Mona LSR coercion was: New here

[Guest guest]

I think that was presented as a Free Exercise thing ("spiritual" and "religious" being deemed synonymous for constitutional purposes) in that a person's understanding of himself as "alcoholic"/"powerless" vs. "not-alcoholic"/"not powerless" is a personal spiritual belief. Something like that.

Well, if that is the argument -- aside from its inherently weak legal basis -- it would not apply to mandated LSR attendance. I don't call myself an "alcoholic," and am not required to do so in LSR. I believe Steve does claim that label, and so do others. It is entirely up to the individual.

And the last, very last thing anyone would be told in an LSR venue is that they are powerless.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Since then, were not the 14th through 16th Amendments (hope I have the numbers right, haven't looked anything up) held to be applicable to blacks only? Didn't it take Title IX in 1964 to make it clear that discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc. was illegal?

How did we get started on this, anyway?

The 13th - 15th amendments are the slavery amendments. The fourteenth was virtually from its inception considered to apply to all races, not just blacks (some 19th century case about a Chinese fellow and his laundry is floating in my head from law school, but I can't recall much beyond that.)

Initially (and I know you know this kaleigh, I'm stating this for those who don't) in Plessey v. Ferguson c. 1896, it was held that separate but equal jived with the 14th Amendment. So, the South could continue to maintain"white only" and "colored only" schools and such.

Now, in theory I believe separate but equal CAN be reconciled with the equal protection clause. However, no honest person could have surveyed the difference in resources given to black schools and white schools and held there was anything equal about the situation. So, for many reasons, in 1954 the Supremes reversed Plessey in Brown v. Board., and now separate is not equal.

This is not a necessarily good holding. Many blacks now would like to have separate schools for, say, black boys, taught by male black role model teachers. the REASON a good result is achieved matters a very great deal in the law, which is among the points I've been trying to make with regard to notions that a "self-identity" argument is grounds to reject an otherwise valid sanction. That gets us moving into legal lala land, well, well beyond recovery politics.

As for how we got to this subject, I believe it began with the grounds under which one can object to punishments sentenced by a court -- the First or Eighth Amemdments. This in turn launched a discussion of what constitutes cruel and unusual, which in turn led to a discussion of how to interpret such subjective ideas. Basically, seems to me we are having a discussion of jurisprudiential philosophy.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately I can't find the message I was responding to here. If

the Bill of Rights is the beginning of the analysis, then I can agree,

but not if it's the end. Definitions change. Our ideas of morality

advance (I hope). I'm not sure I'm right, but wasn't slavery ruled

not to be indentured service, as forbidden by the Constitution, before

the civil war? Since then, were not the 14th through 16th Amendments

(hope I have the numbers right, haven't looked anything up) held to

be applicable to blacks only? Didn't it take Title IX in 1964 to make

it clear that discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion,

etc. was illegal?

How did we get started on this, anyway?

> In a message dated 8/9/01 6:17:45 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> kayleighs@m... writes:

>

>

> > Am I to understand that " cruel and unusual " should be defined as

it

> > would have been when the Bill of Rights was passed? I'm sorry if

I

> > seem obtuse, but I really can't follow your reasoning.

> >

>

> As a starting point for applying it, that is how Scalia approaches

it. If it

> were otherwise, one immediately runs into a problem: if a

democratically

> elected legislature passes a law attaching a punishment to a crime,

then how

> can it be said that in that society it is cruel and unusual? If it

is so

> odious the electorate would turn out those who voted for it, and if

it is

> not, the electorate will countenance it.

>

> What other barometer of contemporary notions of cruel and unusual

would be

> more proper than majority rule?

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

The most mystifying thing to me is why this was a " federal " sting.

> > Sorry you're a dog hater, Pete, which means you probably won't get

> my

> > point. Which is -- most people will go along with the police

> without

> > finding out whether the police are correct. They're intimidated.

> > Local understanding is not legal understanding.

>

> Hi Kayleighs,

>

> The situation with my friend and the pedestrian crossing is even

> stranger. This wasn't a local deal, but a federal pedestrian

crossing

> " sting. " (!!!) Apparently, they set up video cameras at this point

> and had people pose as pedestrians. Even stranger than " secret

> shoppers, " IMO.

>

> No one had ever been ticketed at that crossing for anything before.

> And the judge did not know the answer and said he would " write a

> letter " letting my friend know the decision once he had figured out

> what " yielding right of way to a pedestrian " meant. said,

can't

> you just tell me your judgement now?, and the Judge said, " No. I'll

> write you a letter. "

>

> Right off the bat, they were watching the video of the wrong

> vehicle and when tried to point it out they silenced him and

> played it several times over. When they finally let him speak he

told

> him that the video they were watching wasn't his car and then they

put

> the other video on, where he clearly did wait, but not until they

had

> crossed the other two lines of traffic that he had no influence over

> whatever.

>

> The " law " mystifies me.

>

>

[Guest guest]

My message wasn't about discrimination, it was about the progress of

thought, and about what is now considered right and wrong compared to

what used to be considered right and wrong.

> In a message dated 8/10/01 12:35:04 PM US Eastern Standard Time,

> kayleighs@m... writes:

>

>

> > Since then, were not the 14th through 16th Amendments

> > (hope I have the numbers right, haven't looked anything up) held

to

> > be applicable to blacks only? Didn't it take Title IX in 1964 to

make

> > it clear that discrimination on the basis of race, gender,

religion,

> > etc. was illegal?

> >

> > How did we get started on this, anyway?

> >

>

> The 13th - 15th amendments are the slavery amendments. The

fourteenth was

> virtually from its inception considered to apply to all races, not

just

> blacks (some 19th century case about a Chinese fellow and his

laundry is

> floating in my head from law school, but I can't recall much beyond

that.)

>

> Initially (and I know you know this kaleigh, I'm stating this for

those who

> don't) in Plessey v. Ferguson c. 1896, it was held that separate but

equal

> jived with the 14th Amendment. So, the South could continue to

> maintain " white only " and " colored only " schools and such.

>

> Now, in theory I believe separate but equal CAN be reconciled with

the equal

> protection clause. However, no honest person could have surveyed

the

> difference in resources given to black schools and white schools and

held

> there was anything equal about the situation. So, for many reasons,

in 1954

> the Supremes reversed Plessey in Brown v. Board., and now separate

is not

> equal.

>

> This is not a necessarily good holding. Many blacks now would like

to have

> separate schools for, say, black boys, taught by male black role

model

> teachers. the REASON a good result is achieved matters a very great

deal in

> the law, which is among the points I've been trying to make with

regard to

> notions that a " self-identity " argument is grounds to reject an

otherwise

> valid sanction. That gets us moving into legal lala land, well,

well beyond

> recovery politics.

>

> As for how we got to this subject, I believe it began with the

grounds under

> which one can object to punishments sentenced by a court -- the

First or

> Eighth Amemdments. This in turn launched a discussion of what

constitutes

> cruel and unusual, which in turn led to a discussion of how to

interpret such

> subjective ideas. Basically, seems to me we are having a discussion

of

> jurisprudiential philosophy.

>

> --Mona--

[Guest guest]

> The most mystifying thing to me is why this was a " federal " sting.

Yeah, me too! And $175 bucks?? Woah, that's pretty heavy. And using

phony pedestrians?

Someone got a budget or something. I'll ask him about it again.

[Guest guest]

> The most mystifying thing to me is why this was a " federal " sting.

Yeah, me too! And $175 bucks?? Woah, that's pretty heavy. And using

phony pedestrians?

Someone got a budget or something. I'll ask him about it again.