Strong and ethical leaders with wide administrative powers (="good dictators") make nations very strong, effective and capable of adapting to anything. But this is such a two edged sword, that most countries have removed most of presidents (or monarchs) administrative powers, even at the cost of weakening themselves. Mostly due to having a "bad experience" in their histories.
Well, they’d be wrong. Your coy whataboutism is only going to look more ridiculous as time goes on.
https://np.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qlvpgy/better_...
We got a whole government lying about what happened there, memos about ICE being and to enter homes without a warrant, them actually doing it… it’s not a mystery.
Only later did it dawn on me how messed up his speech was - we do not have any rights except those which law enforcement allow us to have.
I absolutely believe in the necessity of police and respect officers who do the job. But there's a reason they must always be bound and subservient to civilian oversight and the court system.
These are positions of power. They are inherently going to attract the worst kinds of people and carve out special privileges for themselves. People who think order and authority and respect are more important than nerdy, pedantic laws.
driving is a regulated activity, and you are licensed to "drive" after being trained, qualified, and certified by an examiner.
this is state legislation, and not in the frame of constitutional law.
what is true, is that individual states, may "decorate" or amend [the interpretation of] constitutional legislation, and at times may enact what amounts to a defacto revocation of constitutional law.
here is where you will loose it if you dont use it and speak up about a state overreaching "states rights".
one example being 2nd amendment, vs concealed carry laws.
//The Second Amendment arose from English rights, colonial experiences with oppressive British rule, and fears of a powerful federal government, codifying the right to bear arms for a "well regulated Militia" to ensure self-defense and resistance against tyranny, balancing state militias with potential federal power. It drew from the English Bill of Rights (1689) and was championed by Anti-Federalists concerned about disarming citizens, leading to its inclusion in the Bill of Rights to reassure states and individuals.//
Is there any constitutional principle more fiercely supported by U.S. Republicans than the 2nd ammendment?
The U.S. was founded on opportunistic immigration. Was there ever a question about the legitimacy of immigration to the founding of the U.S.? No. Only battles over who gets to police it.
So it is merely a narrow, self-serving concern of consolidated authority of this Republican administration that is on display with ICE. Racism.
the non-infringement of the right to bear arms includes common citizens, and not just militia.
a well regulated militia, is one that may be subjugated by the people in the case of tyrannical deployment.
Absurd. None of those things happened. Not to mention the accusation of a thought crime. (Once again, without evidence. Bovino just claims he "meant to do that beforehand".)
They just make up shit now, without even the pretense of evidence.
But should someone bring a gun to a protest ? I think not.
I believe the gun was not the issue when multiple agents took him to the ground and shot him. I believe the gun was found later, after the fact, heck, it could even have been a "throw down" gun. I personally knew a fellow who used to be a police officer in Texas who told me point blank that every officer he knew in the department carried a "throw down" weapon of some sort, presumably so they could justify a deadly action.
How many of you would see a group of masked ICE/Federal enforcement bearing down on a single individual on the ground and believe that there was an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent?
That is the standard for justifiable homicide.
I think if somone had have killed those ICE/Feds at that moment, the law as it is written would be on their side.
The reality is, of course, that the law as it is written is nothing if it is not upheld. It is not currently being upheld, the law in practice is what people have the power to do. That law is rudderless and flows as power shifts.
In lieu of any other anchor, people will inevitably seek the power to enforce their laws. That is a civil war,
They are creating this thin but clear line between where illegal use of violence is upheld and inviting legal use of violence to stop it from happening. That is perilously close to instigating such a civil war.
And I am not certain that it is unintentional.