Alright Constitutional Scholars...

[Heracles 417]

interesting reads here...

http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Crime_in_Melbourne

http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Crime_in_Sydney

Are you joking me? Is someone from CA seriously going to sit here for even a nanonsecond and suggest that the crime rate of Melbourne is anywhere near that of LA, even after factoring in population.

If you are going to post random information, why don't you go ahead and compare the homicide rate or LA, Chicago, DC to that of Melbourne, Sydney, Vancouver, London, Amsterdam, Paris, Tokyo etc?

PS I never said Melbourne did not have crime. Every city has crime. Just not to the extend of so many united states cities.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You won't see families having to sleep in the center of their homes each and every night out of fear of being shot. that is, to ensure they are not killed by stray bullets.

Once again I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that is not something common in other developed countries. Guns are not to blame for that either. It is the fact that the police are helpless to do anything about it. It is the fact the the constitution mandates cities and counties manage their police force ensuring they are inefficient. It is the fact that random road blocks or police checks are considered unconstitutional. It is the fact that the police have no right to pull over a car, without probably cause, and ask what four guys are doing cruising around at 3am.

[Marilyn. 340]

did I even say that??

interesting reads here...

http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Crime_in_Melbourne

http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Crime_in_Sydney

Are you joking me? Is someone from CA seriously going to sit here for even a nanonsecond and suggest that the crime rate of Melbourne is anywhere near that of LA, even after factoring in population.

If you are going to post random information, why don't you go ahead and compare the homicide rate or LA, Chicago, DC to that of Melbourne, Sydney, Vancouver, London, Amsterdam, Paris, Tokyo etc?

PS I never said Melbourne did not have crime. Every city has crime. Just not to the extend of so many united states cities.

no, you never said there was no crime but you sure make it sound like Australia is some perfect place....

Edited May 25, 2009 by *Marilyn*

[scandal 951]

no, you never said there was no crime but you sure make it sound like there isn't...

Marilyin, stick around

You'll see that Constellation will repeat his arguments ad nauseum, be pointed to specific and direct refuting counter-evidence, ignore that and be on his merry way.

It's usually fun for the first couple of rounds and then gets a bit repetitive. We've been hearing about how wonderful life is in Melbourne for some time now.

[Marilyn. 340]

no, you never said there was no crime but you sure make it sound like there isn't...

Marilyin, stick around

You'll see that Constellation will repeat his arguments ad nauseum, be pointed to specific and direct refuting counter-evidence, ignore that and be on his merry way.

It's usually fun for the first couple of rounds and then gets a bit repetitive. We've been hearing about how wonderful life is in Melbourne for some time now.

yeah I know.. I have been around VJ a long time and have had it out with him before

[Heracles 417]

no, you never said there was no crime but you sure make it sound like there isn't...

Marilyin, stick around

You'll see that Constellation will repeat his arguments ad nauseum, be pointed to specific and direct refuting counter-evidence, ignore that and be on his merry way.

It's usually fun for the first couple of rounds and then gets a bit repetitive. We've been hearing about how wonderful life is in Melbourne for some time now.

That is the thing, I am yet to see you prove otherwise, in any of your posts actually. Unless you think asking for an academic journal is the equivalent of winning an argument. For example, using an international study, Sydney is ranked 10th when analyzing the quality of Life. Chicago is ranked around 49th. At the end of the day it would not matter if Sydney was ranked 1st and Chicago was ranked 200th because your view and opinion of Chicago would not change.

I'll sum up your view / response. The constitution has little or nothing to do with the state of America. Furthermore, in your opinion there is little wrong with the crime rate and so on in America. Same everywhere really, right? Any attempt in a logic open discussion is pointless as you fail to even recognize an issue to begin with. It would be a different story if you at the very least recognized the issue but we simply disagreed on how to solve it / them.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Constellation

[Heracles 417]

I'll ask you this uscandual, why do you think the crime rate and homicide rate of Melbourne and Sydney combined is lower than that of Chicago, Detroit or DC? Before you mention guns, lets take homicide by means of a firearm out of the equation and rely solely on homicides committed by other means. Furthermore, lets also consider the number of children or people in general who are kidnapped or 'missing' in America to that of England or Australia.

Are you honestly going to sit here and tell me the laws have little or even nothing to do with this. If so, fine that is your opinion. Therefore, if the laws or lack of have zero to do with the rates, then you should be able to tell me why the rate, per 100,000, is so much higher here.

Population facts to consider:

Chicago: 9 million +

Sydney: 4 million

Melbourne 3.6 million

Detroit: 3.9 million

DC: 600,000

Edited May 25, 2009 by Constellation

[scandal 951]

no, you never said there was no crime but you sure make it sound like there isn't...

Marilyin, stick around

You'll see that Constellation will repeat his arguments ad nauseum, be pointed to specific and direct refuting counter-evidence, ignore that and be on his merry way.

It's usually fun for the first couple of rounds and then gets a bit repetitive. We've been hearing about how wonderful life is in Melbourne for some time now.

That is the thing, I am yet to see you prove otherwise, in any of your posts actually.

Sigh. This is a lost cause, dude. Take a look at the exchange we just had, requoted below. You make the outrageous claim that our founding fathers didn't contemplate the problems of our times with street gangs, drugs, and organized crime. I agreed, and pointed out two specific modern laws - RICO and FISA - that provide LE the tools they need to CONSTITUTIONALLY combat these scourges. Did you address this? No, you elided my post with '...' and ignored it entirely. Until you respond to why and how you feel RICO and FISA are not applicable, I will continue to state that you are simply ignoring the evidence we confront you with.

There are quite a few clauses in the constitution that are not only too vague but also inappropriate for the 21st century. For example, the constitution provides way too many rights for criminals. To the point that they have more rights than that of good honest people here. I don't believe the founding fathers of this nation would have ever fathomed a country or that there would be a time when groups like MS-13, the mafia and gangs like the crips would be terrorizing the community and using the laws to their advantage. a time when American after American is ending up lying in their own blood, while police have to tippy toe around 12,001 rules and regulations in order to ensure they are not sued.

Oh goody goody! :dance:

Time for more fun constellation? I actually get a kick out of having this out with you.

Please point out those sections of the Constitution that provide "too many rights for criminals". My take on it is that the Constitution, and more specifically the Bill of Rights, 4th and 5th amendments, attempt to provide a reasonable balance for the rights of the accused and the rights of the state to apprehend criminals. Due process, fair trials, search and seizure, rights against self incrimination, etc.

You are right that the founding fathers did not live in a time of organized crime, street gangs, and the terrorist threats of our times.

But you are wrong that our laws have remained static and cannot confront these threats.

We have the RICO statute, a federal law passed in 1970 specifically to allow law enforcement to bust up organized crime and the Mob. It's also been an effective tool against terrorist activity.

And we have the FISA statute, passed in 1978, which recognized the urgent national security need for secret wiretaps that would be constitutional and enforced by a court order, and yet still allow Law Enforcement to tap the communications of the bad guys without tipping them off had they gotten the court order in open court.

Those are just examples. There are many other laws which give our local police forces, state police, FBI, DEA, etc. the enforcement tools they need and yet still protect our civil liberties.

It's a very dynamic and evolving system which is hardly stuck in the 18th century. It derives its power from a large body of legal precedent accumulated over the years, and fundamental principles of the need to balance the rights of the collective and the rights of the individual.

...

[Heracles 417]

Sigh. This is a lost cause, dude. Take a look at the exchange we just had, requoted below. You make the outrageous claim that our founding fathers didn't contemplate the problems of our times with street gangs, drugs, and organized crime. I agreed, and pointed out two specific modern laws - RICO and FISA - that provide LE the tools they need to CONSTITUTIONALLY combat these scourges. Did you address this? No, you elided my post with '...' and ignored it entirely. Until you respond to why and how you feel RICO and FISA are not applicable, I will continue to state that you are simply ignoring the evidence we confront you with.

Great! Fantastic! and even awesome! Unfortunately gang activity is still strong. You may want to check out the show gangland. A lot of those gangs are still operating today, as in 2009. When was RICO and FISA passed again?

Lets forget about gangs and just look at crime in general: Just in the last 24 hours.

Latest news from Chicago:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,1786868.story

A 16-year-old boy died Saturday night after he was shot not far from his home in northwest suburban Hanover Park, officials said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,3847144.story

A 22-month-old toddler found dead at her south suburban home in the early hours of Sunday morning was likely raped before she was killed, authorities say.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Constellation

[scandal 951]

Sigh. This is a lost cause, dude. Take a look at the exchange we just had, requoted below. You make the outrageous claim that our founding fathers didn't contemplate the problems of our times with street gangs, drugs, and organized crime. I agreed, and pointed out two specific modern laws - RICO and FISA - that provide LE the tools they need to CONSTITUTIONALLY combat these scourges. Did you address this? No, you elided my post with '...' and ignored it entirely. Until you respond to why and how you feel RICO and FISA are not applicable, I will continue to state that you are simply ignoring the evidence we confront you with.

Great! Fantastic! and even awesome! Unfortunately gang activity is still strong.

Lets forget about gangs and just look at crime in general: Just in the last 24 hours.

Latest news from Chicago:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,1786868.story

A 16-year-old boy died Saturday night after he was shot not far from his home in northwest suburban Hanover Park, officials said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,3847144.story

A 22-month-old toddler found dead at her south suburban home in the early hours of Sunday morning was likely raped before she was killed, authorities say.

I don't see the terms RICO or FISA anywhere in your response.

[Heracles 417]

I don't see the terms RICO or FISA anywhere in your response.

Updated

[scandal 951]

When was RICO and FISA passed again?

Lame. Completely lame.

1970 and 1978 respectively.

FISA was updated just now during the Bush administration to handle his illegal wiretaps that had not been submitted for FISA approval.

Subsequent amendments

The Act was amended in 2001 by the USA PATRIOT Act, primarily to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government.

An overhaul of the bill, the Protect America Act of 2007 was signed into law on August 5, 2007[2]. It expired on February 17, 2008.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 passed by the United States Congress on July 9, 2008.[3]

Edited May 25, 2009 by uscandual

[Heracles 417]

When was RICO and FISA passed again?

Lame. Completely lame.

1970 and 1978 respectively.

FISA was updated just now during the Bush administration to handle his illegal wiretaps that had not been submitted for FISA approval.

Subsequent amendments

The Act was amended in 2001 by the USA PATRIOT Act, primarily to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government.

An overhaul of the bill, the Protect America Act of 2007 was signed into law on August 5, 2007[2]. It expired on February 17, 2008.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 passed by the United States Congress on July 9, 2008.[3]

We'll just have to wait and see how that works out for the country. I highly doubt it will even dent the crime. Certainly does nothing for the almost daily murders in Chicago. But hey, other cities have a higher homicide rate so Chicago must not be that bad then.

I understand your line of reasoning though. The average middle class let alone wealthy individual never associates 'with those types' anyway, therefore, naturally in their mindset, crime does not affect them. Crime must simply be a product of my imagination or better yet my negativity.

Sorry to burst the bubble but downunder we don't live in silos or our own little worlds, oblivious to anything outside them. Thus the multitude of awards they win related to quality of life, again and again. We are actually tired of being first place amongst English speaking nations so many times. It is a cultural thing for us. We rightfully identify and care about problems affecting our society and want to deal with them. Clearly some here are stuck at the denial / what problem / it's the same everywhere stage. Which is why you see no problem with either it (the crime) or see the constitution as an obstacle to preventing it.

Though I do have another theory with regards to the legal system and yes I blame the libs. Identifying and admitting a movement or attitude was wrong, is not a lib trademark. Same goes with admitting that the courts and laws that push the liberal agenda, are also used to harbor and protect criminals, thugs and other low life scum. But anyway, that is a entirely different discussion.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Constellation

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If you guys didn't want to discuss the Constitution, why didn't you start another thread?

[ThaitoUSA 15]

This thread was started because I challenged Bat Guano's reasoning re the issue of "general welfare" in the context of the US Constitution on another thread.

What was the issue regarding General Welfare in the context of the US Constitution?