TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#58076: Jul 11th 2013 at 10:18:14 AM

The Police is often "explicitly civilian", whatever the hell that means (unlike the Gendarmerie, which is the military version of police).

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#58077: Jul 11th 2013 at 11:03:49 AM

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has decided not to represent her state in a lawsuit against its ban of same-sex marriage.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#58078: Jul 11th 2013 at 11:22:38 AM

[up]404, and I see nothing added by the forum (hypen+space, space after comma) to explain it.

edited 11th Jul '13 11:23:10 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#58079: Jul 11th 2013 at 11:44:53 AM

Lets make the distinction this way on the police v military thing guys. Here's what people are mainly thinking of in this 3rd amendment case:

I'm a military cop. I have jurisdiction only on military bases. Military bases are federal land(most of the time) which falls under the direct law enforcement jurisdiction of the department of defense. I derive my authority to apprehend offenders from certain articles of the UCMJ and other places.

Civilian police officers derive their apprehension authority from state and federal laws, and they have their own jurisdictions. Regular soldiers(I.E. non Military Police soldiers) do not have any authority to conduct arrests, beyond the same citizens arrest authority that all americans have in certain situations. The only way that military members, MP or not, have any authority to apprehend outside of Do D jurisdiction, is either National Guard with the explicit request and permission of the Governor, or Federal military forces when martial law has been declared.

So in other words, the police have never been considered soldiers. Civilian Law Enforcement and Military are explicitly separate bodies who operate in explicitly different ways. Honestly, this challenge on the 3rd amendment interests me, because I too agree that the lines are blurring as the police are becoming more and more militarized when it comes to their shiny toys(not necessarily their training..) I don't think the police should be allowed to occupy someones home without their express consent, and that compensation should be involved if it's going to be for a long time.

Though honestly I'd be fine with letting a cop use my room as a vantage point if there were a stand-off, so long as it was only for the day or something. But they certainly aren't entitled to that.

edited 11th Jul '13 11:46:03 AM by Barkey

TheStarshipMaxima NCC - 1701 Since: Jun, 2009
NCC - 1701
#58080: Jul 11th 2013 at 12:06:12 PM

[up] Seriously, Bark, I'm disappointed you don't run for office.

But given you're blunt demeanor, maybe that's for the best. smile

It was an honor
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#58081: Jul 11th 2013 at 12:14:29 PM

There's a very good reason why police and military are separate entities. When they aren't, you open the door for serious problems. There's also the simple fact that they have very different training and rules of engagement.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Tangent128 from Virginia Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Gonna take a lot to drag me away from you
#58082: Jul 11th 2013 at 12:44:15 PM

I suppose that's a case where "original intent" is gonna be a big piece of the argument- would the idea of police being quartered in one's house have even occurred at the time of the 3rd amendment?

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#58083: Jul 11th 2013 at 12:46:17 PM

It's unlikely that the issue was anticipated. I understand the issue, though — it's a question of whether the police commandeering a home or building for their use during a criminal investigation are violating the third amendment. On a first glance, I'd say that it was not intended for that situation.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#58084: Jul 11th 2013 at 12:48:57 PM

I'd argue it was because I'm fairly certain the British military served as both at the time. The original intent seems to be that any law keeping body can't use a home unless it's an emergency. I'd actually argue that the police using a home during a criminal investigation is a valid exercise of those rights.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#58085: Jul 11th 2013 at 12:49:00 PM

edit: What happened here?

edited 11th Jul '13 12:49:12 PM by Kostya

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#58086: Jul 11th 2013 at 12:56:38 PM

[up][up]

Sort of. Soldiers and, more commonly, the militia would assist magistrates, constables (people appointed to keep the law by the Crown) and Justices of the Peace in arresting suspects or searching houses. But the military were never out on the beat except in times of great crisis (i.e, the Frogs or the Dons were looking invasiony). Generally, the populace would report crimes and magistrates would call the militia to come and help them control things. Of course, sending in the military has produced some very unpleasant results, such as Bloody Sunday and the Peterloo Massacre.

edited 11th Jul '13 12:57:37 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#58087: Jul 11th 2013 at 1:00:55 PM

The House just passed their agriculture-only farm bill with 216 aye (all Republicans) and 206 nay.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#58088: Jul 11th 2013 at 1:03:05 PM

Is that the one that doesn't cut food stamps and other aid packages? It's a step forward, if so. Still, if no Democrats voted for it, what's wrong with it?

edited 11th Jul '13 1:03:38 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#58089: Jul 11th 2013 at 1:05:05 PM

It has only the agri subsidies. For a urban representative, it would be 100% waste.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#58090: Jul 11th 2013 at 1:08:39 PM

I'm reasonably certain the intent of the Third Amendment was to prevent the military from abusing their power. It specifically states that it's during peacetime, and blows off the subject of wartime with, "in a manner to be described by law," which is legalese for, "We'll work out flexible rules for how to handle this in an emergency situation that won't be part of the Constitution so we can change it around as needed."

It's not supposed to prohibit police from using your house during a criminal investigation. It's meant to prevent soldiers from kicking down your door, marching inside, and announcing, "Mine now, bitch. If you don't like it, take it up with my musket." Historically, government-sponsored militia haven't always been the kindest of gents. That kind of abuse of power is what the Third Amendment is in regards to.

But that's the spirit of the amendment, not the letter, and law is always about the letter of the law. I guess we need to work out a legal definition for what police constitutes before it can be determined whether police commandeering your home for investigation purposes has anything to do with the Third Amendment.

edited 11th Jul '13 1:09:35 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#58091: Jul 11th 2013 at 1:23:46 PM

The third amendment was originally caused at anger from British soldiers who were traveling from one place to another(in an age where you didn't make online reservations at your local hilton ahead of time) and essentially finding the nearest home when they were ready to stop traveling for the day, and staying there and eating all of your food regardless of if you wanted them to or not.

It wasn't necessarily about the military in particular, it was about a specific habit that the British military had before the revolution that pissed off a lot of people. I would argue that because the British military were also the police in those times, this is more relevant to the police now than it is the military, as the military doesn't really travel in such a manner now. Then again neither do cops, I don't think anyone has to worry about cops or soldiers saying "Hey, it's been a long drive, I'm staying on your couch tonight and raiding your fridge, k?" So the third amendment could even be considered to be outdated, but I think it is a pressing concern to address this issue.

I can support houses being commandeered when they are crime scenes, but I don't think that anyone should be obligated to assist law enforcement in instances such as having a vantage point on a surveillance operation or a raid. I think it's fine for the cops to ask, and I would encourage people to cooperate and help out their local police and consent of their own free will, but I think obligating them to do so is wrong.

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#58092: Jul 11th 2013 at 1:51:49 PM

[up]Might I point out that dragooning (which that was) was practised in a few more places than Britain? It was the norm for most states at the time. tongue Spain, France, Denmark, Sweden... the list of powers (both colonial and not) that practised it is a long one.

Annoying, invasive, destructive and a PR disaster, yes: but, the norm. <_< It started to become less the norm thanks, in part, to the 3rd Amendment. After people started asking questions like "why did we lose a colony?" and such. tongue

edited 11th Jul '13 1:53:02 PM by Euodiachloris

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#58094: Jul 11th 2013 at 2:07:47 PM

If your house can be used as a vantage point to corner a criminal, doesn't that also mean there's a good chance they can get you as well and you've already been evacuated from your house? Just a point of curiosity here, because I'm not so sure I'd want to be physically present if there was a nutcase the police needed to contain next door to me and it was too the point they needed my house to enact such a plan.

[up]Huh, farm bills have always been connected to food stamps? I can see this separation of issues being both good and bad, depending on what happens next.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#58095: Jul 11th 2013 at 2:11:09 PM

Farm bills are basically a kickback scheme. Rural congresscritters don't have enough votes to pass them by themselves, so they load the food stamps on them to buy some urban voters who support them for humanitarian and other reasons.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#58096: Jul 11th 2013 at 2:21:00 PM

As long as the police are liable for any damages or stolen property I have no problem with them temporarily taking control of your house if they need it to catch a criminal in the immediate vicinity.

RockLeeYourFace Splendid Ninja from Narutard Land (or Texas) Since: Jul, 2011
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#58099: Jul 11th 2013 at 4:36:39 PM

Hey, no fair, Boxer! You're rigging the hearing! Science isn't the only way to determine the right thing to do, especially if you let Jesus do your thinking for you!


Total posts: 417,856
Top