Re: Law and Order Politics is a lie
If I understand correctly, their claim is that the United States has always been about strict enforcement of the law-- and that Americans have never broken the law.
Personally, I think you misunderstand the idea. It is more about fair and consistant enforcement of fair and reasonable laws. If people actually believed that no one ever broke laws then the number of laws would be minimal.
Of course I am all for the system of law as a system. However much of the Bill of Rights is specifically concerned with giving Americans that hinder the governments ability to enforce laws. The law is a way of setting up a system of checks and penalties, but there is always play.
The issue isn't one of checks and balances. It's more a matter of people usurping authority they aren't granted by the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is a governmnet clerk given the authority to decide guilt or innocence? Where are they granted the authority to ignore violations of law or to directly grant people the authority to violate the law? When were the police appointed judge and jury? At what point were politicians granted the authority to intervene in criminal prosecutions that are outside of their jurisdiction?
Every American bends the law to meet his or her interests. Our legal system and or political system provide balance.
There is a huge difference between "bending the law" (which implies staying within the confines of..) and breaking the law and then having the authorities at every level ignore the laws being broken.
This is my thesis. I back it up with these historical examples.
- The Boston Tea Party.
- The Underground Railroad (helping escaped slaves flee)
- Speakeasies during prohibition.
- Unmarried and homosexual sex in private
- Sex between people of different races
- Rosa Parks
- Waco and Ruby Ridge weapons violations.
- Roy Moore
Your historical examples show what? That people have broken the law? Rosa Parks was arrested and fined. Speakeasys were routinely raided and shutdown. People were arrested and prosecuted for interracial and homosexual acts. Waco and Ruby Ridge are only referred to because of the law enforcement actions (i.e. attempted arrests leading to stand-offs). How were any of these actions overlooked or ignored by law enforcement?
My point is that Americans of all stripes have always had a tenuous relationship with the law. I would bet that none of us support all of the laws, and none of us haven't willingly broken the law. Claims that this will lead to chaos and anarchy are clearly false. Two hundred years of American history proves this.
If you want to make a political point, go ahead and make it. But hiding your political views behind "law and order" is a lie... unless of course you really do believe in upholding every law.
I bet no one here can make this claim.
I don't think they need to. Again, there is a huge difference between demanding 100% enforcement of every single law and what we have here in MA where people only support laws if they have some friend or relative that gives them an "in" to circumvent the laws and prosecutors only prosecute cases where the accused isn't a donor to their political campaign.
If a law isn't going to be enforced then get rid of it - it serves no purpose. If the law does serve a purpose then there is no purpose in ignoring it and violators should be prosecuted. It's up to a judge and/or jury to decide what the penalty is for the violation - not some flunky clerk or the arresting officer.