Hacker News Reader

Comment by alpine_accentor | Hacker News Reader

It makes perfect sense to concentrate law enforcement in a state that is in defiance. Even if the absolute numbers are low, the state cannot back down from enforcing the law because some people are resisting. Otherwise you invite anyone to disregard any law they don’t like. The state won’t allow this and the only way to overcome this is either to change the law or toss out the government, and only one options is realistic. And btw I am against deportations of people who have committed no felonies unrelated to immigration.

View on HN

> It makes perfect sense to concentrate law enforcement in a state that is in defiance

Using the word "defiance" indicates that your perspective is decidedly not American.

Both the States and the Federal government are co-sovereign, mediated by the US Constitution that spells out the rights and responsibilities of each. The Federal government is currently in willful and flagrant default of this founding charter - both overall in terms of how it is supposed to function (offices being executed in good faith forming checks and balances), as well as openly flouting the handful of hard limits outlined in the Bill of Rights. As such, the Federal government has lost the legal authority to dictate anything to the States.

It is of course still prudent to recognize the realpolitik of the "Federal government" having command of a lawless paramilitary force currently unleashing terror and mayhem on civil society. But the point is that we need to work towards re-establishing law and order in terms of the remaining functioning sovereigns.

They are certainly NOT co-sovereign, that is an absurd statement as states cannot leave the Union. Any sovereign party can withdraw from a treaty. The states are represented in their ability to collectively steer the federal government by Congress and the Electoral College. The feds are currently enforcing the ill will of both which sadly is the result of last elections.

I said co-sovereign, not that they're both independently sovereign (required for your treaty example). This is straightforward law, go read up on it. States are considered sovereign themselves, with powers limited by the US Constitution - the same qualification as the Federal government.

It's honestly besides the point. For even if I accept their sovereignty, they have exercised their sovereign will in the Electoral College to elect this administration. And they always have the power to impeach it through their representatives, the administration did not take that away, nor did they suspend the Congress, nor do they appear to be preparing to wrongfully influence the next elections. A state can not go and rebel against the Union because it disagrees with the current administration. Hell, the Union can literally change the Constitution against the will of a particular state if enough other states agree. You can consider states sovereign if you want, and I concede that it's an established tradition, but when the whole agreement on the separation of powers can be changed with a particular state voting against it - that's a mockery of sovereignty of that state.

Sorry, this is a whole ball of post-hoc motivated reasoning.

> For even if I accept their sovereignty, they have exercised their sovereign will in the Electoral College to elect this administration

Simply repeating the word "sovereign" doesn't mean you've applied and fully accounted for the definition.

> A state can not go and rebel against the Union

I'm not talking about rebellion here, but the provision of law and order in spite of the federal government's policies of repeated lawbreaking.

> when the whole agreement on the separation of powers can be changed with a particular state voting against it - that's a mockery of sovereignty of that state.

This subject is not like computer programming where finding some lever you can pull to affect an axiomatic-deductive result invalidates the independent meaning of the original thing. If two-thirds of the states actually wanted to scrap the current Constitution and turn the federal government into an autocracy with two impotent patronage-review councils, then you would have a point. As it stands, you do not - the entire point of these necessary supermajorities is to put the brakes and pull us towards a foundation of individual liberty and limited government when things are close to evenly divided.

As I said, you really need to read up on the founding of this country. It's got all of these dynamics and more - including the "liberal media".

I think most people involved in protests would not characterize the thing they are resisting as merely "law enforcement". What they are experiencing is an occupation by a politically weaponized paramilitary organization which is going door-to-door in their neighborhoods wearing masks, wielding ARs, yelling at people and brutalizing them. How do you think you would react if this was taking place in your community?

Of course the brutality is not desirable, but to stay in perspective, what would you suggest they do to still enforce the law efficiently but without this forcefulness? They can’t do it the normal way when they are constantly watched and their targets are warned beforehand by whistles and apps and they can’t and shouldn’t back down on enforcing the law.

I expect them to enforce the law without breaking the law. I want the job of any law enforcement agency to be hard. Not because I want lawlessness, but because the government has a rightful burden to surpass to prove that it's citizens are in the wrong. The government is supposed to serve the citizenry and not the other way around.

We have a freedom of speech and protest precisely to signal our discontent with our leaders. It is precisely for citizens to harass law enforcement that they view as unjust.

The entire reason we got those freedoms spelt out in the constitution in the first place was because of British occupation and the views that the British governments laws and enforcement were unjust. There is a direct parallel. The spirit of the 3rd amendment is that we should be able to kick out law enforcement that we hate. That we don't have to tolerate their presence.

> what would you suggest they do to still enforce the law efficiently but without this forcefulness

How about not violating the 5th amendment by going door to door through neighborhoods randomly? I don't give a single FUCK if ICE can do their jobs today if they have to violate half the damn bill of rights to do it.

I don't accept the framing that this is about law enforcement in the first place. I believe that this administration is run by xenophobic right wing extremists who care little for the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. They have weaponized ICE against the Somali community in Minneapolis today, the overwhelming majority of whom are legal refugees. As we have seen, they will not hesitate to weaponize ICE against anyone else who crosses them. I believe the organization does not exist to protect or serve the interests of the American public and should be abolished.

The American public has sadly elected this administration. I agree with you in principle, especially when legal immigrants become targets. But again, if the actions of this administration are not just morally wrong but illegal there are courts, and in any case there are elections. The people of one state or one city can not obstruct the will of the Union, it is fundamentally undemocratic way of interfacing with the fairly elected government.

I'm sorry, but if you still have any expectation that this administration will engage in good faith in any democratic process, you either haven't been paying attention or are engaging in willful self-delusion. They do not believe in democracy. They care about free speech only insofar as they can use it to claim they are being victimized, but will gleefully take it away from their opponents. They laugh in your face while they pardon the J6 insurrectionists. The presidential election is not and ought not be a referendum on whether or not we all get to have our rights trampled by gun-toting masked goons. At a certain point you have to stand up for what's right--that is, a reclamation of democracy.

Efficiency has never been a goal of US governance, especially in how it interacts with the People. This is deliberate. Read up on the events around the American Revolution if you want to see why that is. There are actually a lot of arguments being trotted out today that were trotted out back then, by the British.

I mean this idea of defiance is absurd. People here are 99.9% exercising their constitutional rights. The majority of crimes happening at this moment are ICE infringing on people’s constitutional rights. I appreciate you sharing your perspective but that logic exists in isolation from the reality. ICE are so bad at policing they are creating more crimes than they are solving.

Of course with the Trump FBI the message is loud and clear, those crimes will not be investigated

ICE officers are bad at policing because they were a paper pusher/investigative agency which should always be assisted by local law enforcement. Most of the other feds operate like that. The administration dramatically increased ICE workload and in addition to that the local police is not always cooperative, and they are being obstructed by protesters. Of course they are fumbling around and making lots of mistakes, but again, they can not give up on enforcing the federal law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com