Best constitutional law books according to redditors
We found 372 Reddit comments discussing the best constitutional law books. We ranked the 132 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
15. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classics)
3 mentions
Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.
This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY
Science on reasoning, reason doesn't work the way we thought it did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Brezinski at a press conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY
The real news:
http://therealnews.com/t2/
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r
http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/
Look at the following graphs:
IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Actual_estimated_ideal_wealth_distribution.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
And then...
WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM
Free markets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/
"We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.
In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."
Important history:
http://williamblum.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4
>Now, it is highly unlike that the DoJ would prosecute a 17-year-old for using Google, even if they have violated Google's TOS by doing so. Instead, the Justice Department wants to have the option to threaten people with prosecution under CFAA if they so choose, usually as part of a bigger case.
Our government has created a system where anyone and everyone can be considered a criminal if the government wants you to be. It's really, really dangerous. This can easily be turned on anyone who the government doesn't like.
I would recommend everyone read this book, it's eye opening:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
There's a book on it.
> Is there any secondary source I could be pointed to that might make the whole con law concept easier to grasp?
The answer to this question is always Chemerinsky's hornbook. I outlined this instead of my textbook and it worked out very well.
This, absolutely. Heck, there's even a book about this very problem called Three Felonies a Day.
Good for you! Except if you're living in the US you're already likely commiting three felonies a day.
There are some massive reasons why you need to care: proliferation of arcane criminal laws and prosecutorial discretion. In combination with extensive surveillance of everyone, these form an unholy trinity that allows those in power to squash anyone they want to. How does it work? Let me start at the beginning.
What is the criminal justice system? In many people's minds, it is the way that we stop the bad guys. The good guys figure out what the bad guys are doing, catch them at it, and put them in jail, right? That's the story we tell to children and many people never understand it any better than that. But it's all wrong.
What the criminal justice system really is is the machine we have built to apply legitimate civil force. It's a weapon: in every arrest, after every trial, is the barrel of a gun pointed at someone and metal cages to restrict their movement. But at whom is it pointed? And who's in the cages? That depends on how you build the machine and who is operating it.
So how have we built the machine? We've built it so that there are so many crimes you cannot avoid committing one. There are literally tens of thousands of crimes at the federal level alone. One legal analyst wrote a book arguing that just about everyone commits three federal felonies every day. Though that claim may be exaggerated for effect, the basic proposition that federal criminal law is so comprehensive and vague that nearly anyone could be prosecuted is, if we are honest, hardly debatable. But surely the prosecutors only go after the bad guys, right?
Enter the federal prosecutor and prosecutorial discretion. What this means is that a prosecutor has complete control over who to charge with a crime. Bring him a clearly guilty friend, and he could decline to charge him. Bring him an innocent enemy, and he could charge him. But wait, you say, he's innocent! Sorry, see above. No one is innocent.
Many dismiss it as a silly conspiracy theory, but let's listen to someone who really knows what he is talking about, then Attorney General of the U.S. and future Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, speaking to the U.S. Attorneys serving under him in 1940:
>If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone.
And of course thousands of criminal laws have been passed since 1940. The odds of a prosecutor being able to find "at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone" have only increased. Nevertheless, one might argue that Jackson has only identified a potential problem; surely there are safeguards in place and simple politically motivated prosecutions are not a problem in the 21st century.
If you are one of those people, would it surprise you to learn that from 2001-2007, the Bush DOJ investigated seven times as many democratic officials as it did republican ones?
Alternately, how would you view the story of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was convicted of bribery amidst claims that the prosecution was politically motivated? I can tell you what 44 attorneys general thought about the prosecution - they were concerned that the case "may have had sufficient irregularities as to call into question the basic fairness that is the linchpin of our system of justice."
Now this was already a problem well before the whole NSA thing came about. But when you enable those people in control of the system to access a vast wealth of information about the activities of every person in the country, all barriers to prosecution are removed. Criminal prosecutions could easily be brought against all enemies, whether personal or political. A significant but manageable problem turns into a rampaging beast that tramples everyone in its path, and people like you sit on the sidelines and cheer on the destruction, confident that you will not find yourself being trampled. So you say only criminals need to be concerned? I suppose you're technically right, but the problem is that we live in an age where we are all criminals.
Maybe not what you asked for, but this is basically a must-read (IMO) for anyone interested in constitutional law. You can also reference the typical supplements that law students use. They are much easier than a casebook.
Nutshell
Crunchtime
Chemerinsky's book is the only reason I got a good grade in con law in law school
Anyone who wants to learn more about constitutional law should check this out. It is massive but utterly readable as far as law books go
It isn't just Fox news. Let me take you on a little journey:
video of the CIA testifying in front of congress, about "Operation Mockingbird".
U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans
CNNs "Courageous" Advertorial Mill.
Alwaleed is a Saudi who partially owns/owned FOX. Does he believe he helps control the message? Yes he does:
>http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/is-saudi-prince-steering-news-corp-coverage/
Alwaleed said he got the Fox News crawl reporting “Muslim riots” in France changed to “civil riots.” This didn’t make the “Muslim” riots go away, but Alwaleed managed to fog our perception of them.. with a phone call.
One powerful dude makes a phone call and "fogs perception". That's REAL world persuasion. And it's admitted. No conspiracy. Now the FACT that he can do it and brag about it PROVES how malleable the news is. He's just a 5% owner. Rupert Murdock can say the sky is Magenta and they'll color correct the sky to magenta. Or they will lose their posh job. What would you do?
George Bush Admits the News are Using Fake Stories
Micheal Hastings (The one redeeming quality about BuzzFeed until his murder) on the CIA and propaganda
The U.S. Army's Psychological Operations unit placed interns at CNN and NPR in 1998 and 1999. The placements at CNN were reported in the European press in February of this year and the program was terminated.
Media giant Clear Channel sponsored pro-war rallies.
Embedded Reporting
NY article about "should the newspaper fact check and call politicians on lies or not?" You definitely want to read it, then scroll to the comments section and see all the people pissed off at the NYT. BTW this article is by the Public Editor, not just some random writer in Opinion or something.
How the Media Manipulates the World into War - Some good info in here, but you will have to do your own fact checking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc&ab_channel=LastWeekTonight
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14367
A list of Media Documentaries
4 Examples of Media Fabricating News
The Hasbara Project: 1 2
Media Consolidation - I have no knowledge of this sites trustworthiness, only this specific article (I've seen it on other sites but am too lazy to search for it)
Great article on media censorship
---------------------------------
Some relevant quotes:
If we had met five years ago, you wouldn't have found a more staunch defender of the newspaper industry than me ... And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss had been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job ... The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress ...
— ^Gary ^Webb
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."
--William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein
"The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible."
--The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein
“For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government…. I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.”
–former President Harry Truman, 22 December 1963, op-ed section of the Washington Post, early edition
“I ate breakfast last week with the president of a network news division and he told me that during non-election years, 70% of the advertising revenues for his news division come from pharmaceutical ads. And if you go on TV any night and watch the network news, you’ll see they become just a vehicle for selling pharmaceuticals. He also told me that he would fire a host who brought onto his station a guest who lost him a pharmaceutical account,” Robert F Kennedy, Jr,
Read More: http://www.trueactivist.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-says-70-of-news-advertising-revenue-comes-from-big-pharma/
Read "Into The Buzzsaw: LEADING JOURNALISTS EXPOSE THE MYTH OF A FREE PRESS". It's written by award winning journalists. These journalists have all had major story shut down by Corporate or Gov't pressure. Most were fired.
http://www.amazon.com/Into-Buzzsaw-LEADING-JOURNALISTS-EXPOSE/dp/1591022304
https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government/dp/0062276174
https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1439193886/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
https://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Americas-Invisible-Government/dp/1608190064
https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081
https://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446
Those are the books that you should read.
Here are also some good resources:
Paul Craig Roberts worked in the Reagan administration: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
This is a good multi-part article excerpted from one of the books above: http://whowhatwhy.org/2013/09/16/part-1-mr-george-bush-of-the-central-intelligence-agency/
Michael Glennon’s abstract about his book: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf
A PDF of the “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” book if you don’t want to buy it: http://resistir.info/livros/john_perkins_confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man.pdf
This is when the reporter asked Bill Clinton about Mena: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDMktUYvC7k
Article on the coup attempt in France: http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/20/jfk-assassination-plot-mirrored-in-1961-france-part-1/
All of whowhatwhy.org is very good. There is probably a lot of good information there most haven’t heard of. The main guy, Russ Baker, is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist.
Bet you didn’t know that Bob Woodward was a state intelligence asset/disinformationist? https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/710466456941686784
All part of the record…. Enjoy.
See if your law school offers intro to law courses for undergrads. Mine did and it helped a great deal at piquing my interest in law.
Beyond that, I'd read some books about SCOTUS (G. Toobin's "The Nine" is a good, easy read).
If you want to dig into actual con law without reading yourself into a coma, try Con Law: Principles and Policies by Erwin Chemorinsky (http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Introduction/dp/073555787X)
It was, and is, the Con Law bible for law students. It's heavy on legal concepts but its written well enough that its readable by anyone. I have my copy sitting right next to me on my desk right now. I can't tell you how good this book is for constitutional law 101 type information.
I can think of a few
Read the book Three Felonies a Day and say that again.
>criminalizing basically the entire Internet will follow
That's the point. They make sure the framework is illegal so they can selectively crack down on anyone they want, any time they want.
Driving works this way too. Speed limits are artificially low so that everyone speeds, and they can pull over whoever they want to fuck with.
Here's a neat book that explains how every single person in America is a wanted criminal, that way the government can pick and choose who they target, any time they want.
Right, and I didn't understand how much resistance you need to give in order for it to be entrapment. Ultimately even if your case ends up being text book entrapment (whatever that is) you still have to convince a courtroom that it is entrapment, so you're still at the mercy of the courts, so your best bet is to avoid all illegal activity (which is practically impossible).
Chemerinsky literally writes textbooks on constitutional law.
https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975
So you think. I'm certain you've committed more felonies than you know.
"Three Felonies a Day"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594032556?tag=freetalklive-20
While I agree with your sentiment that, for their day, the Founding Fathers of the United States were remarkable people they also had their problems. Nearly every problem that citizens of the United States are facing today were predicted in some fashion by other founding fathers. If you really want to understand the debate, at the time, you have to read the following two books.
If you kept an open mind and read those books you will probably find yourself much more suspicious of government than you might otherwise expect. The first book of this second list was written in the 19^th century and makes very clear the problems with the US Constitution. The last two are modern extensions of thought to Spooners' writings.
>That is, I don't plan on practicing law, but rather I'd look to study civil rights law and constitutional history so as to improve my prospects as a professor of political theory
Go buy this book, read it cover to cover, and save yourself the 150k of debt you'd need to go into just to take a semester/year long class in Con law.
Getting a JD will do nothing at all for your career prospects after your PhD unless you want to become an actual attorney.
Not really. The promotion of "health" is explicitly stated within the definition of police power. You should read Chemerinsky he'll really explain Con Law to you.
But that's interesting that you are making an appeal to morality considering that you are morally OK with the government murdering people so that you can have a few cents cheaper gas, but you're aren't OK with the government using its explicit powers of taxation and police powers to provide adequate healthcare to the public. I get that utilitarianism is perhaps too coldly rational for you, but that doesn't even comport to deontology. Even Kant would be like, "Na bruh, that doesn't make any sense". It sounds to me that you are trying to twist objectivism into a moral framework, but objectivism is rejected as infantile by basically all schools moral thought, and even beyond that objectivism is premised on "ethical egoism" the logical conclusion of which leads most kindly to amoralism, but in practice to immoralism. So it's hard to argue objectivism is a moral philosophy beyond the term "moral" being a catchall for all schools of thought that deal with the interactions between people.
Buy Erwin Chemerinsky's supplement and don't look back. I used it during law school and during bar prep.
https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
In a similar vein is Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. haven't read it, but it comes highly recommended.
Apparently in America we have enough laws that every single citizen commits 3 felonies daily.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Encounter-Broadsides/dp/1594032556/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2OALDNY6IIDE&keywords=3+felonies+a+day+book&qid=1554343637&s=gateway&sprefix=3+felonies&sr=8-1
not really a book, just a catch-all to refer to writing in opposition to the ratification of the constitution. and there's a LOT of them. but if one is interested, i think the edition edited by ralph ketchum is convenient for the novice and has the added bonus of excerpts from madison's notes from the constitutional convention.
Hm tbh any good history book that covers the early years of the US should go into it. And this is the Wikipedia page on the 3/5 compromise but does have a good list of references and sources at the bottom.
Also this
Here are a couple of books for you: Three Felonies a Day and Go Directly to Jail
> Right, but Trump was supposed to be that drastic change, he was the supposed flamethrower ready burn this pestilence from the field.
In who's minds???
> However, we have gravely underestimated the seriousness of the situation.
Says someone who hasn't bought an Evil Black Rifle and lots of ammo for it???
> Call me conspiracy theorist all you like, but it doesn't take much to see an aggressive attempt on passing legislation that is vague enough to throw anybody in jail.
Errr, we've long been there. See e.g. Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent See also Arrest-Proof Yourself for the local version, and how to make yourself an unattractive enough target they'll move on to easier prey. The Feds openly operate a (Left Wing) Death Squad, the FBI Hostage "Rescue" Team, most recently shooting at the only guy killed in the Oregon standoff.
> Like Hate Speech laws and media narratives, that can condemn anyone for "disturbing the peace".
Best we hope the Supremes continue with their 5 member majority in favor of free speech (Citizens United was where the Left really showed its hand, banning core political speech).
> Nowadays, mass bans and blacklisting is more common than ever, and the people in these categories are taking the full brunt of it.
Hard to underestimate the evil and major effects of the mostly Bay Area totalitarian tech Left.
> In short, this is much bigger than video game industry or American politics, this is far worse and it may just have been too late at this point.
"Despair is a sin" as Jerry Pournelle liked to say, and it's hardly over. Heck, the counter-revolution is just beginning, and we hold a great number of high cards. We can, at the extreme of a worst case extreme civil war, liquidate the vast majority of our enemies in the US and almost all their current voting based political power by killing the exquisitely fragile big Blue cities they live in.
> The Soviets got the last laugh in the end.
Indeed, they'd essentially won by the end of the 1930s, through their willing accomplices.
"Making Our Democracy Work" by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is a pretty good laymens description of constitutional law.
The late Justice Scalia wrote a great book about this very topic! Legislative intent is (or was) only relevant for interpreting the words of the actual law as it is eventually written. Now the various District Courts want to expand that to show intent that was never translated into the text of the law.
I will admit to being a bit of a strict constructionist in my viewpoint, but this is something that is actually a fairly new approach to constitutional interpretation and is currently a pretty hot topic among lawyers! As the old saying goes, "Easy cases make bad law."
Restoring the Lost Constitution by Randy Barnett is a really good one if you want to make an argument against the way the Constitution has recently been handled, but still try to maintain some of the legitimacy of the document (which is to say, NOT full ancap).
One of his central points is that government can only gain legitimacy from the consent of the governed (ALL of the governed) so its a good springing off point.
x 1000. Seriously.
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=asap_B001H6MU3G_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413514430&sr=1-1
Buy Chemerinsky's con law treatise. Seriously. It got me an A in con law, and it's succinct and well-written.
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=pd_sim_b_3
Chereminsky's Con Law supplement.
It will explain the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and the Constitutional amendments excluding amendments 4 and 6 as those are covered in Con Crim Pro. It will talk about the 5th Amendment however which covers the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. But it just explains the law and how the courts apply it, it will not teach you how to think like a lawyer. It will just demystify the confusion regarding Constitutional law and you would have to apply the current facts from the situation at hand to figure things out on your own.
https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527540913&sr=1-1&keywords=chemerinsky+constitutional+law
The Chemerinsky is excellent and very readable. Highly recommend.
I think this is the book you are looking for
>There is no governmental department deciding how many leather boots will be made this month.
You've obviously never spent a day reading the language government bills, laws, or regulation. There are hundreds of thousands of pages of federal code alone (not even delving into state and local regulations) that govern every conceivable facet of human life. No matter what you do in a given day, you're probably breaking some government rule.
And you're going to sit there and tell me that they don't micromanage the way we live or run our businesses?
I give you: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
Three Felonies a Day, an account by a former FBI agent about how they exaggerate things until they fit the definition of vaguely defined felonies.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
Good book I’m in the process of reading...Talks about how our laws are so complex,vague, and convoluted that the average professional commits 3 felonies a day without their knowledge.
https://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446
One of the chapters of Constitutional Cliffhangers by Brian Kalt covers this scenario and discusses what might lead a president to try self-pardon and what the likely outcomes would be. I recommend it. Tl;dr Kalt suggests that a self-pardon is legal.
Law 101 by Jay Feinman is pretty good.
Making Our Democracy Work by Justice Breyer is a pretty good overview of constitutional law.
The Five Types of Legal Argument is a good primer on what types of arguments are used in the courts that generate case law. Chemerinsky's Constitutional Law is an excellent resource for constitutional law, which is some of the more interesting stuff. The Nine is an easy read and a good introduction to the personalities and major decisions of the Rehnquist court and early Roberts court. Dressler's Understanding Criminal Law is another good one; it explains the general architecture of criminal law and its development. Those might be available at libraries near you. If there's a law library in your area, you can always grab a legal encyclopedia (like American Jurisprudence 2d. or Corpus Juris Secondum) and a Black's Law Dictionary and flip around until you find something interesting. And as others have mentioned, BarBri is a good resource.
If you really want to be sure, just get the 4th edition used. It surely will be enough. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/073555787X/ref=sr_1_2_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486744787&sr=1-2&keywords=chemerinsky+constitutional+law
I totally concur with OP, supplements are supplements, not replacements. Read the case book, then read the relevant chapter from the supplement to ensure you got everything you were supposed to get out of it. Once you are getting everything out of the casebook in the first pass, you can discard supplements entirely if you like.
Best supplements, in my opinion:
You can quibble on some, but any law student worth his salt will recognize Dressler on crim and Chemerinsky on con law as the best. Freer on Civ Pro is very well recognized as well. I like the Understanding series for contracts and property because they are still succinct yet more in-depth than the E&E's. I like the E&E for torts because the Understanding book for that class isn't especially good.
If you don't like any of the above, the respective E&E would be my second choice.
A beginner may want to start with "Decision at Philadelphia," which is one of the more readably written accounts of the convention, and doesn't sacrifice too much for it. If you want to go more in-depth, find something which contains or at least excerpts James Madison's own notes-- for example, "The Constitutional Convention: A Narrative History from the Notes of James Madison," which I believe takes the notes themselves and presents them in a somewhat more readable format.
I see GMO labeling as in the same category standardizing weights and measures, public libraries, laws against fraud. I'd rather that the state cease to function and has nothing to do with these things, but eliminating them before that isn't a priority.
Our food supply is not a free market. The vast majority of food commonly available makes me feel like shit, and I don't want my ability to obtain untainted food to be further restricted. GMO is a taint being spread to essentially anything that contains staple crops.
If you aren't concerned about GMO's, start by looking up the Seralini studies, and look into the lengths that Monsanto and the US state department go to in order to spread the taint to other countries. Another factor you may not be aware of is the damage to the intestinal lining caused by the typical modern diet, allowing all sorts of odd foreign proteins to make it into the blood. Ingesting large amounts of microbial proteins that would not have been present otherwise doesn't seem like a good idea. These things have made me decided to eliminate them from my diet for the time being, and I would like to be able to make that choice.
That GMO monoculture is more efficient or that "organic can't feed the world" is a simple lie. Organic produce only seems expensive because it's sold at specialty stores that charge a high premium, and because only a very small proportion of agriculture (less than 5% I believe) is organic. The modifications being made are typically for things like resistance to toxic herbicides made by the same companies that sell the GMO's (Glyphosate is especially insidious, as it diffuses throughout plant tissue and can't be washed off), or controlling the food supply through crops that produce no seeds and can't be replanted.
GMO cross-contamination through pollination is a private property issue, as would be a factory next door to you blowing toxic fumes.
GMO's are not equivalent to breeding (though breeding is entirely capable of producing toxic foods, certain grains and fructose-laden fruits being examples). Evolution, even human-directed evolution, has constraints. There are traits that it is not possible to breed for, genes that would never exist in a plant absent manual copying and pasting from unrelated organisms.
The arguments for GMO's I see being made in this thread reveal a lot of the standard flaws with libertarian thinking.
The first is the reflexive defense of economic/corporate activity in our society, as though it were a free market. It isn't. All market activity is currently tainted by massive coercion at every level, but especially where large firms and captured regulatory agencies are involved.
Another is naive scientism/technophilia. Industrialization and technology has rather obviously allowed states to grow far beyond the limits of size, reach, and power that constrained them in centuries past. You live in a time when states have the ability to extend force completely to their borders as drawn on maps, where there are almost no wild areas left to run to when they become overbearing. When states have powers of surveillance approaching totality. When states have the capability to render the planet uninhabitable.
It makes very little sense for anarchists in this time to be indiscriminate technophiles. Taking a step back and looking at the an-cap movement, it arose and still largely exists as a heretical movement within a particular highly industrialized and technological nation-state (the U.S.). It's still largely a byproduct of that state. Hence you see a vision of anarchy that assumes compatibility with all kinds of hierarchy, and features familiar scenes from that empire built on a particular historically unprecedented mix of statism, technology and cheap oil.
If your vision of anarchy includes things like globalism, large firms, dense populations, heavy industry, and suburbs complete with shopping malls and "private" police, you should probably spend a little more couch time. Stop being such a fucking American. The 90's aren't coming back. Perhaps this is more the kind of "reform" that would be palatable to you. http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273
Here's one suggestion: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html
I'm also hearing that Mark Levin's new book (out in August) will also cover the "what do we do" http://www.amazon.com/Untitled-Mark-Levin-R/dp/1451606273/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1370013118&sr=1-3
Yes, and I was responding to your idiotic post--the fact that I replied to it should have clued you in to the fact. I know the internet can be confusing and scary, but do try to keep up.
You're as good at basic logic as you are historical analysis, and as good at that as you are competent in constitutional law, which is to say not at all.
In fact, in general, [this might help] (https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=S176159B2ZPNW43TYMT2), although on second thought [this] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag) might be more on your level.
https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479
Chapters 6, 9, 10, and 12. These will help you more than bickering with folks here.
This 100%. As for it being expensive, I rented on Amazon and it was really cheap:
LINK
Yeah, linked below. Also, your school or local library probably has it - no need to drop 80 bucks.
https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MXX5ATEWXSF0XG2YTW3V
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1454849479/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile
Not for lawyers, but for law students. So it's perfect for self learning. Chemerinsky is considered a top con law scholar.
Dean Erwin is a fucking constitutional savant, by the way. Dude is literally encyclopedic (and wrote the damn book on it).
Upvotes for good history and gov teachers. I had one of each. They got me to read Chomsky and Into the Buzzsaw.
You should read "Three Felonies A Day".
This had me rolling my eyes so hard it must've looked like a seizure. Now, are you trolling or just ignorant? Because I can guarantee you, (yes, you), have committed criminal actions, felonies even, and most likely had nary a clue. Perhaps this will give you some much-needed perspective: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
Frankly it saddens me that you, and those who argue similarly stupid shit, are free to post on Reddit while countless poor bastards rot in cages for victimless crimes, some for so long they wouldn't know how to use the device you're posting from.
Or maybe you're kidding and I missed the joke, in which case I apologize. Unfortunately I can't tell, because there are plenty of people out there who genuinely believe this bullshit, and who deserve to have their eyes opened to the consequences of living in a functional police state where such petty things as what you consume, whom you consensually bang, and what pictures you look at online can land you in prison.
To me, it seems like these restrictions are in place so healthy organs aren't wasted on unhealthy people. For instance, you don't want to give someone a fresh liver when they are going to die of lung cancer a few years later. To now discriminate not on the basis of health, but one's ability to follow laws (that didn't exist for most of our country's existence) seems wrong.
If these restrictions are based on health concerns, I think people who consume unhealthy foods should be put at the end of the list.
Because if we're doing this the legal way, no one would be eligible for organ transplants. Hell, you probably committed three felonies today.
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
Eh, there's a nice hill on the way to work. Last week I technically ran a couple miles an hour over the speed limit after not perfectly timing my breaks/downshifting. Ok ok, I was really just jamming to music and missed it.
Anyway, I'm pretty damned sure everybody's broken some law and on a regular basis. Books have even been written on that subject.
If you mean people who try to mind the law and fail, there's lots of us.
Wait.. you don't? Maybe you haven't read this book
Have you read three felonies a day? The person has probably broken numerous laws, and her being a criminal is something the defense would want to bring up. Hence, pleading the fifth is probably a valid option. Yes, if the prosecution wants he can get an order to testify, but it might scare him/her off. Regardless, there is no reason to be nice to someone forcing you to testify.
There's a book about it.
It's as hard as getting your friends to install Snapchat or Skype.
If they want privacy, it literally couldn't be any easier. Regardless, if you love big brother and want them collecting your selfies or sexts, be my guest.
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo
I'm not giving up my rights and data when such free and simple solutions are readily available.
Even if the book title is hyperbole, government overstepping their bounds, parallel construction and tacking on charges has been well documented time and time again, which is also what the cited book goes into detail about.
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594032556/
If you want a quick and small guide to the Constitution besides the original text itself, I would highly recommend this:
https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Nutshell-Nutshells-Jerome-Barron/dp/1634596234/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=constitutional+law+in+a+nutshell&qid=1550539091&s=gateway&sr=8-2
The book is an objective overview of Constitutional law, and will give you a solid grasp on where Constitutional interpretation currently stands by running you through all of the landmark cases that have shaped the law in the US.
There's a lot of info in there that would bring his eligibility for president into question ... have you read any of the books about him? Here are a couple that I read years ago ...
Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President
The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality
OBAMA'S CHILDHOOD RECORDS VINDICATE CORSI BOOK
Photo shows candidate registered 'as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim'
There's a massive "rabbit hole" associated with Obama ...you've probably been indoctrinated to believe it's all whacky conspiracy theories. I've researched him extensively, and I assure you it isn't. There's as much "going on" with him as there is with Clinton and the Foundation. ;-)
This book was #1 on Amazon a few days ago.
Again: that book reached #1 on Amazon's bestsellers list at one point, and that point was recently.
There is a market for people who want to believe this shit. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
Would a book count?
https://www.amazon.com/Wheres-Birth-Certificate-Eligible-President/dp/1936488299
Here's an article on same topic
https://www.wnd.com/2009/08/106135/
Something more recent
https://mobile.wnd.com/2016/10/youtube-bans-clintons-black-son/
He also pushed Seth Rich conspiracy....
This article needs to back up its sources. Or we should just read the book http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446 and scrutinize these details.
Otherwise please don't succumb to hyperbolic language and sites
Oops. Now fixed---but here it is again.
Yeah, I like a squared end to my sideburns, and I have no trouble getting that with a slant.
https://www.amazon.ca/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446
> Yeah, it's counter-intuitive. Why would you go against consumers this way?
You're not seeing the larger picture.... this isn't about consumers, this is about control of world markets. You're missing the larger historical context, the NSA is all about control and management of information for corporate profits.
Most have no clue what's really going on in the world... the elites are afraid of political awakening.
This (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttv6n7PFniY
Science on reasoning, reason doesn't work the way we thought it did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
Brezinski at a press conference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY
The real news:
http://therealnews.com/t2/
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/069114589X/
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Government-Surveillance-Security-Single-Superpower/dp/1608463656/r
http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/
Look at the following graphs:
IMGUR link - http://imgur.com/a/FShfb
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
And then...
WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-haiti-minimum-wage-the-nation-2011-6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnkNKipiiiM
Free markets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349
http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Illusion-Literacy-Triumph-Spectacle/dp/1568586132/
"We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.
In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."
Important history:
http://williamblum.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcA1v2n7WW4
I don't know how gerrymandering causes the hyperpolarisation so I can't speak to that, but the first bullet point worries me a great deal.
I think it partially falls on the failure of the Fourth Estate. Lots of people talk about media bias, however, I think it's total media failure that is the bigger concern.
The other part is of course a government shrouded in secrecy. This book was a really interesting read. If it wasn't written by a political insider and didn't have glowing reviews by well respected professors and journalists you would call it crazy. The book has over 800 citations though and is a fascinating perspective.
And for those reasons that Big Security apparatus that does not get voted in or not therefore does not care about your vote. But it does want to know everything about you. Because it can.
National Security and Double Government (2014), by Michael J. Glennon
Constitutional Cliffhangars discusses it. Federal level, nearly impossible before impeachment. State level, possible but politically unlikely.
I heard a thing on the radio today from a constitutional law professor who said that the president's power to pardon is actually pretty broad, the person being pardoned doesn't have to admit guilt or be convicted, and no explanation has to be given for the pardon.
Also as amazingly stupid as it seems, the president can in fact pardon himself. There could be political repercussions and he could be impeached but he could probably just pardon himself and resign, or resign and let his successor pardon him.
This doesn't put him outside of the purview of state laws though.
https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Cliffhangers-Legal-Presidents-Enemies/dp/0300123515/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500669490&sr=8-1
This speech is based off his book https://www.amazon.ca/Making-Our-Democracy-Work-Judges/dp/0307390837
You can read all about it in James Madison's meticulous notes.
There is also a fair amount about that particular arguement in this book
See Jack Balkin's book Living Originalism for the best account of my general view on Constitutional interpretation and construction.
>Because unfortunately, conservative values build nations and liberal values tear them down
Give us one example, please.
> The job of the government is recorded in the Constitution.
Yes, but as Scalia wrote in his book, it's a matter of interpretation. It's a very informative book. I recommend you read it.
> Both sides have an agenda and that agenda is to inflate the well being of their supporters so that those supporters will continue to put them in power.
I agree. Who are the supporters and how do we take them down? Trump has made them all members of his cabinet.
>But you're "allowing" me to sleep with her, right? No law = allowing.
Not at all. It's not my choice to allow or not. There is no law stating that you cannot sleep with another person's girlfriend. You are allowed, permitted, have the right to propose such to her, and she is free to permit, deny or tell you to fuck right off. She is legally not permitted to slap you however, that's technically assault or battery depending on where you live, just as you are not allowed to force yourself on her. But in the original context of sleeping with my gf, she's not my property, she's a person, so I am not sure where I come in other than that I walk in on the two of you. At which point, I may or may not commit a double homicide and go to jail for it.
>Yet I never agreed to them. How can a law exist that applies to me, yet I never agreed to it? Honestly, I'm asking for your viewpoint here, because it really seems like a leap of logic to draw this conclusion.
I read a book on this, because it does get to the heart of the problem and essentially what you already mentioned. (I cannot remember the author or name, but I think it might be John Rawls? Bit dense reading though.) If I remember it discusses consent of the governed and specifically discusses the Constitution and "how can it be binding on those that didn't vote for it." Technically you can say, you didn't, but then others before you have and they are the ones that founded the country and area you live. If you disagree with it, you are free to leave. Then we have issues of your right to stay and live by your own rules, issues of lawlessness etc.
It is, as you said, to every person's benefit to follow basic rules/principles of reciprocity and norms else there would be chaos. If I remember correctly he discusses the consent of the governed and implied consent. It might actually be a different book specifically on the constitution actually by another author... one I believe a coworker never returned to me THIS I think that is it. Good read at least for a different view on things.
Why do I personally believe I should follow the Constitution and most laws, because I don't think they're unjust. I agree with the principles of democracy and that if I want to change something society as a whole has established a reasonable process to do that.
Generally, I don't think you'll find an objectively 100% accurate support for following laws, rules or the Constitution. It is a creation of man and not a law of nature. Subjective aspects are inherent and you can always argue "what if I choose to ignore it, or have different beliefs." Similar argument that is brought up ad nauseam, "what if we encounter a culture that believes murder is legal?" Ya, what if? Personally, I prefer Objectivisms view that there is an ultimate good with which to based judgments on, the existence and protection of life. That still has holes, but it allows me to comfortably say that such a society would be evil as it destroys life. (lets not go down this road though, what life is, what is a greater good all that... that's not really on topic).
>Don't people in the government kill people, rape occasionally and dogs are killed all the time (not sure about eaten). The reddit front page is filled with these stories almost every week at least. So I can only conclude that we are in "a world without laws".
You can conclude that we are in an imperfect world. A world where people disregard the laws. Whether under the belief they do not apply to them or merely because they don't care. The fact that some don't follow the rules doesn't mean there are no rules.
Dis shit right here http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975
http://law.lclark.edu/courses/catalog/law_007.php
Please note that this is not the school I attended. I have no desire to post that information. I cannot condense three years of information, or even two semesters of Con Law into a citation for you. It is not possible. Books are available on this topic. Large ones with all the illuminating case cites you desire.
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422199742&sr=1-1&pebp=1422199756757&peasin=735598975 Chemerinsky is always a good choice.
> people who would not be prosecuted if not for speech implicating them in a conspiracy are prosecuted because of said speech
So your argument is that criminalizing more speech is ok because sometimes some speech=evidence of criminality?
I assumed you were at least passingly familiar with the volumes of scholarship and precedent surrounding this area when I made my statement. If not, this is a great place to start. Core speech, i.e. political speech, wasn't criminalized during the Ratification era 'when the ink was fresh', if you want to take an original/textualist bent, nor was that the stated intent/purpose of dozens of founding statesmen and founding-era jurists, but only after the Alien and Sedition Acts, which again, was argued as unconstitutional by many of the same.
Or, something something Federalist normative nonsense.
This
This guy has thought some of it through. I generally don't agree with the author, but it wasn't a bad book:
Congress has a 9% approval rating, but the member who "represents" your district is never the problem...
The average length of service in the House was under 4 years until the Progressive Era kicked off. It's about time to send it back there.
What classes specifically? Here are a few that I remember being helpful last semester:
​
Chemerinsky without a doubt.
https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1502763069&sr=1-2&refinements=p_lbr_one_browse-bin%3AErwin+Chemerinsky
Here's Chemerinsky, but it's not short.
There's a bunch of useful outlines/flowcharts that have been posted here and on /r/LawSchoolOutlines. If you use the search feature you'll find them.
Is this the one? https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1454849479/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile
This supplement?
Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Treatise) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1454895748/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_oH-hDbSGZ7J9T
Jesus, they can fucking make us liable for everything under the sun - try reading 3 Felonies a Day http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
It is to make a point, like the Alabama immigration law, they bitch and bitch and bitch about illegals and now they are crying in their PBR about the crops rotting in the fields.
Companies bitch about people "stealing" content - here's an idea, focus your bitching/suing on the companies making money off the fact that someone posted copyrighted content - djstinkbug69 is not making money off posting Lil' Wayne's "I Feel Like Dying". youtube is making the money, so it is fine for them to take the profit from "illegal" content but not the responsibility - wow, that sounds familiar.
I say let the media companies fight it out in court or via lobbying or in the ring with the distribution companies; instead of the media companies abusing the court system to fight essentially defenseless individuals.
> Exactly as you say, it's all up to the judge wether or not you have committed a federal crime if you mail USPS. Have you violated "community standards"?
A postal inspector, then a prosecutor, then a judge, then a jury. And since the jury's answer is so likely to be "no", everyone prior to them is not even going to try it.
> If you mail it FedEx, no judges involved, no possibility of a crime committed.
No crime under §1461. Unfortunately, under §1462, using a common carrier like FexEx to transport obscene matter is also a crime.
§1462 also covers computer systems.
Three felonies a day, baby. Three felonies a day.
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, Actually, it's about ethics in governing. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
Your friend is out of compliance and blissfully ignorant. He is probably committing Three Felonies a Day. Once he hires his first employee, his tax and regulatory burden will skyrocket.
>That's my point, though. It's a news story that a congressman wants to use his power to lock someone up for their opinion. In a country like China, it just happens.
It just happens here too. If you really think you have freedom of speech, try mouthing off to a cop and see how many misdemeanors you get slapped with.
>edit- I just looked at your link and your comments are kinda disingenuous. I mean, did you even read the complaint? He wants her prosecuted for breaking a federal law in regards to forming fund raising committees for federal politicians.
No, he sees a prominent online critic, and wants her silenced. Freedom of speech, but he doesn't like the speech. So what does he do? He digs into the federal legal code, which is tens of thousands of "codes" long (thousands of pages), in dense legalese that highly paid lawyers have trouble navigating and finds something to pin on her. All because she put up a website he doesn't like. It's got nothing to do with fraud.
Read Three Felonies a Day. It'll be a nifty education for ya. You're a federal felon, and you probably don't even know it.
>I honestly don't see anything wrong with him wanting this action taken, considering all the shit she did. I didn't even know about this story until your link but actually reading it makes me side with him almost 100%.
Good for you. I'll be sure not to speak up for you when some politician or prosecutor decides to railroad you for violating an unconstitutional law you didn't even know existed.
> if you're a good person, you've got nothing to hide
There are a number of detailed arguments to refute that. I'll just do some one-liners:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556?tag=duckduckgo-d-20
This.
Notice I said unwittingly, most people don't realize they have broken some obscure, ridiculous laws during the course of their day.
I live in the US, which has an absurd percentage of its citizens in jail. Thus the overpopulation.
You have probably committed a felony at some point in your life. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594032556/
Read this book and be frightened.
Just how government works. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I really liked Michael Badnarik's book Good to Be King, even though I didn't agree with everything.
Sounds a lot like this book, which first introduced me to the concept of a panopticon.
achillbreeze: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link
Sounds a lot like this book, which first introduced me to the concept of a panopticon.
Obama Hater, Birther, Clinton Hater, conspiracy theorist - Jerome Corsi
>Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to... http://www.amazon.com/dp/1936488299/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_heWoxb1EAWV7E via @Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President2011
by Jerome Corsi
I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here. Yes, we ALL have the ability to assess what "essential" and "temporary" mean, but you are simply mistaken that vox populi isn't the final arbiter...
Your strained analogy "the 'essential' liberty of keeping as much money as possible" versus "the 'temporary' safety of health care or food stamps..." is, quite simply, ridiculous. Ever heard of the tax code? People who don't pay their taxes are dealt with pretty harshly (unless they're nominated to run the Treasury Department, I guess). But these kinds of false dichotomies make me ill. If you're not happy with the level of funding for food stamps or Medicaid, please stop blaming people who want to keep as much of their own money as the law allows. Hold the legislators who set those rates and appropriate the money for social programs accountable for the choices they make. But please stop pretending that the reason the monthly allowance under [SNAP] (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap) isn't higher than it is is because people are greedy and heartless...
I agree that it is best to discuss issues directly, but that does not mean we can't find value in wise words from the past (provided the quote is accurate). I revisit such works as [The Federalist Papers] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Federalist-Papers-ebook/dp/B004TPP976/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_kin?ie=UTF8&qid=1372066721&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Federalist) and Tocqueville's [Democracy in America] (http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-America-1-ebook/dp/B0082ZJMPY/ref=sr_1_2_bnp_1_kin?ie=UTF8&qid=1372066657&sr=8-2&keywords=democracy+in+america) quite often, and find them a great aid to clarity of thought on contemporary political issues...
pare ena e-reader kai katevase to calibre
Books: politics , ethics, business, social decline
, democracy, philosophy
Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:
Link: Jack Balkin
|Country|Link|
|:-----------|:------------|
|UK|amazon.co.uk|
|Spain|amazon.es|
|France|amazon.fr|
|Germany|amazon.de|
|Japan|amazon.co.jp|
|Canada|amazon.ca|
|Italy|amazon.it|
|China|amazon.cn|
This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting).
Not an outline, but everyone always recommends this supplement for con law:
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373125911&sr=8-1&keywords=chemerinsky+constitutional+law
So if you have the time... it's pretty much a textbook.
But if you don't, my friend used this for Con Law I and got an A+ http://www.amazon.com/Emanuel-Law-Outlines-Constitutional-30th/dp/1454809132/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373125956&sr=1-1&keywords=emanuel+con+law
If you haven't run into the Buzzsaw, you haven't been doing real journalism. Sorry.
If the felons are so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, why would they be let out of prison in the first place?
Furthermore, if they have shown that they do not respect laws placed on them in the first place, why would they do so with bans on possessions of firearms? You do understand that you have probably committed a few hundred felonies in your lifetime. Should you be trusted with a firearm? Afterall, you have probably committed multiple felonies in the last week.
If the felons are going to commit a crime (and break the law), why would writing another law stop them from getting guns and using them against people (why you are concerned about them owning them in the first place)? It doesn't. It's an overinclusive rule which renders large groups of American citizens helpless. Many of these people live in very bad areas and you would throw them into cages because they have the audacity to arm themselves so they can defend themselves and their families.
>Non-citizens.... It's just my belief that if you are not a citizen, as defined by the 14th amendment, you are not protected by our constitution.
Humans have rights. The Constitution does not grant these rights, the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on pre-existing rights. You didn't really provide an answer to why they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms legally, you dodged the question by saying non-citizens are not protected by the Constitution (which isn't true).
So again, why should non-citizens not have the right to own a firearm?
I'm starting to think you're trolling. I find it troubling to believe someone has such an absolutist view point.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594032556/ref=mw_dp_mdsc?dsc=1
> I think that's an extreme and unrealistic premise.
Try this on for size: "We're All Felons, Now."
> Congress has been adding about 55 new crimes to the federal criminal code each year since the 1980s. There are now about 4,500 separate federal crimes. And that doesn't include federal regulations, which are increasingly being enforced with criminal, not administrative, penalties. It also doesn't include the increasing leeway with which prosecutors can enforce broadly written federal conspiracy, racketeering, and money laundering laws. And this is before we even get to the states' criminal codes.
>
> In his new book, the Boston-based civil liberties advocate and occasional Reason contributor Harvey Silverglate estimates that in 2009, the average American commits about three federal felonies per day.
Yet you cannot seem to form even a minimally cogent legal argument on why that would be unconstitutional. I'm talking to a wall here, and am seriously getting tired of going in circles with you. I won't be continuing this thread further, but will leave you with a referral to a book that was helpful for me in understanding Constitutional law.
Imagining you don't have time to read full books amidst your other 1L reading, try Wikipedia (seriously). Obviously, be wary of the source, but for an article as researched and clicked-on as the "United States Constitution," you'd be hard-pressed to find any fundamental errors.
Also try Wikipedia pages like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1776–89)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1789–1849)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
Also, most, if not all, of the cases you will read in ConLaw will have Wikipedia pages, since we are talking about some of the landmark cases of all time. Most of the pages are well-researched, and it is usually easy to tell when they are not (by lack of citation, grammatical/spelling errors, etc). Before reading a case, go to Wikipedia to get background information that will put everything in context. It will make the cases easier to remember, they will make more sense from a legal standpoint, and you will know more than most of your classmates. (But I am a history buff, so maybe other people don't care).
For a supplement, I cannot recommend Chemerinsky's "Principles and Policies" enough. It will be invaluable throughout law school and beyond. At over 1400 pages, it is not meant to be a beginning-to-end page turner, but rather is an immensely helpful resource on individual topics as you go along.
And from what I gathered, my opinion seems accurate.
I don't want to hold myself up to ridicule, but I will admit here -- I have read about conspiracies within the United States government, its bureaucracies and intelligence agencies -- that I am a wide open to believing the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax. With that said, I have yet to read anything that convinces me of this.
For myself, I am uninterested in "theories". I am interested in anomalies and inconsistencies in official narratives. Some are obviously human error, others are not. I have been reading conspiracy research for 25 years and I have never had any time or stomach for theories. I am interested in reading about the facts that don't match up.
Theories involving "disaster/crisis" actors -- a small, bizarre coterie of people who seemingly earn their living populating national tragedies -- is one of the dumbest theories I've ever come across. Few theories are so lacking in logic and proof. A few grainy photos of people who look alike? Absolutely and utterly ridiculous.
To be fair-minded, I have started reading the PDF book, Nobody Died At Sandy Hook. It's absolute garbage. I'm annotating my copy and may send it to the author.
So, the idea of hounding parents to prove their children existed, to provide death certificates, shows me the pitifully low-level some areas of conspiracy research have fallen to.
I am the audience for this kind of thing and I think this theory is utter bullshit.
EDIT: Books that have convinced me of conspiracies:
Levin's amendments include:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273
> Don't worry about it, I'll just chalk it up to bullshit.
I have thousands of posts, now you are just being an asshole. How about you try finding a comment of yours you made 6 months ago and tell me how easy reddit makes it. A quick Google search turned up a whole fucking book.
Do your own research before you advocate for the removal of my rights.
I had to pay $200,000 for my law degree. Not educating you for free. If you're honestly interested in con law, here is a good starting point. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0735598975?pc_redir=1396454528&robot_redir=1
^ This guy thinks law strictly means legislation. The cringe hurts my eyes.
Here you go boss
And here
Annnnnnd here
Happy learning!