ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th March 2017, 09:27 AM   #721
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,036
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Neither does the 5th.
See my previous point about the differences in language between the 1st and the 5th.



Quote:
Nope. US military personnel are still protected by the constitution while overseas.
But by your argument, the people around them are not. So could the government not use US personnel to set up a church, as long as the US citizens were not forced to recognize it?

Quote:
Plus, discriminating against immigrants on the basis of religion really isn't the same as setting up an actual church.
In what important way is there a distinction here?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2017, 09:58 AM   #722
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,607
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
See my previous point about the differences in language between the 1st and the 5th.
That doesn't help. The 5th's reference to persons doesn't provide any limitation on what persons are covered. And yet, it clearly is limited.

Quote:
But by your argument, the people around them are not.
Correct.

Quote:
So could the government not use US personnel to set up a church, as long as the US citizens were not forced to recognize it?
I don't think so. Discriminating on the basis of a religion isn't the same thing as actually establishing a religion. Discriminating against one religion within the US is really a free exercise violation.

Plus, even if you hired outside people to help, at some step in the process you're still going to be using US personnel for the project, even if it's just the guy who gives the order and signs the check.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2017, 10:06 AM   #723
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,517
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That doesn't help. The 5th's reference to persons doesn't provide any limitation on what persons are covered. And yet, it clearly is limited.
When can someone be forced to incriminate themselves in american courts?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2017, 10:14 AM   #724
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,607
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
When can someone be forced to incriminate themselves in american courts?
If you're in an American court, then you're under American legal jurisdiction, by definition.

Plenty of foreigners are not. We can (and do) kill them without trial, often without them having even committed a crime. Doing so would violate their 5th amendment rights, if they had them. But they don't.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2017, 02:53 PM   #725
beren
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 896
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you're in an American court, then you're under American legal jurisdiction, by definition.

Plenty of foreigners are not. We can (and do) kill them without trial, often without them having even committed a crime. Doing so would violate their 5th amendment rights, if they had them. But they don't.
I may be misreading you, but if I get you right you are saying that shooting them in was would be a violation of their 5th rights if they were not foreigners.

If a U.S. citizen goes, takes up arms for ISIS or whatever and gets shot in a military confrontation, has the constitution been violated if he/she was not first tried for treason and convicted?

If not, how is your foreigner example relevant?

Again, apologies if I have misunderstood you.
__________________
Drive-by snark artist.
Deep thinker as long as I can do it quickly with minimal effort.
Band wagon pile-oner
beren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2017, 08:39 AM   #726
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,501
I think the tourism industry is tired of all the winning.

Quote:
The result could be an estimated 4.3 million fewer people coming to the United States this year, resulting in $7.4 billion in lost revenue, according to Tourism Economics, a Philadelphia-based analytics firm. Next year, the fallout is expected to be even larger, with 6.3 million fewer tourists and $10.8 billion in losses. Miami is expected to be hit hardest, followed by San Francisco and New York, the firm said.       

The administration’s travel ban deals a blow to an industry that has only recently recovered from a $600 billion loss following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“In the aftermath of 9/11, at first people didn’t feel safe coming here, and then they didn’t feel welcome,” said Jonathan Grella, an executive vice president at the U.S. Travel Association. “Our industry still refers to that as ‘the lost decade.’ There is a very real risk that that could happen again.”
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 08:52 PM   #727
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,501
ACLU: Trump refused to turn over Giuliani travel ban memo by court-ordered deadline

Quote:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Saturday blasted President Trump for ignoring a court order demand to release a memo drafted under former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's guidance that outlined a plan to implement a travel ban without making it seem as if it was directly aimed at Muslims.

A federal judge in Detroit ordered the Trump administration to turn over the memo by May 19, according to reports. The ACLU said Saturday that Trump did not meet the deadline on Friday.

“If, as the administration claims, the Executive Order is not a Muslim Ban, then why is the administration refusing to turn over the Giuliani memo? What is in that document that the government doesn’t want the court to see?” Miriam Aukerman, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Michigan, said in a statement.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 09:49 PM   #728
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,351
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Well, that's a misleading headline. Nowhere in there does the article present any evidence that he is conservative in a political sense, or even in his approach to the law. It appears that one former colleague claimed that he was conservative in a different sense of the word, and that's all the evidence that there is.

Robart also doesn't seem to understand logic or statistics. His remark about blacks being shot at twice the rate as their proportion in the population is profoundly stupid. This was after a comprehensive work by a black Harvard economics professor which showed there was no statistical evidence of racial bias in police shootings.

And in his questioning of the lawyer for the federal government - Michelle Bennett (who did an excellent job in my opinion) - he seemed to think the fact that no terrorist had yet come from one of the seven countries on the travel ban list was relevant. It's certainly disappointing to find such an innumerate and illogical judge, but, well, district court judges are not really appointed based on merit.
Sadly, you're the one exaggerating. Robart was in fact absolutely correct about the number of shootings and Fryer's paper is simply a working paper that has not undergone peer review.

NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

The paper includes caveats that alone should make it questionable.

[i]A primary obstacle to the study of police use of force has been the lack of readily available data.
Data on lower level uses of force, which happen more frequently than ofcer-involved shootings, are virtually non-existent. This is due, in part, to the fact that most police precincts don’t explicitly collect data on use of force, and in part, to the fact that even when the data is hidden in plain view within police narrative accounts of interactions with civilians, it is exceedingly difcult to extract. Moreover, the task of compiling rich data on officer-involved shootings is burdensome. Until recently, data on ofcer-involved shootings were extremely rare and contained little information on the details surrounding an incident. A simple count of the number of police shootings that occur does little to explore whether racial diferences in the frequency of officer-involved shootings are due to police malfeasance or diferences in suspect behavior.


And it is a working paper that was made available for comment 11 months ago.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.