I Took An Oath!

[SemperFiUSMC]

Yep. They started walking on the Constitution during the Washington, Adams and then the Jefferson Presidencies, and they've been at it ever since. Too bad nobody arrested Washington, Adams and Jefferson back in the day. That would have learned 'em.

I can understand the desire to want a different world. Ours is so messy.

FTFY

 

[CombatRex]

"We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the
ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box"........unknown

 

[dross]

FTFY

Are you referring to the Whiskey Rebellion? I haven't fully made up my mind on that one, I've read compelling arguments on both sides.

 

[Denny347]

We have a very good system, albeit imperfect, but very good none the less. It is difficult to deal with lousy politicians that the "people" continue to elect. They are elected because the majority of their district WANTS them there. We deal with bad politicians (that have not violated any criminal laws) by electing them out. Bad laws are dealt with by the local courts, appellate courts, State Supreme Court, US District Court, then USSC. Orders given to me contrary to established law should NEVER be followed and thankfully I have yet to have to make that choice. However, a valid law that has not been challenged or has and was upheld I will enforce as needed. What we don't want is officers each having their own opinion on what is legal and what is not and enforcing such at their own whim. That is outside the framework of our system. Get people to change their minds, get them to VOTE (so few actually vote it is shameful), get people to look past their noses, THEN we might have real change. Short of that and you are just barking at a wall for as much good it does.

 

[dross]

We have a very good system, albeit imperfect, but very good none the less. It is difficult to deal with lousy politicians that the "people" continue to elect. They are elected because the majority of their district WANTS them there. We deal with bad politicians (that have not violated any criminal laws) by electing them out. Bad laws are dealt with by the local courts, appellate courts, State Supreme Court, US District Court, then USSC. Orders given to me contrary to established law should NEVER be followed and thankfully I have yet to have to make that choice. However, a valid law that has not been challenged or has and was upheld I will enforce as needed. What we don't want is officers each having their own opinion on what is legal and what is not and enforcing such at their own whim. That is outside the framework of our system. Get people to change their minds, get them to VOTE (so few actually vote it is shameful), get people to look past their noses, THEN we might have real change. Short of that and you are just barking at a wall for as much good it does.

I'll challenge you, Denny, that a law being established and legal doesn't always get you off the hook. There's a scale. I couldn't be a police officer - I just couldn't arrest people for drugs. I understand that when you decide to be a cop, you accept that you'll enforce laws you don't always agree with.

Yet, there must be a line. That line will be different for different officers. I know there's a line you wouldn't cross, law or not.

Legal doesn't get you off the hook for moral, as I know you know. Not making my point AT you, just using your post as a jumping off place to make my point.

 

[Denny347]

I'll challenge you, Denny, that a law being established and legal doesn't always get you off the hook. There's a scale. I couldn't be a police officer - I just couldn't arrest people for drugs. I understand that when you decide to be a cop, you accept that you'll enforce laws you don't always agree with.

Yet, there must be a line. That line will be different for different officers. I know there's a line you wouldn't cross, law or not.

Legal doesn't get you off the hook for moral, as I know you know. Not making my point AT you, just using your post as a jumping off place to make my point.

There is a SMALL window that an officer can use discretion on drug offenses. However, beyond that, you must become an impartial enforcer of the law. To do therwise would be committing a felony.

 

[Expat]

I'll challenge you, Denny, that a law being established and legal doesn't always get you off the hook. There's a scale. I couldn't be a police officer - I just couldn't arrest people for drugs. I understand that when you decide to be a cop, you accept that you'll enforce laws you don't always agree with.

Yet, there must be a line. That line will be different for different officers. I know there's a line you wouldn't cross, law or not.

Legal doesn't get you off the hook for moral, as I know you know. Not making my point AT you, just using your post as a jumping off place to make my point.

How long before we get the pics of holocaust victims equating the enforcement of drug laws to it? It usually happens every time the subject comes up.

 

[dross]

There is a SMALL window that an officer can use discretion on drug offenses. However, beyond that, you must become an impartial enforcer of the law. To do therwise would be committing a felony.

How long before we get the pics of holocaust victims equating the enforcement of drug laws to it? It usually happens every time the subject comes up.

Okay, let's argue.

I truly believe with all my heart (and it's huge, romantic, and tender, BTW) that the drug laws are immoral. I think it's tyranny to put people in jail for growing and harvesting a plant and then selling it to another consenting adult. Nothing less than tyranny.

On the scale of the Holocaust? No, of course not. But the guys who equate the two are not so far off as they may seem. Our founders considered it tyranny worthy of a violent response that printed matter and tea were taxed.

I don't think one right is more important than another. If you have a right, that means no one may take it away and be morally correct. To take rights is tyranny.

The fact that things have been done for a long time, or that everyone thinks it's okay doesn't change that. A majority voting to take a right away doesn't make it right.

If we passed an amendment that banned guns, would that change your right to defend yourself that is endowed by your Creator at birth? No. It would just be legal according to our system.

Again, there are degrees. We've been accepting some violations of our rights for a long time. Our country was founded with slavery legitimized in the document we revere.

Denny, were the police who captured escaped slaves morally justified? They were legal, and doing their jobs, but they were morally wrong, period. Unless you believe that morals are relative. In which case, the right to defend yourself is based on the whim of your fellow citizens.

 

[Expat]

Okay, let's argue.

Nope. My comment was not directed at you as I am not aware of you posting Holocaust pics in situations like this. As I have said before, I usually find a reasoned argument in your posts. I may not always agree with it, but it is usually sensible.

 

[Denny347]

Denny, were the police who captured escaped slaves morally justified? They were legal, and doing their jobs, but they were morally wrong, period. Unless you believe that morals are relative. In which case, the right to defend yourself is based on the whim of your fellow citizens.

I cannot answer that, that is period specific. Using todays standards, no, they were not morally justified. However, applying common morals of the time, they might have been. As humanity grows, our moral compass changes direction. It's not really a fair comparison. We were treating human beings as property, showing the lowest form of humanity. While we might have moral objections to drug laws, they will never compare to the tragedy of slavery. Even I have my reservations about the drug laws, however, we have a system that addresses "bad" law and if I acted outside of that I become the criminal.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

"Oath"? REMEMBER THE "NAZIS" ?? They're ba-a-a-a-a-a-ck

What Constitution? Please examine the truth of the message before ad hominem-ing the messenger (WND); is it truth or not? NOT YOUR FATHER'S AMERICA
Islam makes inroads through U.S. courts
Many cases being decided by edicts from Muhammad

Posted: October 25, 2011
8:15 pm Eastern

By Michael Carl ©*2011*WND.
Islamic law, or Shariah, already is being applied in the U.S. court system, according to an extensive new report.
A recent Center for Security Policy study called "Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases outlines dozens of cases in which the Islamic system of law has been applied.
Center spokesman David Reaboi said the Islamic strictures are being carried out mostly in cases in which foreigners are the principals.
""Shariah enters U.S. courts through the practice of comity to foreign law," Reaboi explained. "This happens, for example, when a judge decides to allow the use of say, Pakistani or Saudi family law (Shariah) in a dispute between Pakistanis or Saudis."
He said the study only scratches the surface of Shariah's presence in America. "For every case in this sample drawn from published appellate legal cases, there are innumerable cases at the trial level that remain unnoticed except by the participants," the study said. "Thus, this report is a only a sample of possible cases – a 'tip of the iceberg' – of legal cases involving Shariah in local, state and federal courts."
Among the cases cited was one from New Jersey in which a wife sought a restraining order against her husband because of spousal abuse.
"S.D. (wife) and M.J.R. (husband) were both Muslims and citizens of Morocco and both resided in New Jersey. After only three months of marriage, husband began physically abusing wife. The physical abuse administered by husband injured wife's entire body including her breasts and pubic area," the report said. "Additionally, husband forced himself on wife and had non-consensual sex with her on multiple occasions. Husband stated to wife that Islam allowed him to have sex with her at any time he wished. Wife asked the trial court to grant a restraining order against husband shortly after he verbally divorced her in front of their imam," the report said.
"The trial court refused to issue a final restraining order against husband finding that, although husband had harassed and assaulted wife, husband believed it was his religious right to have non-consensual sex with his wife and that belief precluded any criminal intent on the part of husband," according to the report.
"The New Jersey appellate court reversed the trial court and ordered that the trial court enter a final restraining order against husband. The New Jersey appellate court stated that the trial court erroneously allowed the husband's religious beliefs to excuse him from New Jersey’s criminal code and that husband knowingly engaged in non-consensual sex with wife," the report said.
The report also presents details of 19 more "top cases" and a summary of 50 cases from 23 states that have used Shariah as the basis for court decisions.
American Center for Law and Justice Shariah expert Shaheryar Gill said in the prominent New Jersey case, "the judge actually looked at Shariah law to decide."
Gill says an ACLJ book, "Shariah Law: Radical Islam's Threat to the U.S. Constitution," discusses the problem.
"In the case of 'S.D. v. M.J.R,' the New Jersey appellate court rightly refused to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of a Muslim man who physically, verbally, and sexually abused his wife in accordance with Shariah," the ACLJ book says.
The study emphasizes that family law is only part of the complete Shariah picture. It concludes that since Islamic religious law moves further than American constitutional law on a range of subjects, Shariah is incompatible with U.S. precedents.
"Institutionalized, authoritative Shariah is comprehensive and by definition without limit in its ambitions and scope, and it also includes legally mandated, recommended, permitted, discouraged and prohibited practices that are strongly biased and discriminatory against women, homosexuals and non-Muslims," the study said.
"Shariah law provides a legal framework for violence up to and including legalized murder against apostates (people who have left Islam), homosexuals, blasphemers and especially women accused of various crimes," the study said.
"Just this year in 2011, in Pakistan's Shariah legal system, both apostates and blasphemers have been imprisoned and faced execution. Shariah criminal punishments are extreme, including amputations and lashings for numerous crimes," the study reported.
WND reported in January about the high profile blasphemy case of Pakistani Christian woman Asia Bibi, who received the death penalty for blasphemy, simply for sharing the Gospel with her Muslim coworkers.
WND also reported in June that former terrorist Kamal Saleem agreed that one of the methods of carrying out jihad is through the courts.
"What they're trying to do is fake cases for Islam and these cases are done purposefully. We take an imam, there are two of them. They were fighting against each other and the fight was over a mosque," Saleem said. "That is so devious and it is part of the culture of Islamic invasion. These two imams are fighting over a mosque in Florida. Each imam says it belongs to me.
"One says I built it and I raised the funds. The other one says the Wahhabi government put me over here and they're the ones who sent the money. Both of them are right," Saleem continued.
"They went to the Supreme Court in Florida. What happened is that they said this was a Muslim matter and you need to judge us by Islamic Shariah law or you will not understand how these things work," he said.
Gill said there are other recent cases that demonstrate the level to which Shariah has infiltrated the court system.
"There are different types of cases in which you see that Shariah or Islamic law is applied or is required to be applied, or looked at," Gill said.
"For example, indirectly, there are cases in which foreign judgments are brought into the United States and enforced here," he said.
One such case according to the ACLJ's booklet is the case of 'Farah v. Farah,' heard in Virginia.
In that case, a Virginia trial judge recognized the validity of a Muslim marriage that was conducted through a proxy in England."
"The trial judge ruled that the marriage, which was solemnized in England (though no certificate of marriage was issued by any English authority) and its ceremony completed in Pakistan, must be honored in Virginia because 'the law of the state of Pakistan sanctions marriages performed under the personal law of the parties which in this case was Moslem law,'" the ACLJ book reported.
The book pointed out that the Virginia court, "correctly recognized, however, that Pakistan's recognition of Shariah 'does not control the issue of the validity of the marriage under Virginia law.' Instead, the court applied Virginia law, which only granted comity according to the principles of the location celebrating the marriage, which was England."
There is also the California case of "Malak v. Malak," which involved a Lebanese court decision.
"The court determined, however, that the Lebanese order was enforceable because even though the Lebanese court had not explicitly applied the 'best interests of the child' standard, its decision aligned with California's 'best interests of the child' standard," the ACLJ book said.
An Emory University Law School publication noted that the "Malak" case was cited as precedent in other Muslim child custody cases.
Atlas Shrugs publisher and Islam analyst Pamela Geller says that Islamic law cited as the basis for any American court decision shows that the American legal system is turning a dangerous corner.
"It is setting a very dangerous precedent. Shariah law and U.S. law conflict in numerous ways, including on issues of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women. Allowing Shariah to be a determining factor in U.S. courtrooms threatens those rights for all of us," Geller said. Islam makes inroads through U.S. courts Islam makes inroads through U.S. courts

 

[dross]

I cannot answer that, that is period specific. Using todays standards, no, they were not morally justified. However, applying common morals of the time, they might have been. As humanity grows, our moral compass changes direction. It's not really a fair comparison. We were treating human beings as property, showing the lowest form of humanity. While we might have moral objections to drug laws, they will never compare to the tragedy of slavery. Even I have my reservations about the drug laws, however, we have a system that addresses "bad" law and if I acted outside of that I become the criminal.

I'm not attacking you, or your choices.

Does what's right change with time? Certainly what's accepted as right changes, but is right an absolute, or is it a fashion?

Slaves were kidnapped or born into slavery for life without a choice.

People are put into slavery for a period of time for violating drug laws.

The difference I see is that if you were born into slavery or captured you had no option to avoid it, and it was for life.

If you violate the drug laws, you made a choice that you could have avoided.

Yet, if you have a right to do something, should you be forced into slavery for doing it? Are the writers in jail in Cuba just as bad as drug dealers here? They knew the law, they wrote illegal things anyway.

 

[Denny347]

I'm not attacking you, or your choices.

Does what's right change with time? Certainly what's accepted as right changes, but is right an absolute, or is it a fashion?

Slaves were kidnapped or born into slavery for life without a choice.

People are put into slavery for a period of time for violating drug laws.

The difference I see is that if you were born into slavery or captured you had no option to avoid it, and it was for life.

If you violate the drug laws, you made a choice that you could have avoided.

Yet, if you have a right to do something, should you be forced into slavery for doing it? Are the writers in jail in Cuba just as bad as drug dealers here? They knew the law, they wrote illegal things anyway.

Oh I know, we are having an adult discussion...on INGO even Cuba does not have the protections of us here in the USA. The citizens are born, raised in their system of government and their righ/wrong will vary from ours. Look at N Korea. They are completly isolated from the rest of the world. It's citizens really do not know anything else. Can you blame a NK soldier for arresting a citizen for anti-establishment activity when that soldier was indoctrinated so deeply they consider it a religion?

 

[dross]

. Can you blame a NK soldier for arresting a citizen for anti-establishment activity when that soldier was indoctrinated so deeply they consider it a religion?

Two levels of thought here. One is that yes, I can absolutely blame him for it. Just like we hunted down Japanese POW camp guards after the war, even though they were behaving correctly according to their own cultural morals.

Now, on a human level, I can understand that only a very exceptional person will rise above his culture.

Do morals come from the culture? I don't think so. I think there is a universal morality. A culture or a society can make the immoral moral in practice. This is done at the point of a gun.

The highest moral principle is this: Don't initiate force. Every culture recognizes this. Some, however, allow force to be used against certain types of people or people who engage in certain behaviors. To me, this is a violation of rights, and therefore immoral. All the laws, and elections and uniforms and speeches can't change that. Not even the Constitution can change that.