gdp's Comments

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Thu, 6 May 2010 18:03:41 +0000

Rights of the accused: Presumption of innocence Legal consul Not to be coerced to testify against oneself Trial by jury Public trail Speedy trial Cruel or Unusual punishment Confront ones accuser Held without indictment of a Grand Jury Habeas corpus Double jeopardy Only be compelled to search and seizure under court order Deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law Subpoena witnesses in one's favor To be informed of the nature of the accusations Petition for an appeal It's no surprise that 5 of the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights deal with the rights of the accused. Sorry if that gets in the way of the oppression of people you don't like.

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Wed, 5 May 2010 20:58:40 +0000

I was not arguing the being a factory worker in a third world country is optimal, only that for the individuals, it is the best of other alternatives. When demand decreases, production decrease and prices fall which both lower the number of jobs and lower firm revenue, decreasing the wages that the firm can afford to pay. Using market pressure to better workers wages and living conditions almost always hurt the very people they are trying to help. Market pressure in this sense can only be beneficial if there are private sector means to help the now jobless, such as a union or other worker organization. Providing charitable relief is the best way to help these people; market pressure will only work when it is first organized by the workers themselves, especially since a boycott can be combined with a simultaneous strike, decreasing available workforce w/o a comparable increase in price to make up for lost revenue. You argue that the farmer turn manufacture may not be the ideal situation, but it is still the best of other alternatives. And some firms do use coercion to maintain a 'slave-like' condition for its employees. This is, and should be, illegal. Transactions on a free-market have one common attribute: they produce win/status-quo decisions, meaning you can make the trade and make yourself better off, or you can decline the trade because you perceive that the trade will make you worse off and declining will make you no worse off than you were before. Coercion produces the options of win/lose or more often lose/lose where a person is worse off for not making a trade not due to previous binding agreement. Your Agriprocessor example is perfect: refusal can result in deportation. In the case of coal miners, danger is part of the job description. People take the jobs because the perceive that the risk to physical wellbeing are smaller than the increase in salary over comparable sectors. Coal miners make a median income of ~50,000-55,000, substantially higher than other heave equipment operators. For the recent disaster in WV, investigation is still underway, so I can't make any definitive answers, but its looking like the owners violated workers contracts and/or the assumed risk that the employees accepted. That is up for the criminal and common law courts to decide. And as for less farmers, free markets has the nice effect of creating the best productivity (in economic terms: Maximum Total Welfare). Many farmers have moved on to other occupations because they can get more wealth, increasing their personal welfare. This increases supply for all other goods and services, increasing society's welfare. Because increasing productivity of farming is what made farming no longer the best alternative for these individuals, there only a minimal decrease in immediate short-term supply and no effect on long term supply (were talking one growing season for one plot of land). Larger farms move in because they are more efficient (can produce more with less inputs), increasing societal good. These large agricultural business make sense both socially and economically, they produce more with less with no increase in negative externalities. Our current policies of supporting small farms keeps production artificially low and grain prices artificially high while reducing available labor in other sectors, making the vast society worse off. In 1900, one farmer could feed 12 people. Now one farmer can feed more than 120, that is a very good thing. Thanks for the opportunity for debate. I love nothing more than friendly discussion, esp. on economics.

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Wed, 5 May 2010 18:26:14 +0000

Some of this countries most important rights are the rights of the accused. Without a court order, the only situation were a cop can demand ID is if he or she has direct probable cause that a crime is being committed or is going to be committed or believes that I am an individual for whom a warrant has been issued. And it is a huge deal. Allowing officials to demand any documents without direct, probable cause and without a court order is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans. As for your second point, I suggest you read the 14th amendment. Notice how it says all PERSONS are guaranteed due process of law, even those suspected of being here illegally. We protect accused murderers from abuses of the law, as we should. Do suspected illegal immigrants not deserve the same due process of law?

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Wed, 5 May 2010 06:07:11 +0000

Only on probable cause. Its different because suspected DUI, suspected expiration of vehicle registration, suspected "burnt-out taillight" all have very noticeable cues that create probable cause, allowing an officer to demand to see your DL. What is probable cause for illegal immigration. The only reasonable 'probable cause' I can come up with for your traffic stop example is fraudulent documents, which provide probable cause for the crime of fraud to detain an individual and secure a warrant for the search of the vehicle and validation of identity which would procure legal status, but you must have probable cause to get the documents in the first place. And since there is no probable cause for illegal immigration unless the suspect says "I am here illegally" (doubtful), there can be no requirement to procure immigration papers without a gross 4th amendment violation. On your last point. In my experience, your run-of-the-mill liberal or conservative only cares about the constitution when it suits his or her needs. I am not trying to point fingers at anyone here specifically, including yourself and Mr. Greer.

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Wed, 5 May 2010 05:45:57 +0000

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Wed, 5 May 2010 05:42:33 +0000

First, I am far from liberal, but regardless, I'll take the bait. " . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - The 14th amendment to the US Constitution Notice how it says 'persons', not 'citizens' or 'legal immigrants' or 'those here lawfully', but 'persons'. ALL PERSONS are guaranteed due process of law. Secondly, if you, for some reason, feel violating the rights of 'illegals' is permissible, how do you KNOW they are illegal before you trample on their rights? Answer me that.

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Wed, 5 May 2010 05:35:34 +0000

Just because they do doesn't make it anymore legal to do so. And the only reason you have to prove who you are is to validate your license to drive (since we combine DL and ID into one document, no concern on this front), and to validate identity only so far as it is necessary to issue a citation. We are making a big deal out of this because what constitutes reasonable suspicion. If it is a fraudulent DL, that is reasonable suspicion, but the law originally only stated 'reasonable suspicion', which could be interpreted very liberally by law enforcement if they so chose, esp. because the were 'required' to detain anyone with 'reasonable suspicion'. Amendments have subsequently clarified 'reasonable suspicion'.

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Wed, 5 May 2010 05:24:41 +0000

Yes, because trade protectionism has wonderful economic realities for all parties involved (note the sarcasm). There are a million arguments why embargoes and tariffs are bad, such as retributive trade restrictions imposed by other countries, lost domestic productivity due to the divergence of resources to less efficient endeavors to make up for the lost goods (lowering real income), lost productivity in Mexico for the same reason (once again, lowering real income), violating international agreement (more retributive tariffs), higher prices domestically (lowering real income), malnutrition (a bit of a stretch, included more for humor, but lack of tomatoes means something). People moan about how we lose jobs to underpaid foreigners, but what they forget is that these jobs go overseas because there, the goods are produced more efficiently (using less inputs). This means that the foreigners are better off because making cars gets them more wealth than, say, farming. If it weren't so, they wouldn't work for the wages they do. Depriving them of this opportunity for trade makes them worse off. We should, through private means, help alleviate poverty, however, using trade control, through private or public means, is well, economically idiotic for all involved. Domestically, because foreigners produce goods more efficiently than we do, we can divert resources (aka, jobs) to more productive sectors. This increases the real wages of those workers, and because it is more efficient, decreases prices for goods and services in these sectors, increasing real income for all individuals. The argument that moving jobs overseas is bad for us has no weight. In the long run, and for the most part, the short run (possible slight increase in short term unemployment in concentrated sectors, but society as a whole is still better off in the short term), both societies are better off. But I do agree with you that our government should cease all monetary aid to the Mexican government; it is incredibly corrupt. As for the drug lords, I can think of one simple solution that will make everyone better off (hint, the root word is 'legal') but that is another debate for another day.

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Wed, 5 May 2010 04:59:11 +0000

I'll reiterate my point, we carry our DL when we drive because it is our license to do so. The two are the same for a matter of convenience (2 birds, 1 stone). Police can demand our ID in the event of a traffic violation because the officer has "probable cause" that a crime is being committed (like driving with a broken taillight, see a thread below). The officer can only extend this authority to gather evidence to issue a citation and issue it against the correct individual and correct vehicle, such as demanding vehicle registration, DL, and ID (the last two, as you pointed out, are one). The office CANNOT use the probable cause of a broken taillight to search for other "laws broken". For example, if I'm pulled over for speeding, the officer can demand ID (to issue the citation to the correct individual), DL (to prove licensure), and vehicle registration and insurance (to verify and record the correct vehicle). The officer cannot use speeding as "probable cause" to search my vehicle. The officer, without further evidence, cannot search my vehicle nor demand any other documents or effects without my consent. The officer can request to do so and I can decline, and my refusal cannot, whatsoever, be held against me nor be used as probable cause to conduct further investigations. However, it the officer sees a body in my backseat through the window, that becomes probable cause to search and detain my person. But, without further evidence, such as seeing a body, no further searching may be conducted without the consent of the person being searched And this is where the problem with the law as originally written occurs. The first version left vague what the probable cause for additional search is. If someone is stopped and they cannot speak English, but otherwise provide correct and authentic documents, that is not probable cause and no other investigation may be undertaken except that which is necessary for the issuance of a citation. If someone is pulled over and they do not have a license, that is probable cause to detain the individual for failure to carry a license while operating a motor vehicle on public roads. If the DL is found to be counterfeit or otherwise fraudulent, the individual can be detained under reasonable suspicion of fraud. Either way, the individual's identity must first be verified due to reasonable suspicion, and the law, as now currently stated is my understanding, allows the persons legality to be checked while their identity is verified, which I see as perfectly reasonable.

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Wed, 5 May 2010 04:38:43 +0000

Quite exactly. Because unreasonable is subjective, it is up to a court to decide what is "reasonable" outside of immediate probable cause, and ONLY a court-issued warrant may be used to search a person's "papers", all other searches, outside of the aforementioned probable cause (see example of the broken taillight). Thus, an officer mandating proof of citizenship or legal residency without a warrant is clearly ILLEGAL, regardless of what federal or state law says.

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Tue, 4 May 2010 23:40:13 +0000

Because: 1. Your DL serves as your ID. When a cop pulls you over on a traffic stop, their more interested in are you licensed to operate the vehicle on public roads more than who you are. 2. A burnt-out taillight is a violation of the law and therefor reasonable cause to demand ID. A police officer can demand ID if there is probable cause to believe that a crime is currently being conducted. I never said anything about state or local enforcement executing federal law. I was stating that the policy is illegal whether it be state or federal, so arguing that the Arizona law is currently federal law is not valid. And your right, immigration is a federal power (I,8,iv), so federal law does supersede state law in this matter. The federal government does grant states certain abilities to execute federal power, such that local law enforcement can arrest and individual on immigration violations when all evidence against the individual has been legally attained. All civil liberties arguments aside, I don't know if AZ can legally execute the law. I'm no legal expert and it depends on what is stated in Federal law, since immigration and naturalization is a federal power.

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Tue, 4 May 2010 21:20:06 +0000

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - The 4th amendment to the US Constitution " . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - The 14th amendment to the US Constitution Good letter, Mr. Greer. The original version was despicable. To all who argue that it is reasonable to demand papers from any person, citizen or not, read the paragraphs above. Also, Arizona may be implementing what is already federal law, but that doesn't make either right. Those of you, (like Mr. Goldberg's editorial yesterday) that argue that the federal government should do its job, the feds can't demand papers without a warrant, either. Regardless of any law the federal congress passes, doing so would still be illegal. That being said, my understanding is that the amendments to the law restricted it's enforcement to only situations where an arrest is being made. Since, at that point, a warrant will have already been issued, and undoubtedly allows the individual to be searched, that removes any constitutional question. If I'm wrong about the amendment, please correct me. Just my two cents.

GazetteOnline.com : Arizona law violates the Fourth Amendment

Tue, 4 May 2010 21:07:14 +0000

When I leave my house, I have a right to leave it with nothing but the clothes on my back, ID or no. There is not, nor should there ever be, a requirement to carry ID. If I choose to drive, I have to carry my DL, not because it's my ID, but because it is my license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. It is only "reasonable" for a law enforcement officer to demand ID in the event that the officer has probable cause that a crime is being committed. If a policeman asks me for my ID, I have the right to say no, and in no way can my refusal to do so be constrained as probable cause.

GazetteOnline.com : State should change motto in wake of plan

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:54:31 +0000

First, you don't put forth a counter-argument, but I'll excuse that. Second, pretty much every state already has some version of Eduction, Transportation, HHS, and I believe most have Energy. The rest we don't need (Labor, Housing and Urban Development (purely local), and Interior (I just realized that I forgot that one in my last post). Third, it would be fairly easy, the hard part is coming up with a specific plan for dismantling Social Security, and having the political will to do so. Until politicians do what is right instead of what is easy (meaning politically expedient ), we will have all of these money wasters for a long time.

GazetteOnline.com : State should change motto in wake of plan

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:33:53 +0000

Easy, begin the process of dismantling those systems. Doing so will take decades because many of the elderly made their retirement decisions based on this forced, low yield retirement plan, but are now dependent on it, same with Medicare. Federal funding for Medicaid can be eliminated within a few years, enough time for the states to shore up their books. Yes, the fact that our old age programs cannot be dismantled entirely tomorrow, next year, or even the next decade means we will have to fund it for a while. Funds for this can be gotten by dismantling useless and wasteful departments, namely: Homeland Security, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development (the most ridiculous federal department ), Transportation, Energy, Veteran's affairs (merge into Defense). Reduce HHS, but we'll need it for a while to run the dismantling of SS and Medicare. All of these functions are best left to the states, if to any government at all. All or nearly all the savings should be put towards paying the debt down to a reasonable level, then, and only then, should substantial tax cuts be made.

GazetteOnline.com : State should change motto in wake of plan

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:15:27 +0000

We don't hate government, we just recognize that it causes more problems than it solves. It's gone on long enough, and those of us who know this need to stand up and save us. Your comment about the HUTAREE, they are not conservatives, they are extremists. They recently arrested a guy in connection to ALF's attack on the University of Iowa. Do you have friends in Utah in the last month?

GazetteOnline.com : Support businesses that support veterans

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:32:50 +0000

One, charity certainly is not a bad thing; it's society's way of giving back. Two, my argument wasn't concerning the morality or desirability of one method over the other, my argument is that charity makes more financial sense, and therefor, more bang for your buck, than private discounts. I don't know anything about the Little Caesars policy, but it sound good to me. Economically, it would help veterans with very little financial input that would likely be negated by future profits. It makes sense as a policy to help vets.

GazetteOnline.com : Ethanol mandate wouldn’t help prices

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:21:55 +0000

You forgot another reason: Corn farmers and those whose jobs depend on the corn industry vote. An EtOH mandate would hold corn prices artificially high, benefiting this group. Here is an article about how EtOH is idiotic as a fuel source: The Ethanol Scam . I also read a report a few weeks ago that found that the EtOH produced in the US produces more CO2 than it displaces mainly because the fermentation of corn is very inefficient and production of corn requires a lot of input. In contrast, Brazil's domestic production of EtOH is environmental because they use sugar cane. I couldn't find that report again, if anyone has a link, please provide it.

GazetteOnline.com : Father, son’s exchange showed respect

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:05:17 +0000

I would suggest that all comments be posted on the first copy of this letter.

GazetteOnline.com : Father, son’s exchange showed respect

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:04:00 +0000

"To know there are still children who respect their parents and, by their actions, let them know it." Mr. Estrem, that quote describes the vast majority of children and young adults in this country, and I doubt that it is any lower of a percentage than 50 years ago. I'm concerned that you seem to buy the media hype that kids today are disrespectful little bastards.