Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

[Pointedstick]

Some good news!

(Reuters) - The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, ruling on a lawsuit filed in federal court in Oregon by 13 Muslim Americans who were branded with the no-fly status, ordered the government to come up with new procedures that allow people on the no-fly list to challenge that designation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/ ... EU20140624

[moda0306]

Boom!


And I mean that in a good way...



(Too soon?)


(I have a dark sense of humor folks).

[Mountaineer]

Wow. The "no fly" judge and dear follower have something in common - they both trash the Constitution and don't care for safety of US citizens.  We need more regulations now, what is the hold up?

[TripleB]

You guys know how when the government tells you to do something, and you refuse, they throw you in jail, and if you resist, they murder you? So when the government makes a demand on a citizen, the citizen either immediately complies or is locked in a cage like an animal or given a funeral.

Well, when the government tells the government to do something (one government entity telling another), it turns out they actually don't have to listen.

This will turn out just like the Supreme Court telling Illinois that they needed to allow concealed carry firearms. They gave the government of Illinois a ridiculous amount of time to implement new rules (something like 1 to 2 years). The government of Illinois dragged their ass because they didn't want to do it. They missed the deadline, and as far as I know, they still don't have CCW there.

Congress has ordered all sorts of stuff from various Obama scandals - Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, etc, hasn't received a single thing, and zero consequences.

It really doesn't matter what the government tells the government it has to do because at the end of the day, it's still the government and the government doesn't have to listen to anyone, not even the government.

This will turn out exactly the same. The government will be forced by the government to come up with rules and procedures to allow people to petition their no fly status. That will be a one year period that gets extended to two years upon request. They'll miss the two year deadline and ask for more time. Then by year three, they'll invoke national security and say that they can't do this yet because of a serious national security danger that they can't specify, because it would be a danger of national security to specify. So the government will force the government to give the government an injunction and maybe in 5 years there will be some onerous form that you have to file in triplicate, whereby if you have a single mistake, such as using a blue ink pen, or forgetting a comma, or capitalizing the wrong letter, the form will get returned to you.

There will be a 6 month to 12 month period in reviewing these petitions because the government will decide that they'll only staff this office with 2 people, part-time, because the government doesn't actually want to comply with this, so they'll do it only at whatever minimum level they need to. Kind of like the ATF and various licenses and permits they issue. The government has to allow various ownership of guns and explosives, but the government is at no obligation to actually staff the offices of the people who approve those permits in any reasonable period of time.

So while this is a moral victory, expect nothing to come of it for a few years, and more than likely another court will reverse the ruling before then anyway.

[Kshartle]

Thanks TB, I didn't want to be the one to rain on the parade. The government can't solve the problems created by the government by doing more, only by doing less.

[moda0306]

Thanks TB, I didn't want to be the one to rain on the parade. The government can't solve the problems created by the government by doing more, only by doing less.

This just simply isn't true.  Having a government with checks and balances (technically "more government" than just a authoritarian mono-dictatorship) is going to be much less "problematic" than one with a single, concentrated power.

For instance, if we were to enter a period of time where, due to their belief in anarcho-capitalism, the members of the Judicial and Legislative branch just decided to disband their power, effectively transferring it all to the president, you'd have "less government" and "less rules" but a hell of a lot more tyranny.

Remember, absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

[Pointedstick]

I agree with moda, with the caveat that such wantonly abused absolute power is much more likely to provoke a violent uprising than the illusion of restraint in the form of "check and balances"--which is the whole point: convince people that the system isn't actually biased in favor of the powerful with little true accountability, because other powerful people are opposing them.

I daresay that with the R-controlled house, we actually have far more "checks and balances" that we've had in a good long time. And I think it's telling that a lot of people hate it, branding congress as "obstructionist" and "do nothing". People like "checks and balances" on their opponents; not so much on their allies.

[moda0306]

I agree with moda, with the caveat that such wantonly abused absolute power is much more likely to provoke a violent uprising than the illusion of restraint in the form of "check and balances"--which is the whole point: convince people that the system isn't actually biased in favor of the powerful with little true accountability, because other powerful people are opposing them.

I daresay that with the R-controlled house, we actually have far more "checks and balances" that we've had in a good long time. And I think it's telling that a lot of people hate it, branding congress as "obstructionist" and "do nothing". People like "checks and balances" on their opponents; not so much on their allies.

Of course "people" don't like it when it applies to them, but that's the point, or at least to a degree.  It's supposed to be a clusterf*ck in some ways.

And while I agree about the revolution motivation, the separation of powers isn't just an "illusion"... power is actually being split up amongst different branches with different natural interests... the "illusion" is, perhaps, that "we are the government."  We aren't, but even "the government" isn't really the government.  It's like a big Ouija Board where no one person is really moving it, but simply playing some role that they were hired to play by some other person not really moving it.

Even the President isn't really all-that powerful.  He's got 2 electable 4-year terms, in which he wields some powers, under oversight of other branches of government, a large portion of which are strategically dedicated to said president's popularity destruction (other party in congress), and another branch of which is solely dedicated to being on the check of the legality of the actions taken by the government against the people.

You have to look at incentives.  The incentives to abuse power are significantly lower in the U.S. than a top-down dictatorship with no checks and balances.  It simply doesn't compare.  And perhaps "abuse power" is simply a matter of degree when it comes to the government, but DEGREES MATTER!  Trust me.  I sweat like an ox.  Degrees of hot matter significantly!   Tyranny is the same way.  I'll take being a Japanese-American during internment than a Polish Jew during the holocaust any day. (not making excuses for the U.S. here)

[Mountaineer]

Even the President isn't really all-that powerful. 

Then why does he spend all that money flying around to photo ops with cars, vans, trucks, and a Sec Serv entourage that costs more than the GDP of some countries?  Why not just let him travel coach with a mask on so no one will notice him?  Halloween in the White House every day baby! 

... Mountaineer

[Kshartle]

The prez can pardon anyone convicted of a crime, bomb any country he wants, change laws he doesn't like apparently etc.

If he's not powerful.....then you must believe he's just a puppet, in which case the entire concept of representative government is clearly a scam on the slaves citizens. If you beleive that then we agree!

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

The lack of power of one person does not imply he's someone else's "puppet."  He is certainly relatively powerful, but in the context of the governments within the United States, he just doesn't make up much of the power.  He's held accountable by the supreme-court, voters (collectively), and congress.  Do you really think that the entire system of checks and balances... a system advocated by the likes of Thomas Paine... is simply a giant scam to enrich a President or some Puppets?

Oh, and he can't change laws he doesn't like.  The law has wiggle-room, which he may or may not use to his advocacy-advantage.  This is NOT absolute power, though.  And it doesn't imply a "puppeteer."

[Pointedstick]

Most of the president's power comes from his executive ability. He wields more or less total control over the federal regulatory agencies, which becomes more powerful as they grow in size and power. He directs military operations--covert and acknowledged, he can propose and veto legislation, and he nominates SCOTUS appointees (much more important than many think IMHO).

And, more recently, he can openly kill anyone anywhere in the world.

He's no dictator, but let's not pretend he lacks power. The only reason why Obama has been unable to meaningfully get much done recently is because he's a pussy who's really not comfortable with power.

[Kshartle]

Please name anyone on Earth with more power than the president of the US.

Held in check by Congress, the Supreme Court or, (gulp) the voters?

Ahahahahah, good thing I just back from the bathroom so I don't pee my pantaloons.

[moda0306]

Please name anyone on Earth with more power than the president of the US.

Held in check by Congress, the Supreme Court or, (gulp) the voters?

Ahahahahah, good thing I just back from the bathroom so I don't pee my pantaloons.

Nobody. He's most powerful. But relative to the economy of his territory, he's far more constrained than dictators.

[Pointedstick]

Please name anyone on Earth with more power than the president of the US.

Held in check by Congress, the Supreme Court or, (gulp) the voters?

Ahahahahah, good thing I just back from the bathroom so I don't pee my pantaloons.

Nobody. He's most powerful. But relative to the economy of his territory, he's far more constrained than dictators.

If you are saying that the President of the United States has less power compared to a hypothetical Dictator of the United States, I think we can agree. However, such a person does not exist, and if he did, his abuse of power would quickly lead to a revolution, as it quick frequently does in countries ruled by dictators.

As I've said, I think the genius of representative governance is in how it lies just slightly outside of the range at which violent uprisings can occur when power is abused. It's a system designed for the safety of the government itself, not for giving people a voice. That part is a joke.

[Benko]

As I've said, I think the genius of representative governance is in how it lies just slightly outside of the range at which violent uprisings can occur when power is abused. It's a system designed for the safety of the government itself, not for giving people a voice. That part is a joke.

Do you think the framers were not aware of this possibility?

[Pointedstick]

As I've said, I think the genius of representative governance is in how it lies just slightly outside of the range at which violent uprisings can occur when power is abused. It's a system designed for the safety of the government itself, not for giving people a voice. That part is a joke.

Do you think the framers were not aware of this possibility?

I think it was a deliberate part of their design! Keep in mind that these people were a bunch of British economic and political elites interested in ruling the colonies for themselves. They didn't want to get into the same trouble that King George got into, so they concocted this idea of individual people having sway, and the government being "of the people"--even though "people" in that context excluded women and slaves, leaving the remaining electorate at far less than 40% of the adult population. With even 100% turnout, a majority of that group could constitute as little as 20% of all the adults. But hey, the narrative has stayed intact for more than 200 years, so I have to give them credit for that, at least!

[moda0306]

Ps,

You forgot non-land-"owners." 

[Pointedstick]

Ps,

You forgot non-land-"owners." 

Is that one actually true? It would certainly help my point if it was, but so far I've been unable to find any concrete proof of it every time I try.

[Kshartle]

Ps,

You forgot non-land-"owners." 

Is that one actually true? It would certainly help my point if it was, but so far I've been unable to find any concrete proof of it every time I try.

Don't ya think it would be better if only people with property and income could vote? Then people without property and income couldn't vote to take it away from the people who do?

Then they'd have to figure out how to get property and income of their own (working and saving) if voting was really important to them.

Clearly having everyone vote isn't working very well. 

[Pointedstick]

Don't ya think it would be better if only people with property and income could vote? Then people without property and income couldn't vote to take it away from the people who do?

No. Voting will inevitably be expanded to cover everybody, so it is pointless to try and fight this inevitability. Excluding certain people from an activity that by its very nature is supposed to be the universal expression of empowerment (according to the rhetoric) is contrary to the very notion of its existence, and is, as you might put it, "self-refuting."

Hans-Herman Hoppe explored this concept very thoroughly in Democracy: The God That Failed and concluded that it is in practice impossible to permanently limit who gets to vote. Certainly every nation that did has stopped doing so. Even Switzerland. I predict in the coming decades that the vote is expanded to teenagers and illegal immigrants as well.

[Kshartle]

Don't ya think it would be better if only people with property and income could vote? Then people without property and income couldn't vote to take it away from the people who do?

No. Voting will inevitably be expanded to cover everybody, so it is pointless to try and fight this inevitability. Excluding certain people from an activity that by its very nature is supposed to be the universal expression of empowerment (according to the rhetoric) is contrary to the very notion of its existence, and is, as you might put it, "self-refuting."

Hans-Herman Hoppe explored this concept very thoroughly in Democracy: The God That Failed and concluded that it is in practice impossible to permanently limit who gets to vote. Certainly every nation that did has stopped doing so. Even Switzerland. I predict in the coming decades that the vote is expanded to teenagers and illegal immigrants as well.

So you don't think it's better or you think it's impossible?

If you think it's impossible, why? Why do the voting laws have to be changed to include prior non-voters? Why would voters vote in support of decreasing their voting power by including others, and in particular those who are likely to vote to take their property and income? Maybe you think the elections are a scam to begin with and the politicians will just do what they want.

[Pointedstick]

So you don't think it's better or you think it's impossible?

If you think it's impossible, why? Why do the voting laws have to be changed to include prior non-voters? Why would voters vote in support of decreasing their voting power by including others, and in particular those who are likely to vote to take their property and income?

Why did they already? We don't need to talk in terms of hypotheticals, just examine reality. It happened everywhere.

In general, I always consider implementation feasibility when I think about options or possibilities. If I think something is impossible or practically impossible, I don't consider it as an option even if I might think it would be a good one. What's the point? It's just mental masturbation.

[Kshartle]

So you don't think it's better or you think it's impossible?

If you think it's impossible, why? Why do the voting laws have to be changed to include prior non-voters? Why would voters vote in support of decreasing their voting power by including others, and in particular those who are likely to vote to take their property and income?

Why did they already? We don't need to talk in terms of hypotheticals, just examine reality. It happened everywhere.

In general, I always consider implementation feasibility when I think about options or possibilities. If I think something is impossible or practically impossible, I don't consider it as an option even if I might think it would be a good one. What's the point? It's just mental masturbation.

That's the point of 95% of these threads 

I was just asking why you think it's impossible and which way you think is better. I think all the discussion of government doing this or that differently is MM.

[Xan]

Redacted; probably not civil enough.  Carry on!