Legalized Pickpocketing

In article <S_idnaVYdesihevanZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d.TakeThisOut@speakeasy.net>,
Erik Max Francis <max.TakeThisOut@alcyone.com> said:

> That's the point. The fact that something is common, or popular,
> doesn't mean it's constitutional. We of course have no idea what
> the UN's constitution (or equivalent) says, or how the chief
> judicial court operates, but it's obviously not working very well
> if something so blatant as being executed for trivial offenses is
> allowed to pass unchecked.
>
> Which was merely my point all along: The judicial check has failed
> in the organlegging era.

The judiciary is constrained by the law. If the law sucks, it's the
lawmakers that have failed.

--
William December Starr <wdstarr.TakeThisOut@panix.com>
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:21:01 -0800, Tim Bruening
<tsbrueni DeleteThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:

>In the Gil "The Arm" Hamilton/Lucas Garner era, almost all crimes were punished by
>executing the perpetrator and harvesting his/her organs for the organ banks. This
>means that executions were very, very, common, and thus didn't qualify as "Cruel AND
>Unusual punishment", so couldn't be struck down on "Cruel AND Unusual" grounds!

However, the death penalty has been common enough in this country that
it couldn't qualify either - but somehow has.
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

"Erik Max Francis" <max.DeleteThis@alcyone.com> wrote in message
news:daCdnbD2k52NlevanZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> I was referring to a supreme judicial check. Meaning, a Supreme Court
> that could strike down such absurd laws pursuant so some remotely
> reasonable constitution which outlawed things like cruel, unusual, or
> excessive punishment. The death penalty for jaywalking certainly
qualifies.
>



Only if a majority of the Justices say it does.

Evidently, in Niven's world they didn't. After all, if majorities in
the
elected branches of government were ready to accept such a law,
there's no
reason why a substantial part of the judiciary shouldn't do likewise.

Whether a law is "absurd" (and in whose opinion?) or not has no
bearing whatsoever on its constitutionality.

--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I don't know why anyone should think I'm insular.

Why, I even know the French for dentures - Aperitif!
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

norrin <adweiland.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Erik Max Francis <m....TakeThisOut@alcyone.com> wrote:
>> I mean, really, Niven's stories are fun, but you can't take the
>> sociology or politics very seriously.
>
>The laws of the Constitution or the European Union
>are not the laws of nature.

The "laws of nature" include execution for instances of stupidity, and also
for being unable to evade your predators or parasites. Tim has, as usual,
crossposted this thread to hell and back, but I've seen all these groups
below and had hoped that everyone on them at least knew how to think, rather
than to spout platitudes.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd.TakeThisOut@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

William December Starr wrote:

> In article <S_idnaVYdesihevanZ2dnUVZ_rLinZ2d RemoveThis @speakeasy.net>,
> Erik Max Francis <max RemoveThis @alcyone.com> said:
>
>> That's the point. The fact that something is common, or popular,
>> doesn't mean it's constitutional. We of course have no idea what
>> the UN's constitution (or equivalent) says, or how the chief
>> judicial court operates, but it's obviously not working very well
>> if something so blatant as being executed for trivial offenses is
>> allowed to pass unchecked.
>>
>> Which was merely my point all along: The judicial check has failed
>> in the organlegging era.
>
> The judiciary is constrained by the law. If the law sucks, it's the
> lawmakers that have failed.

Not in a government where the judiciary acts as an additional check and
balance, like in the United States. The judiciary has the duty of
upholding the constitution, not the law. If a law is found
unconstitutional by the judiciary, then it is null and void.

--
Erik Max Francis && max RemoveThis @alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Chance favors the trained mind.
-- Louis Pasteur
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

norrin wrote:

> On Dec 28, 1:14 pm, Erik Max Francis <m... DeleteThis @alcyone.com> wrote:
>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>> Voters on Earth had voted to make more and more crimes subject to the death
>>> penalty, such as jaywalking and false advertising.
>> And on that subject, nice to see that they don't have a judicial check
>> and balance in their system.
>
> So you oppose the death penalty for anything, not even
> telemarketing.
>
>> I mean, really, Niven's stories are fun, but you can't take the
>> sociology or politics very seriously.
>
> The laws of the Constitution or the European Union
> are not the laws of nature.

No, but they're a pretty good basis for a constitutional democracy. The
point is, if the organlegging-era UN is a constitutional democracy, then
something's seriously wrong with the government institutions, since
they're not doing their job (assuming such a constitution would have a
prohibition against excessive punishment, which is a pretty reasonable
bet). If they're not, then it's pretty much an invitation to eventual
disaster, anyway. The fault isn't with the idiot voters, it's the lack
of checks and balances to prevent something so stupid as laws that
result in execution for jaywalking or parking violations from being
passed and enforced.

Niven's conception of the UN as a world state is basically only slightly
friendly totalitarianism, anyway. That's the point: It's not a
particularly appealing place to live.

--
Erik Max Francis && max DeleteThis @alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Chance favors the trained mind.
-- Louis Pasteur
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

In article <FKOdnVIBjdm3j-ranZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d.RemoveThis@speakeasy.net>,
Erik Max Francis <max.RemoveThis@alcyone.com> said:

> William December Starr wrote:
>
>> The judiciary is constrained by the law. If the law sucks, it's
>> the lawmakers that have failed.
>
> Not in a government where the judiciary acts as an additional
> check and balance, like in the United States. The judiciary has
> the duty of upholding the constitution, not the law. If a law is
> found unconstitutional by the judiciary, then it is null and void.

The constitution is part _of_ the law.

--
William December Starr <wdstarr.RemoveThis@panix.com>
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

William December Starr wrote:

> In article <FKOdnVIBjdm3j-ranZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d DeleteThis @speakeasy.net>,
> Erik Max Francis <max DeleteThis @alcyone.com> said:
>
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>
>>> The judiciary is constrained by the law. If the law sucks, it's
>>> the lawmakers that have failed.
>> Not in a government where the judiciary acts as an additional
>> check and balance, like in the United States. The judiciary has
>> the duty of upholding the constitution, not the law. If a law is
>> found unconstitutional by the judiciary, then it is null and void.
>
> The constitution is part _of_ the law.

I don't think you really understood my point, because the legislative
and judiciary are two separate branches of government. One's job is
creating new laws; the others is assuring the existing laws have
fidelity to the Constitution. Those laws that don't get chucked out.

That you can sloppily refer to them both collectively as "the law"
completely misses my point.

--
Erik Max Francis && max DeleteThis @alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn.
-- George Bernard Shaw
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

d....RemoveThis@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> norrin <adweil....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Erik Max Francis <m....RemoveThis@alcyone.com> wrote:
> >> I mean, really, Niven's stories are fun, but you can't take the
> >> sociology or politics very seriously.
>
> >The laws of the Constitution or the European Union
> >are not the laws of nature.
>
> The "laws of nature" include execution for instances of stupidity, and also

This clause takes the pathetic fallacy to a new low. Laws
do not execute. Locally, juries are necessary, but that's
not a universal.

> for being unable to evade your predators or parasites. Tim has, as usual,
> crossposted this thread to hell and back, but I've seen all these groups
> below and had hoped that everyone on them at least knew how to think, rather
> than to spout platitudes.
>

And yet, some people are talking about sociology and
implying their laws are the laws of nature.

Human bodies are made out of interchangeable parts. If
you want to take from one and give to another, you need
to match the ABO specifiers, and the Rh sign. Blood
transfusions are a little more complicated than that, and
organ transplants are much more complicated. In Niven's
universe, these problems are solved.

In this world, transplant rejection is still a problem and
artificial organs are available. In Known Space at the time
of the stories, that's not true. You can disagree with the
premise but you can't accept them and say the conclusions
are wrong because the premises are unrealistic.
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

On Dec 29, 7:39 pm, Erik Max Francis <m... RemoveThis @alcyone.com> wrote:
> norrin wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 1:14 pm, Erik Max Francis <m... RemoveThis @alcyone.com> wrote:
> >> Tim Bruening wrote:
> >>> Voters on Earth had voted to make more and more crimes subject to the death
> >>> penalty, such as jaywalking and false advertising.
> >> And on that subject, nice to see that they don't have a judicial check
> >> and balance in their system.
>
> > So you oppose the death penalty for anything, not even
> > telemarketing.
>
> >> I mean, really, Niven's stories are fun, but you can't take the
> >> sociology or politics very seriously.
>
> > The laws of the Constitution or the European Union
> > are not the laws of nature.
>
> No, but they're a pretty good basis for a constitutional democracy. The
> point is, if the organlegging-era UN is a constitutional democracy, then

A constitutional democracy is the rule of law as determined by
officials accepted by the people. It's naive to say that none of
the laws are excessive or exploitative.

> something's seriously wrong with the government institutions, since
> they're not doing their job (assuming such a constitution would have a
> prohibition against excessive punishment, which is a pretty reasonable

Because none of the laws and rules we have now are excessive?

> bet). If they're not, then it's pretty much an invitation to eventual
> disaster, anyway. The fault isn't with the idiot voters, it's the lack
> of checks and balances to prevent something so stupid as laws that
> result in execution for jaywalking or parking violations from being
> passed and enforced.
>
> Niven's conception of the UN as a world state is basically only slightly
> friendly totalitarianism, anyway. That's the point: It's not a
> particularly appealing place to live.

A densely populated city has customs that seem unusual to
observers and commonplace to the residents. In some situations
it can be unfriendly to strangers.

What you seem to be saying is, it's different and that's bad.
I disagree, but I wouldn't like to live there either.
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:06:05 -0800, Erik Max Francis <max.TakeThisOut@alcyone.com>
wrote:

>I don't think you really understood my point, because the legislative
>and judiciary are two separate branches of government. One's job is
>creating new laws; the others is assuring the existing laws have
>fidelity to the Constitution. Those laws that don't get chucked out.
>
>That you can sloppily refer to them both collectively as "the law"
>completely misses my point.

A constitution is merely a set of laws that are somewhat more
difficult to change.
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:51:56 -0800, Erik Max Francis <max.DeleteThis@alcyone.com>
wrote:

>Tim Bruening wrote:
>
>> In the Gil "The Arm" Hamilton/Lucas Garner era, almost all crimes were punished by
>> executing the perpetrator and harvesting his/her organs for the organ banks. This
>> means that executions were very, very, common, and thus didn't qualify as "Cruel AND
>> Unusual punishment", so couldn't be struck down on "Cruel AND Unusual" grounds!
>
>That's the point. The fact that something is common, or popular,
>doesn't mean it's constitutional. We of course have no idea what the
>UN's constitution (or equivalent) says,

We can make the pretty good guess that it does not disallow anything that
was popular at the time it was established, and that it has been amended
as necessary to allow things that were once forbidden but have since
become sufficiently popular.

Also, if it works like the United States Constitution, then in the very
specific area of appropriate punishments for crimes, that something is
common *does* mean it's constitutional. A punishment has to be cruel
*and unusual* to be uncostitutional here. The common forms of cruelty
are all allowed.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schillin@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing 

John Schilling wrote:

> We can make the pretty good guess that it does not disallow anything that
> was popular at the time it was established, and that it has been amended
> as necessary to allow things that were once forbidden but have since
> become sufficiently popular.
>
> Also, if it works like the United States Constitution, then in the very
> specific area of appropriate punishments for crimes, that something is
> common *does* mean it's constitutional. A punishment has to be cruel
> *and unusual* to be uncostitutional here.

That doesn't explain why the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional
for a time here. While not unusual at all, the Supreme Court ruled that
the way it was employed was unconstitutional since it was unfair. After
those issues were addressed, it was restored as being constitutional
again. If what you were saying were true, that couldn't have happened.

--
Erik Max Francis && max RemoveThis @alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
What would physics look like without gravitation?
-- Albert Einstein
 >> Stay informed about: Legalized Pickpocketing