A large hunk of it is because of the countries they picked. ...I'm going to say it is 100% because of the countries they picked.Well sure, if you compared us to sub-Saharan Africa, I'm sure we'd look much better.
They compared us to the best countries in the world. Who do you want to be compared to?
I'm agreeing with you.
But when certain states still have laws stating that two men having consensual oral sex is punishable by prison time... that is FAR beyond anything within the bounds of reason. Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f*&+ing b%$$%$* insane.
They don't have those laws, or if they do, they are unenforceable as unconstitutional.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
As for OP, I say CONVENIENCE is the reason for lower life expectancy in the states. You can wet everything at a local store, appliances to make home life easier, computers to allow for greater efficiency, vehicles to allow for greater ability to live in a desirable area far away from employment. CONVENIENCE...err...laziness is the cause. The more efficient something becomes the less time you have to talk care of yourself because now you are expected to get more done.The rest of us have so much free time that you can't help make room for just a little self-preservation in the process. Personally? I think it's because Americans have this urge to work themselves to death. Well, congratulations, you made it.
Shorter workdays, better salaries, more vacation. That's the ticket.
This. Americans work more hours, and take fewer vacation and sick days than other similarly situated countries.
A large hunk of it is because of the countries they picked. All of those countries, (just where is West Germany?), have an infant mortality rate lower than the US. Each point of infant mortality lower is roughly .75 of year in life expectancy, a couple of those countries have infant mortality rates of 2.5 to 3 lower than the US.Check out this graph. Each line is the life expectancy of the world's best countries and America is the dot.
Notice how we are falling down the line.We are getting better, but at a lower rate than other countries. WHY??
So why is that?
Seems like if the problem is that specific, it should be easier to fix.
And I don't think those countries where specifically picked for low infant mortality, but for being other high-income countries over that time span. You could quibble about West Germany, but it was distinct from East Germany for the first decade of the time and in the process of integrating for at least most of the rest of it. Very different demographically.
Maybe because of, say in the case of Iceland the US has over 13 births for every citizen in Iceland. Iceland has 4275 births a year. The US has 11880 a day.
If you look at countries by population, only 2 of the top 20 have a greater life expectancy higher than the US, Germany and Japan. Germany has 1/4 and Japan about 1/3 of the US population. If you go by top 20 in area, only Canada and Australia have greater life expectancy, and they both have significantly lower populations. The US suffers from high population and large area.
But when certain states still have laws stating that two men having consensual oral sex is punishable by prison time... that is FAR beyond anything within the bounds of reason. Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f*&+ing b%$$%$* insane.
They don't have those laws, or if they do, they are unenforceable as unconstitutional.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
It is still on the books and police can use it to make arrests. Just because the prosecutors wont prosecute what they know to be losing cases doesn't mean the cops can't be jerks.
Again, there seems to be a problem of communication here. I do not say things like "moronic religion" or "religious stupidity", and yet I have now been misrepresented several times.... Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f**$ing b@*&%*$ insane.
Congratulations. This is probably the most aggressive bad quoting I have been subjected to, Crimson Jester. Impressive! And it illustrates pretty well the theme of misrepresentation we have seem lately. You are well aware that what I felt was f!%&ing batshit insane was something else - but you did not saw fit to include that, did you? If you are prepared to go that far in misrepresenting my position, you also illustrate perfectly why sugar coating will not work.
It is still on the books and police can use it to make arrests. Just because the prosecutors wont prosecute what they know to be losing cases doesn't mean the cops can't be jerks.
But when certain states still have laws stating that two men having consensual oral sex is punishable by prison time... that is FAR beyond anything within the bounds of reason. Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f*&+ing b%$$%$* insane.
They don't have those laws, or if they do, they are unenforceable as unconstitutional.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
The laws are on the books. That someone should even begin to be treated like a criminal for consensual sex is insane. And regarding anal sex, I seem to recall a case where a neighbour videotaped a couple having it, making it a criminal case. I REALLY, REALLY hope I remember incorrectly here. But given that anal sex is in fact illegal in various states... anyone care to guess WHY there are such laws? Anyone else think "religion"? I do, mostly because I really can't see another reason. I also find it deeply depressing that someone should be subjected to working through the legal system for years to actually get the ruling that gay oral sex is unconstitutional...
Hey Electric Wizard....
You will probably find that the US is outside the top 5 to 10 for a lot of things.
Quality of life, wealth distribution, certain aspects of education, wage parity and so on.
I grew up being taught America is the greatest nation on earth, and that we are #1.
I guess my innocence is being lost.
.
Out of developed nations, the US*:
- has the highest levels of income in equality(world bank)
- is fourth lowest on the UNICEF index of child wellfare (UNICEF)
- is in the bottom half for levels of trust (european and world values survay)
- is in the bottom half for positive status of woman in society
- is the second lowest provider of foreign aid (by % of national income) (OECD)
- is, by a large margine, the most mentally ill country (WHO)
- is the 4th highest consumer of illigal drugs (UNODC)
- has the 4th lowest life expectancy
- has the highest infant mortality rate
- has the highest rates of obesity
- has the highest rates of child obesity (unicef)
- is the 6th worst mathimatics and literacy scores.
- has the highest level of 15 year olds aspiring to low skilled work.
- has the highest rate of teenage pregnacy.
- has the highest rate of homicide.
- has the 4th highest level of childhood exposure to violence.
- has the highest rate of imprisonment.
- has the lowest rate of social mobility
- is in the bottom five for patents held/million people.
- has the 3rd lowest rate of recycling.
*this not the recent data, but it is representative of the data being used in research published between 2008 and 2011. Exact ratings may have changed slightly, but the general point I understand to have remained the same.
To be fair, when looking at the wikipedia numbers, it's not really that bad. Maybe it's because I'm not a statistician, but when I see 37 countries sharing the top five spots, that's pretty close to "roughly the same as everyone else" for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is still on the books and police can use it to make arrests. Just because the prosecutors wont prosecute what they know to be losing cases doesn't mean the cops can't be jerks.
But when certain states still have laws stating that two men having consensual oral sex is punishable by prison time... that is FAR beyond anything within the bounds of reason. Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f*&+ing b%$$%$* insane.
They don't have those laws, or if they do, they are unenforceable as unconstitutional.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
The decision in the false arrest suit that follows this arrest could be very interesting for the officer and police department as well.
The decision in the false arrest suit that follows this arrest could be very interesting for the officer and police department as well.It is still on the books and police can use it to make arrests. Just because the prosecutors wont prosecute what they know to be losing cases doesn't mean the cops can't be jerks.
But when certain states still have laws stating that two men having consensual oral sex is punishable by prison time... that is FAR beyond anything within the bounds of reason. Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f*&+ing b%$$%$* insane.
They don't have those laws, or if they do, they are unenforceable as unconstitutional.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
This isn't the reason America is falling behind in life expectancy.
.
The decision in the false arrest suit that follows this arrest could be very interesting for the officer and police department as well.It is still on the books and police can use it to make arrests. Just because the prosecutors wont prosecute what they know to be losing cases doesn't mean the cops can't be jerks.
But when certain states still have laws stating that two men having consensual oral sex is punishable by prison time... that is FAR beyond anything within the bounds of reason. Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f*&+ing b%$$%$* insane.
They don't have those laws, or if they do, they are unenforceable as unconstitutional.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
So, let me get this right. The law clearly states that if you participate in gay anal intercourse, you go to jail. Even so, if someone does get arrested for breaking this law, a false arrest suit would be feasible?
Whee, America, go figure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Here, laws are only effective if the legal system has the will to enforce them. This is why there can be laws on the books, and yet not matter at all.
I think there are still laws on the books in Nebraksa that if you're driving a vehicle and you encounter a person on horseback you must pull over. If the horse gets spooked, you have to disassemble your car until it is calm. This needless to say is never enforced.
But if someone was brought in over this train wreck of a law, he could then start a false arrest suit?
Sure. If he could prove malfiesance on the part of the arresting officer.
But this process is ultimately what gets laws removed from the books.
Someone tries to enforce an outdated law, just cuz, and then it goes to court and is repealed.
Why would an officer arresting someone for something that is illegal be engaging in malfeasance? Like, if he beat the snot of the arrestee, I could understand it. But that would not really be a matter of the law in question, right?
Because. Arresting a guy (or gal) because he didn't disassemble his car for a horse in this day in age is a richard move.
He's not pursuing his duty as a peace officer, he's abusing his authority to be a prick.
So, let me get this right. The law clearly states that if you participate in gay anal intercourse, you go to jail.
Not quite. The law clearly states that the law above is unconstitutional and unenforceable and cannot be used as the basis for arrest.
The arresting officer is expected to know the law . The judge who issued the arrest warrant likewise. Any person who participated in such an event would be expected to know that this event is illegal.
So, yes, a false arrest suit would be feasible.
Whee, America, go figure.
It's not that unusual. Most jurisdictions, including most other jurisdictions that have judicial review of law, don't remove laws from the books as a result of a legal decision. The ability to "repeal" a law remains the prerogative of the legislature (or whatever the law-making body calls itself). (There's a good example of this kind of thing from Canada available here. Note in particular para 325, which simply declares a law unconstitutional but does not remove it from the books.)
As a result, most jurisdictions have a number of obsolete laws on the books; part of any peace officer's job is to figure out which laws are actually in force and enforceable. I believe, for example, that Georgia and North Carolina both technically have anti-miscegenation laws (laws against mixed-race marriage) on the books. The SCOTUS has/had the authority to overturn those laws (which it did in 1967), but not to rewrite the Code of Alabama. As a result, Alabama had the code on the books until it was formally repealed in 2000.
Of course, any policeman who was trained in Alabama after 1967 was taught that that law was unenforceable, if he was taught about that law at all.
Sure. If he could prove malfiesance on the part of the arresting officer.
... or negligence on the part of the department, which is what would do it.
Basically, someone from the local PD would be called to the stand and asked whether anyone told Officer O'Malley that this law is unenforceable, and why he was permitted to make that arrest.
There's no right answer to that question. If they say that he had been told not to enforce it, then O'Malley is toast, personally, for going off the reservation. (The formal term is ultra vires.) If they say they hadn't bothered to train O'Malley on basic constitutional law, then the department as a whole is in trouble for failing to provide proper training, and probably on the hook for negligence.
Either way, the arrest is clearly illegal. Either O'Malley himself willfully violated the defendant's rights, or the department negligently did.
Well, Swedish law is not like yours. It sounds weird to me, but I suppose it works. At least reasonably, most of the time. Also, we have politicians on what we have instead of juries, so I suppose you find quite a bit of our laws odd too.
Still, there are some things that should never be subject of laws.
Still, there are some things that should never be subject of laws.
Well, the idea that sexual behavior should never be the subject of laws is a relatively recent one.
Even in Europe, written law does not necessarily match enforceable law. For example, antimiscegenation laws were overturned judicially in France in 1818, but it wasn't until 1833 that the law was formally repealed and removed from the statute books.
Well, Swedish law is not like yours.
How so? I believe Sweden allows for judicial review of laws. Does the judge formally rewrite the law as part of his decision if he finds it to be in violation of human rights?
I am no expert on this. There are fine theoretical terms for the differences, but they are pretty profound. The constitution is very different, and whatever is written there can be changed by the parliament by two decisions, with an election between them. This happens more or less frequently. Given this, there is nothing that could not be made as a new law. "Unconstitutional" is not much of a relevant concept here. In court, the laws are what go. The interpretations possible to the courts are minor, such as the exact amount of weed sold that constitutes a severe crime and the like. In the case of unclear laws, we have a high court that could take an actual case (there is no abstract law review) that requires such a clarification. Note that the parliament both writes new laws and appoints high court judges. Sweden has laws that are not enforced, but if a police brought someone in for such a law, there wouldn't be talk of false arrests. Human rights violations aren't usually seen as a problem, for example we have gotten sharp criticism for our jails and the number of suicides there several times and done nothing about it. Oh well, I am sure someone else could explain it better than I can.
I am no expert on this. There are fine theoretical terms for the differences, but they are pretty profound. The constitution is very different, and whatever is written there can be changed by the parliament by two decisions, with an election between them. This happens more or less frequently. Given this, there is nothing that could not be made as a new law. "Unconstitutional" is not much of a relevant concept here. In court, the laws are what go.
Interesting. So if a local government decided to pass a law that blatantly violated the constitution, what would happen? If you want a specific example, suppose that the city of Falkenberg decided to make it illegal for Muslims to walk the streets, or for women to vote?
In the United States, what would happen would do so in two parts.
First, anyone can petition the courts for an injunction against enforcing such a law. A court could simply look that law (yes, in the abstract) and say "this law cannot be enforced."
If for some reason that doesn't happen, anyone arrested and tried under that law would have standing to sue, and again a court would look at that law and say "this law cannot be enforced; the person is to be released, the conviction expunged," and so forth.
In Sweden, would such a law stay on the books?
Sweden has laws that are not enforced, but if a police brought someone in for such a law, there wouldn't be talk of false arrests.
So what keeps police from simply arresting people on trumped-up charges related to unenforceable laws?
To be fair, when looking at the wikipedia numbers, it's not really that bad. Maybe it's because I'm not a statistician, but when I see 37 countries sharing the top five spots, that's pretty close to "roughly the same as everyone else" for me.
Well, part of that is because the first table rounds everything to the year. The second table (the UN numbers) is more fine-grained.
I'd be more concerned, though, about why there are thirty three countries ahead of the United States. With fewer than 200 countries in the list, this doesn't even put the USA in the top 10%.
|
I tried to draw the median line and compare it to the US one to see when the changes occurred.
The lines start to diverge in 1985 with a great dive in 1987. Things get better till 1993 : another big dive. Better again till 1996 and 1997 with another dive (though definitely smaller than the previous ones). Things have been pretty equal after that except for a small dive in 2005.
Do these dates ring any bells for our esteemed US colleagues ?
I first thought of Republican Presidents, then of the Gulf Wars, but the dates do not seem to fit.
|
Hey Electric Wizard....
You will probably find that the US is outside the top 5 to 10 for a lot of things.
Quality of life, wealth distribution, certain aspects of education, wage parity and so on.
I grew up being taught America is the greatest nation on earth, and that we are #1.
I guess my innocence is being lost.
.
Out of developed nations, the US*:
- has the highest levels of income in equality(world bank)
- is fourth lowest on the UNICEF index of child wellfare (UNICEF)
- is in the bottom half for levels of trust (european and world values survay)
- is in the bottom half for positive status of woman in society
- is the second lowest provider of foreign aid (by % of national income) (OECD)
- is, by a large margine, the most mentally ill country (WHO)
- is the 4th highest consumer of illigal drugs (UNODC)
- has the 4th lowest life expectancy
- has the highest infant mortality rate
- has the highest rates of obesity
- has the highest rates of child obesity (unicef)
- is the 6th worst mathimatics and literacy scores.
- has the highest level of 15 year olds aspiring to low skilled work.
- has the highest rate of teenage pregnacy.
- has the highest rate of homicide.
- has the 4th highest level of childhood exposure to violence.
- has the highest rate of imprisonment.
- has the lowest rate of social mobility
- is in the bottom five for patents held/million people.
- has the 3rd lowest rate of recycling.
Wow, talk about a list of easily disproved statistics.
*- has the highest levels of income in equality(world bank)* Meaningless statistic as it in no way compares actual wealth.
*- is in the bottom half for levels of trust (european and world values survay)*
Another meaningless trait, as the survey was as unscientific and biased as possible.
*- is in the bottom half for positive status of woman in society*
Abjectly false. Of course when using a phrase like "positive status", what do they mean and how do they determine such?
*- is the second lowest provider of foreign aid (by % of national income) (OECD)*
Note the qualifier "by % of national income". They used that because they want to cover up the fact that the US gives out more foreign aid in absolute dollars than the next ten countries combined. In addition, we have a much higher percentage of private contributions. Typical dishonest reporting.
*- has the highest infant mortality rate*
Also not even remotely true. If compared using THE SAME CRITERIA, then the US is in the top ten of lowest rate. However, this statistic is used raw instead and does not account for the fact that many nations use different timeframes for infant mortality.
*- has the highest rate of homicide.*
Also not true, homicide rates flucuate a lot from year to year. The US actually stays about average with others. But we definitely aren't the worse.
*- has the lowest rate of social mobility*
wtf is "social mobility"??!! It sounds like another of those meaningless buzzwords created to obscure reality. In real terms, wealth and income, the US is the most mobile country in the world. In an eight year period, only 3% of the people in the bottom 20% of income will remain there and only 5% of the ones in the top 10% were there at the beginning. In addition, 92% of the people in the bottom 20% of earners reach the top 20% in the space of fifteen years. No other country even comes close to those numbers.
And the one that addresses the OP:
*- has the 4th lowest life expectancy*
This comes up constantly, especially with the healthcare debate.
The reality is that if you exclude motor vehicle accidents and homicides, the US is number 2 in life expectancy and within .38 years of number 1. The US, by far, excedes every other nation in number of drivers/population ratio and in number of miles driven per year. So of course we will be affected by that statistic more disproportanetly than others. In addition, our homicide rate is largely influenced by gang violence. The average age of a homicide victim in the US is 20.5, as opposed to the average in Europe which is 43. Also, neither of those two categories has anything to do with healthcare as the best care in the world will not prevent your death from a bullet to the head or crashing your vehicle at 75 mph.
These statistics are typical of the "hate America" crowd. Their jealousy of the success of America makes them use dishonest statitical techniques to try and hide that success. Using meaningless terms, false caveats, and cherrypicked qualifiers to obfuscate reality, is par for the course with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, talk about a list of easily disproved statistics.
I'd suggest you disprove them, then. Start with this one.
*- has the highest levels of income in equality(world bank)* Meaningless statistic as it in no way compares actual wealth.
Claiming a statistic is meaningless is not the same as disproving it. Poverty and income inequality are two separate things, each with their own negative social consequences.
If you think you can find another developed country with a higher level of income inequality than the USA, I invite you to do so. Otherwise, you've not disproved anything.
Wasn't disproving that particular statistic, just showing how it was meaningless.
No, you just said it was meaningless despite many ecconomists saying it is one of the most troubling signs of our ecconomy.
|
|
In any system that rewards success over failure, there will be disparity. Obviously if you compare the lowest denominator to the highest you will get a bleak picture. However, when you compare the overall success, or the mean results, you get a better idea of which system is best. Economically, we completely outstrip others in terms of average growth per decade (the only exceptions being old East bloc nations that embraced Capitalism after the fall of Communism). Also, the standard of living of our "poor" actually excedes that of the middle class of several European nations.
Also, I like how they kept switching back and forth from comparisons in absolute terms and in percentage terms based on which would create a negative picture.
Which comparisons, specifically, do you think would more appropriately be done the other way? Are you suggesting that the US looks better in terms of absolute number of homicides than it does in homicides per capita?
|
|
Use the same statistical method for all when doing across the board comparisons. For instance when comparing economic data, use either absolute dollars or % per capita for all comparisons, instead of switching back and forth when it is convenient. Obviously, when comparing homicides, you use rates, please try not to be dishonest.
Use the same statistical method for all when doing across the board comparisons.
Nope. Not appropriate. Some things are better measured per-capita, some are better measured in absolute terms. As you yourself acknowledged?
For instance when comparing economic data, use either absolute dollars or % per capita for all comparisons, instead of switching back and forth when it is convenient.
And where, specifically, was that switching done?
Well, the first obvious example is the income inequality statistic, then the foreign aid one.
Income inequality isn't measured in absolute dollars; it's measured in Gini coefficient. As is the correct measure and accepted measure for income inequality among economists.
Do you have any examples that actually involve an inappropriate use of non-standard statistics?
|
|
Err, I see you just ignored the obvious one about the infant mortality rate.
As to the income inequality rate, the one quoted was using absolute dollars. The Gini coefficient is an acceptable method, but using it places the US not at the top. Also, is that before tax Gini or after tax Gini? For example, the UK's before tax Gini is .51 while the US is .49, however, after tax the UK is .34, while the US is .38.
Do you consider the use of government to achieve parity good? Government is force. When is force an ethical choice?
So what keeps police from simply arresting people on trumped-up charges related to unenforceable laws?
I suspect that Sweden's legal system isn't based on the assumption that the police are dicks. Also, I suspect that they try not to have unenforceable laws. It's not like random cities can just make up their own laws, after all. Or at least, I didn't think so.
I'm not an expect on the Swedish legal system though.
It is still on the books and police can use it to make arrests. Just because the prosecutors wont prosecute what they know to be losing cases doesn't mean the cops can't be jerks.
But when certain states still have laws stating that two men having consensual oral sex is punishable by prison time... that is FAR beyond anything within the bounds of reason. Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f*&+ing b%$$%$* insane.
They don't have those laws, or if they do, they are unenforceable as unconstitutional.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Nope. Not true. Not unless they want to get sued…. Purposely violating known constitutional rights will get a claim under section 1983 of the US Code. Which provides for damages as well as attorneys fees. We attorneys love when statutes guarantee attorneys fees. Those laws are outright unconstitutional. What you do in your own home is not the State's business. Now if you do it in public, that is illegal. But that is true of Hetero couples as well.
The laws are on the books. That someone should even begin to be treated like a criminal for consensual sex is insane. And regarding anal sex, I seem to recall a case where a neighbour videotaped a couple having it, making it a criminal case. I REALLY, REALLY hope I remember incorrectly here. But given that anal sex is in fact illegal in various states... anyone care to guess WHY there are such laws? Anyone else think "religion"? I do, mostly because I really can't see another reason. I also find it deeply depressing that someone should be subjected to working through the legal system for years to actually get the ruling that gay oral sex is unconstitutional...It is still on the books and police can use it to make arrests. Just because the prosecutors wont prosecute what they know to be losing cases doesn't mean the cops can't be jerks.
But when certain states still have laws stating that two men having consensual oral sex is punishable by prison time... that is FAR beyond anything within the bounds of reason. Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f*&+ing b%$$%$* insane.
They don't have those laws, or if they do, they are unenforceable as unconstitutional.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Really? Show me one. Be sure you update your find using the state code or a service like Westlaw. Because those statutes are very much unconstitutional. Trust me. As an lawyer in the country we are talking about, I can tell you this is VERY settled case law. It certainly would not be "working through the system for years." It would be one motion to dismiss. It would be over within less than a month. On the outside.
It is still on the books and police can use it to make arrests. Just because the prosecutors wont prosecute what they know to be losing cases doesn't mean the cops can't be jerks.
But when certain states still have laws stating that two men having consensual oral sex is punishable by prison time... that is FAR beyond anything within the bounds of reason. Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f*&+ing b%$$%$* insane.
They don't have those laws, or if they do, they are unenforceable as unconstitutional.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Nope. Doesn't work like that.
The laws are on the books. That someone should even begin to be treated like a criminal for consensual sex is insane. And regarding anal sex, I seem to recall a case where a neighbour videotaped a couple having it, making it a criminal case. I REALLY, REALLY hope I remember incorrectly here. But given that anal sex is in fact illegal in various states... anyone care to guess WHY there are such laws? Anyone else think "religion"? I do, mostly because I really can't see another reason. I also find it deeply depressing that someone should be subjected to working through the legal system for years to actually get the ruling that gay oral sex is unconstitutional...It is still on the books and police can use it to make arrests. Just because the prosecutors wont prosecute what they know to be losing cases doesn't mean the cops can't be jerks.
But when certain states still have laws stating that two men having consensual oral sex is punishable by prison time... that is FAR beyond anything within the bounds of reason. Or, not to be too delicate about it: It's f*&+ing b%$$%$* insane.
They don't have those laws, or if they do, they are unenforceable as unconstitutional.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Really? Show me one. Be sure you update your find using the state code or a service like Westlaw. Because those statutes are very much unconstitutional. Trust me. As an lawyer in the country we are talking about, I can tell you this is VERY settled case law. It certainly would not be "working through the system for years." It would be one motion to dismiss. It would be over within less than a month. On the outside.
If so, that's good. Just... how did it become VERY settled case law? Did it have anything to do with some poor schmuck being forced to go the long route through the legal system so as not to go to jail?
I am no expert on this. There are fine theoretical terms for the differences, but they are pretty profound. The constitution is very different, and whatever is written there can be changed by the parliament by two decisions, with an election between them. This happens more or less frequently. Given this, there is nothing that could not be made as a new law. "Unconstitutional" is not much of a relevant concept here. In court, the laws are what go.Interesting. So if a local government decided to pass a law that blatantly violated the constitution, what would happen? If you want a specific example, suppose that the city of Falkenberg decided to make it illegal for Muslims to walk the streets, or for women to vote?
In the United States, what would happen would do so in two parts.
First, anyone can petition the courts for an injunction against enforcing such a law. A court could simply look that law (yes, in the abstract) and say "this law cannot be enforced."
If for some reason that doesn't happen, anyone arrested and tried under that law would have standing to sue, and again a court would look at that law and say "this law cannot be enforced; the person is to be released, the conviction expunged," and so forth.
In Sweden, would such a law stay on the books?
Sweden has laws that are not enforced, but if a police brought someone in for such a law, there wouldn't be talk of false arrests.So what keeps police from simply arresting people on trumped-up charges related to unenforceable laws?
Welll... Falkenberg is a town. Its a "kommun" in Sweden, IIRC, the lowest local governance level. It does in no way have the right to make laws. What it can do is apply the national laws in various ways. So, for example, if national law says every child must go to school, it will have a few different possible options for making sure that happens. This CAN, in some situations, result in a kommun/community that "seals itself off" from national politics, if there are enough from a certain group in the community. One such example is Sjöbo, who blank refused to accept refugees being placed there, another is Vellinge, where leading politicians chose to have nothing to do with Stockholm and the parliament. This always garners a reaction. In Sjöbo's case, there was a media campaign for a few years that painted Sjöbo as a dump filled with racists. Either the problem solves itself that way, or the community in question gets scrutinized for signs of not following national law - meaning a response up to personal responsibility for members of the community council for the deficits. Yes, local government has a bit of freedom, but generally, it's a very top-down oriented structure. Deviations do not generally last long. If Falkenberg were to say that muslims were not allowed to walk the streets (not by laws, mind you, but could possibly be done through work environment regulations or something like that), it would be a massive media outcry followed by a thorough inspection. These things are often distinctly ugly. Suffice it to say it wouldn't last long. I doubt anyone would dare. And, of course, if any muslim were to report to various authorities about it, it would be a media party trial.
Wasn't disproving that particular statistic, just showing how it was meaningless.
You didn't EVEN do that.
I think my response to your rather laughable post shall be this
"Claims statistics are easily disproved...
...doesn't disprove a single one."*
Now, it is entirely possible that some of them are wrong. They where copy-pasta, something I wrote a while ago, and going through and fact checking every one, so I think I'll just point you at the experts, and let them explain the basic concept to you.
*I suppose it is possible that you did actually disprove some of the statistics, but I got board after like the fourth, and realized you didn't appear to be in the business of disproving anything, but rather be in the business of saying "I disagree, there for it is wrong! Because reasons!!!"
|
|
ReallY??? I guess if you suffer from cognitive dissonance you could believe that, but since I am quite sure I have vastly more knowledge on the subject than you, I will take your laughable rebuke as the uninformed, petulant response it actually represents.
Btw, Wilkinson and Pickett? Experts? I suppose if you consider rabid idelogoues who's prime work has been discredited by mainstream economists as experts, then I see why you don't even understand the basic concepts of statistical analysis.
|
|
And you obviously missed the whole disproving the very first statistic as the US does not top the list of income equality based on the Gini coefficient. Only using absolute dollars is that the case and that is meaningless as we also top the list in income based on absolute dollars. Please, try to know what your talking about before making ridiculous claims.