One of the main reasons our roads are so harmful is that our formula does not protect other harmful people from them.
The guy who was convicted of killing Mitch York while riding his motorcycle on St. John’s Bridge. John in October 2016, Johns was arrested in January. He later bragged about his driving skills on his Facebook page and his participation in a high-speed car chase with the Portland Police Department.
“So yes, anyway, the other morning I started a high-speed chase at 140 mph [sic] with the most productive department in Multnomah County,” reads a post by Joel Schrantz published on Jan. 23, 2024. “I was robbed twice, it’s cheating. Before, it was about whether you would get caught or not, who was the most productive driver, not anymore.
As it turns out, nothing will stop Schrantz from driving dangerously and for no reason: not the risk of legal consequences; no protests by judges; nor his Facebook friends (none of whom expressed fear at his post, and six of them responded with a “Haha” emoji); Not even killing an innocent person.
Schrantz was sentenced to 42 months in prison on May 17, 2017. That day, in the courtroom, prosecutors explained that he had been driving without a valid license for 25 years and had not paid the 40 tickets that were piling up on his record. Just two years earlier, Schrantz had been convicted of hit-and-run. During the case, a judge warned Schrantz, “I had to stop driving, or I’d kill somebody. “
He hasn’t stopped driving. He then killed Mitch York.
Then, on Jan. 21 of this year, Schrantz, now 49, drove recklessly in front of other innocent people again. The Portland Police Bureau arrested him following the aforementioned car chase and arrested him on five counts: attempted to flee a vehicle, reckless driving, attempted escape on foot, third-degree escape, and intent to deliver methamphetamine.
According to court records, Schrantz gave the impression before sentencing was handed down on April 18. But due to the lack of a lawyer, his case was rejected (along with 26 others). The Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office called this lack of public defenders an “urgent risk to public safety. “
Schrantz’s case was dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning the ruling did not rule on the merits of the charges. Technically, this means that you may face a long-term court date if suggestions can be provided. But with lots (thousands?) of cases affected by a lack of public defenders, it’s hard to say when—or if—that would ever happen.
Liz Merah, communications director for the Multnomah DA County office, told BikePortland that they plan to take this case to court “in the near future. “”And we hope that the court will appoint a lawyer when we get to the indictment. “
In the meantime, Schrantz is there.
Since the issue of automobiles is not addressed at all in the Constitution, why can’t there be a similar formula for vehicle drivers?This would be preventive, it would take a harmful weapon (the vehicle) off the road, even temporarily, and it would show that everyone is fed up with harmful driving and that drivers are being watched.
Laws That Flag Out For Drivers, Tap Your State Representative!
It sounds fantastic, but many other laws would have to be introduced at the same time because it is so easy to get a car. At the very least, it would take background checks to buy a car and difficult consequences for whoever sells it. automobile without making it, adding personal salespeople. Until then, impounding someone’s car would be only a minor impediment to driving. It’s like postponing someone’s license. I’m sure Joel doesn’t have a valid driver’s license.
I’m sure Joel doesn’t have a valid driver’s license.
The article says that he has not had a license for 25 years and that was in 2017.
Or maybe we’re all still complaining about who the prosecutor is right now and the lack of police personnel, and yet no one here needs an officer because it’s too complicated to step in and tell the difference. Whichever solution you think will work. Achieve the most productive effects by keeping cars away from those who shouldn’t be driving them.
Even without background checks, I still think this concept can be quite effective. If the state impounds your car, it is much more expensive and time-consuming to purchase and operate a replacement car than it is to purchase and operate a replacement weapon. I can simply believe an edit of this without a background check that would make it very difficult for an incredibly harmful driver to continue driving when their vehicle is repeatedly impounded. Maybe they’d end up using the motorcycle to get around out of necessity and they can just broaden the empathy a bit for those who are out on the road outdoors in a car.
All of this is a very moderate thing to desire. But I don’t understand why we don’t just confiscate cars that aren’t signed. You can’t sign a vehicle. Then the only thing that happens is that a police officer (or any automated camera) can check that the vehicle is registered. If not, it’s easy to prevent them, take the car. Take them home, I don’t care. If it’s still signed in someone else’s name, there will be a way to impound cars that someone else is using. It won’t be so easy to drive without a license. And this can be solved without a large build-up. in police and surveillance. It’s just a cross-check of a license plate with the DMV. Nothing invasive, nothing special. We don’t even want to solve the public defender’s challenge, because no one is being tried.
It’s hard to solve, but for some reason we’re reluctant to do it.
I guess they know where he lives. Also, it’s not the norm. Also, my comment was on how to impound the vehicle (permanently). There were many events leading up to this time where, in all likelihood some adjustments to the way things are applied, you may have simply been prevented from driving.
As it deserves to be obvious, my comment and that of jakeco969 referred to things that can be done to address this case, without describing the prestige quo that exists.
I don’t understand why they legislate in the same way
Politics? There are many other people in the Willamette Valley who think guns don’t exist anymore (myself included). Few people think cars do.
BPH has an incredible shortage of staff for a police station in a city of our size. We want more if we want to prevent harmful drivers.
I agree that probably nothing in this case would have replaced Vasquez v. Schmidt (I guess that’s why Jonathan chose this case as an example). However, unfortunately there are many other cases where this would have been the case. Yes, I Vásquez, but the good thing about a democracy is that the network (not just me) can choose. Soon we’ll see if the network agrees with my point of view (or not). Now, pass the vote! ?
For ethical reasons, I do not vote for Republicans (current or former). So I voted for Schmidt.
Their view on this (that Mr. Maus chooses articles based on elections) is absurd. I’m sure he published the article because it’s about an unrepentant, under-punished killer cyclist.
Here’s my take:
Oregon’s chronic shortage of public defenders is due to the election of pro-business “pragmatic” moderates who refuse to adequately fund an essential component of Oregon’s social contract. In no way can I believe that “pragmatists” like Vasquez or Gonzalez are shown to be lenient on crime by advocating for a sharp increase in investment for disheartened, pro-crime public defenders (who help decriminalization).
I heard Vasquez speak 4 days ago, he was very involved because of the lack of public defenders. He seemed like a great person to me. He didn’t mention being a “pragmatist” (so why did you use those quotation marks?), but he did talk about his experience and the skills needed to run a giant prosecutor’s office.
I don’t see any similarities between Gonzalez and Vasquez, who also don’t have Spanish names ending in “z. “
The similarity is that he will win with 60-70% of the vote.
I have mixed feelings about this, MDR, but the mayoral race probably won’t take place until the fall.
Name: “Spanish”. Hey? They are of Mexican descent.
“Hey” I’ll be back with you. Do I have to say they have Mexican surnames?Are they Mexican?
They are of Mexican descent.
These are American names.
3) a damaged social contract (community street building) through motor vehicle drivers. . .
In our country, it turns out that we still have billions (if you put it all up, a trillion) dollars to blow things up, kill and torture other people, all over the world. Yet here at home, we have neither the precedence nor the budget to run our country, to help other people live happy lives, to order.
These Raytheon/etc mansions in New England simply build themselves, after all!
This is because “both” parties are part of the national war. It’s a joke.
In our country, it turns out that we still have billions (if you put it all up, a trillion) dollars to blow things up, kill and torture people all over the world.
We took on the role of “world policeman” after World War II, basically because we were the only ones with status and we didn’t need the Soviets to do it.
It’s not a wonderful task and, as you pointed out, it’s quite costly, but I would be us, rather than China or Russia, the two apparent alternatives. I’m sure he would vote for Europe, which was Trump’s solution. however, they are not in a position to perform the task, nor do they seem to need it.
The remains: if not us, who?
(2) If we needed authority, I think the UN could be a much more important and less unpleasant actor. It’s not the best in its current form, basically because we in the United States continue to slander it, forget it, or refuse to accept it. pay our dues.
And the number. The wars unleashed in Russia and China constitute a small fraction of the number of wars unleashed in the United States.
and that the countdown stops in 2001 (!)
China’s official news company is arguably biased. You probably balance this with a quote from the Russian government, and possibly it’s an Iranian quote as well.
https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Xinhua_News_Agency
If you think armed clashes are a measure of many things (I don’t), check out this list. How many of them are our fault?
https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
“How many of them are our fault?”
Well, if you squint, most of them.
There is no point in beginning on October 7 to perceive Israel’s Palestinian profession for decades, and the same technique can be applied to this list of wars in an effort to recommend that the United States have nothing to do with it.
Continue to squint. As bad as we may be, we are more than the other option.
The UN has no capacity to impose anything, and human history shows that a vacuum of force has been filled.
“We are more than the alternative. “
Your answer is hilarious and stupid. You don’t know if that’s true. Of course, since you “know” this is so, this is evidence enough for you.
“The UN doesn’t have to impose anything”
In the U. S. , we’ve undermined, ridiculed, and slandered this system for generations, withheld budget, ignored its rules. Many countries around the world are investing their hopes and budget in the UN, while we choose to undermine it when it suits our imperial impulses. It is not an open-and-shut matter, let alone one that we have to give up.
The U. S. is by far the largest contributor to the UN. Many countries around the world invest little in the UN and even less in their own defense, because they know that we will remain silent and not do that. Ukraine is a wonderful example: a country with Russia as a neighbor spent less than 3% of its GDP on defense until 2020, we spend 3. 5% of our GDP on defense, and we have two oceans and two friends as neighbors.
“A void of strength is filled. “
His comment suggests that it sounds like leaving the door open or a storm; things that “happen” without any conscious intervention.
“It fills a void of strength. “
His comment suggests that it sounds like leaving the door open or a storm; things that “happen” without any conscious intervention.
Malicious actors will fill a strength gap. I hope it is more direct and clear. This has been true throughout human history and I don’t expect it to replace it now.
What I’m saying is that lately there’s a vacuum of strength, but that if we become more isolationist, as Trump’s right wants, we’d create one.
Perhaps the United Nations would be expanded to fill the vacuum, but if, as you say, a single country has the strength to undermine the United Nations to the point of rendering it ineffective, that shows that it is up to the task.
I don’t need to ruin your party. You can get on without me. I probably wouldn’t feel bad.
The places we went to (with the imaginable exception of Grenada) after World War II didn’t go down well with us or the country we went to.
There are many counterexamples; one of them may simply be Afghanistan. I think they were much better off when we were there, keeping the Taliban at bay, than they were before we arrived or after we left. Given the small number of U. S. troops needed for the situation, it could have been higher if we had stayed. I would recommend asking an Afghan woman what she thinks.
Although it was a former NATO mission, it was truly an American mission. A lot of bad things have happened there, but it’s not hard to believe that the scenario would be worse without our involvement.
Although this history is still being written, it is hard to believe that Ukraine can last long without American involvement. We’ve provided weapons, intelligence, and strategic advice, as well as a lot of things that don’t make the headlines.
These, as well as most of the other examples I would cite to help your case, are extremely confusing and confusing, and it is difficult (impossible) for an outdoor actor to solve the problems cleanly. Even in the cases I’ve cited, a lot of bad things have happened, some of which were directly our fault.
Would other people in any of those countries be better off if we had stayed home?I don’t know. Is it better to let the other parties fend for themselves?Probably not. Maybe. Who knows?Would you leave the Ukrainians to their fate?Why would he care about the genocide in Sudan (which is now restarting after we helped suppress it 20 years ago)?
I don’t see much we can do for some of the populations that you have cited as not receiving (especially the Uyghurs), but, on the other hand, we have spent a lot of resources on behalf of the Kurds (who are endangered). to be exterminated through Saddam Hussein). ) and Haitians (facing the violent consequences of a coup d’état).
But yes, Trump is a primary isolationist and has dragged many Republicans along with him. That’s not to say the position is bad (although I think it is). And I don’t think cutting the industry (which is something else) will increase our agricultural activity. We are a primary exporter of food products, so we would produce less. And we’d have to be informed to live without avocados and bananas (and without reasonable solar panels).
Do we want a global policeman?
Probably because we still have the world’s reserve currency for the time being, and most of the industry is denominated in dollars. There is a sure point of duty in this prestige and, given our point of debt, I don’t think we need to know what would take place if we lost this prestige. Fortunately, there is no convincing currency of choice.
And the number. The wars unleashed in Russia and China constitute a small fraction of the number of wars unleashed in the United States.
I can’t believe this has anything to do with our simple lifestyle and strength being a strong enough deterrent against any primary conflict.
It’s a tasteful header he’s chosen.
According to court records, Schrantz made the impression before sentencing was handed down on April 18. But due to lack of a lawyer, his case was rejected (along with 26 others). The Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office called the lack of public defenders an “urgent” matter. risk to public safety. “
This is the challenge that all law enforcement fundamentalists wrongly accuse prosecutor Mike Schmidt of. Even more sectors of our society that other people complain about when they don’t exist and don’t need to pay for it. We don’t have a shortage of lawyers, we still just don’t realistically fund public defenders.
all law enforcement fundamentalists wrongly accuse prosecutor Mike Schmidt
Poor Mike Schmidt.
When you’re DA, you get credit and blame for things adjacent to DA, smart or bad. If crime is going down, you’re a hero. If it increases, you are responsible, even if you have nothing to do with it. That’s how life works. There is no point in debating who is to blame; Never mind. The long term is written.
Schmidt set the tone for his tenure with his handling of post-riot prosecutions. These decisions have influenced everything that has happened since. If things had gone well, maybe it wouldn’t have mattered. But it didn’t, and now it’s over; Even his advocacy of drug recriminalization didn’t help. Repeated accusations of sex discrimination, in fact, didn’t help.
Vasquez is going to have a resounding victory (with the support of many progressive benefactors as well as law and order fundamentalists), and if things don’t improve, we may have a new district attorney in 2028.
And so the cycle continues.
“When you’re a prosecutor, you get credit and blame for things adjacent to the prosecutor, whether they’re smart or bad. “
Especially since cops are constantly lying to advance their narrative, and Sinclair-owned newspapers and news channels regurgitate everything they say. It’s a giant bloc of electorate that they can manipulate.
I voted for Schmidt because I’m not convinced he’s guilty of the bad things you list here. OMI, Schmidt has become the scapegoat for things that are very much beyond his control, and the fact that many of the other people who oppose Schmidt are other people who are not compatible with my values make me even more suspicious of the narratives that have been pushed about him. I also know that the things you’re accused of are incredibly complex things that have defied simple answers and many other people I know. With all due respect, I think Schmidt is the most productive choice in this race. One thing I firmly believe in is that finding police and criminal responses to those disorders is one hundred percent wrong and I accept it as true with Schmidt, more to perceive better. how to find the right balance in this regard. These are just some of the reasons why I voted for Schmidt.
One thing I am firmly convinced of is that offering police and criminal responses to these disorders is 100 percent wrong.
I would love to free the police and find a criminal solution to Joel Schrantz’s problem. If that’s not the right solution, I’d like to know what he thinks should be done with other people like him and what he thinks Schmidt will do with him.
I think Schrantz deserves to not be allowed to drive a car and he deserves to be detained by the government until he can be considered a part of society. I also know that it is not Schmidt’s fault that his new charges have been dismissed. The court is the one that decides which instances require a public defender, it is not a resolution of the AFAIK prosecutor’s office.
I think it’s moderate of me not to be in favor of letting the police wreak havoc and creating a gigantic budget for prisons and cops with the money we want for other things, while believing we want the legislation and we want other people. and equipment to do so when needed.
with cash we want for other things
Other things: public defenders who follow due process for the poor.
It will have to be done through the government until it can be considered as something for society.
I agree. It’s a criminal solution, but it’s the only one I see.
I also agree that Schmidt is not directly to blame for the firing; In fact, he has a role to play in ensuring that there are enough defense attorneys to prosecute the other people he believes want them. In this broader perspective, he places the blame on the legislature and the governor.
I think it’s moderate of me not to be in favor of letting the police wreak havoc and creating a gigantic budget for prisons and cops with the money we want for other things, while believing we want the legislation and we want other people. and equipment to do so when needed.
This is a moderate position that I share. The police won’t have to cause a ruckus and we want there to be enough police officers with the right equipment to enforce our laws, but we don’t want to overdo it. I bet no one on this forum would disagree with us on this point.
In the Schrantz case in particular, do you think the explanation for why you were released was that the court felt that other instances had a higher priority than this one?Maybe they were right, I don’t know what else they were dealing with.
I think you’re right, this guy Schrantz probably wouldn’t have been in this position if a social worker had stopped to talk about his lived experience so he could better perceive his innate traumas and how they manifest. Unbelievably antisocial ways. In fact, we wouldn’t need to incarcerate him for a period of time that would prevent those movements from being perpetrated against society, so tending to a grassy lawn would allow his power to be used more productively and Schmidt is the user who will make sure of that. Happens.
Good biased reading PS. I said I sought Schrantz’s arrest through the government and you interpret him as a social worker and an herb gardener.
I firmly believe that we want more social assistance to create a society in which other people like Schrantz are not so common. And I think if we react too temporarily to police and prison responses, we’ll never have the money or the political will to create this. type of social assistance and the society in which I wish to live. I also think a lot of progressives have lost ground and I think we can blame everything on “the formula. “I feel that progressives wish they were more willing to blame Americans for their actions. , and then find answers that focus on Americans like Schrantz rather than just throwing up your hand and saying, “yes, but the formula is so bad it’s not Schrantz’s fault. “I’m looking to draw a line here between throwing cops at everything and ACAB. The way he reacts to my comment is, in my opinion, a clever representation of why those disorders persist because he’s more interested in insulting me than figuring things out.
What I don’t hear in verbal exchange is a lack of ability and experience. I also didn’t vote for Schmidt the first time, because the argument came to mind that he wasn’t qualified for the task. The variety of candidate should not be reduced to an undeniable agreement with that user in a series of policy positions. Especially in something like DA, you have to have the skills for the task, and Schmidt doesn’t seem to have them.
And about this barrage of pamphlets attacking the Working Families Party directed at Vasquez. . . photo of Betsy Johnson, Donald Trump, Giuliani – communicate about a sordid election campaign. This lit a red flag related to the anti-Vasquez side. When I won in the first group, I said to myself, “Boy, those others are desperate. “A holder must be able to apply based on their track record.
Yes, I hear you Lisa. No I know enough about things about which of the two is more competent or has the required experience. I believe that opting for a candidate can and usually comes to a lot of things!And I can’t communicate about some anti-Vasquez campaigns. It will be attractive to see what happens. If Vasquez wins, I will look forward to see that all the disorders that he and his followers have blamed on Schmidt will quickly dissolve. . . just as it happened when Gonzalez beat Hardesty.
Wow, that’s an impressive statement. I like how you (or so it seems to me) recognize the desire of personal responsibility to make the city/world a better place and start investing resources in the future we want to have instead of the future. We’re afraid to have. It fleshes out some of the things you’ve said in the afterlife in a new way. I like the balance between optimism and awareness of the existing truth that you get. Glory!!
Come back to my comments on this topic for the past 4 years. I shouted from the rooftops the crusade “Defund the Police” that if we are not ready to finish more, we will most likely end up with the formula of justice we deserve. and not the one we want. This is still an unpopular view and we are now seeing the culmination of the alternative. There are two realities here: first, there are bad people, second, it is costly to reduce/eliminate their effects on society. We used to pay a lot of cash to fix those disruptions and now we’re going to pay even more. Sorry, my cynicism has manifested itself in the face of recommendations I’ve been making for years.
I’m going to take the plunge and make sure that the society you need to live in recognizes that their investment depends on other people who are willing to give a much larger contribution than they receive. They do it because quality of life is value. They give a lot, and instead crime is low, infrastructure is clean, and rights to personal property are protected (I think the list is so short that the rich need to live somewhere). Existing leaders are doing everything in their power. replace this herbal cost/benefit research and this will be very problematic in the future.
She would never have found herself in this situation if a social worker had stopped to talk about her lived experience to better perceive her innate traumas.
It seems to me that the subtext of your irony is that other deficient people who have committed alleged crimes are simply imprisoned by an authoritarian prosecutor and fired, because you are not able to perceive that the state of Oregon has refused to ensure deficient constitutional compliance. due process. . . (The shortage of public defenders and their pathetically low salaries isn’t a sudden new crisis; it’s been a disaster for more than a decade. )
Specifically, Oregon wants to have an additional 1,296 FTE contract attorneys (more than 3 times its current point) to meet the Sixth Amendment’s fairly effective standard of attorney assistance. In other words, with a constant annual caseload, Oregon has only 31% of public defense attorneys. You want to take care of your adult and juvenile cases.
January 2022: https://www. americanbar. org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defense/indigent_defense_systems_improvement/publications/or-project/
This is a prime example of the two major threats that explain why Vision Zero will (never?) be a success in this country as it is in other countries. I have to assume that I didn’t have insurance, I didn’t have a license, and I had borrowed (?) a car or traded it (?).
Did your recent arrests and activities cause situations similar to your previous release from a criminal?It might be mandatory to have a virtual ankle monitor that doesn’t allow the wearer to go faster than, say, 15 mph (bike speed) or maybe 35 mph (city speed). Once they are convicted, they serve their criminal sentence and are released (probation).
There is the possibility of creating a “GoFundxx” to pay a public defender or legal aid just to get things done. Until I read this article, I had an idea that MC’s prosecution formula would classify his Police Department legal staff in cases of violent threats to our road safety.
Thank you for this news: my blood pressure is too low and it’s enough to supplement the old tank.
I wonder if any of the local cycling lawyers would be willing to take on your case for free so that the case can move forward. Maybe we can organize a collection.
We can now expect that the defendant, Mr. Schrantz, will decide to sit on his trial, as the public defender’s workplace is understaffed. . .
“A public defender represents other people facing criminal charges in those difficult circumstances. The Public Defender’s Office aims to ensure that no defendant is denied the right to suggest under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. https://www. justia. com/ offender/work-with-a-criminal-attorney/public-defenders/
Too bad Oregon’s $5,610,000 additional tax rebate for 2024 can’t be spent on issues like life (not getting hit on the road and freeing the driver). . .
The Public Defender’s Office aims to ensure that no defendant is denied the right to make suggestions under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.
Here’s what I don’t understand, and I have to assume there’s an explanation for that that I just don’t know, because I’ve heard discussion after discussion about the lack of public defenders and nothing about it: if it’s a If the federal government guarantees that’s true, why doesn’t the federal government pay for it?Why does this obligation fall on the states?
If this is a federally guaranteed right, why doesn’t the federal government pay for it?
Another Oregonian tries to claim that it’s the federal government’s fault that the right-wing, pro-police Democratic Party has failed to secure fundamental constitutional rights.
… and the occasional warrior dedicated to useless, rewarding, masturbatory publications. Do better, please, or don’t do it at all.
It’s a serious question. The federal government funds other things guaranteed by the Federal Constitution (the military, postal service, etc. ). Why not this one? I don’t disagree that Oregon’s government sucks, but surely that’s not the point.
State courts are administered through the state. If the state needs to prosecute you for something, you have the right to an attorney. If you can’t buy one, the state can give you one or let you go. The feds have nothing to do with it.
If they try it in federal court, the federal government will pay your lawyer (if you want).
State courts operate throughout the state. If the state needs to enter judgment against you for something, you have the right to an attorney. If you can’t buy one, the state can provide it for you or let you go.
Hrrmm. Je I don’t know if I like that answer, but I find it believable.
The feds have nothing to do with this.
Unless you impose legal liability for legal representation (and supposedly don’t pay for it, I guess that’s not unusual). Unless (and this is far beyond my domain of experience, so I’m talking about authentic ignorance) only the sixth applies. to federal affairs, and in truth we are not entitled to legal representation at the state or lower point, unless the constitution/laws of a given state imitate the 6. This would be opposed to what I find to be the undeniable reading of the 6 (which in particular says “state”), yet I know that the Supreme Court, over the centuries, has scoffed at the “simple reading. “
I think a state, if it has a constitutional mandate to provide representation through the federal government and the federal government pays for it, can just forgo having state courts. This is by no means pragmatic or realistic, but I can simply consider this at least as a technical protective valve for it.
The federal government (“the fed”) has imposed the legal representation requirement, the federal charter has done so, and this is binding on all states as a condition of joining the union.
I think a state, if it has a constitutional mandate to provide representation through the federal government and the federal government pays for it, can just give up having state courts.
As it might seem, if there are no prosecutions, there is no one to provide lawyers to. That’s necessarily what we’re doing at such a low point by allowing other people like Schrantz to go unprosecuted.
But in fact, you’ve known a key challenge with “positive rights”: if I have a right to housing (an example discussed here recently), it means someone else has to pay for it. Basically, some other user was recruited to give me money. With an attorney, the state can decide not to sue if you can’t pay the bill, but in the case of housing like housing, that selection doesn’t exist. Of course, there is much more to say, but the right to suggest is the only positive right I know of in the Constitution.
But, in fact, you’ve known a key challenge with “positive rights”: if I have a right to housing (an example discussed here recently), it means that others have to pay for it.
That’s right, in addition to the same old conservative, intellectual argument against, say, the right to physical care (or housing, or. . . well, to any positive right, as you say). But not necessarily:
Basically, some other user signed up to give me money.
Conscription is a means of granting a positive right (“slavery,” as hyperbolically put by Jordan Peterson in a discussion of positive rights). Another solution, perfectly consistent with American liberal and market values, is to simply offer enough cash to grant positive rights. law to other persons who voluntarily exercise it, until the wishes of that positive right are fulfilled. This is not very different from the argument that “society’s widespread use of roads justifies paying taxes” that you yourself have used on several occasions. No one is recruited to build those roads. We (the taxpayers) invest enough cash for someone to build them (general monetary shenanigans that make it hard to understand the word “enough”).
I am convinced that the United States has enough wealth and resources to meet this need for legal representation (and housing and health care); we just want to use them differently. Less wealth accumulation in Northern Virginia, for example.
If I understand correctly, his view is that there is no difference between taxing other people to build roads and taxing other people to grant them the right to housing.
In a sense, I agree, but the difference I see is that once something is considered a right, we lose out as to how many resources we need to spend toward that goal, or how those resources are used.
For example, if we had the right to housing and a court somewhere, a “humanitarian shelter” was no less than a traditional apartment with a bedroom for each child, a kitchen and a bathroom for each person, then housing other people in a motel may be inadequate and we are faced with potentially endless expenses (1 room apartments for everyone), unlike road infrastructure where we can build less when times are tough.
Look at how much money Portland spends to demolish and rebuild sidewalk ramps that don’t meet a minimum.
I’m not sure what I’ve written conveys my point well, but it’s the most productive thing I can do right now.
In essence, I am opposed to positive rights, but I am suspicious of them.
The same can be said for the constitutional right to vote for a U. S. president for four years (so far). . . however, it is the states and counties that arrange and pay for such services. . . hence the hodgepodge.
What’s more, the way votes are counted for presidential elections varies greatly from state to state. Maine and Nebraska divide electoral votes by district, while other states do so based on a statewide vote count. If the National Interstate People’s Vote Compact goes into effect, states will allocate their electoral votes based on vote counts in other states, even if they disagree with how citizens of that state voted.
It’s a disaster, but it makes more sense when viewed through the lens of 50 states sending delegates to a federal ticket (i. e. , a federation of states) than a giant direct election.
Some claim that it is undemocratic; I’d say it’s just another arrangement of things that reflects the history of how we came to be here, much like the 9watts argument that you can’t perceive the clash between Israelis and Palestinians if you just look at a snapshot in time.
The federal government funds things guaranteed by the Federal Constitution (the military, postal service, etc. ) –
I’m not sure if the job is constitutionally guaranteed (and I’m not a supporter of the military), however, the U. S. has a FEDERAL formula in which states must organize and fund their own judicial formulas. I would not like to see the federal government appropriate the judicial formulas of the states either for political purposes (pro-Balkanization of this nation) or pragmatists (pending the election of Mango Mussolini).
It’s better, thank you. Have 1 internet point/upvote.
I’m not sure the position is constitutionally guaranteed. . .
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7. Although to be fair, I assume that this list corresponds to the powers that Congress has to do things, necessarily what it has to do.
And I wouldn’t want the federal government to do anything, either: it would simply pay for the positive tasks it imposes.
While Texas and Idaho would likely disagree, the price of being a member state of the “union” lies in the fact that both states and the federal government have independently committed to abiding by the constitution.
As far as I’m concerned, I have antipathy and disgust with the U. S. constitution: that its meagre human/civil rights are systematically “reinterpreted” and disgust that a so-called democracy clings to this patriarchal and imperialist document.
I hate that a so-called democracy clings to this patriarchal and imperialist document.
There are mechanisms in place to replace it or possibly eliminate it if we simply didn’t have one.
Continuing to insist on this point, Oregon asked the federal government to declare it an American territory, preparatory to statehood (see end of this article: https://www. oregonencyclopedia. org/articles/petitions-to-Congress-1838-1843/). We have asked to join the union, respect its statutes and take on the daily work that goes with it. It’s true that the state and federal governments are behaving badly lately, but it’s a mistake to frame this as an undeniable “us versus them” relationship. This will hardly lead us to find useful answers to these problems.
Here you have deposited these: 000
Oregon’s kicker worth $5. 6 billion
Thank you. . . my finger had a cramp pressing all those zeros. . . . ; -)
I thought you were the British million.
I honestly can’t say if it’s meant to be a threat. It reads a bit like “cyclists stay away or we’d hate to see what’s going on. “Do they rescue people’s lives in exchange for concrete?
I’m just pointing out the way of life of a threatening situation. . . Unless an entity steps in, as I doubt it will, after three well-known cases of violent driving, now start riding a bike, taking the bus, or walking to work. Perhaps your employer(s) would not have allowed you to drive paint vehicles or set up a rideshare service to go to off-site job sites.
I think there is something missing from the debate here. I don’t know what the right answer is, but I don’t think more law enforcement, more resources for prosecutions, or pro bono attorneys will keep those other people off the streets. a ticket. He was arrested. He served a criminal sentence. According to his 2017 case, he has not had a valid license since 1992. From his own post, police officers tried to arrest him, deployed barbed gangs and introduced chases. None of this is a deterrent to these types of people, and he’s not the only one.
It turns out to be an inherent challenge in our legal system that the consequences aren’t severe enough to really make a difference. Even if a sentence can convict you to the full force of the law, there simply isn’t enough on the books to prevent you from doing it again. Car brains are built into our legislation to give drivers necessarily permission to kill and maim, as long as they are not drunk and remain on the spot. Even then, all they have to do is say “I’m sorry” and get back on the street. Again, Schrantz has not had a valid license for more than 30 years, and yet our legislation cannot prevent his behavior. I don’t know exactly what the obvious solución. es that existing sanctions don’t work.
None of this is a deterrent to this type of person, and he is the only one.
Maybe we’ll revisit restorative justice?
Did they go to impound your car(s)?
If we were serious about security, we would sentence other people like that to life in prison without the option of parole. People like this guy are the explanation why sentencing rules were created.
https://www. opb. org/pdf/OPDC 6-Year Plan to Reduce the Public Defender Deficit Final Report 3_1711066724736. pdf
This is a report on the state of public defenders in Oregon, written by Moss Adams.
It’s long, but at least it’s worth reading. Aside from the suggestion to save $60 million from a projected budget of $1. 3 billion in 2029-2031 by decriminalizing certain high-profile felonies and felonies, the most mind-boggling aspect is that Oregon has 3 law schools with an average length of 145 students, so to make up for that shortfall of 546 lawyers, the state will have to convince 20 per cent of them to become public defenders in the next six years, which has no long-standing basis and means that there will be no public defenders. So essentially it doesn’t happen and the challenge gets worse. Critical minds can then extrapolate what happens when men like the subject, are never punished for their habit, and the credible slippery slope that follows.
BikePortland is produced by PedalTown Media Inc. Original photographs and content are the property of Pedaltown Media, Inc. Permission should not be used.