Another thread on illegal immigration got me to thinking. I think we are in the early phases of a shutdown of obedience to law.
--Bush finds it inconvenient to instruct his executive branch to enforce immigration laws. He does so in order to call for new laws.
--Clinton found it inconvenient to enforce existing gun laws. He did so in order to have a case for demanding new laws.
--Business leaders find it inconvenient to obey existing immigration laws
--Some cities instruct the local executive branch to not enforce laws, typically immigration. May include drugs or minor theft.
Just a few examples of what I consider to be a future trend. Now once elements of society deem it acceptable to not enforce existing laws, the logical leap necessary to enforce laws not in existence is not that wide. An example is the mayor of San Francisco extending marriage benefits to non-traditional pairs in the absence of statutory permission.
So lemme ask two questions of the esteemed forum:
Question #1--what laws do you think government will enforce which do not exist. A good example is gun seizures in NO after Katrina. No law permitted it but that didn't stop the power structure from doing it.
Question #2--What laws do you find inconvenient which are subject to your determination to not obey?
I think it one thing for the ruling class to fail to obey the law. I think at nother animal for the Great Fed Up to simply quit obeying law.
--Bush finds it inconvenient to instruct his executive branch to enforce immigration laws. He does so in order to call for new laws.
--Clinton found it inconvenient to enforce existing gun laws. He did so in order to have a case for demanding new laws.
--Business leaders find it inconvenient to obey existing immigration laws
--Some cities instruct the local executive branch to not enforce laws, typically immigration. May include drugs or minor theft.
Just a few examples of what I consider to be a future trend. Now once elements of society deem it acceptable to not enforce existing laws, the logical leap necessary to enforce laws not in existence is not that wide. An example is the mayor of San Francisco extending marriage benefits to non-traditional pairs in the absence of statutory permission.
So lemme ask two questions of the esteemed forum:
Question #1--what laws do you think government will enforce which do not exist. A good example is gun seizures in NO after Katrina. No law permitted it but that didn't stop the power structure from doing it.
Question #2--What laws do you find inconvenient which are subject to your determination to not obey?
I think it one thing for the ruling class to fail to obey the law. I think at nother animal for the Great Fed Up to simply quit obeying law.