Inmates fought each other over money, territory; 7 slain

So the rule disarmed the law abiding but had no effect on those who chose to ignore it. So what's the point of the rule anyway then?

 

So are you saying do away with the law against murder since some people ignore that law and commit murder?

 

No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that the rule banning knives had no effect on those who chose to ignore it. Only the law-abiding were disarmed. I don't think we want a situation where the law abiding are disarmed and only criminals are armed.

 

One more time ! Of course we do not want the law abiding disarmed. The point is that just because a law is circumvented by some people that does not render the law useless or wrong or right. A law is wrong if it is unconstitutional.

 

Good. Me neither. I don't want the law abiding to be prevented from acquiring, keeping, or bearing arms.

Well, a law that prevents people from exercising their rights is wrong.

Do we agree that when the states formed their union they delegated to it a small list of legislative powers, which are listed in article I, section 8? Do we agree that congress doesn't have plenary legislative power but instead has limited legislative power?

 

i dont think cell phones are allowed in federal prison.

 

they usually do make the separation.

 

capital and corporeal punishment existed in severe forms in the past and that didnt stop crime. you are using a personal reference for your basis.

 

The allowing of cell phones in prison is absolutely stupid and dangerous. I have no idea why the FCC and the rest of our government won't allow jamming but the technology is there and has been for a long time. A while back you were able to buy devices on Ebay that sent out a signal overriding the signal of all cell phones in a small area, like a restaurant, and with the loss of signal the calls were dropped. Ebay stopped selling those because they're in violation of FCC rules. There are even building materials that can be applied to prevent cell phone signals from penetrating a building.

Another avenue to explore is that the signals from cell phone towers can be steered for optimal coverage, that also means they can be steered for crap coverage and prisons can be targeted for the crap coverage which would probably steer all the inmates with cell phones to the areas where coverage is good and that's where you put your guards.

Next up is location devices. There are gizmos out that that can home in on the frequencies used by cell phones and there is software that will allow those signals to be triangulated on a map. If all the prison workers were forced to leave their cell phones in their cars, desks or locker rooms, then any signal outside those areas can be set up to sound an alarm and the location of the phone nailed down to a few feet. If the inmate has a smart phone these gizmo will even show their IP address.

But let's face it, the most probable source of cellphones for inmates are the guards. Hey Trucker, how much did you charge an inmate for a cell phone? lol. just kidding.

Someone somewhere was smart enough to get the Stuxnet virus into the Iranian centrifuges and make them spin out of control without sounding an alarm that things were amiss, and even if it was detected the command to stop the centrifuges was disabled by the virus, and we can't outwit prisoners with cell phones?

 

Japan?

 

you do realize prison guards are bribed to bring in contraband.

 

I will agree that all three branches of government have limited power and that is by design. Yet all three branches were given powers by the Constitution. You said that the states delegated legislative powers to the "Union". The Union is not a branch of government it has no powers. The states formed The Union and the Constitution created the right of government to exist, and exist in three branches and as I said have powers separate from each other. The powers granted to government are limited but not limited to legislative powers. The powers are legislative, judicial and administrative.
Now your point true that a law that prevents people from exercising their rights is wrong. Who makes law? Congress ! So if a law prevents people from exercising their rights then we need to make Congreve change it or the Judicial branch needs to rule that law unconstitutional.

 

Yes, remember that foolish stupid women in upstate New York who brought in contraband to convicted killers? People break rules and laws.

 

Agreed. And, in your opinion, does the federal legislature have plenary legislative power or limited legislative power?

 

I do. I intended to put that in my post but forgot

 

Yet did it reduce crime?

 

I will have to reread that part of the Constitution but I do not see how that pertains to our basic discussion about cell phones or prisoners being banned from owning / using cell phones.

 

Okay, we can continue our discussion concerning the law after you've read the law. Later...

 

Too bad it was only 7.

 

Reread since I read it years ago. We may not have the same interpretation. When was the last time you read it. I did years ago.

 

I read it today, as I have every day for the last several years.

So, after having now read our law, in your opinion, does the federal legislature have plenary legislative power or limited legislative power?

 

This last paragraph of Art 1 section 8 gives a lot of power to Congress.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. "

My memory says is that Congress is the only branch has the power to make laws hence legilative power.

"In United States constitutional law, plenary power is a power that has been granted to a body, or person, in absolute terms, with no review of, or limitations upon the exercise of that power. ... Plenary powers are not subject to judicial review in a particular instance or in general."

I was reminded that plenary powers are not subject to Judicial review.
That could be troublesome.

Justice Rehnquist said that it was fiction that Congress only excercise s those powers exclusively given it.

My interpretation is that Congress has both Legislative and Plenary powers while the Executive branch has Plenary powers but obviously no Judicial,or Leguslative powers.

Now are executive orders Plenary?

Your question is a great one and deserves discussion but it is in my opinion beyond the scope of this Thread.

Isn't there a Constitution section here?

 

The world at large is now the prison.

 

how is one going to measure it. as one goes back further in time survival was more desparate.

 

And the upside is they won't have to finish their terms?