"I Don't Make the Laws I Just Enforce Them"

OK, to make myself even less popular in this thread, I'll play Devil's Advocate. Keep in mind, I love lemonade stands, and I never pass up an opportunity to spend money at one! I also pay any kid that stops by my house with a lawnmower whether I need the help or not. I love to reward hard work and initiative. Still, here goes some logic to consider on behalf of the government.....

Is it about money? Maybe, but probably not.

What about zoning? What about health concerns and sanitation? What about fair competition to others that did get licensed? What about liability insurance for the location?

There are reasons we have these laws. Suppose Alex's Lemonade Stand existed right next door to you? Was just a nice litte lemonade stand for a good cause, and then it become a phenomenon and thousands of people were lining up everyday blocking your residential road. Is it still ok?

What if Mom gets busy, and the kids make their own lemonade, and they run out of lemons, but as kids, they substitute Lemon Fresh Pledge instead? Seems harmless enough, smells great, but what about the people that get sick or die?

What if they are in their front yard, and a sprinkler head is broken, or the top on the water meter is loose and a nice person steps in it and twists a knee and needs surgery? Homeowner's insurance decides not to cover it, because it was due to running an unauthorized and unlicensed business, and the poor injured person doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for the surgery? Did they sell enough lemonade for that?

Sure, the cops are overzealous, it seems harmless enough, but people supported the making of these restrictions for a reason, so we can't all of a sudden decide to pick and choose who to enforce them upon.

reply to post by getreadyalready

Is it about money? Maybe, but probably not.

It doesn't even matter if it is about money, for one unless you have kids running a collective of lemonade stands all over the city I doubt they will even make enough to qualify to be taxed for income. At least federally and that is not even getting to the idea of the income tax being a bad system in the first place. I would say it is about money though all the money government makes off licenses and fees.

What about zoning? What about health concerns and sanitation? What about fair competition to others that did get licensed? What about liability insurance for the location?

Zoning laws are one of the ways that city governments have been steadily eroding the private property rights of citizens and frankly all of them should be reexamined and many of the repealed. What is the point of owning land in the first place if you are so regulated as to be unable to use it as you see fit.

Health and sanitation may be an issue, the same issue that has existed since the 50s and at least since the fifties kids could open lemonade stands without all these regulations.The fact is health and safety has a legal remedy; if you get sick from the lemonade sue the kids parents for damages.

The government is not suppose to be there to protect businesses from competition. Though, it often seems like companies these days do use the government and courts, to do so, it flies in the face of the ideas of capitalism and the free market.

The last point you made illustrates two huge problems with modern world insurance and over litigation. As far as insurance, insurance is a private contract entered into for protection in the event of lawsuits, it shouldn't be a requirement. I mean what did people do before businesses and home owners were forced to have insurance, oh yeah they simply sued the RIGHT PERSON, ie the one who damaged them; not the deepest pockets. The over litigation issue can only be resolved if we actually make the loser of law suits pay all the legal fees, you will see a lot less people using the legal system for profit if they have to risk loss.

There are reasons we have these laws. Suppose Alex's Lemonade Stand existed right next door to you? Was just a nice litte lemonade stand for a good cause, and then it become a phenomenon and thousands of people were lining up everyday blocking your residential road. Is it still ok?

That is so silly, because even if in modern society, somehow a single lemonade stand became so successful that it began to draw "Thousands" I doubt it would last very long, since they would have to churn out vats of lemonade to supply it, eventually they would not be able to keep up with demand at the location, the stand would sell out and close, problem solved

What if Mom gets busy, and the kids make their own lemonade, and they run out of lemons, but as kids, they substitute Lemon Fresh Pledge instead? Seems harmless enough, smells great, but what about the people that get sick or die?

Once again, if the lemonade makes you sick you sue the kids and their parent's for damages, problem solved, efficiently and effectively by proper legal recourse. That is the whole purpose of the legal system in the first place to settle disputes and regain damages between citizens.

What if they are in their front yard, and a sprinkler head is broken, or the top on the water meter is loose and a nice person steps in it and twists a knee and needs surgery? Homeowner's insurance decides not to cover it, because it was due to running an unauthorized and unlicensed business, and the poor injured person doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for the surgery? Did they sell enough lemonade for that?

Here we go again, what happened before homeowners insurance? Oh yeah sue the kids and their parents. Once again not a reason for new regulations and legislation. And from this statement it seems actually you are more worried that insurance might not pay and you would have to sue the individuals, which would mean less money in your pocket. I see this as part of the problem today, so many people not suing the people that wronged them but instead working their way up to the deepest pockets. If the family doesn't have enough money to pay your medical bills, well sorry life is not fair, and you should only sue who wrongs you not the deepest pockets....and you should look where you walk.

reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools


A "business" is required to be licensed and insured or bonded. Some school kids are not. What good does it do to sue some kids when their family is already upside down in a mortgage and two car payments? There is nothing there to sue for. This is the reason for the requirements.

The same goes for zoning. It is there for a reason. There is only a certain amount of police presence, there is only a certain amount of ingress and egress. There is only a certain amount of parking. Don't the neighbors have rights also?

If someone gets sick or dies from the lemonade, suing a family into oblivion doesn't bring back a loved one.

Like I said before, I actually agree with you, we are eroding our civil liberties, and I personally do not agree with these laws, but the majority of the popoulation has approved the need for regulations, and the officers are just enforcing the existing laws. The cops are not the bad guys here, and neither are the kids, and neither are the neighbors, or the customers. The bad guys are the ones that ruined the system with frivolous lawsuits and cries to the government for nanny laws.

reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools

Sure, the cops are overzealous, it seems harmless enough, but people supported the making of these restrictions for a reason, so we can't all of a sudden decide to pick and choose who to enforce them upon.

No, the reason we have all these regulations is actually because politicians believe their business is to pass laws and regulations. It is why there is never a session of federal or state senates or city councils without some bill being passed into law. Unfortunately it has the side effect of piling law on top of law until even the lawyers and politicians can not know all the laws and follow them much less the average citizen, which in the end destroys the reason that we have laws in the first place to regulate conduct between members of a society. The second reason we have all these regulations is because the politicians of the land have a new mantra they follow religiously "revenue generation".

And in closing I will say all the government over regulation and control is nothing new it takes us right back to another time, when king George through the governors of the colonies taxed and regulated every single action of the colonists, to the point they could no longer operate businesses or make a living. An excerpt from the deceleration of independence:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

It all comes around again.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools

 

A "business" is required to be licensed and insured or bonded. Some school kids are not. What good does it do to sue some kids when their family is already upside down in a mortgage and two car payments? There is nothing there to sue for. This is the reason for the requirements.

The same goes for zoning. It is there for a reason. There is only a certain amount of police presence, there is only a certain amount of ingress and egress. There is only a certain amount of parking. Don't the neighbors have rights also?

If someone gets sick or dies from the lemonade, suing a family into oblivion doesn't bring back a loved one.

Like I said before, I actually agree with you, we are eroding our civil liberties, and I personally do not agree with these laws, but the majority of the popoulation has approved the need for regulations, and the officers are just enforcing the existing laws. The cops are not the bad guys here, and neither are the kids, and neither are the neighbors, or the customers. The bad guys are the ones that ruined the system with frivolous lawsuits and cries to the government for nanny laws.

Well, just because the modern days kings officers have brought back the idea that the king should tax and regulate every aspect of citizens life, I don't agree and I would say just because they have forced business owners into such arrangements doesn't make it right. As far as whether on not their is something to sue for that is the breaks of life. If tomorrow you get shot by a millionaire, okay all medical bills paid, if you get shot by a poor person with no money?, sorry that is just life and the legal system shouldn't be here to some how make things financially fair, just settle disputes and reclaim damages. Also, if your really worried about the safety aspect don't drink at the lemonade stand

Maybe, you do have a valid point on zoning to some degree, but show me lemonade stand that has blocked or filled a road for days, I could be wrong but I think it's a gross exaggeration and you know just like me the reason these regulations were passed, was not for kids lemonade stands but for street vendors and carts.

Which at this point I will bring up another problem with the modern world and legal system, is zero tolerance and no discernment or judgment in the law and a blind obedience to the letter of the law. Kids are just getting caught in the crossfire of those latter problems. A gaggle of morons; officers and politicians, blindly enforcing the letter of the law with no discernment.

True, we can't bring people back from the dead. But, regulation doesn't really stop people from getting sick, how many cases of ecoli, salmonella etc do you hear about every year in the news, from businesses "regulated" by the government.

And really I would say the more we allow government to run around regulating our lives for "safety" the closer we get to the office of pre crime; trying to prevent damages before they happen. And we all know the way that goes, eventually we will all be locked in our homes only let out to go to our predestined route to work and back home again all for our safety.

And I know you are playing the devil's advocate and know that the regulations are completely out of control. It's just like at the time of King George, who even went so far as to tax wooden shovels and forbid the colonists from owning or making iron ones. The politicians are slowly regulating out all profit from businesses and all savings from the citizens. Right now they are eating out the substance of the people. At some point something has to give and many of the useless laws and regulations repealed.

Anyway thanks for the time and the reply.

reply to post by getreadyalready

I have to admit, I often use this excuse. I do some things in my job I don't often agree with, but we are enforcing the statutes as written. If someone wants to change the statutes, they need to contact their legislator, not the officers enforcing the laws. It is a lame excuse, but I also need my job!

If you have taken an oath of office to uphold the law and protect and defend the Constitution and the statute as written directly contravenes the Constitution that grants the legislature the power to legislate, then telling someone that you are simply just enforcing the statute as written is really just you telling yourself this in an effort to justify breaking your oath of office. Worse, where the legislature has plausible denial-ability and even immunity from prosecution, if you as an LEO have used this statute as written to trample upon the rights of individuals, then you have no plausible denial-ability, nor immunity. I suppose you could argue "good faith", but this would require arguing that you didn't understand that a right was being abrogated or disparaged, which begs the question; why even take that oath of office to begin with?

There is also the matter that many LEO's do not even enforce a statute as written but instead grossly misapply a statute, code, or ordinance in a misguided attempt to expand jurisdiction where none exists. Further, LEO's have taken to grossly misapplying case law in order to expand jurisdiction. I cannot tell you how many times I was pulled over as a pedestrian simply because the police officer decided there was something suspicious about me, only to tell me upon my challenges that "my complaint isn't with the police but with the Supreme Court" and then cite Terry v. Ohio. Apparently these guys didn't understand it was JPZ they were yanking around, and upon first hearing this absurd claim I went and read Terry v. Ohio. The next time and each time since, the moment an officer uses the Terry v. Ohio excuse, the first thing I ask them is if they even read Terry v. Ohio.

Terry v. Ohio is a spot on ruling that is in regards to a police officer who - at least under the circumstances described - acted as an honorable and effective officer of the law. There has never been a time that I was pulled over by a police officer falling back on Terry v. Ohio where the very narrow scope of that ruling applied to my circumstances. I have had to insist that police detaining me and threatening to bring in drug sniffing dogs because I refused to allow them to frisk me (all too often in my own goddamned neighborhood and in front of my neighbors) that they call the Sheriff's and have a Deputy Sheriff handle the matter. This, of course, causes great cognitive dissonance for these officers who declare incredulously: "The Sheriff's? They don't have any jurisdiction here." Then I have to explain to them that the Sheriff is a duly elected official accountable directly to the People and has a Constitutional mandate.

Twice, police officers finally acquiesced and called the Sheriff's, both times where a Deputy explained they couldn't frisk me in my own neighborhood just because I was walking down the street at 2am. One Deputy had to go as far as explaining that if they insisted on going down that road that I had made perfectly clear I would file a verified complaint and force that Deputy to arrest the officer. That officer didn't even know what a verified complaint was.

Now, in defense of the LEO's in the video of the O.P., it was perfectly clear that these "lemonade activists" had staged this event, but it was equally clear they had not caused any harm to anyone and had not committed any crime. Selling lemonade without a permit is not a crime, and by the way the licensing scheme is not even a statute but is a code. The state, or in this matter D.C. certainly has a compelling argument that health codes need to be created to protect the public, but they lose this compelling argument when they claim selling lemonade is a health threat to the public. That burden of proof is upon them and it is one thing to make an ex-ante argument over this policy, another thing entirely to stand in court of law under an ex-post charge of criminality.

With all due respect my friend, if you have no interest in protecting the rights of individuals, then what exactly is the point of even having law enforcement?

so shouldn't we then turn our attention to the lawmakers ?

the potus and the police are always on trail it seems, but congress gets a free ride

curious

reply to post by OldCorp


The thing is is that they were using it AS a FORM of free speech and 1st amendment says "no laws"
zoning included

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If they were committed to the cause then they wouldn't have charged. No one has sympathy for the guilty when they flagrantly break the law. They should've pushed them on a technicality. It doesn't make for a moving clip unless you get arrested I guess.

Have a problem with the injustice of vending permits? Fine, civil disobedience is alright i guess, but c'mon.

Edit: I wonder if they got strip searched. I hear that's been given the green light.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so shouldn't we then turn our attention to the lawmakers ?

the potus and the police are always on trail it seems, but congress gets a free ride

curious

It is a good question, but the answer is what I have spent the past several years in this site attempting to explain. When we begin holding executive branch personnel accountable for their criminality and instead of being greedy pigs going for the civil suit and banking out, we begin to first have them charged, tried, and convicted of their criminality, then following up by being greedy pigs and suing them civilly, this is when you will see LEO's take a different stance on this issue. Once law enforcement personnel begin to refuse to enforce bogus legislation, this is when you will see Congress repeal that bogus legislation, unless it has been struck down as unconstitutional first.

However, as I just explained in my post above, more often than not the problem is not the legislation being enforced as written, but rather the legislation is being misapplied in order expand jurisdiction where none exists. Either way, if we as individuals are not willing to hold law enforcement accountable this will continue. In fairness to us all, and full disclosure, while I have used my ability to think on my feet, my recall to cite case law, and my charm to convince a police officer they have no jurisdiction, I have never myself filed a verified complaint against one. We don't want to and for perfectly understandable reasons, but as this crap gets worse and worse my sympathy for law enforcement diminishes, and my compassion for the People and their rights, and certainly my own, far outweighs any sympathy I hold for law enforcement.

Getready is an extremely reasonable member who is quite capable of making cogent arguments. I look forward to his reply to me and perhaps together we can convince at least one person that their oath of office has given them the authority and the power to refuse to enforce bogus legislation.

so....
when does Jon Corzine get charged for his little lemonade swindle?
or are the copes still rented out to him and his cronies for 35 bucks and hour
and NY city still on the hook for any liabilities incured?

Originally posted by Danbones
so....
when does Jon Corzine get charged for his little lemonade swindle?
or are the copes still rented out to him and his cronies for 35 bucks and hour
and NY city still on the hook for any liabilities incured?

It is unfortunate you did not bother to offer any link regarding John Corzine swindle you seem to want to link to lemonade stands and the right to sell lemonade. I have done a cursory look, and the best I can find regarding Corzine and lemonade is this:

By now its clear to all, or should be, that these people cannot operate a lemonade stand let alone the largest economy and strongest nation on earth. Then again, someone in their own administration would shut down that lemonade stand anyway. Once again, ‘The Keystone Kops’ are at it again.

I am confused, my friend. Are you asking this question because you have direct knowledge of Corzine criminally shutting down lemonade stands, or are you making some other point? Can you explain what swindle you are talking about since it appears Corzine has swindled many on several occasions.

Originally posted by MeesterB
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

If they were committed to the cause then they wouldn't have charged. No one has sympathy for the guilty when they flagrantly break the law. They should've pushed them on a technicality. It doesn't make for a moving clip unless you get arrested I guess.

Have a problem with the injustice of vending permits? Fine, civil disobedience is alright i guess, but c'mon.

Edit: I wonder if they got strip searched. I hear that's been given the green light.

edit on 4/12/2012 by MeesterB because: (no reason given)

The cause was the right to sell lemonade, so they showed profound commitment. Indeed, this is why this thread exists because no one should have sympathy for the guilty when they flagrantly break the law and in that video what is evident is several police officers breaking the law.

Civil disobedience is a matter of legality. Unalienable rights is a matter of law. When one refuses to acquiesce to criminal statutes or codes this is not civil disobedience, this is lawful assertion of rights.

proving again, cops are cops first and people second.

*shakes head in disgust*

another nail in the coffin for the newest police state

reply to post by OldCorp

No, it's 48 years of living on a planet watching people leave their garbage behind.

You've just followed up your fallacious reasoning with more fallacy. Are we supposed to believe that in your 48 years you have never ever watched people pick their garbage up after them? Really?

I took the pre-med track in college, and I'm pretty handy at identifying tissue under a microscope and naming the bones of the body. Would you prefer that I, or someone who is actually qualified, perform surgery on you? Granted, some people just barely get their licenses to practice medicine, but at least we are guaranteed that they have a bare minimum of medical knowledge.

None of which explains why one of the most heavily regulated fields (the medical profession) is guilty of iatrogenocide being the third largest cause of death in America. If these licensing schemes are so credible then why is it that doctors are more dangerous than rogue police officers, or more dangerous than diabetes, or more dangerous than terrorists?

Have you ever been to a county fair?

I grew up in New Mexico. I am not sure what the county fairs looked like in your neck of the woods, but from where I come from county fairs were filled with live stock and carnival attractions. Equating this to vending is absurd.

Originally posted by freakshowfatty
reply to post by OldCorp

 

The thing is is that they were using it AS a FORM of free speech and 1st amendment says "no laws"
zoning included

OldCorp is correct on this point. I had not responded to that point because I never made any assertion that this was a First Amendment right. Anyone attempting to make such a fallacious argument will only discover the harsh reality of making dumb legal arguments.

Zoning laws have a purpose, and when they are instituted to protect the right of property owners - as in private property - then zoning laws can be lawful. Claiming a zoning law is applicable to public property is far more ambiguous. Certainly none of us could set up a lemonade stand in a court of law just because that is public property, but on the Mall? That's a different story.

reply to post by Germanicus


Good watch this video was.
I especially was OFFENDED by Former prosecuter Wendy Murphy, when she stated...

I'd be like I can save you!
Darling, it isn't about you.
I would compromise your freedom to protect the majority of women.

When speaking to LEGAL prostitutes.
This woman is dangerous and something should be done to protect our freedoms from her and the like.

More toward the OP, many in the community service are afraid for their paychecks and their futures to the point that they would sell future generations for their comfort.
This should be a kingpin in the useless psych evaluation.
Before all of the psych garbage got into policing, cops ruled by right and wrong, now they just do what any nazi war criminal did and followed orders...

reply to post by getreadyalready

I think our country was founded upon the idea of majority rules.

I am not clear how much thinking you put behind that assertion, but his country is not - by any stretch of the imagination - founded upon majority rule:

Section 4 - Republican government The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The Constitution for the United States of America

"Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

James Madison Federalist Papers #10

James Madison, by the way, is the author of the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

John Adams

I believe . . . that the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society . . .

Thomas Jefferson

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations: but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes. If we consider the peculiar situation of the United States, and what are the sources of that diversity of sentiment which pervades its inhabitants, we shall find great danger to fear, that the same causes may terminate here, in the same fatal effects, which they produced in those republics. This danger ought to be wisely guarded against.

James Madison

If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice? to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations. And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world. To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission of some limitation of the right of the majority to exercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen . . . In popular governments, minorities constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies . . .

John Adams

The republic was put in place to prevent the majority from trampling all over the rights of individuals. Why is it that you are not enforcing and protecting and defending the Constitution as written?

reply to post by Aquarius1


You would think that ex-post facto would prevent anyone from coming after you for selling lemonade as a child, but as our resident "law" enforcer in this thread has handily pointed out, what is written in the Constitution is less important than "law" enforcements opinions about it.

The whole world has gone insane, indeed!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Hey JPZ, you grumpy old man! I think the police are about as bright as those at the Hague stating they were just following orders. As both you and I know, color of law is not nor will ever be, lawful. Been awhile.

Jon Stossel had a piece on what it would take to get to have a lemonade stand, quite eye opening.