Sure thing! Here is a shortlist of some of my favourite books (or in the case of Hope In The Dark, highly recommended books from trusted sources).

This Is An Uprising - Mark & Paul Engler
I think this is probably the best entry point. It starts off by challenging the popular notion that social uprisings are spontaneous and unpredictable but the results of years of work. Then they explore what that kind of work looks like, using some historic examples to distil a few of the key concepts. It’s a really accessible book and if you want to believe that revolutionary, transformational change is possible in our times this book is for you.

This Changes Everything - Naomi Klein
I think one of the most insightful books on the politics of climate change ever written. If you wonder why climate change got so politicised and why the right works so hard to deny the science, this book will explain what’s at stake for the rich and powerful and why we simply can not treat climate change as any other issue, but something that cuts to the core of political conflict. It is extremely well researched and detailed but very well written so easy enough to read.

Out Of The Wreckage - George Monbiot
This is probably the most contemporary book in this list. Published just last year and really rooted in the politics of this moment. It attempts to offer a bit of a road map for solving the political, ecological and economic crises we find ourselves in. It’s at its strongest when talking about the narratives and stories we need to tell about ourselves, it gets a bit weaker as it attempts to dive deep into solving democracy. But it still offers a lot of food for thought and big doses of hope.

Rules For Revolutionaries - Becky Bond & Zack Exley
I just love this book. It was written by two of the lead organisers on the Bernie Sanders campaign about how they built a huge voter contact machine that broke all the rules of political organising. While This Is An Uprising covers some of the bigger concepts, this gets into the details of how organising at scale works in practice. Definitely pitched at people who do this sort of work in some capacity, I think it’s one of those behind the curtain books that most people will find interesting.

Hegemony How To - Jonathan Matthew Smucker 
This one goes a bit more into the details of organising radical groups and campaigns. An amazing book that lays out a loving critique of what some of the left has been getting wrong, and builds on what it can do better. I love it. But not a book I’d really recommend for people who aren’t involved in that world yet because it really does go into details that probably aren’t useful unless you are a real geek about this stuff.

Hope In The Dark - Rebecca Solnit
For a lot of people I know, this book is a bit of a sacred text. And I have to be honest, that I haven’t read it yet. But almost everyone I know in the US re-read it after Trump was elected. The main message of this book is that social change is unpredictable and the future is uncertain. From that uncertainty we can, and must draw hope. The future is not decided and we have the capacity to influence it in ways we don’t always understand. While we may experience some campaigns and protests as failures, the history of social change is far from linear. We will experience twists and turns on the path to victory. We need hope to keep pushing, and we need to keep pushing because each failure brings us closer to success. Just not always in the way we expect. If you don’t have time for the whole book, or just want a taste. This is a great article she wrote a few years ago exploring the same basic themes.

Emergent Strategy - adrienne maree brown
This one is more inwardly focused. Connecting personal experience with political struggle. It teaches us to let go of the status quo and embrace change. Fear of the unknown sometimes holds back our ability to imagine a better future or let go of control.

>A constitution prevents certan laws from being written and invalidates certain laws (generally very new ones, the first time their application is appealed up to the highest court). What it does not do is induce the passing of new laws.

I gave you an example with Canada where the SCC compelled parliament to write new legislation concerning assisted suicide. They also compelled government to write legislation concerning prostitution. Governing from the Bench is an academic book by professor Emmett Macfarlane about the role that the SCC and the courts in general play in legislation and governance in Canada.

Beyond that, norms can be a prohibition on certain actions or behaviors. Striking down legal restrictions in line with social norms is just as much changing a law as writing new legislation.

>Laws are written by elected representatives, those elected because they reflect the norms of the country. The intention is that any law passed reflects the norms of that country.

That's certainly the idea in theory, but it doesn't always work out like that. Access to political institutions and representatives is a huge and often forgotten factor. A 10 year study by two political scientists found that upwards of 90% of new legislation in municipal, state, and federal legislative bodies benefited those in the top 10% of wealth, providing some evidence for a theory in political science and sociology known as elite theory. Elite theory holds that pluralistic democracy is either a utopian folly or can't be realized within a capitalist system where those in positions of economic privilege and power can exert a large amount of control over the legislative and policy decisions of governments.

But even if you reject that wholesale, depending on the political structure that's being dealt with. For example, Canada has a parliamentary political system with three major parties. A minority government may very well compromise with the third place party and present and pass legislation against certain social norms in order to ensure that third party's vote. Or the opposite might happen. In Canada a majority government may only have a plurality of the popular vote but a majority of the seats in the HoC. That means that they are able to pass legislation unopposed (due to strong party loyalty) that could very well be against collective beliefs and values of a majority of the populace.

There are more ways than that. Access to representatives and political institutions can be exceptionally useful for unpopular legislative changes, which can be done through lobbying. The role of funding and campaign financing has the potential to present a conflict of interest for politicians. The list goes on and on.

>A constitution is a force against change. It might prevent a law being written despite being reflective of the country's norms but it cannot create a law that contradicts them.

But it is changing the law, which is what this whole debate has been about. It's not just about writing laws, it's about changing them.

>The rarity of referendums and (in some places) requirement for more than a simple majority are further forces against change. They mean that norms must swing even further before certain aspects of the law will change.

But referendums aren't the norm for most legislative, legal, and political issues. Pointing to the fact that they exist does not in any way undermine or rebut anything that I've said at all.

I can think of a few

• Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" - WHY and how whole empires fall
  
  
• Niall Ferguson's "The Ascent of Money" - How money rules the world - here's how.
  
  
• Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" - his thesis might not be entirely correct - but it's a VERY fair look at how our history was influenced by these factors.
  
  
• Bruce Bueno De Mesquita's - "The Predictioneer's Game" - - How quantitative models are SCARILY accurate
  
  
• Emanuel Derman's "Models Behaving Badly" - And how sometimes quantitative models are totally wrong.
  
  
• Paul Roberts - "The End of Oil" - Probably the most serious and balanced read on what could be one of the most important economic problems facing our modern civilization in the next 20 years.
  
  
• Frank & Cook's "Winner Take All Society" - and why things are a problem.
  
  
• Richard Florida's "The Great Reset" - Florida is a pretty good author all around - far better than some others in the pitch.
  
  
• James Bamford's amazing "Body of Secrets" - Not all our enemies are external, and sometimes our allies turn out to actually be thuggish & deadly enemies.
  
  
• Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking" - Nobody here is exactly as they appear.
  
  
• Carl Sagan's "A Demon Haunted World"
  
  
• Robin Marantz Henig's "A Monk in the Garden" - Yeah - the priest that proved Darwin's theory, in 1865.....oh yeah and he invented statistics along the way.
  
  
• Brian Sykes' "The seven Daughters of Eve"
  
  
• Douglas Hofstadter's "Metamagical Themas" - Every page is practically amazing - a collection of amazing old articles from Dr. H's work
  
  
• Kristina Borjesson's edit of "Into the Buzzsaw" - the hard truth about a couple of things in the US media
  
  
• Richard Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" - a great work about such an amazing idea.
  
  
• Kim Sterelny's "Dawkins vs. Gould" - this is a REAL debate about evolution!
  

> U.S. House, Ohio District 14 General Election, 2016
> Party, Candidate, Vote %, Votes
> Republican David Joyce 62.7% 214,618
> Democratic Michael Wager 37.3% 127,547

> Total Votes 342,165

Not the worst place to start but far from the best, too. I know some places in Germany which changed by a bigger difference within 2-3 elections. However this often needs quite a few non-voting persons changing their minds and to get your name out. Brand recognition is important if you want to change something on such population levels.

I know someone who lead an election campaign for a mayor in one of Germanies biggest cities, his initial polling was ~45%:55% in favor of his opponent. He still won, but this took 12 years of political activity to prepare. So be aware that all of that will take some time.

I always like Thinking about the Fundamentals - Helvey and will look into Rules for Revolutionaries - How Organizing can change everything - which is about Bernie's campaign structure. If you were happy with the way thinks were talked about in the military Helvey is a good read. He was Army Colonel or something like that.

The case you pose involves a young adult (18+), which seems like it would fall outside any special parent-child relationship. As for any other special duties to close friends or family, it would seem that, at least for perfect duties, the whole spirit of deontology is that these duties are universal, and not contingent on whether someone is a close relation or a stranger. We might, however, have imperfect duties to friends and family that we don't have to strangers. If it's imperfect duties we're wondering about here, it would seem that the morality of keeping a secret from a friend or family would hinge on the extent to which that secret was corrosive to the relationship in question, and the extent to which that would hinder the respective participants' efforts to perfect themselves (and each other).

Things get a bit more sticky if the child in the parent-child relationship is much younger than the scenario you pose.

Kant (and most philosophers of the modern era, for that matter) is notorious for not exhibiting much sensitivity to cases that don't involve fully developed rational human beings. These days, we seem to lend some credence to the notion that no one just pops out of their mother a functioning moral agent, but rather that the sorts of capacities Kant is working from have a temporal component and develop as we grow, and some people (e.g. those with profound mental disabilities) may never fully develop those capacities.
Late edit: it should probably also be mentioned that these capacities can also diminish with age, something that's becoming more and more prevalent in contemporary society, and is no small moral issue. This raises significant questions about care-taking duties that children have toward their aging parents, and those conversations are not exactly analogous to parental care-taking in a deontological framework, since we're not really looking to develop an aging parent into a future rational agent.

The parent-child relationship is one that not only involves an agent that seemingly wouldn't qualify as the sort of person that Kant explicates perfect duties for/to, but also involves a relationship geared toward nurturing that being for their own sake, while making judgements for them for their own good. So the usual deontological reasoning regarding the perfect duties that stem from the various formulations of the categorical imperative are at the least, peculiar for these contexts, if not inapplicable altogether. That's not to say that some working deontological approach to the parent-child relationship isn't available, just that I'd be awfully surprised if you could pull it directly out of the Groundwork. Martha Nussbaum offers a pretty trenchant critique of the Kantian approach to these sorts of problems, and argues that her capabilities approach (c.f. Creating Capabilities) does a much better job.
Late edit, part II: Nussbaum also does a much better job with the aging-parent question mentioned earlier.

Here's an excerpt from the Science of Right that represents one of the few times Kant writes about this issue. I believe there is a similar discussion in the Metaphysics of Morals (note: not the same as the far more widely read Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals)

> You can't say Trump doing it is okay because Bush did.

Don't put words in mouth that aren't there: it isn't good for an elected official to have conflicts of interest. I think both candidates in 2016 offered differing conflicts of interest, but that's a different story.

> I think maybe a better question is when did this sort of behavior become acceptable?

Glenn Greenwald argues in his book "With Liberty and Justice for Some" that American Democracy and government fundamentally changed when Richard Nixon was pardoned. I think that's part of the answer - since that event we've really viewed the elected officials as a ruling class; thus exempt from moral and ethical conditions we apply to ourselves.

But there's also an ideological root to all the acceptance of this; core to the belief of Ayn Rand and some libertarians is that business leaders should make the best public leaders. So, if you've been successful in private business you ought to have influence in public policy as well.

With the rise of H.W. Bush (Sr.) as Vice President of Ronald Reagan, this ideology had become fully embraced by the Republicans. H.W. Bush was known as an oil tycoon, and it was expected that he could level out the oil prices through his inside knowledge.

----

But then we also need to backup and realize that this isn't a problem exclusive to the White House; the "revolving door" of public appointments and private business has been documented for about 100 years. This isn't a new thing, and in some ways it makes sense to have people familiar with the industry making decisions about an industry. That's a whole other topic though. Anyways, we shouldn't pretend that Trump is an unprecedented nefarious evil about to doom America because he has some business interests. The reality is that a fuckton of politicians at all levels have business interests - many would argue that's not a bad thing.

> It is the judge's job to interpret the law and enforce it. It is the lawmaker's job to write the law and implement it.

Actually, you'll find that "interpreting the law" often puts judges in a role people view as "activist". When a judge is considering the law, they have to look at the text of the law and consider precedent. If there is no precedent, they also have to fall back on anything which might illustrate the lawmakers original intent. Failing that, they also fall back on (yes, it's true), English Common Law as it's ultimately the basis of US law.

The upshot of this is that precedent and intent fall back on the public's evolving community standards. Brown v. Board of Education, for example, overturned Plessy v. Ferguson in part because "separate but equal" did not fit the 1950s evolving notion of equality. However, because the Supreme Court decided, unanimously, to alter how law should be enacted, they perfectly fit the "judicial activism" claim that may politicians harp about today. Frankly, I believe politicians are well aware of this hypocrisy, but it gets voters motivated, so they keep their mouths shut.

If you want more background information about this, I strongly recommend the book In Our Defence: The Bill of Rights in Action by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy. It's a fascinating historical guide of the creation and interpretation of the US Bill of Rights, and has chapters covering each of the first 10 amendments.

I mean I think TECHNICALLY, you are wrong (Im gonna say this even though it is a premise, lol) Because I think the thing called "Operation Mockingbird" ended, and was repackaged under some other name and continued ever since.

This is actually one of my favorite things to bring up to people. Because I show them the video of the CIA testifying in front of congress, and I explain they had journalists working with the CIA to make news stories. Then I tell them in a sarcastic way that the program ended and ever since then the CIA has never manipulated the news in anyway. Presented like this, I have never come across someone who will say they dont think the CIA has not interfered since.

Its great, because it's a super effective way to get people thinking more about the news.

After that, i show them some other links like:

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

CNNs "Courageous" Advertorial Mill.

Alwaleed is a Saudi who partially owns/owned FOX. Does he believe he helps control the message? Yes he does:
>http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/is-saudi-prince-steering-news-corp-coverage/
Alwaleed said he got the Fox News crawl reporting “Muslim riots” in France changed to “civil riots.” This didn’t make the “Muslim” riots go away, but Alwaleed managed to fog our perception of them.. with a phone call.
One powerful dude makes a phone call and "fogs perception". That's REAL world persuasion. And it's admitted. No conspiracy. Now the FACT that he can do it and brag about it PROVES how malleable the news is. He's just a 5% owner. Rupert Murdock can say the sky is Magenta and they'll color correct the sky to magenta. Or they will lose their posh job. What would you do?

George Bush Admits the News are Using Fake Stories

Micheal Hastings (The one redeeming quality about BuzzFeed until his murder) on the CIA and propaganda


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1072763

Media giant Clear Channel sponsored pro-war rallies.

Embedded Reporting


NY article about "should the newspaper fact check and call politicians on lies or not?" You definitely want to read it, then scroll to the comments section and see all the people pissed off at the NYT. BTW this article is by the Public Editor, not just some random write in opinion or something.


How the Media Manipulates the World into War

http://www.tranquilitylane.com/ Is a website "Dedicated to those who gave their life speaking truth to power" - That first image on the page is interactive. Clock the arrows to move through the people who were killed for speaking out.

---------------------------------
Some relevant quotes:


If we had met five years ago, you wouldn't have found a more staunch defender of the newspaper industry than me ... And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss had been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job ... The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress ...
— ^Gary ^Webb

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."
--William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

"The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible."
--The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

“For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government…. I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.”
–former President Harry Truman, 22 December 1963, one month after the JFK assassination, op-ed section of the Washington Post, early edition

Read "Into The Buzzsaw: LEADING JOURNALISTS EXPOSE THE MYTH OF A FREE PRESS". It's written by award winning journalists. These journalists have all had major story shut down by Corporate or Gov't pressure. Most were fired.
http://www.amazon.com/Into-Buzzsaw-LEADING-JOURNALISTS-EXPOSE/dp/1591022304

I totally concur with OP, supplements are supplements, not replacements. Read the case book, then read the relevant chapter from the supplement to ensure you got everything you were supposed to get out of it. Once you are getting everything out of the casebook in the first pass, you can discard supplements entirely if you like.

Best supplements, in my opinion:

• Introduction to Civil Procedure by Richard Freer
  
  
• Understanding Contracts by Richard Ferriell
  
  
• Understanding Property by John Sprankling
  
  
• Constitutional Law by Erwin Chemerinsky
  
  
• Understanding Criminal Law by Joshua Dressler
  
  
• E&E for Torts
  
  You can quibble on some, but any law student worth his salt will recognize Dressler on crim and Chemerinsky on con law as the best. Freer on Civ Pro is very well recognized as well. I like the Understanding series for contracts and property because they are still succinct yet more in-depth than the E&E's. I like the E&E for torts because the Understanding book for that class isn't especially good.
  
  If you don't like any of the above, the respective E&E would be my second choice.

It's not quite unregulated. It's actually heavily regulated, but the regulations are just stacked against normal citizens.

Take "A corporation is a person". That's a legal concept that is maintained by the government.

Take "I can copyright something". That's a monopoly on ideas which is defended by the government.

Take "You can't photograph my mass farming". Another heavy regulation.

Or take, of course, the bail-outs themselves -- that's a perfect example of government not letting capitalism go its way, but rather, stepping in.

(An interesting book on the subject: The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer. On a related note, by Glenn Greenwald: With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.)

> In the state of nature we have the right to do so, wouldn't you agree?

No. Certainly you can define a concept of rights and justice which holds that to be true, but there are alternative conceptions which hold that it is not just or right for one person to murder another. You've simply assumed that a 'social contract' is the only way to avoid the problems created by the conception of rights you're using.

Here's one alternative some people use: Justice and rights are defined in terms of who may use or exclude others from what rivalrous goods. Those definitions are called 'property rights'. These definitions don't say anything about what kind of society will develop or how disputes would be resolved in practice. It's only a standard for determining what is or isn't 'just'.

Under this conception of justice what is or isn't just is invariant and does not change based on some collectively decided 'social contract.' What social institutions evolve and whether they promote or retard justice is irrelevant to the basic definition of justice.

---

> You know that is how it would be structured; it is like an insurance plan. You pay for certain coverage. The more money you have, the more coverage you can get. By that definition, the homeless could just be outright murdered in the street without repercussion. Jails would not exist.

You might be interested in reading some materials on historical examples of how well various things have worked. For example The not so Wild, Wild West, and David Friedman's Legal Systems Very Different From Ours (Draft) (It's not about a bunch of libertarian systems, but it provides a bit of perspective on different systems).

> My dystopia would be one where different laws apply do different people, and your ability to receive protection depends on your ability to pay.

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

I never intended to say that people shouldnt learn any other language than their mother tongue. Studying other cultures is necessary these days. But refusing to learn the local language and demanding that everybody else should accomodate them, is a colonial attitude and not an Indian one. As such, it is very ugly to see Hindi speakers display such attitudes when they go into a non-Hindi speaking region.

One should also realise that throughout history, no two languages have coexisted peacefully without one trying to dominate the other. In such a scenario, the language which has official sanction tends to wipe out the local one, as is the case of Britain and France which transitioned from multicultural to monocultural nations over the past 200 yrs. They werent born monocultural but became one, after the govt. decided that one language (the language of the majority) will be spoken by all. I do not want India to become like these countries. Also, as the example of Pakistan and Soviet Union have shown, getting everybody to speak a language for the benefit of the politically powerful, doesnt unify them in anyway but breaks up the country.

Secondly, you are confusing "official language" (meant for bureaucrats) with "national language" (meant for citizens). Something most Indians (esp. Northeners) are prone to do given the prevalance of the "Hindi Rashtra" myth.

I never read the source for that wikipedia quote, so I dont know if the source actually says so, but this is my source.

The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of A Nation

The author Granville Austin, was physically present during the Constitutional debates and was awarded a Padma Sri for his two books on the Indian Constitution. His work has also been quoted in Supreme Court judgements on Constitutional matters, in determination of our Founders intent.

The language question generated the longest debate and is the largest chapter in his book.

Quoting directly

>The Hindi-wallahs were ready to risk splitting the Assembly and the country in their unreasoning pursuit of uniformity. They thus denied the Assembly's belief in the concept of accommodation and in decision-making by consensus. The Assembly members preferred to take decision by consensus or by as near to unanimity as possible. Not only was this method deeply embedded in the Indian tradition, it was manifestly the most practical way to frame the Constitution. A system of governance would not work effectively, Assembly members knew, if large segments of the population were opposed to it. Every attempt had to be made, therefore, to achieve the broadest possible agreement. The Hindi-wallahs, however, announced that they would impose Hindi on the country if they had a one-vote majority. To prevent this, the moderates went to great lengths to find a compromise. They ultimately acquiesced in the language provisions, although they were not happy with them, in the hope that they would provide a framework within which an amicable settlement would be reached. The moderates' fears that the extremists had not accepted the provisions in the spirit of consensus have, unfortunately, been borne out. Since 1950 the extremists have continued to scorn the spirit and have pursued their original aims on the basis of the letter of the Constitution, ignoring the intention of the compromise, which was to resolve the language issue without unduly harming the interests of any linguistic group.

Hindi speakers didnt give two hoots abt Indian unity and merely wanted to create their own "linguistic Rashtra", unlike every other cultural group who wanted a multicultural India where all languages are treated equally, without preference being shown to any language. But to keep the Hindi heartland within India, a compromise was made (as noted in your source) and Hindi was given official language status as a sop, alongside English.

There never was any requirement for Indians to learn Hindi because it is our "national language" or "official language" or "lingua franca" or whatever nonsense.

Dont tell the cops ANYTHING. It doesn't matter how fat he is, they're all trained the same way. Don't tell them where you're coming from or where you're going to, it is none of their business and they are looking for reasonable suspicion to search you. These people are not your friend, they exist to throw you in jail and they have been trained to manipulate you into making confessions, especially ones that are false. The same cops that are trying to elicite a confession are the same ones who tell their own family not to talk to the police and there is a reason for this.

Instead, exercise your fifth amendment right: "I wish to use my fifth amendment right to remain silent" "I don't answer questions" "I want to speak to a lawyer", "Am I free to go?" "No, I do not consent to a patdown or to being searched". If they do find something it will be a lot easier to have the charges dropped. If you don't have anything, don't put the ball in their court and ramble because they will find something in what you said to use against you. In some states you dont even have to provide your drivers license/identification unless you are pulled over while driving. This book is short and it is well worth reading because it tells you not only why you shouldn't talk to them but it also includes story after story of what happened to people who talked because they felt they "had nothing to hide". If a police officer asks if you have something to hide, say "No, I have nothing to prove to you. Am I free to go?"

If you can not find the book or afford it, this video will work as a valid substitute.

Last thing: It is legal for the police to lie to you but it is not legal for you to lie to them, this is from a supreme court ruling. The best course of action is again, say nothing other than here is my license and registration. He was trained to ask you about drugs and medication and that it what was used against you, you gave him probable cause to conduct a field sobriety test because he elicted a confession from you. He would have not been able to do this if you refused any questions. Now you see why it is not in your best interest to talk to them. Even though you were innocent and had nothing to hide, you still got busted.

>giving Glenn Greenwald a megaphone to spout his baseless venom however, is wildly unprofessional.

What specifically do you mean by 'baseless venom'?

I've watched his lectures at colleges, his debates on TV amongst the different news stations across the globe and read With Liberty and Justice for Some and not once have I ever thought his arguments were 'baseless' because he provides facts and empirical evidence that can be looked up and verified.

More recently the message he usually conveys is that he wants to shed light on what powerful people are doing in the dark. i.e. The NSA constructing a world wide, indiscriminate spy network that can be used against anyone at the whim of those who control it. Something that was considered wild conspiracy theory only 4 months ago.

How is this a bad thing? To want to inform the public of what powerful people are doing in the dark? To promote the ideal that investigative journalism is one of the main checks to power that we have?

Additionally his book "With Liberty and Justice for Some" gives quite a few examples about how there is a very real two tiered justice system dominant in the US. On one side you have the very rich who do not suffer for their crimes against humanity (Cheney/Bush & their false Iraq War, HSBC Laundering Billions for Drug Cartles, etc) and the full weight of the law coming down on petty drug offenses.

I can, however, understand how one would consider the words coming from Greenwald's mouth 'venemous'. His penchant for the truth and his debate skill usually cuts to the bone. Not once have I ever seen him lose a debate. Not once. And while that in and of itself is no indicator of the truthfulness of one's words ( this scene from Thank You For Smoking comes to mind ) it does merit a degree of respect. Especially when you do look up the things he has to say and find out they are rooted in truth.

Compare that with say, someone like Rush Limbaugh or Bill'O'Reily, who seem like divisive demagouges that appear to truly spout baseless venom. Many times when you look up what they have to say it's often half-truth or an outright lie. Twisted words for twisted people with twisted agendas.

Rush and Bill seem to feed off of and appeal to the very worst in humanity - fear, xenophobia, selfishness, greed - I don't see Glenn Greenwald doing the same kinds of things.

For information about government institutions:

Protecting Canadian Democracy: the Senate You Never Knew---a compilation of papers on the Senate, on upper houses in general, and on Senate reform. Put together by Senator Serge Joyal.

Governing from the Bench: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Role---by Emmett MacFarlane, a very good analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada and its role in modern lawmaking.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice---also known as O'Brien & Bosc after its editors, the House of Commons procedural reference manual and roughly the Canadian equivalent of the seminal Erskine May. The manual includes a comprehensive coverage of the institutions of government, especially as they relate to Parliament and lawmaking, and good coverage of parliamentary privilege. Don't dismiss it out of hand for being a procedural manual; the parts on the structure of the government are surprisingly accessible.

Great post. And great comments for the most part too (well some of them anyway). Well done OP. Everyone reading this may be interested in Glenn Greenwald's new book about the "rule of law" in the United States.

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/0805092056

Classical liberalism, is libertarianism. They're synonyms. Liberalism today is very different than the liberalism your referring to in his time. On a tangent this is a classic example of "First they take the words, then they take the meanings," George Orwell. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill.

​

As a quote:

"One of the most influential thinkers in the history of liberalism, he contributed widely to social theory, political theory, and political economy. Dubbed "the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century",[6] Mill's conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social control."

​

I encourage you to read this book to truly understand john mill, and some of the concepts of pure liberalism, and not the distorted view we see today: https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Dover-Thrift-Editions/dp/0486421309/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1536238974&sr=8-4&keywords=john+stuart+mill

​

Edit: As the very condescending user /u/Mikkels_ pointed out, it's they're not their.

From an economics perspective:

• Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell
  
• The Road to Serfdom, F. A. Hayek
  
• Wealth of Nations
  
  From a social perspective:
  
  
• The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater
  
• On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
  
• The Gulag Archipelago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn
  
• The Undiscovered Self: The Dilemma of the Individual in Modern Society, Carl Jung
  
  From a moral perspective:
  
  
• Mere Christianity
  
• The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  
  There's many more than just these, and there's a lot of underlying philosophy that modern conservationism is based on. I'd also categorize these books as a basis for "intellectual conservatism" as opposed to say "cultural conservatism". Something to note is that little of the conservative mindset is focused on policy and politics, per se. There is instead a strong emphasis on personal action and collective culture, the value of morals, and a focus on introspection. So while these books will perhaps help you understand a conservative perspective better, they will not likely provide a good basis for engaging in political debate. For that maybe you want a book by Ben Shapiro or something.

> Do you have a counterpoint example of "thoughtful social justice advocacy" to help me understand the movement better?

No, I really don't. I don't think I understand the movement myself. That's why I find it plausible that there may be stronger arguments for it that we're all missing.

I may take Nathan up on his offer and read one of those books. Eventually. I've been reading too much nonfiction lately, I'm due for a break. :)

But for a very grey-tribe friendly book that does touch on some social justice issues, check out https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577. I liked that book a lot when I read it. However, it's not really a leftist perspective (like, at all.)

Also /u/thisisATHENS, I'd recommend taking a look at Rise of the Warrior Cop - https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 - written by a libertarian dude, so it's not some left-wing look at the police, but it is a fairly comprehensive look at the history of policing in America as well as the rise in militarization and tactics (as well as why those don't work). I certainly don't take it as gospel but it is well researched, well written, and hopefully something that both right and left folks can agree is an issue that should be addressed.

I think if you read the court opinions for Lawrence v. Texas, where the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing sodomy, you would have a much better understanding of the issue. They can be found here.

If you find it interesting, you can certainly find more opinions on the issue. Maybe if you're really interested, you can pick up a book on Con law, like this one.

But a lot of what you are asking about is more philosophical and about how one interprets the constitution than it is any type of black letter law, and anything anyone tells you will just be their interpretation of substantive due process.

It's probably just better to go directly to the source and form your own opinion.

The Five Types of Legal Argument is a good primer on what types of arguments are used in the courts that generate case law. Chemerinsky's Constitutional Law is an excellent resource for constitutional law, which is some of the more interesting stuff. The Nine is an easy read and a good introduction to the personalities and major decisions of the Rehnquist court and early Roberts court. Dressler's Understanding Criminal Law is another good one; it explains the general architecture of criminal law and its development. Those might be available at libraries near you. If there's a law library in your area, you can always grab a legal encyclopedia (like American Jurisprudence 2d. or Corpus Juris Secondum) and a Black's Law Dictionary and flip around until you find something interesting. And as others have mentioned, BarBri is a good resource.

>I'm not sure if we are there now, but it feels like we have gotten to the point where law and opportunity are not equal for all.

We are there, this book by Glenn Greenwald provides some pretty good concrete examples.

>The whole "ask for a lawyer" business is kind of overstated. The only thing a lawyer will advise you is to not say another word to the police. That's the entirety of the benefit of calling a lawyer. (Also, in circumstances where it's not clear that you've been detained/arrested, the lawyer will instruct you to ask the police if you can leave, and if offered the chance, to do so).
>
>Edit: you should still call a lawyer, because you're always better off with advice tailored to your situation than without it. I'm just pointing out it won't stop the police from asking the questions.

James Duane of the famous Don't Talk to the Police video recommends in his book You Have the Right to Remain Innocent that you should explicitly ask for a lawyer instead of pleading the fifth. He cites a supreme court decision that makes it so the fifth amendment no longer has the protections it used to have. Explicitly stating you want a lawyer and then remaining silent is your best option.

See if your law school offers intro to law courses for undergrads. Mine did and it helped a great deal at piquing my interest in law.

Beyond that, I'd read some books about SCOTUS (G. Toobin's "The Nine" is a good, easy read).

If you want to dig into actual con law without reading yourself into a coma, try Con Law: Principles and Policies by Erwin Chemorinsky (http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Introduction/dp/073555787X)

It was, and is, the Con Law bible for law students. It's heavy on legal concepts but its written well enough that its readable by anyone. I have my copy sitting right next to me on my desk right now. I can't tell you how good this book is for constitutional law 101 type information.

"Making Our Democracy Work" by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is a pretty good laymens description of constitutional law.

Why do you sound so surprised? It's similar in America. Once you stop talking about "the little people" (i.e. at least 99% of us reading this) it happens frequently.

It's just easier to see it going wrong somewhere else, because all the flag-waving and "for the good of the nation" crap is more transparently-absurd when it isn't your own flag and nation.

• Here in the US, we have politicians who admit (in interviews and memoirs) to behavior which are federal felonies... and also war-crimes (under multiple ratified treaties), yet our political class always just says "It's time to look forward, not back"[2] and sweeps it all under the rug. Virtually every US presidency in the last four decades (including the current one) has vigorously protected the members of the previous one from investigations or prosecutions, anything on the scale from outright pardons to refusal to prosecute to back-room (but still documented) lobbying efforts.
  
  
• Even outside political offices... A wealthy hedge fund manager slams into a bicyclist with his car, and flees the scene, eventually stopping to call for a tow-truck from a Pizza Hut parking lot so that he can get his car secretly repaired. The cyclist, on the other hand, ends up being rushed to the hospital with internal bleeding, spinal injuries that need surgery, and eventually plastic surgery for the scars to his face and body. The manager, meanwhile gets caught by the police, but gets off with a misdemeanor[1] because, in the words of the prosecutor, "felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in [his] profession".
  
  
• Example: Conversely, while that rich guy gets off light (because prosecuting him might interfere with Rich People's Money) there's an unarmed homeless man, who non-violently robbed a bank (with his hand in his pocket to suggest a gun) and who refused to take more than a single $100 bill, giving the rest back to the cashier. He turns himself in the next day and confesses to stealing so he could stay at the detox center, and gets a minimum of 15 years (!) of prison. He'll probably die in there from old age before he gets out, because mandatory minimum sentencing laws prevents the courts from doing much else.
  
  And that's not even touching what the US does to whistle-blowers who try to expose possible criminality within the government.
  
  For a more in-depth investigation of recent examples (and who benefitted from pardoning who, who was punished for whistleblowing,etc.) try: With Liberty and Justice for Some.
  
  ___
  
  [1] For those unfamiliar with US law, most crimes are separated into either misdemeanors (minor crimes of misbehavior, like littering or parking your car where you shouldn't) versus felonies (things which are either "evil" or at least incredibly reckless, like stealing or killing). The distinction between the categories can matter quite a lot in certain situations.
  
  [2] Another variation is "We're not here to seek revenge, we need to focus on keeping it from happening again... like we said last time... and the time before that... and the time before that...."

Depends on your definition of a real thing. When a country has laws that incorporate their treaties into their own law, that's pretty real, in terms of the letter of the law.

It's just that we allow our leaders (or they allow themselves) to break the law, in general, when it suits them. (See With Liberty and Justice for Some by Glenn Greenwald [2011]).

• Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt
  
  
• The Law, by Frederic Bastiat
  
  
• A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  
  
• Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises
  
  
• The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard
  
  
• The Free Market Reader: Essay in the Economics of Liberty, by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, ed.
  
  
• Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman
  
  
• Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
  
  
• The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith
  
  
• The Constitution of Liberty, by F. A. Hayek
  
  
• Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy, by Thomas Sowell
  
  
• Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville
  
  
• Anthem, by Ayn Rand
  
  
• A Nation of Sheep, by Andrew P. Napolitano
  
  
• Meltdown, by Thomas E. Woods
  
  
• Liberalism, by Ludwig von Mises
  
  
• A Foreign Policy of Freedom, by Ron Paul
  
  
• Rules for Radicals, by Saul Salinsky
  
  
• Blowback, by Chalmers Johnson
  
  
• Liberty Defined, by Ron Paul
  
  
• With Liberty and Justice for Some, by Glenn Greenwald
  
  
• We Who Dared to Say No to War, by Murray Polner and Thomas E. Woods, Eds.

Glenn Greenwald's 2011 book With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful is a very good history of how elites have increasingly escaped the justice reservered for the rest of us.

>That is, I don't plan on practicing law, but rather I'd look to study civil rights law and constitutional history so as to improve my prospects as a professor of political theory

Go buy this book, read it cover to cover, and save yourself the 150k of debt you'd need to go into just to take a semester/year long class in Con law.

Getting a JD will do nothing at all for your career prospects after your PhD unless you want to become an actual attorney.

OK, look, I must come clean with you:

While I was writing the comment to which you replied, I was sort of psychomagnetically attracted to writing American-style, leaving only that one giveaway "calibre" to hint that I actually am... Australian.

I'm obviously not going to start the Internet's ten-zillionth pointless gun-control argument here, we'd both be better off jamming our thumbs in our eyes... but, for further full-disclosure, I have previously said, while appearing sincere, "Look, you've got to respect their culture. Americans just love shooting each other!" :-)

Right.

Down here, normal Australian cops all have pistols.

But if one of our cops shoots someone, and the shot-person dies, then that will be front-page news nationwide. (Probably even if everyone's still alive.)

Meanwhile in the USA, most, but not all, police departments will disclose how many people their officers have shot in the last year.

I can totally see how better firearms are just better tools for police. I mean, the basic Glock-pistol concept is that it's an automatic that handles like a revolver but is even safer and has more ammo, right? OK, no problem. Or, at least, no new problem. Replacing a cop's truncheon with an expandable baton similarly just gives that cop a handier thing to whack people with, not (generally...) a higher inclination to whack them.

But... a semi-auto 5.56?! Just generally sitting around, for whoever's assigned to this car tonight? In case that weapon seems... necessary?

Are we certain that the threat we're giving these guys a "black gun" to fight is more probable that the chance that a flesh-covered robot from the future will will recover one of the AR-15s and use it to extinguish the progenitors of the human race?

Sorry. No actual argument intended.

This just looks like a big quivering pile of mall-ninjas to me. Yes, police have to deal with incredible bullshit (even super-corrupt police probably have to!), and if I were a cop I'd probably fantasise about just mowing all of those fuckin' morons down with a crew-served weapon which besides me is served by Playboy Bunnies. But I'd still have three-fifths of bugger-all chance of ever being better off, actually, because I carried a pistol and AR-whatever, versus carrying a pistol and a juice box.

I think Radley Balko has his shit together regarding this, but I'm not certain.

Because the laws they make are designed to protect the elite, not the people. There was an interesting article I read that talks about how The US is becoming a country with two separate sets of laws, one for the common people and one for the elite.

Glen Greenwald wrote a book on this...

With Liberty and Justice for some

Glenn Greenwald examined this problem very extensively in his latest book, With Liberty and Justice for Some. Basically, he traces this modern-day erosion of the rule of law and two-tier justice system to when Ford pardoned Nixon.

He also outlined the major insights of his book in a 2011 interview with Harper's.

Glenn Greenwald actually wrote a book about this topic, entitled "With Liberty and Justice for Some". Great title..

> The Obama Administration would be prosecuting the Bush Administration for what were essentially public policy decisions. That sets a precedent nobody wants.

Glenn Greenwald did a great job of breaking down this situation in his book, "With Liberty and Justice for Some." link

Imagining you don't have time to read full books amidst your other 1L reading, try Wikipedia (seriously). Obviously, be wary of the source, but for an article as researched and clicked-on as the "United States Constitution," you'd be hard-pressed to find any fundamental errors.

Also try Wikipedia pages like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1776–89)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1789–1849)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Also, most, if not all, of the cases you will read in ConLaw will have Wikipedia pages, since we are talking about some of the landmark cases of all time. Most of the pages are well-researched, and it is usually easy to tell when they are not (by lack of citation, grammatical/spelling errors, etc). Before reading a case, go to Wikipedia to get background information that will put everything in context. It will make the cases easier to remember, they will make more sense from a legal standpoint, and you will know more than most of your classmates. (But I am a history buff, so maybe other people don't care).

For a supplement, I cannot recommend Chemerinsky's "Principles and Policies" enough. It will be invaluable throughout law school and beyond. At over 1400 pages, it is not meant to be a beginning-to-end page turner, but rather is an immensely helpful resource on individual topics as you go along.

It's not complex, it's very simple: the powerful and rich have gotten away with crimes for the past decades (to just cover recent history). Here's a great read on the subject.

Four good ones:

The Art of the Deal by Donald Trump & Tony Schwartz
How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie
The Big Short by Michael Lewis
With Liberty and Justice for Some by Glen Greenwald

Two shitty ones (edit: yet still important to read):

The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens
The Portable Atheist by Christopher Hitchens

Wow. The system is the problem, not officers working within the system.

If you are passionate about this and have time, please read "rise of the warrior cop" by balko. Very interesting read on how as a society we've come to allow and expect this of our police.

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

I had to pay $200,000 for my law degree. Not educating you for free. If you're honestly interested in con law, here is a good starting point. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0735598975?pc_redir=1396454528&robot_redir=1

>Would this also bring up the case as to. Wether or not we have two different systems of justice in the United States: one for the regular common folk and another for the wealthy elite.

Award-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald actually recently published a book on this subject, titled With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.

Here's how I understand it, also a senior econ major who spends too much time on /truereddit and no time watching tv news.

The bottom 99%: Many of the protestors are recent college graduates who have spent the last few years trying and failing to get jobs in their majors. There are many people who have graduated with decent grades and decent resumes, taken out tens of thousands of dollars of student loans and now have to take retail jobs because there just aren't enough jobs in the market. Read around at http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ to get a better idea of people's individual situations. Large factions in government (particularly the growing far-right voice in republicanism) have been cutting unemployment insurance, anything meaningful in the healthcare bill, and money toward non-profits.

The Top 1%: Meanwhile, the top 1% are taking ever more for themselves. These graphs show the growing disparity better than I could. Meanwhile, they've heavily lobbied congress, changed regulations to give more freedom to large corporations and make entering markets more difficult, have avoided any criminal prosecutions despite numerous acknowledged accounts of theft, lying to consumers about risk, and lying to regulatory bodies about what they were doing. C-level executives breaking the law, affecting millions of dollars and lives, face no criminal penalties but 4% of Americans have been imprisoned, mostly for petty crimes and drug use. And now that corporations have personhood, as upheld by the supreme court case Citizens United Vs. FEC, corporations are donating massive amounts to influence elections and elected representatives. This has caused both parties to give more weight to corporate interests than ever before in American history while simultaneously cutting benefits and safety nets for the bottom 46%.

Issues with Obama: Obama ran on a campaign for change of corporate interest in politics and stronger enforcement of equality under the law. But under him, the banks had record profits after a misguided bailout, regulation continued to be uprooted, no criminal charges were filed, and almost all the major relief programs had their budgets cut. People felt betrayed.

The OWS campers: So back to OWS - the people camping out are the front lines. Many are unemployed, some are homeless, some are just really grumpy. They are not the voice of the movement, but the base of it. The media has mostly gotten their kicks by playing this "neutral" reporting angle, where they interview the front liners and decide that everyone is just complaining and uneducated. The people at the front lines do a have a wide range of complaints - they believe the political system is broken. Issues include corporate personhood, lobbyist influence, block party voting, lack of interest in citizen issues (online voting questions), the never ending wars, legalization of marijuana, student loans, healthcare, gun control laws, and everything in between. At the front lines, people are just disgruntled. But as a whole movement, the first few are representative of the main requests for change.

What OWS wants: To date, the movement hasn't asked for anything direct or specific action. That enables the mainstream media to simplify the movement. But no law by entrenched politicians can change a culture of listening to CEO interests over worker interests, of accepting huge donations in return for lowered regulations. Right now, OWS is trying to raise awareness of this disparity of wealth and interests - it's difficult for anyone not directly impacted to really feel.

Tl;dr Most Americans have seen their benefits and job opportunities cut while the government has allocated more and more to the top 1%. The people camping out and protesting are the base of the movement, but they aren't a very eloquent voice for it. The biggest issues that OWS is seeking to change are overturning corporate personhood and equality under the law between rich and poor.


Further viewing:
Book: Glenn Greenwald’s With Liberty and Justice for Some - How Rule of Law no longer applies – the political and financial elite aren’t criminally liable for their actions, and poor drug users are more likely to face crippling criminal penalties than ever before.
Video: Inside the Accountants Handbook – a 3 minute video of how corporations don’t pay taxes

I don't believe that incarcerating people as we do actually achieves a safer or better society. I think the war on drugs is a costly sham that infringes on everyone's ability to live in a free country. White lawbreakers, especially drug users, get away with more in my experience than do nonwhites. These are the three arguments that rang true for me in her book, despite blathering on for pages and pages about details that I have no way to verify the truth of, like federal sentencing laws about powdered cocaine versus crack.

We lock up so many damn people. It's not because US people are born more criminal than people elsewhere, I don't think. Something about the "land of the free" having the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the world is fucked up: I'm pretty sure you and I would come to an agreement about that, even if nothing else.

What did you think of Rise of the Warrior Cop, which came out at about the same time?

Great book on the subject by Glenn Greenwald:

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

It an older book, but Ellen Aldernan & Kathleen Kennedy’s “In Our Defense” uses real Supreme Court cases to explore each of the amendments to the constitution. They even manage to find a Third Amendment case, which ain’t easy.

Those of you concerned about the Sheriff's stance on this legal mattermay be interested in Glenn Greenwald's new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some.

1. Don't go to law school.
   
   
2. If you insist, anything by Chemerinsky is good for an overview of constitutional law. Dworkin is also interesting and pretty accessible. For an overview of the types of theory you'll learn in torts, check out Coase's The Nature of the Firm (pdf).

Yes, and I was responding to your idiotic post--the fact that I replied to it should have clued you in to the fact. I know the internet can be confusing and scary, but do try to keep up.

You're as good at basic logic as you are historical analysis, and as good at that as you are competent in constitutional law, which is to say not at all.

In fact, in general, [this might help] (https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=S176159B2ZPNW43TYMT2), although on second thought [this] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag) might be more on your level.

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805092056/ref=asc_df_08050920561823493?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395093&creativeASIN=0805092056

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1454849479/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile

Not for lawyers, but for law students. So it's perfect for self learning. Chemerinsky is considered a top con law scholar.

Maybe not what you asked for, but this is basically a must-read (IMO) for anyone interested in constitutional law. You can also reference the typical supplements that law students use. They are much easier than a casebook.

Nutshell

Crunchtime

using something "society" wants as enough impetuous to force everyone to pay for it is dangerous.

For example, the USA seems to be at war all over the world, for very bad reasons.

I wish I could opt out of paying for the military. If the government had no funds to make payroll, we'd make very different foreign policy decisions, very quickly.

Re: the justice system - it DOES serve those with money already. Just instead of paying for the courts directly, people with money pay a lawyer who can usually get them a tolerable outcome.

If you don't have money (and sometimes if you do) you still get ground under the heavy hand of "justice".

Very, very little criminal justice activity is regular small-crimes prosecution (like robbery). It's not lucrative enough to justify the police spending their time on it.

I recommend Three Felonies A Day for a better dig into courts.

Another good read is Rise of the Warrior Cop.

Also, full disclosure, the way the courts should function is great! I love what their goal is. But the way they do function is often such a gross perversion of justice it makes me think that a private courts system would do it better, if no other reason then it couldn't be so over-the-top predatory.

If you want an even stranger read, check out Market for Liberty. The authors sketch out what a private courts and police system might look like.

Yes, when it involves very rich people or people who work in or own large banks. What's the saying: The easiest way to rob a bank is to own one?

Here are two books which should look good in your paper:

1. Matt Taibi:
   http://www.amazon.com/Divide-American-Injustice-Age-Wealth/dp/081299342X/ref=la_B001JRUQ4S_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411418868&sr=1-1
   
   
2. Glenn Greenwald:
   
   http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/1250013836/ref=sr_1_sc_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411418918&sr=1-2-spell&keywords=glenn+greendwald
   
   Both books deal with how prosecutions these days are not being done if you are rich enough and powerful enough. My favorite statistic is the number of bankers that liberal Ronald Reagan's DOJ put in jail during the S and L crisis of the 80s' (thouands? 1,800?) versus Barak's prosecution of NOBODY, basically, in the large banks. And, worse, DOJ admitting, yeah, we're not prosecuting them. HSBC money launders for Al Queda and drug lords. No problem. Civil or criminal fine is enough. No jailtime for anyone.
   
   DOJ had a press conference and Holder admitted, yeah, we're not going to prosecute big banks because they're too big, we'd worry about the impact. Huh what? That's something truly new and worthy of your attention. More sources:
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html
   
   http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214
   

http://law.lclark.edu/courses/catalog/law_007.php

Please note that this is not the school I attended. I have no desire to post that information. I cannot condense three years of information, or even two semesters of Con Law into a citation for you. It is not possible. Books are available on this topic. Large ones with all the illuminating case cites you desire.

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422199742&sr=1-1&pebp=1422199756757&peasin=735598975 Chemerinsky is always a good choice.

Two terrific books on the subject:

• With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful (Glenn Greenwald)
  http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful-ebook/dp/B00603PI3U/
  
• Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It (Lawrence Lessig)
  http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress--/dp/0446576441/
  
  Obligatory link to Wolf PAC: http://www.wolf-pac.com

The guy in that video wrote a book about not talking to police as well. It's not very long and it's pretty good.

You can have law enforcement without it being restricted to vigilantism or a single monopoly provider.

I can't really give you a complete answer in this medium. However, there's a lot of writing by libertarian anarchists on this topic; let me point you to a few resources:

Books:

• Anarchy and the Law edited by Edward Stringham (this is your best bet)
  
• The Enterprise of Law by Bruce Benson
  
• The Structure of Liberty by Randy Barnett
  
• Law's Order and The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (here's a relevant excerpt)
  
  Articles:
  
  
• Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice by Bruce Benson
  
• The Idea of a Private Law Society by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  
• Law as a Private Good by David Friedman

I love me some Radley Balko. I highly recommend his book.

So what will it take for a statist like yourself to wake up to the reality of the police state you live in... Tanks down mainstreet because that happens as well?

Or is there nothing the police can do you will not apologize way for them

Allow me to Recommend a Book to you that might change are views on Modern Policing

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

I would also highly recommend Radley Balko's deep dive into this very issue:
Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610394577/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_S6kPzbMMRCNJM
It's a great read.

[Glenn Greenwald - With liberty and justice for some. ] (http://www.amazon.com/With-Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality/dp/0805092056)

"With Liberty and Justice for Some"

Levin's amendments include:

1. Term limits, including for justices.
   
2. Repealing Amendment 17 and returning the election of senators to state legislatures
   
3. A congressional super-majority to override Supreme Court decisions (overruling what could be a stacked court)
   
4. Spending limit based on GDP
   
5. Taxation capped at 15%
   
6. Limiting the commerce clause, and strengthening private property rights
   
7. Power of states to override a federal statute by a three-fifths vote.
   
   
   
   
   http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273
   

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1527540913&sr=1-1&keywords=chemerinsky+constitutional+law

The Chemerinsky is excellent and very readable. Highly recommend.

Probably Radley Balko. He keeps a close eye out on cases like this and has just released a book, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces, concerning this subject.

I am currently reading it and it is enlightening.

Amazon link
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374411799&sr=1-1

If you want a quick and small guide to the Constitution besides the original text itself, I would highly recommend this:

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Nutshell-Nutshells-Jerome-Barron/dp/1634596234/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=constitutional+law+in+a+nutshell&qid=1550539091&s=gateway&sr=8-2

The book is an objective overview of Constitutional law, and will give you a solid grasp on where Constitutional interpretation currently stands by running you through all of the landmark cases that have shaped the law in the US.

This is probably the most important video in the world, and more people need to see it. James Duane, the guy giving the talk, also wrote a book on the subject, which I can highly recommend:

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393/

>[Citation needed.] That sounds like a huge generalization, across a country with hundreds, if not thousands of diverse departments.

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

>Honor for whom? De Blasio, with his anti-police rhetoric and white guilt appeasement, has thrown police under the bus and blames them for actions outside of polices' control.

Honor for the the democratically elected civilian official who oversees them. I don't give a fuck what you think of Obama, but a soldier should not turn his back on the President of the United States. We're a republic, not a junta.

I see GMO labeling as in the same category standardizing weights and measures, public libraries, laws against fraud. I'd rather that the state cease to function and has nothing to do with these things, but eliminating them before that isn't a priority.

Our food supply is not a free market. The vast majority of food commonly available makes me feel like shit, and I don't want my ability to obtain untainted food to be further restricted. GMO is a taint being spread to essentially anything that contains staple crops.

If you aren't concerned about GMO's, start by looking up the Seralini studies, and look into the lengths that Monsanto and the US state department go to in order to spread the taint to other countries. Another factor you may not be aware of is the damage to the intestinal lining caused by the typical modern diet, allowing all sorts of odd foreign proteins to make it into the blood. Ingesting large amounts of microbial proteins that would not have been present otherwise doesn't seem like a good idea. These things have made me decided to eliminate them from my diet for the time being, and I would like to be able to make that choice.

That GMO monoculture is more efficient or that "organic can't feed the world" is a simple lie. Organic produce only seems expensive because it's sold at specialty stores that charge a high premium, and because only a very small proportion of agriculture (less than 5% I believe) is organic. The modifications being made are typically for things like resistance to toxic herbicides made by the same companies that sell the GMO's (Glyphosate is especially insidious, as it diffuses throughout plant tissue and can't be washed off), or controlling the food supply through crops that produce no seeds and can't be replanted.

GMO cross-contamination through pollination is a private property issue, as would be a factory next door to you blowing toxic fumes.

GMO's are not equivalent to breeding (though breeding is entirely capable of producing toxic foods, certain grains and fructose-laden fruits being examples). Evolution, even human-directed evolution, has constraints. There are traits that it is not possible to breed for, genes that would never exist in a plant absent manual copying and pasting from unrelated organisms.

The arguments for GMO's I see being made in this thread reveal a lot of the standard flaws with libertarian thinking.

The first is the reflexive defense of economic/corporate activity in our society, as though it were a free market. It isn't. All market activity is currently tainted by massive coercion at every level, but especially where large firms and captured regulatory agencies are involved.

Another is naive scientism/technophilia. Industrialization and technology has rather obviously allowed states to grow far beyond the limits of size, reach, and power that constrained them in centuries past. You live in a time when states have the ability to extend force completely to their borders as drawn on maps, where there are almost no wild areas left to run to when they become overbearing. When states have powers of surveillance approaching totality. When states have the capability to render the planet uninhabitable.

It makes very little sense for anarchists in this time to be indiscriminate technophiles. Taking a step back and looking at the an-cap movement, it arose and still largely exists as a heretical movement within a particular highly industrialized and technological nation-state (the U.S.). It's still largely a byproduct of that state. Hence you see a vision of anarchy that assumes compatibility with all kinds of hierarchy, and features familiar scenes from that empire built on a particular historically unprecedented mix of statism, technology and cheap oil.

If your vision of anarchy includes things like globalism, large firms, dense populations, heavy industry, and suburbs complete with shopping malls and "private" police, you should probably spend a little more couch time. Stop being such a fucking American. The 90's aren't coming back. Perhaps this is more the kind of "reform" that would be palatable to you. http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273

I'd recommend checking this thread.

• https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/47xkz1/hrc_email_release_megathread/
  
  There are numerous emails with B1 designations and plenty of redacting. It should have all the information you need. So it's clear that she has sent and received information deemed classified.
  
  I would also recommend you check out these links for precedence on government action on similar cases.
  
  
• Indyk was stripped of his security clearance Sept. 21 after the FBI began investigating allegations that he used an unclassified laptop computer on an airplane flight to prepare classified memos about his meetings with foreign leaders.
  
  
• The Central Intelligence Agency announced today that it had suspended the security clearance of its former Director, John M. Deutch, after concluding that as Director he had improperly handled national secrets on a desktop computer at his home.
  
  
• A U.S. Justice Department official is recommending that criminal charges be brought against former CIA director John Deutch for mishandling secrets on his home computer, government officials said today.
  
  
• After a meandering five-year investigation, Dr. Lee was incarcerated and interrogated, shackled and polygraphed, and all but threatened with execution by a federal agent for not admitting spying. But prosecutors were never able to connect him to espionage. They discovered that he had downloaded a mountain of classified weapons information, but he was freed last September after pleading guilty to one felony count of mishandling secrets. Ultimately, the case of Wen Ho Lee was a spy story in which the most tantalizing mystery was whether the central character ever was a spy.
  
  There is clearly precedence here for action against Clinton. But I believe Glenn Greenwald sums it up best, we have a Two Tier Justice System. And here I thought we were a nation of laws.

Not an outline, but everyone always recommends this supplement for con law:
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373125911&sr=8-1&keywords=chemerinsky+constitutional+law

So if you have the time... it's pretty much a textbook.

But if you don't, my friend used this for Con Law I and got an A+ http://www.amazon.com/Emanuel-Law-Outlines-Constitutional-30th/dp/1454809132/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373125956&sr=1-1&keywords=emanuel+con+law

He already wrote that book.

'With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used To Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful'


I am sure Dick Cheney is mentioned once or twice. He was already well aware of the Dick's crimes when he wrote it.

There is an incredibly good book that answers that question and gives a full background on the reasoning. It's called Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces. I highly recommend it.

Feel free to find a recent video of a German police stop that went anything like that.

Meanwhile, I can find about three hundred US stops that went like that.

It's not the gun ownership or the armed populace. It's the Rise of the Warrior Cop.

This is a good video I watched a while back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

It's obviously for American law, but interesting.
While googling for it I found this article by vice: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/law-professor-police-interrogation-law-constitution-survival

The guy has apparently also written a book: https://www.amazon.ca/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

Any Canadian lawyers know if this is mostly applicable to Canadian law?

I have been meaning to read these 2 books on Indian constitution by Austin Granville, based on a recommendation from someone whom I immensely respect. Just putting it out here, if anyone is interested.

https://www.amazon.in/Indian-Constitution-Cornerstone-Classic-Reissue/dp/0195649591

https://www.amazon.in/dp/0195656105/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=cd818f9c-142a-4b42-ad2c-f0421857aaf5&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0195649591&pf_rd_m=A1VBAL9TL5WCBF&pf_rd_r=4M06M7MV874QAVFA2A0V&pf_rd_r=4M06M7MV874QAVFA2A0V&pf_rd_p=cd818f9c-142a-4b42-ad2c-f0421857aaf5

More information about the author of these books, https://soundcloud.com/vclp/150722-003mp3

If you really want to be sure, just get the 4th edition used. It surely will be enough. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/073555787X/ref=sr_1_2_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486744787&sr=1-2&keywords=chemerinsky+constitutional+law

We are living a trend of police militarization. Here's a good popular book about it.

A book recommendation on a sad day for democracy:
>With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

>- Glenn Greenwald

https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/1250013836

> Is there any secondary source I could be pointed to that might make the whole con law concept easier to grasp?

The answer to this question is always Chemerinsky's hornbook. I outlined this instead of my textbook and it worked out very well.

"police have a financial incentive to focus on drugs. Federal grant programs, such as the Edward J. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program, reward local and state police for the number of people they arrest."

http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/thousands-rapists-are-not-behind-bars-because-cops-focus-marijuana-users


You are severely misinformed. You are citing anecdotal evidence from 'court in a big city.' AND the statistics you provided only show one crime, the problem is much larger, as I said.

Pick up a copy of this book from conservative writer Radley Balko and you will quickly change your stance. I promise.

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

That's a free market perspective that is increasing understood to be inadequate. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum would say that the government is responsible for helping people realize their capabilities, is another perspective in the liberal tradition.

That's it in a nutshell. Some more general background is in this great book.

Here's Chemerinsky, but it's not short.

There's a bunch of useful outlines/flowcharts that have been posted here and on /r/LawSchoolOutlines. If you use the search feature you'll find them.

You guys got a nice back-and-forth going here, but I'd just like to interject with a book recommendation on the history of police: Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces by Radley Balko (https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577).

It's a well researched and footnoted book - the author explains that police as we know them are a surprisingly recent development. Mostly affirming the info in the links shared by u/Gilgong0. What I found interesting is 1) we as people only started having police when people started living close to strangers in larger cities (because before that your family and church members just shamed you and/or physically dealt with you if needed) and 2) there is not technically a constitutional basis for police (but no one is making a serious argument they shouldn't exist)

He has a book "You Have The Right To Remain Innocent." Excellent, except as you read it, you'll hear his voice in your head the whole time.

For those who read, this is an excellent resource

They haven't. At least one that got a lot of attention was a no-knock warranty (which I'm strongly against) on a former military man who was growing (and selling?) marijuana. I believe an officer was shot and killed in that exchange, as well as the man who the warrant was served against. Frankly, I think that story is better suited to this sub than this one.

As a result this bill has been put forward to curb no knock warrants. I don't think no-knock warrants should exist, and that existing "knock" warrants should have restrictions put in place to ensure they stop looking more and more like no-knock warrants.

Over militarization of police is a valid concern that should be addressed, but I don't think Dillon's story is a good example of it. Radley Balko addresses the problem well. It's not a simple problem and there are a lot of parts to it.

That type of statement makes you look suspicious and uncooperative.

Nobody should talk to the police. If you do have to, give a very brief statement. Something like "that guy was doing X(reason you killed him), I had to protect myself and my family. I'll be happy to cooperate further after I speak to my lawyer, but I won't answer anymore questions right now"

Quite frankly, everyone should respectfully invoke their 5th Amendment right any time the police want to question you more than about what you're doing right here, right now, and who you are. Other than that, you should have a lawyer. Even if you didnt just shoot someone in self defense. You never know what a detective will try to pin on you after twisting your words or asking leading questions.

EDIT: Everyone should also read this book. Whether you carry a gun or not:
https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

The militarization of the police force in the United States has been an ongoing issue for years, not really sure how you can pin that on Trump. If you are curious, Radley Balko released a book about this in 2014 (Amazon).

Radley Balko -- once a reporter at libertarian website Reason, now at the Washington Post -- has owned this beat for over a decade now. Read Rise of the Warrior Cop if you're interested in learning more.

Chereminsky's Con Law supplement.

It will explain the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and the Constitutional amendments excluding amendments 4 and 6 as those are covered in Con Crim Pro. It will talk about the 5th Amendment however which covers the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. But it just explains the law and how the courts apply it, it will not teach you how to think like a lawyer. It will just demystify the confusion regarding Constitutional law and you would have to apply the current facts from the situation at hand to figure things out on your own.

[Glenn Greenwald (the main reporter of Snowden docs & person who showed Clapper was lying) actually wrote a book on how, under the US justice system, there are 2 tiers -- one for elites (who don't get punished) and one for everyone else.] (http://www.amazon.com/With-Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality/dp/1250013836/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1395250203&sr=8-3&keywords=greenwald)

I read Glen Greenwald's With Liberty and Justice for Some and Matt Taibii's The Divide back-to-back this year. The raison d'être of the law has changed from ideas and needs springing from the philosophy of justice into a weapon to maintain the status quo, something cruel and indifferent.

Ever read the book, "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko?


It is a good book to read. I recommened it.
Rise of the Warrior Cop

James Duane's Book on this topic, You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, is also a very good short read.

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

What classes specifically? Here are a few that I remember being helpful last semester:

• Conlaw: Chemerinsky book
  
• Crim: Understanding Criminal Law (if you're using the Dressler textbook)
  
• CivPro: Find the Freer/Barbri videos. Civ Pro E&E is also helpful in the weeks before finals
  
• Torts: Emanuel's Torts book
  
  ​

>You're referring to civil forfeiture of crime-related assets. That can only happen when a crime has occurred.

Rather than catalogue the hundreds of thousands of times assets have been seized and forfeited on mere suspicion of connection to drug activity, I'll just refer you to these articles and one Radley Balko who has made his living, in part, by detailing the massive amounts of money stolen through civil asset forfeiture.

Balko began writing on forfeiture when he worked at Reason, continued when he moved to HuffPo, and wrote a little book on why, exactly, it is in the best interest of police departments to steal, via civil asset forfeiture. You might have heard of it...it's gotten massive international attention for the last year or so.

tl;dr: Anyone who thinks civil asset forfeiture can only happen when a crime occurs has been living under a rock for the last 50 years.

> authorized a variety of actions that had no pretense of law

Retroactive immunity? Check.
Pardoning of lawbreakers? Check.
Widening of laws to make legal what wasn't? Check.
Criminializing those who talk about this? Check.

Now guess which country I'm talking about...

Upvotes for good history and gov teachers. I had one of each. They got me to read Chomsky and Into the Buzzsaw.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479

Chapters 6, 9, 10, and 12. These will help you more than bickering with folks here.

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces by Radley Balko may be interesting reading for you.

Surplus military hardware that is sold to local police. Here's an interesting book on the subject.

TIP:

Watch Law Professor James Duane's lecture on Never Talking to The Police.

Then, go buy his book.

Yes, that's a LAW PROFESSOR telling LAW STUDENTS why you shouldn't speak to the police.

The live demonstrations alone are worth the lecture.

[I'm not sure about that mate.] (http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ) American PD's look more to me like standing armies every day.

Well if the police do happen to speak to you, only say “I want a lawyer” https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1503933393/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_SNTXzb7V6S4T8

There is a novel Rise of the Warrior Cop
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610394577/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_Sf0gAbD5F595C

I was offering the link simply as a means to link to the text itself; and not as an endorsement of the reviews on GoodReads (which I know nothing of their authenticity)

I prefer to read books myself rather than leave it to someone else to decide for me if I ought to read a book or what opinion I ought to have on a particular book

If you prefer I different link to the text that you may find more palatable (or not)
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

There is a study out there somewhere, I’ll try and find it and link it, which shows the cops are generally reluctant to actually use SWAT against armed or aggressive persons but prefer to wait them out. Rather SWAT is disproportionately used when it is an established fact that the target is likely to offer minimal resistance.

*Edit - I couldn’t find the original source I used in my paper years ago but it is referenced in this book which admittedly isn’t the most balanced source.

I think you'd find this a suitable reference. It's also highly recommended reading.

@Radley Balko

Why didn't you supply a link to Amazon?

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_kin?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373483483&sr=1-1

Congress has a 9% approval rating, but the member who "represents" your district is never the problem...

The average length of service in the House was under 4 years until the Progressive Era kicked off. It's about time to send it back there.

Chemerinsky's book is the only reason I got a good grade in con law in law school

Anyone who wants to learn more about constitutional law should check this out. It is massive but utterly readable as far as law books go

^ This guy thinks law strictly means legislation. The cringe hurts my eyes.

Here you go boss

And here

Annnnnnd here

Happy learning!

This guy has thought some of it through. I generally don't agree with the author, but it wasn't a bad book:

• http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273
  
  

This 100%. As for it being expensive, I rented on Amazon and it was really cheap:

LINK

Yet you cannot seem to form even a minimally cogent legal argument on why that would be unconstitutional. I'm talking to a wall here, and am seriously getting tired of going in circles with you. I won't be continuing this thread further, but will leave you with a referral to a book that was helpful for me in understanding Constitutional law.

Chemerinsky without a doubt.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1502763069&sr=1-2&refinements=p_lbr_one_browse-bin%3AErwin+Chemerinsky

Since you obviously didn't read the article, here's a TL;DR:

"Baton Rouge PD looks ridiculous. I never wore so much armor in combat."

Example 1.

Example 2.

Example 3. Titled "This isn't Baghdad."

In case you still aren't convinced, here's an excellent summary of the militarization of police in America. It's a phenomenon detailed in a book called "Rise of the Warrior Cop" and the first sentence of the Amazon page is "The last days of colonialism taught America’s revolutionaries that soldiers in the streets bring conflict and tyranny."

Use of SWAT for situations that don't require it, and are a mere excuse to keep the 'team'? Balko wrote a book about exactly that.

You have a right to remain innocent. This is a very quick and easy read. I generally hate lawyers and this guy puts disclaimers into the beginning that praise government, but i can't help but think he understands anarchy.

Glenn Greenwald, who reported the Edward Snowden revelations, argues that this decision set the precedent for the powerful in the U.S. publicly and unapologetically declaring that the law applies differently to them then it does to the masses.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/1250013836

So-the-fuck-what if Caroline Kennedy has little "political experience," whatever the fuck that means.

She's read the Constitution, heck, she's written a book on the Bill of Rights.

We need less political lemmings in there and more free-thinkers. If we pass up Caroline Kennedy for someone with "political experience", that is, one whose ideals are tainted by decades of maneuvering, the United States will be the sorrier for it.

Read this. I just finished it and it is eye-opening.

The gist of it is that there are federal grants handed to localities to purchase these types of things. Why not take the government's money and buy a cool as hell toy like this?

This speech is based off his book https://www.amazon.ca/Making-Our-Democracy-Work-Judges/dp/0307390837

Chemerinsky literally writes textbooks on constitutional law.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975

This

Here's one suggestion: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

I'm also hearing that Mark Levin's new book (out in August) will also cover the "what do we do" http://www.amazon.com/Untitled-Mark-Levin-R/dp/1451606273/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1370013118&sr=1-3

Buy Erwin Chemerinsky's supplement and don't look back. I used it during law school and during bar prep.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

Is this the one? https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1454849479/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393/ref=sr_1_1?crid=G82I6PWOOJ79&keywords=right+to+remain+innocent&qid=1572472514&sprefix=right+to+remain+in%2Caps%2C-1&sr=8-1

You should check out her book Rules for Revolutionaries. The whole Beto campaign was organized around the rules it lays out.

Are you talking about this?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/21/verbal-judo-police-shootings-deescalation-communication

Also: https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

you read this?

You really need to read some history and educate yourself on the realities of militarized policing and the treatment of black Americans.

Here are some suggestions where you can get started:

https://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Another-Name-Re-Enslavement-Americans/dp/0385722702

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=37DDCSH6HQ7WTMAV25ZF

Title refers to the famous book of the same name:

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

You can read much more of the formation of the first swat teams in Radley Balko's "Rise of the Warrior Cop". Highly suggested reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494734957&sr=8-1&keywords=rise+of+the+warrior+cop

Radley Balko summed it up:

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces

Published 6 years ago, but still relevant today:

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

in that case, http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

Highly recommend

You guys should read this Radley Balko book from 2013.

Non-mobile: Rise of the Warrior Cop

^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble. ^WUT?

read this "Rise of the warrior cop"

There's a decent book on it:
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397130720&sr=8-1&keywords=rise+of+the+warrior+cop

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ

Also read Balko's "Rise of the Warrior Cop."

Edit: Adding link to the book - https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Radley Balko's Rise of the Warrior Cop.

Check out the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" by Radley Balko. The no-knock raid is a HUGE departure from how warrants have been served for hundreds of years. In fact, the British used similar tactics briefly and it was seen as such an infringement on rights that it was cited as a cause for the American Revolution.
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

It's true, you can find wiki articles cataloguing hundreds, perhaps thousands of officer-involve shootings.

Radley Balko has written a few books on this subject, they're worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1411913115&sr=1-1-catcorr

Without revealing too much, I have had a death in my family as a result of such an incident...

If you haven't run into the Buzzsaw, you haven't been doing real journalism. Sorry.

It's more like the girlfriend who kept cheating on you over the years with different people is now being caught doing an orgy on webcam.

History repeats itself if we don't prosecute criminals.

Not really. The promotion of "health" is explicitly stated within the definition of police power. You should read Chemerinsky he'll really explain Con Law to you.

But that's interesting that you are making an appeal to morality considering that you are morally OK with the government murdering people so that you can have a few cents cheaper gas, but you're aren't OK with the government using its explicit powers of taxation and police powers to provide adequate healthcare to the public. I get that utilitarianism is perhaps too coldly rational for you, but that doesn't even comport to deontology. Even Kant would be like, "Na bruh, that doesn't make any sense". It sounds to me that you are trying to twist objectivism into a moral framework, but objectivism is rejected as infantile by basically all schools moral thought, and even beyond that objectivism is premised on "ethical egoism" the logical conclusion of which leads most kindly to amoralism, but in practice to immoralism. So it's hard to argue objectivism is a moral philosophy beyond the term "moral" being a catchall for all schools of thought that deal with the interactions between people.

Companies made up of criminals, in this case. Who else do you think actually commits the crimes?

Of course, the Obama administration also directly grants immunity to single criminals:

"In court papers filed today ... the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-doj-asks-court-to-grant-immunity-to-george-w-bush-for-iraq-war/5346637

These aren't singular "looking forward in a spirit of forgiveness" cases, as politicians like to present them. These are actions which help future crimes, as everyone gets the message that with a high enough standing, no court can hurt you. This follows a pattern going back to not just the pardoned Nixon. Glenn Greenwald, who works with whistleblower Snowden, wrote an excellent book on the subject.

> Wouldn't that defeat the entire point of the fifth?

"The Department of Justice has now served official notice that it believes the courts should allow a prosecutor to argue under any circumstances that your willingness to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege can and should be used against you as evidence of your guilt." That's from James Duane's book. He's the "never talk to the police" attorney.

Further, Salinas V. Texas really fucked things up for everyone by establishing that "...the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause does not protect a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights."

So, yes, unfortunately, taking the 5th can indeed be used as evidence of your guilt—especially in civil matters, or in a deposition where you haven't been arrested and Mirandized.

x 1000. Seriously.

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=asap_B001H6MU3G_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413514430&sr=1-1

Buy Chemerinsky's con law treatise. Seriously. It got me an A in con law, and it's succinct and well-written.
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=pd_sim_b_3

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

They'll never allow books like that in there.

And sometimes it isn't "murder" if there are mitigating circumstances. We have many different charges based on lots of different factors and scenarios. He could be screwed up mentally and not been properly evaluated. I think it is obvious he had incredibly shitty legal representation. I didn't say him killing them was the correct thing to do or that he shouldn't answer for that in some way. All I said was that I, personally, would refuse to convict him of murder given that he had suffered years of abuse and might face the death penalty.

And, I'm sorry, but you are a fool if you think we have even a passable "justice system." Our "justice system" is nothing of the kind. It is a two tiered system of injustice.

You might benefit from reading this book.

http://www.amazon.com/With-Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality/dp/0805092056

fyi....just passing along something I've read:
https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

You should NEVER talk to the police, especially federal agents.

You should not claim your right to remain silent, but instead exercise your right to a lawyer.

Demand gov't to provide written questions and only answer gov't in written statements

Yeah, linked below. Also, your school or local library probably has it - no need to drop 80 bucks.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/1454849479/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MXX5ATEWXSF0XG2YTW3V

This guy has a book now by the way, with specific advice and case studies. I recommend it for any illegal drug user.

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

No. The first cops were just cops.


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

> The police force in this town has tripled in the last dozen years. They have also transformed from the approachable servants they are supposed to be into highly militarized and aggressive shitbags.

Somehow this bothers me the most.

Like, honey, the police force in every town in America has tripled in the last dozen years.
They have all become highly militarized and [even more] aggressive.
This has been going on for
quite
some
time.

Where the fuck were you?