Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[Cranberry]

No, as fourteen year olds do not "assemble" in the sense a group of, let's take that example, nazis do. I still hold the belief that this is unconstitutional, and I guess that should this clause be left in the bill, I will not be able to vote for its final version.

In which way would it infringe their rights to assemble? They can still assemble.

They can't freely, as they would loose their jobs in the process.

So firing any cop would be an infringement of this right???

I never said that, and you can do better than that.

[Blair]

It wouldn't violate it for me. I mean the question is, police officers are public service officers. Would we let Teachers/Doctors go to online paedophile chats?

[windjammer]

No, as fourteen year olds do not "assemble" in the sense a group of, let's take that example, nazis do. I still hold the belief that this is unconstitutional, and I guess that should this clause be left in the bill, I will not be able to vote for its final version.

In which way would it infringe their rights to assemble? They can still assemble.

They can't freely, as they would loose their jobs in the process.

So firing any cop would be an infringement of this right???

I never said that, and you can do better than that.

Wooow,
I'm asking you a question, no need to answer aggressively because this is not an aggression. Believe it or not, but I definitely try to understand why this part would be unconstitutional. Because considering this is a critical issue for me not to let nazis become cops, the only reason I would support getting rid of it would be his unconstitutionality.

So, if I understand correctly, you seem to believe that you can't fire police officers for holding despicable views because it would violate their rights to assemble.

So my question is, if we simply fire them, with your logic, it would fire their right to assemble too, so it should be illegal too, right???


(and I tend to believe in Lief's interpretationà.

[Cranberry]

No, as fourteen year olds do not "assemble" in the sense a group of, let's take that example, nazis do. I still hold the belief that this is unconstitutional, and I guess that should this clause be left in the bill, I will not be able to vote for its final version.

In which way would it infringe their rights to assemble? They can still assemble.

They can't freely, as they would loose their jobs in the process.

So firing any cop would be an infringement of this right???

I never said that, and you can do better than that.

Wooow,
I'm asking you a question, no need to answer aggressively because this is not an aggression. Believe it or not, but I definitely try to understand why this part would be unconstitutional. Because considering this is a critical issue for me not to let nazis become cops, the only reason I would support getting rid of it would be his unconstitutionality.

So, if I understand correctly, you seem to believe that you can't fire police officers for holding despicable views because it would violate their rights to assemble.

So my question is, if we simply fire them, with your logic, it would fire their right to assemble too, so it should be illegal too, right???


(and I tend to believe in Lief's interpretationà.

I did not intend to act aggressively, and I apologize if I did, in fact, towards you; but I just believed that this statement was a bit too far-fetched. But anyway.

No, I don't believe that if we fired for any reason, this would infringe their right to freely assemble. I do believe however, that if we take their practice of assembling - which they are constitutionally allowed to do freely - as a reason for firing them, then that's illegal and unconstitutional. It doesn't matter for me then if it's a neo-nazi group or a church choir, if we take their assembling to a group as reason to fire them, for me that's unconstitutional.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This thing really is getting to a very risky place.

So, no one is going to address my concerns as whether or not this body has the right to be as prescriptive as this Bill is?

[Lief 🗽]

This thing really is getting to a very risky place.

So, no one is going to address my concerns as whether or not this body has the right to be as prescriptive as this Bill is?

If local police departments don't want to follow these very reasonable rules, they are free to reject federal funding entirely.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This thing really is getting to a very risky place.

So, no one is going to address my concerns as whether or not this body has the right to be as prescriptive as this Bill is?

If local police departments don't want to follow these very reasonable rules, they are free to reject federal funding entirely.

That certainly doesn't sound like a confident yes. Do we know what proportion of local police funding comes from the Federal Government? I have a feeling it's not very much.

[Talleyrand]

Is there a provision in the constitution that prevents us from enacting this?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Is there a provision in the constitution that prevents us from enacting this?

That's not the issue. The issue whether or not we have the physical capacity to force local authorities to undertake their policing operations in a certain way. In a Federated system, the Federal Government (generally) only has authority over issues that the regions do not, or have voluntarily handed over. So it's not about finding a reason why we can't, it's about ensuring that there is capacity for us to do it.

I'm getting a little irritated that this issue is being dismissed so readily, as it comes down to the actual ability for whatever this Bill ends up doing, to be enforced, regardless of what it says.

[Cranberry]

Is there a provision in the constitution that prevents us from enacting this?

In fact, there even is, thank you again to a constituent for pointing this out.
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 7 of the constitution says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is, I believe, beyond obvious that this bill will force Regions to take actions, and I can not find any provisions of the bill that preserve the rights of the Senate or the people. In fact, it is blalantly unconstitutional to instate a national reign of criminal justice, according to this clause of the constitution. Here we are again with my concerns of constitutionality, this time I hope to get more of you towards my side of the argument.

[Cranberry]

Is there a provision in the constitution that prevents us from enacting this?

In fact, there even is, thank you again to a constituent for pointing this out.
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 7 of the constitution says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is, I believe, beyond obvious that this bill will force Regions to take actions, and I can not find any provisions of the bill that preserve the rights of the Senate or the people. In fact, it is blalantly unconstitutional to instate a national reign of criminal justice, according to this clause of the constitution. Here we are again with my concerns of constitutionality, this time I hope to get more of you towards my side of the argument.

[Cranberry]

Is there a provision in the constitution that prevents us from enacting this?

In fact, there even is, thank you again to a constituent for pointing this out.
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 7 of the constitution says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is, I believe, beyond obvious that this bill will force Regions to take actions, and I can not find any provisions of the bill that preserve the rights of the Senate or the people. In fact, it is blalantly unconstitutional to instate a national reign of criminal justice, according to this clause of the constitution. Here we are again with my concerns of constitutionality, this time I hope to get more of you towards my side of the argument.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This has been what has been of deepest concern for me over the past few weeks. I'd urge the passionate proponents of this Bill to take this seriously.

[bore]

Looking through the constitution, I suppose the argument you'd want to use is this one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I'm not sure if that would hold water

[TNF]

I'd rather let the courts weigh the issue than fail to act as more black young men and murdered every day in this country by racist cops.

[Lief 🗽]

This preserves the rights of the people in many ways, so it does not run afoul of Art. 1, Sec. 6, Clause 7.

[Cranberry]

This preserves the rights of the people in many ways, so it does not run afoul of Art. 1, Sec. 6, Clause 7.

Even if it does in some clauses, the clauses in which it does not are still unconstitutional.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Anyone can become a cop if they are deemed qualified and hired. If they are gay-haters or racist pigs, they can become cops. I believe these people sadly have the right to be free from the type of discrimination that would say otherwise.

What I don't believe, however, is that these officers have the right to discriminate against others based on these beliefs. That would be malpractice and grounds for firing. If the hiring team has reason to believe that a candidate is very likely to exhibit discrimination, then by all means do not hire that person. But the federal government should not be creating a dangerous litmus test like the one we just kept in the bill. I am a gay person. I am a member of the Presbyterian Church, which until recently (I think) was officially against same-sex marriage. Would I, a person who I hope is accepting, be barred from becoming a cop because of my affiliation with the Church? I sure hope not, but unfortunately I think the current language is too ambiguous for me to be confident one way or the other.

I guess that's what I really mean here. It's exceptionally risky territory. And as Senator Polnut has pointed out, it's territory that we may not be constitutionally allowed to occupy. So I think we ought not to be so specific with what we're saying our police forces can and cannot do. Obviously there's a standard that must be upheld, but we need to be very careful to find an appropriate balance. Telling officers what they should believe in their personal lives goes too far.

[Senator Cris]

I think that Hagrid explained it better that I can do.
As pointed out by Polnut, we may not be constitutionally allowed to occupy this "territory".
I don't think we can telling cops what they should believe in their life. It's impossible and it's not right.
If a cop is racist but qualified, he can still become cop and we can't do anything for that. If a cop is racist but qualified, we can't throw him out only because of his beliefs.
All of us agree that racism, hatred towards gay people, sexism, ecc... are wrong. We can't telling people what they should believe in and we can't throw them out of their work because of their beliefs, but we can work in other ways, as legislative body, to demonstrate and spread the message that racism, hatred towards gay people, sexism, ecc... are wrong.
We can't judge the work of cops for their (wrong) beliefs, but we can work to change their beliefs. Not this way.

[windjammer]

Well,
I still don't believe this is unconstitutional, but I do understand your point.

I have an idea of compromise: why not specially barring police officers to have a homophobic and racist behaviour while at work? I mean, with the camera, it should be enough for protections for the jewish, gay black community?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

That's kind of the point Senator Windjammer, my concerns go way beyond that one issue. There are elements that speak to conduct of local police of Federally funded-owned land, that is something over which we do have a clear capacity to act. But the remainder of the Bill speaks to actions that I strongly believe would risk being overturned by the simplest legal challenge.

Unfortunately the response from the main proponents of this Bill has been what I exoecred.

[Talleyrand]

Doesn't the federal government designate hate groups or something like that? Couldn't we just clarify the bill to mention that instead?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Doesn't the federal government designate hate groups or something like that? Couldn't we just clarify the bill to mention that instead?

OK - this still misses THE fundamental point. It is not just about the hiring and firing, outside of the discussions about operating on Federally owned-funded land, we probably do not have the Constitutional authority to dictate how local and regionally funded and organised policing operates... full stop.

If people want to craft something that is largely aspirational and bound for a legal challenge, be my guest. I think there is a way forward on this, but it's limited and will require cooperation with the regions.

[windjammer]

I would like to avoid court cases.

[Cranberry]

I would like to avoid court cases.

I doubt that will be possible unless this bill is fundamentally altered so that there is no doubt this does not overreach the Senate's powers and rights. As Polnut and I pointed out, we do not have the constitutional authority to force local police departments to follow our rules, rather, the only way to get something similar as this passed is via collaboration with the regions. I am afraid everything more will inevitably trigger a lengthy court procedure.