Constitutional Muster

Father, Husband, Atty specializing in the 3rd Amndmt. Always wanted to be either a "Hail Fellow Well Met" or a "Gad about Town"

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

@Joeinblack The fact that I speak autocorrect in a Catholic dialect and knew Father meant "rectory"

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

Boss grew in usage in the shift from Dutch New Amsterdam to the more English New York in 1600's. The Dutch were more freewheeling than the stuffy British and had been much more egalitarian with the help: sharing a meal at the same table, being cool, not beating the help. New Yorkers resented the English word "Master" as a word for "the guy who pays me" because its the same English word for "the guy who owns me" and reverted to "baas", Dutch for master but not Dutch for owner. Some shopkeeper 2 miles north of the wall in 1659 liked the idea that he could merely pay this chap for services and get more loyalty than the fuedal/slave system. This directly traces down 300 years until Dron Draper told Peggy on that same spot, "Thats what the money is for". There you go, boss man. Mad Men, etymology, history.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

It's decided after the fact. If there was no gun by the abortive shoplifter, yes, it would be wrong to chase someone who almost shoplifted. And yes, shooting the almost shoplifter (he put it back?) would be ummmm bad. But he did have a gun, and he did try a shoplifting, so if he was chased out of the store for praying to Vishnu or for any innocent reason, the moment he presented a gun could be argued as his own self defense, but he wasn't praying. If he almost shoplifted and got chased and tackled and shot or worse, yeah, there's a case for assault/ murder. But this was a double looser!
Ok, you don't do hypotheticals. Unless you are being intentionally obtuse. So real cases: a Louisiana Dad is woken by a kid/man in a mask on Halloween 2am. Dude is kicking the door, shouting he's going to "beat all y'all asses bloody" and starts Kicking the door down. Dad says, "Leave or be shot through door" dude keeps kicking, breaks door, shot dead. Turns out, 17 yo who had wrong party address so he did nothing wrong, I guess. Innocent Exchange Student. The privilege though, is on the shooter Dad who reasonably believed his family was in danger of death or Serious Injury (not just death, so being unarmed isn't a block to self defense, see, also Zimmerman), and is allowed lethal force to stop the threat.
You have the right to chase, that chase, if for lawful purposes (recover property or to note L. plate or flight route) ends with a gun pulled on you, well, that's no kicking door, that's a gun. There's a backwards looking lens here, true, and your client was on the wrong side twice. Being a bad shoplifter who converted to being an armed assailant when chased equals good shoot according to this jury.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

If you want the truth (can you handle the truth?), it's actually very deep concept in Constitutional Law. Still here? Cool. Buckle Up. There's a concept called Strict Scrutiny. From the beginning, If a Government Entity makes a decision on anything, it usually has to justify its actions by Any Rational Basis standard, meaning, if called upon, the government has to defend it's policy on, say, how many pounds of Lemons can go onto an international pallet for export to count as one tariff unit (23 kilos), and be able to say why they made the rule. If they can't justify why the rule was rational, it can be labeled as "arbitrary and capricious". Meaning there's a government body that only allows Botswanan Immigrants to apply for a visa on Tuesdays if they're left handed. So, if a law is passed on, say how many horses can be in an interstate truck trailer, the first challenger in court might say the law was ill founded and a judge will look for "any rational basis" on why the Congress limited a horse trailer's load. Some congressional testimony citing a safety study and not citing a horoscope or a psychic would close the case. With me? Good.
Now, over the last 100 years the courts have started to look closer when the government makes a rule or law that separates Americans into groups based on immutable characteristics like race or denies a fundamental right (life liberty property), main liberty interests are voting, movement, anything on the Bill of Rights; should be subject to "strict scrutiny" because all Americans should be treated the same. Always. So, if Congress passed a law that said "Blacks must ride in back" (How this all got started), courts must look for (every word means something and has its own corner of a law library) 1. Compelling Government Interest: The law must serve a genuinely urgent, necessary, or overriding public purpose. 2. Narrowly Tailored: The law must be specifically designed to achieve that compelling interest without sweeping too broadly. It must also utilize the "least restrictive means" possible, meaning there are no alternative ways to achieve the goal that would less severely burden constitutional rights.
Now, for less than immutable, like age or incarceration status, or less than liberty (like drinking), the courts use "intermediate scrutiny" which as a law student I just applied SS and backed it off one degree. Literally the same analysis.
Imagine a law: "Adults under 21 can't buy booze". The 1st challenge to the law in 1986 was met with intermediate scrutiny because it was a "sorting" but wasn't denying a fundamental liberty or based on race. Courts had to look at government claims of what interests were served, how this would impact others and isn't there a better way of saving lives without sacrificing the "free will" of more citizens than intended. Surprise, most judges and lawmakers are over 21 and there's plenty of evidence that 19 yo's are idiots and are not fully formed and accident data etc.
I just realized, I could used @grok Hey, did I nail "why is it legal to stop citizens under 21 from getting booze?"

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

No. You cannot pull a gun on the armed shopkeeper (or his son) if he's chasing you after you fled his store. If you're just, like a random jogger and an armed man starts chasing you, sure, I guess, its your privileged defense, literally. But like I'd tell any self-defense client, You better know the rules of armed self defense

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

Its in the Plum Book as a GS-9. There is no oversight, no supervision, generally called Confidential Assistants and depending on which office, can most often be found answering the phones and setting meetings. As someone who had hired for these roles 20 years ago, the KSM's needed for the role of Confidential Assistant for DASD-SOLIC do not require any SOF experience or knowledge. I think it officially requires "knowledge of the MS Suite and ability to read, speak and write, oh and a Bachelor's Degree". Come to think of it, this might be the exact position where they hired Monica Lewinsky after the White House Internship, which itself was right on the heels of the BA from Lewis and Clark University (Psych Degree) at 22 years old. I know it was in a ConfAsst or GS-9 role in one of the DASD so it might not have been SOLIC but might have been Intel. There's 200 of them in the Pentagon, some come from the Hill, some from campaigns and some... well, some are Donor's kids like Miss Lewinsky. When its the wrong "kid" opponants will oddly inflate the responsibilities of the role, like "I can't believe you have a DOnor's kid in charge of the whole Iraqi Stock Exchange", when it was the GS-12 with a finance degree who merely sent out the press release.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

No, attempted false imprisonment is not a thing. Kidnapping has an attempted clause, but not FI. First of all, you'd have to have foreknowledge of the "false" and 2nd the imprisonment requires confinement which is binary. To your larger point, Defense of Others is not spoiled by pursuit, you're thinking of castle, etc. This is not an outlier case on DoO, and could be taught in Law School.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

@PeepeeSprinkle @infantrydort Overseeing? You clearly don't know what GS-9 means.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

@grok, the original claim was that DHS was both illegal and Unconstitutional and you've researched that it's certainly not illegal, with split circuits and plausible arguments, why not give a fair ruling on unconstitutional? If at least one circuit allows it, it certainly can't be called blanket unconstitutional. As far as rating, being half wrong would be a maximum of 5/10

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

@ridgemax @IrisSomewhereUS @DroneAged @RonDeSantis Yale? On a scholarship?

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

@grok, explain to @theoglordscion how Congress wrote the Immigration Laws to give the Executive Branch the power to remove persons who are deemed by a court as removable after they have exhausted due process appeals in the BIA. DHS is following that particular law, so it's not illegal? SCOTUS has upheld that law in almost all cases so it's not Unconstitutional (but for the very narrow use of admin warrants to enter certain properties where courts are split) Explain the Admin Warrant distinction that he refers to and rate his knowledge of the laws and constitution from a 1-10.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

@jbraunstein914 @xwanyex I don't think the Idea is "execution to remove criminal genes" but rather "...to remove criminals". Your straw man requires too much.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

Lee stated the goal: 1) Seize Harpers Ferry and armory (he had seen the foundry and armory up close with John Brown's capture, which he led). Huge success and gamble. Largest US surrender until Corregedor. US General actually imprisoned by Congress. 2) Remove the Valley as a theater. Harpers anchored the Valley and Mosby tied up the 18 Gaps which blocked Union from even seeing CSA movement and bottled up McClellen to just "Fortress Washington" and also freeing Jackson to roam free in the Piedmont. With the whole East Coast Theater now just the equivalent of the DC and Baltimore beltways, this sets up the final play, 3) Seize B&O rail junction at Frederick which was one day from both B'more, Philly and DC and without rail and 1/3 of US population within a days March, Mac has to leave DC and pursue, which Lee knew was a committee. 4) Win one battle before the midterm elections which didn't happen, but Lee still proclaims to "People of Maryland" to join the CSA. Without G.O. 191, you'd likely see a Frederick area defensive battle probably near Buckeystown heights. McClellan might have put 6 unsupported Corps uphill against a dug in position and lost worse than Burnside at the Rappahannock. Even with the plans, Mac still didn't push over the ridge at South Mountain on the 14th which would have found 3 separate groups of perhaps 8k each scattered among a pro-union Farm Country.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

I did a booth for a trade Association in SanFran in 1994. Was right outa college. Had stupid brochures and such but it was 4 boxes about 16" cubed. Flew it to SFO in a checked roller. They explained the wheeled rule and with a teamster smirk said I'd need to get Union to do it for $120 since I couldn't do it in one trip by hand. Removed belt and used box's twine to create a makeshift pack animal thing over shoulder (more like a yoke) and the guys said if one item touched floor it would be called "staging" and I'd have to pay double for fines or something for evading their process. This is in the Mascone Center. I drew a crowd and they watched my toes to see if I stepped over the carpet line and back would make it two trips. These MFers actually walked ahead of me and would randomly stop and tie their shoes in front of me or do a freeze to get me to bump into them. Made it. Years later I worked with a Teamster Lawyer in a lawyer meeting and told the story thinking it would break the ice and he angrily accused me of stealing union work and in all seriousness tried to get me fired. I think he called me a scab and that my union firm would hear from them.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

Did that job as a college kid. Never used whole kit, though. Fins and BC are useless. One guy at pool company was PADI certified and owned the tank would keep the air filled. Everyone else would just use it. Its not like we worried about the bends. Story time. Once the air was out and we had a leak check. It was near my house so I grabbed my dad's air compressor and just sucked an air hose while I scanned the bottom for cracks. Either way: The trick is to use food dye and watch if the drops get literally sucked into the crack or into vinyl seam. That's the leak. This just became a pool scuba thread.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

@CMacdhughaill @canedeeman Every Time this (or a similar) WWII question gets asked, the M1 rightfully gets mentioned in the first ten comments, Every Time. I know this because I start to post, and then see that someone has beat me to it.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

@mhp_guy Hey, its Steven! I use him for my annual bike ride to the beach.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

1) If there aren't five together when booking, its a timeliness issue, which I understand if they're going to a spontaneous event or a funeral. 2) Wanted to save hundreds of dollars on Seat Selection Fees and hoped that other travelers would pay for their seat upgrades.

If the first case, the families trying to be together should offer the $45 or sweeten the pot-auction style- in cash (and have it ready exact change). If its the 2nd case, they are attempting a type of theft by coercion or manipulation. The airlines could encourage the first at the gate and offer other bonuses to switchers who help the airline fulfill their promise (per website "We will make every attempt to seat families together"), which would be a very good thing to do. It could be argued that if airlines permit, say, a photo to be taken of someone who does not agree to pay for your seat upgrades, then the airline is complicit in this extortion and theft by coercion.

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

The trick to singing this at bedtime to your children is to have the verses be almost the staccato martial whisper of an Inspector General's lament about foodstuffs "in eighteen fourteen we took a little trip..." and then yell/sing the Chorus to the rafters with a full belted "WELL, WE RAN THROUGH THE BRIARS..." as if you are running through southern woods like a madman. Bonus point for shouted spousal accusations of something called "riling up".

[Constitutional Muster @ChipBorman]

@PopBase Someone tell me that the phrase "flipping a grunt" is in this story