https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
>despots don't care about the law
This is such a low probability scenario that I don't think it's worth the average person to worry about.
>despots don't care about the law
This is such a low probability scenario that I don't think it's worth the average person to worry about.
how is it a low probability scenario?
it's happened before, in living memory (there are still people alive that survived the holocaust)
and you're seeing the early stages of despotic rule literally today in Minnesota
>the early stages of despotic rule literally today in Minnesota
This type of thinking is what is leading to the destruction of order there.
the argument isn't that states can't create ex-post facto laws (even though they can, see: any country with parliamentary sovereignty)
it's that what the law says doesn't matter when the executive no is longer bound by the rule of law
see: the United States under the Trump regime
the fact that some previous legislature has passed a law saying that "using the gay/jewish/disabled/... database for bad things is illegal" is of no consequence when the state already has the database and has no interest in upholding the rule of law
>"using the gay/jewish/disabled/... database for bad things is illegal"
If it is legal than I want to be able to use such a database as it makes law enforcement more efficient. It gets rid of inefficiency in the government. Wanting such inefficiency is wanting to allow for unlawful behavior. It's the whole using privacy as an excuse to hide from the government.
In my mind everyone would be better off if current incarnation of ICE was disbanded so these clashes didn't have to happen in the first place. You've completely switched cause and effect - ICE behavior is the CAUSE of protests, not the effect!
Currently the Federal level is blocking the State prosecuting such clear breaches of the law.
Approaching a vehicle that is already stopped, perpendicular to traffic, initially to tell the driver to move and then to make an arrest for obstruction of justice, is not a "traffic stop", and the agents in question therefore did not in any way "pretend to have local traffic enforcement powers". ICE are legally entitled to require protesters to get out of their way. That's a consequence of them being federal LEO, and of federal law prohibiting everyone from obstructing LEO (which includes things like physically shielding others from arrest, impeding their movement towards whatever place they need to get to to do their job, etc.). Protesting and asserting 1A rights is not a defense to the charge of obstruction of justice.
But you do care what caused someone to break the law - you just said that if breaking the law (murdering someone) was for keeping order then it's ok. It's very easy to see that you agree with enforcing "law" just because you agree with current administration (otherwise it's very hard to argue that what ICE is doing has anything to do with being lawful).
You have no care for the law nor for humanity. You're supporting summary execution by a stasi; you seriously need to step back and reconsider your belief system.
Those you consider to be bringing order are arbitrarily enacting violence against citizens and other people in ways that break the law and Constitution; and which are outlawed in all moral societies. Sure, strict conformance to a dictators whims is a form of order, but if you seek that sort of order in your life you should look for a dom and not attempt to impose it on others.
The clashes do not have to happen. Trump's Regime can be removed, habeas corpus resurrected, and the Constitution re-implemented.
Your mind appears to wear jackboots.
Yes, we are seeing a destruction of order in MN. US citizens being terrorized by ICE and CBP agents with 47 days of training, no understanding of the legal limits of their authority, and no consequences when they go beyond those limits.
But that's not being caused by people pushing back against the beginnings of autocracy. That's being caused by the people who want to become autocrats.
But that's also not really the point, so we can even presume they are, because the root of the argument is the same either way. Just having a title or being ordered to do something by a politician does not automatically mean they are bringing order to the country. There is a reason the founding fathers set the country up the way they did, with multiple checks and balances, separate branches, etc. They went out of their way to make it that no one branch would have unlimited power.
That means that order in this country fundamentally is based on those checks and balances being adhered to. Any unilateral shift away from that is fundamentally pulling us into a more disordered state. I wish seances were a thing because I would love to hear the founders' take on "Masked men ordered here by a unitary executive branch detain and arrest random people including US citizens for the purpose of making sure they are here legally, while also using a private ledger to determine where the citizen's legally recognized documents are valid."
But we can go even more fundamentally than that: The label on a thing does not make it the thing. They can call themselves law enforcement while still breaking the law. It happens to real law enforcement all the time - cops can and do get punished for crimes they commit, at least sometimes.