Habeas corpus called & would like to be thawed from deep freeze.
The presumption of innocence in American society died a long time ago, with Gitmo, CIA black sites & NSLs. What little was still left, is being killed every day with asylum seeker kids being abused in border ‘shelters’.
Long live habeas corpus & the American conscience.
Given the fact the constitution limits the govt and not the people.
Given the fact the constitution says the govt cannot limit the freedom of movement.
The govt cannot make laws limiting freedom of movement regardless of the method as they were not given that right by the constitution. Therefore driving as a form of movement cannot be regulated.
There are also precedents discussing it
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
There's a pretty wide gap between what you think is Constitutional and what U.S. courts think.
Virginia law notwithstanding, elsewhere in the U.S., driving is not a right and never has been. Per U.S. Supreme Court law, freedom to travel includes the freedom to cross state lines, but that right does not extend to any particular mode of travel. You're free to walk, but not necessarily to drive or fly (notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 40103, because Congress subsequently restricted that right in 49 U.S.C. 44901-44902). Otherwise, you'd just be able to walk into an airport and board any flight you'd like without presenting identification.
Similarly, if driving were a right, states would be forced to allow anyone behind a wheel (ok, at the helm of a 2-ton killdozer) without being properly trained or insured first.
> There's a pretty wide gap between what you think is Constitutional and what U.S. courts think.
This is often brought out as if to imply that the courts are correct. But why wouldn't government courts tend to malinterpret the Constitution in favor of the government?
The Illinois State Police can confirm that on August 11, 2018, Mr. David Weaver was arrested by the ISP and cited for the following offenses at the scene of a multi vehicle personal injury crash that resulted in multi vehicle fires: Criminal Trespass to Real Property, Failure to Yield to Emergency Vehicles, Stopping Parking or Standing on Roadway, and Walking Improperly on the roadway. This case remains open and ongoing in the court system, therefore we have no further comment at this time. The Illinois State Police's primary goal at the scene of a critical incident, and at all times, is the safety and well-being of all members of the public.
The linked article has a photo that shows many people walking on that controlled access highway, many right in the middle. Were they all arrested?
It's orthogonal to the general right to travel freely, but the story does demonstrate how overly broad procedural laws end up being selectively and inappropriately enforced to persecute under the color of law.
> The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare[...]
> The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets
> Given the fact the constitution limits the govt and not the people.
Well, sorta.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
States rights was decided during this little thing called the civil war.
Interstate travel cannot be regulated by the states and since freedom of movement is a right protected by the constitution.
You have to conclude interstate travel is a right. Granted the commerce clause can be used to regulate commercial travel but private travel cannot be ;)
The right to do it as the driver of a car is less clear, given that one can freely move between states in a bus, plane, boat, taxi, or as a car passenger.
1. I am glad that 737 MAX has been grounded. May it stay that way, globally, until this issue is provably resolved.
2. The entire Boeing chain of management that resulted in these crashes should be publicly flogged, their remuneration & benefits clawed back & subject to a mandatory minimum prison sentence.
Who the hell am I kidding! Neither is very likely to happen in the present day US. Carry on then, I guess. Just make sure to sign your Last Will & Testament before taking that next flight.
What happens if your #2 is applied to doctors, car/ship manufacturers, food producers, grocery stores, house builders, taxis, restaurants, software engineers, medical device producers and so on? Every profession caused accidental deaths.
"Legal action" against bad decisions is a must. However, mandatory prison sentence for accidents is a terrible idea.
Is it negligence or just a bad design? Who decides? The thing is starting to look like Boeing thought that MCAS failure was similar to and corrected by the same procedure as runaway trim. Time will tell if that is the case, but if it does, should the pilots be posthumously tried for negligence?
Especially in light of the current size of the US's prison population. We should be very careful in general about advocating for more prison sentences. It's an easy thing to do, but the societal outcome is a lot more complicated.
Oh please. If there's one demographic we don't have much of in our prison system, it's upper-class corporate executives. We could stand to let some non-violent drug offenders out early to make room for them.
One thing that bothers me about this generation is this thirst for infinite punishment.
People hunger for someone to blame, rattling off a long list of maladies that should befall that person, until they have been thoroughly satisfied, but they are never satisfied. They always feel there should be someone else, something more, something deserved.
The truth is, there is no point to such a punishment here. It is unlikely that any individual plotted to kill people by pushing some faulty code out of malice. These were people simply doing their best and they failed.
While I agree that thirst for punishment is counter-productive, I'm not sure that people did their best, or rather that the criteria of the "best" were right.
I remember that the aircraft in question was tweaked beyond stability in order to reuse the existing type certificate. This procedure need scrutiny, likely both on Boeing's and FAA sides.
The thing about a software fix is that you never know when the solution is near. It could be fixed next week, or it may require an entire rewrite of critical systems. You just don't know until it's fully diagnosed. So why sound the alarm when plenty of flights have gone without problems and a software fix might be around the corner, especially if you have all your best men working on the problem?
Even if the US doesn't choose to do much (though I find it embarrassing the FAA was one of the last regulatory bodies to respond), Boeing will face a reckoning globally from other regulatory agencies.
Stock is down 15% since March 1. Hard to know what an executives there are thinking, but I hope some folks in the organization genuinely feels some sort of empathy for the families of the deceased on these flights.
Honestly, those top positions in almost any organization are often political appointments that have little to do with day to day operations. The current "actings" are generally the ones who "advise" the political appointees on how to handle things. Obviously there are some exceptions, but most bureaucracies tend to run that way.
Not to comment specifically on this as FAA isn't my area, but if the secdef doesn't come to work tomorrow the undersecretary is going to take the same actions he would have. I'd imagine most of those orgs trend that way.
The value of having confirmed appointees in those positions is not necessarily their native technical expertise. As you’ve noted, that expertise can be provided by career employees. The value of political appointees is the political clout they carry. Given that they’ve been appointed directly by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it is much harder (or politically fraught) to simply threaten or replace them when they take an unpopular stand like “let’s ground an airplane.”
The US government is a complex system, and like most complex systems it works best when you, a non-expert, don’t randomly yank out pieces and declare them unnecessary.
Well, that's not what I said. I've not claimed they're unnecessary, just that they have a slightly different and perhaps less important role than the post I replied to was giving them. The undersecretaries can make the same decisions, and in fact the career personnel in the organization have far more ability to take action without fear of replacement by anyone as they have more protection than a secretary who serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
That said, generally the undersecretaries are appointed and confirmed as well, as their role is to step in and backfill if the primary is not available, so that answers that issue.
I can’t find any evidence that the current acting FAA administrator was Senate confirmed. Is the Internet just being unreliable here?
I think your notion that career personnel have as much DC political clout as unconfirmed career officials is one of those things that sounds good if one is trying to win a debate, but is unlikely to represent the actual facts on the ground.
Political clout in DC isn't what runs organizations and gets the day to day business done. It's what plays well on the hill in pointless back and forth BS sessions that a totally ineffective congress likes to have, it probably helps to some extent in budgeting discussions, but it's more posturing than anything else in a lot of ways.
Anywhere you go in the military you'll find all the GOs who are in charge, and powerful, and senate confirmed, and all that good stuff, and they've got a Chief of Staff and an aide who actually run everything, and can continue to do so if their GO walks in front of a bus. It's no different in any huge bureaucracy -- sure, CEOs make decisions, but the day to day business doesn't stop if they don't answer the phone for a while. I would actually posit that if it did the whole organization is dysfunctional to the point of ineffectivity. But I'm being redundant in describing DC that way perhaps.
Well, Shanahan is acting and will be confirmed when the senate gets around to it... that's kind of the point though. DOD is still running and will continue to run, exactly as it has, with only minor political differences from the top. They have a lot of theoretical power, but little ability to actually change day to day operations of anything.
The purpose of confirmed political appointees is to create a layer of empowered leaders who can do more than simply steer the ship in a straight line, or react slavishly to orders from above. The confirmation process serves two purposes: (1) it ensures that relatively independent thinkers with high political capital are in those spots, and they see their allegiance to the entire system and not just one man, (2) it provides a safety valve (via resignation) when the confirmed appointee does not agree with orders from above. The danger of the DoD is that it’s an agency that can give the appearance of running itself when there’s no crisis, but may need expert leadership when there is one. Since the entire purpose of the DoD is to manage crises, lack of high-level leadership is a serious concern. Ditto the FAA.
As I posted in response to your other comment, you're ignoring the fact that the undersecretaries who backfill those positions in the absence of the primary are also appointed and confirmed, and the career personnel have less incentive to bow to political pressure.
DOD has far more "expert leadership" in the form of the FO/GO community than the other gov agencies as well -- the secretaries exist to implement policy, not run day to day operations.
Oh, sure. I just enjoyed the combination of the example being a bit off, because it sounded like a hypothetical, but also a perfect real-world demonstration of the idea.
I've flown on a 737 MAX a couple times this year. Smooth, comfortable, quiet flight. Although the failure of the MCAS system has been catastrophic, fortunately for Boeing the fix doesn't seem difficult... make an extra AoA vane or two mandatory and add a warning if they disagree, and require MAX pilots to sim train an MCAS failure.
The planes seem eminently airworthy, so far it appears they weren't brought down by anything that's terribly difficult to engineer out of. Unfortunately for Boeing and the FAA, nothing is more costly than an accident, it will take years to earn back the public's trust. Even if it's found the pilots were downright negligent in their handling of the MCAS failure, that won't make the general flying public feel any better about it, and it won't bring back the dead, may they rest in peace.
There's already two AoA vanes mandatory on every plane (even non-MAX planes). There is a warning if they disagree in the optional package that the North American airlines bought, but not any other airlines. The warning is not much of a warning, just a disagree light. It would have been impossible for the Lion Air pilots to benefit from this disagree light, because they didn't know that it was hooked up to a control surface and neither did any other pilots, it seems.
> The planes seem eminently airworthy
An uncontrolled nosedive caused by a single sensor failure is not in anyone's definition of airworthy. It must be fixed. This lack of airworthiness was not the pilots' fault.
>1. I am glad that 737 MAX has been grounded. May it stay that way, globally, until this issue is provably resolved.
No, it should stay grounded permanently. Who wants to risk their lives in one of these things now, with the reputation that Boeing has now earned? The airlines should be able to return these things to Boeing and get their money back. If that means Boeing goes under, then so be it.
IMO, I don't want MAX to be resurrected. If the design is flawed, let it be and shut it down. But this ain't gonna happen because how expensive aircrafts are.
It’s thanks to crap like this & the total lack of original innovation on the iPhone platform, that I am seriously considering the Samsung S10, after 8 years of exclusive iPhone use.
Post-Jobs Apple is over & done for. They are in “rent collection” mode now.
So long & thanks for all the fun. It was good while it lasted.
Going through the images, I shake my head in disbelief. So much of “art” is selling crap to the filthy rich, who have nothing better to do with their time or money.
Maybe, I don’t “get” it. To each their own, I guess.
There is a business opportunity here, so it only makes sense that someone is exploiting it.
I hope you don’t believe that about all art. Art is one of the pillars of Homo Sapien behavior, and it is found pretty much anywhere human settlements are found. I worry that many of us are becoming too distracted with life, logistics, and “productivity” to take time out to experience the things that make us human. Maybe that’s why art has become associated with the rich - maybe they’re the only ones who have time to enjoy it.
> I worry that many of us are becoming too distracted with life, logistics, and “productivity” to take time out to experience the things that make us human.
True, but art as an industry created a bubble on its own. Nowadays it gives the perception that it is all about imposture and speculation.
I think it's a not uncommon view particularly about fine art as bought and sold in the galleries and auction houses of New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo.
Some art is treated like an investment, it is speculated that the price of a piece is only going to go upwards. That is a reasonable assumption if the artist is famous, especially if the piece of art reflects a certain style or creative period. Usually it is very hard to copy the work/style of an artist. That said, I don't know how these pictures are going to hold to that assumption, since 'generative art' is by default reproductible and should be easy to copy...
Some people actually like having multi million dollar paintings hanging up. But, the number of people that can afford to do so is relatively limited.
Some as you say is pure speculation, but money laundering is also a significant part of the art world. Auctions regularly move vast sums of money between near anonymous people and represent highly portable wealth.
"Art" with a capital "A" is much like religion: a pseudo-intellectual toy of possible conceptions and idealism. The big different between the fraud of Art and the fraud of religion is Art claims you can buy transcendence, whereas religion says you must give your soul and lively obedience for the potential of their idealism after death.
And no, you can’t convince me otherwise.