Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I very much enjoyed this article. The larger takeaways for me are that most citizens (or people) don't know the law, don't know the basis of law, and don't know the foundations of creating and defining law. Yet we're forced into submitting ourselves to what someone else wrote with deficiencies or moderately malicious intent where fundamental rights and freedoms granted in the constitution are violated.

Governments the world over are becoming bigger and more powerful, while common people are subjugated and controlled through diktats. I don't know what's the best way to improve the situation (other than some activists and campaigners doing the work for the society), but a somewhat in-depth course in law seems like a fundamental requirement for everyone.




There's another takeaway here too. This person does know the law, well enough to teach it, and successfully won his trial by proving that the officer involved perjured himself. His "success" resulted in him losing a bond for twice the cost of the ticket and no action being taken against the police officer whose perjury initiated the charge against him.

His only consolation can be that the trial likely cost the city more money than they collected from him. Yay for sticking it to the man! The best case scenario we have is for both sides to lose. There's no way to win. If we want to change this situation, we need to pay more attention to the procedural semantics of our justice system, not just the law. You can be entirely vindicated in the eyes of the law and still lose every bit as badly because of the process you're forced to submit to just to contest the legal aspects of the case.


> His only consolation can be that the trial likely cost the city more money than they collected from him.

Unfortunately, this doesn't actually affect the involved asshole cops/officials/attorneys who blithely violated the public trust: the costs come out of citizens' taxes (or services), not out of the salaries of those people. It's pretty much lose-lose for everyone except them.


Unless we change it.


How would we change it? Malfeasance like perjury on the job is already illegal, but if the legal system excuses it case by case, what other recourse is there? The way you change stuff like this is at the ballot box, but the vast majority of voters treat voting like their own personal pissing contest instead of something with consequences (seriously, look at some of the research around what determines the way people vote. It's an utter farce).


Look how easy it is to do from their end as well. Just don't create a "process" for citizens to win and make it no one's responsibility to deal with when it happens. Everyone just shrugs their shoulders and "not-my-job's" it and there's no one to blame!


As an example of this, "granted in the constitution" in your post.

The constitution does no such thing. As a free people, we created the federal government and gave it specific powers, which are enumerated in the constitution. The rights of the people are not limited or enumerated.

The bill of rights was controversial because many people thought that listing some rights would give nefarious people the idea that this was all the rights the people have.

In fact, the 9th Amendment states:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And the 10th Amendment states:

    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.


To be fair the author clearly doesn't understand the basis of the law either. Hint: it's not the constitution, even if it ever was.

It's power and the threat of violence from the elite.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: