hot4bondage -> RE: "After the elections" (10/8/2014 7:38:37 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether quote:
ORIGINAL: hot4bondage Yes indeed. The agency tasked with keeping track of our laws says they can't do it anymore. We literally have more laws, codes, and regulations than we can count. There's a case before the Supremes right now because a patrol officer didn't know the brake light law for his state. For the simple minded, yes, there are to many laws. For those that can actually access libraries, smartphones, and computers; the information is pretty easy to come about. Gallup a few months ago asked a question of those that they surveyed. "Can you name the five parts of the 1st amendment"? 90% of those polled couldn't answer one item. 8% got one answer while 1% got two to three correct answers. The last two parts of the 1st amendment were only known to less than 0.001% of those polled. The percentages have just stuck in my mind for somereason.... And I've been looking around for that poll for days now, since it would be an interesting topic to discuss. Trying to Google '1st amendment, survey, Gallup' and variations of it, have proved to be useless. The point here, is that most Americans can rattle off the 1st amendment, WITHOUT, looking it up. Just the same as they cant rattle off how to set the DVR without looking it up. There is a reason why things are written down. So the officer couldn't remember the exact law; could the person rattle off the 4th amendment perfectly? If it's so easy to know our laws, why did the Congressional Research Service tell Congress that they lack the manpower and resources TO COUNT THEM? And that's just federal criminal law. The tip of the iceberg. So the officer couldn't remember the exact law? In the case before the Supremes, he found some drugs while he was enforcing a brake light law that only existed in his imagination. That sounds to me like an easy way to abuse a position of authority. Are you saying that an officer shouldn't be expected to know the law that he's enforcing?
|
|
|
|