Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT B - Public Comments Received <br />affecting an American citizen, guilty or innocent. For that reason, terminate it until it meets due process <br />requirements. <br />You can make better laws than this. You just need to be more creative in how you do it. Expediency is not an <br />excuse. Any delay due to lack of expediency should be turned into energy to come up with something that <br />meets all the good requirements that laws should meet. But, just like not being able to get them to trial quickly <br />(government's fault) or not being able to hold them in jail long enough (government's fault), we now want to <br />abridge U. S. Constitutional protections (government's fault). It sure is inconvenient to abide by the law -- for <br />our our leaders sworn to uphold it. <br />You mean well in your end goal, but you do not at all well when you yourselves disobey some laws to support <br />others. Does that make sense to you? It's not either we obey this one or that one, so long as we "get em". It's <br />that we obey all laws while we "get em". <br />The good folk have to work harder to be smarter than the bad folk. Bad folk flout the law. Don't get bad people <br />by skirting the law yourself. This seems like that and for that reason, I don't support it. <br />If you want to get me more information to convince me, give it to me. Post it on a website so all can read it. So <br />far, what I've heard, with no insult intended: a middle schooler can discern this is a flouting of the <br />Constitutional guarantees to due process. So what is our government doing? <br />I could be wrong. But I don't think so. Prove me otherwise or repeal this offense against our <br />constitution. Keep us safe, but in a constitutional way. If our constitution ever gets in your way, ask us to <br />amend it. DON'T ask us to give you the authority to bend it just where you need to. Don't ever ask that of me, <br />for I will never give that. If we were to do that, we'd never have needed a constitution in the first place. But <br />King Henry didn't do so well with it, and many elected leaders in our current generation have also been found <br />corrupt. The civil rights movement is reason enough, and such things will continue. <br />That is why I continue to say:get back inside the bounds of the law, you have strayed, well-meaning or <br />otherwise you have strayed. Please direct me to a website that shows this meets the constitutional provisions <br />for due process. That is, that if the police can exclude without conviction, a person can overturn that exclusion <br />without evidence as well, so that it would not take effect until due process of law has occurred. <br />If you can do this exclusion without due process, they need the right to opt out without waiting for a trial as <br />well. Since that undermines your ability to even have a law, it should make sense that you don't make laws like <br />that. <br />You don't undermine other people and block them from undermining you back. We shouldn't be undermining <br />any laws. <br />It's worse to make a bad law and then make a bad complement to it in order to mitigate it. Make the law right <br />and then we need just that law. Get the foundation right and we don't have to rebuild the house. <br />I know you mean well, but meaning well has to be done well. This doesn't seem to support our right to be <br />treated as innocent until proven guilty. <br />If the evidence you have is not enough to keep them in jail pending a trial, then it is not enough to exclude <br />them. It doesn't seem to be any simpler than this. <br />If you can't afford to keep them in jail, that's for you to fix, not for our constitution to be ignored about. <br />3 <br />Attachment B - Page 14 <br />