Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday January 23 2018, @12:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the equal-treatment-under-the-law? dept.

[City of New York] Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association boss Pat Lynch slashed the maximum number of cards that could be issued to current cops from 30 to 20, and to retirees from 20 to 10, sources told The Post.

The cards are often used to wiggle out of minor trouble such as speeding tickets, the theory being that presenting one suggests you know someone in the NYPD.

The rank and file is livid.

“They are treating active members like s–t, and retired members even worse than s–t,” griped an NYPD cop who retired on disability. “All the cops I spoke to were . . . very disappointed they couldn’t hand them out as Christmas gifts.”

Source: NYPost

The cards, issued for various states and agencies -- such as the DEA -- are available for purchase on eBay for around $100.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:26AM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:26AM (#627009) Journal

    Right, so what you're saying is exactly what the court said, which is exactly what you previously claimed they DIDN'T say -- that money is speech.

    Perhaps you could point to where in the court ruling a Supreme Court justice on the winning side actually said that money is speech? I think you won't be able to do that because "money is speech" is a silly label for paying for speech (which as I've already mentioned is protected by the First Amendment).

    If money is speech, it also means prostitution is legal (it's no different than standard dating if money is no different than speech), taxes are illegal (as a federal regulation on speech), and companies have no obligation to honor warranties or returns because enforcing that would restrict how they can take your money, amounting to a government restriction on their speech.

    Non sequiturs don't mean a thing. By definition. Even if we were to attempt to assume that money is speech those ridiculous conclusions would not follow due to the absence of logic. For example, there's nothing to respond to in your argument that prostitution is like dating because money is like speech.

    Also the Constitution contradicts itself by specifically stating that the government has a right to regulate monetary transactions (the commerce clause) and that they cannot regulate speech (first amendment) -- if those are the same thing, then those clauses are contradictions.

    First Amendment takes priority because it came after. Next.

  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday January 25 2018, @10:19PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday January 25 2018, @10:19PM (#627904) Journal

    Also the Constitution contradicts itself by specifically stating that the government has a right to regulate monetary transactions (the commerce clause) and that they cannot regulate speech (first amendment) -- if those are the same thing, then those clauses are contradictions.

    First Amendment takes priority because it came after. Next.

    Clearly that was not the intent of the amendment, or they would have made it explicit. It's part of the same document, written by pretty much the same people at roughly the same time. And they wrote quite a bit about why these documents say what they do. If they intended to make such a substantial change to the original document someone would have mentioned that at some point. In fact, what they wrote was that they did not consider the Bill of Rights to be necessary at all. They believed the existing Constitution constrained the government such that it could not violate any civil rights, and that enumerating some would only endanger those that were not explicitly mentioned. They certainly did not say that they intended the Bill of Rights to alter or correct the existing Constitution.

    Right, so what you're saying is exactly what the court said, which is exactly what you previously claimed they DIDN'T say -- that money is speech.

    Perhaps you could point to where in the court ruling a Supreme Court justice on the winning side actually said that money is speech? I think you won't be able to do that because "money is speech" is a silly label for paying for speech (which as I've already mentioned is protected by the First Amendment).

    Found it! Check page 44 of the opinion (emphasis added):
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf [supremecourt.gov]

    The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate. See Buckley, supra, at 46. The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials. This is inconsistent with any suggestion that the electorate will refuse " 'to take part in democratic governance' " because of additional political speech made by a corporation or any other speaker. McConnell, supra, at 144 (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 390 (2000)).

    According to the court, the expenditure -- the act of spending money -- is political speech *by definition*. Or perhaps more accurately, they write as though the two concepts are already synonymous.