crime regardless of the sentence, I would question the results of your research unless additional parameters were posed to those interviewed. For example, how many thought they were going to be caught? How many believed if caught, they would actually be convicted and, if so, receive the maximum sentence permitted. How many began their day knowing they would be commiting a crime? How many got up in the morning knowing they were going out and killing someone that day? Would the answer be the same if there was no question that, if caught, they would die? No other options, no 20 years on death row while an indefinite number of appeals are filed. In and out of court and directly to the chair/stretcher/rope/wall?

(Please note, late at night and using "they" simply in a generic form, grammar be damned!)

[wadeintothem]

The main problem is there is very little "punishment".

For nearly all misdemeanors, you will be cited out. Even if arrested on a No Bail warrant for FTA Jail or something like that, you will be cited out.

The county jails are full and the criminals know it.

If you are remanded from the court room to serve say 20-30 days, its very common for the you be out on the streets before the Judge has left for the evening.

You already receive time and 1/2 for "good behavior" - compounded by the fact the jails will release you = you will likely do little time at the county level.

So this means, if you are sentenced to 8 months and you do 2 days and they let you go because they are full, that will be considered as serving your entire sentence.

Then there are work release, probation, behavioral, and diversion programs.

Most probation is court monitored, known as conditional sentence -very few are actual on formal probation where they must report to a probation officer or are subject to the serious threat of a search waiver.

The criminals know the game and they work the system well.. for instance, the real smart criminals will refuse probation and just insist on serving their entire sentence in jail, knowing that they will be released early and not have to deal with the hassle of Violation of Probation issues.

The Justice system is essentially a contract betwen criminals and most are more than willing to not comply with its terms, and as such become the winners.

There are the good people who dont get in trouble with the law.. to those types, the justice system holds a great deterrent effect.

For the criminal element, it is a side line hassle, especially at the county level. Those that mess up and find themselves in prison arent doing so well. but the main criminal element.. the minor level slime balls - they ride free.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by LIIRISHMAN

So Irish tell me where do we as a society draw the line on laws that help us as a people. When ASA comes down with a Rule that's comparable to a Law ,isn't it? We as umpires enforce safety issues every game we do. When indivuals can't or won't protect themselves then it's up to Government to step in. Otherwise wejust as well should be in IRAQ!

Define "society". There is no such animal. Most people use the term in a fashion that a "society" determine the set of rules by which a person wants to live with no regard to what another may wish. What one believes to be society here may be a cult elsewhere.

Under what authority does anyone have to determine what is better for the next guy? Guess what? People in this country are the same as those in Iraq. They will do almost anything to insure their next door neighbor live in the same manner as they do.

If you truly believe in freedom as most people in this country think they enjoy, you must be willing to accept another's way of life as you wish them to endure yours.

There is a huge difference in accepting rules from an organization and enduring and intrusive government. You can choose to not participate in a non-governmental organization. Unless you have unlimited resources, getting up and moving away from a government is a bit more difficult.