Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (10881)	10/23/1998 1:05:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 67261

>>>Seems like instead of creating new laws for specified classes of people, we should focus on enforcing existing laws. If cops don't enforce them, aren't they breaking the law? Shouldn't the feds concentrate on keeping cops honest?<<< For one thing, I think it's a matter of jurisdiction. Before these laws the feds didn't have any. The reason for having particular exceptions rather than blanket oversight have been multiple - the abridgement of states rights and voters rights, the inadequate size of the federal bureaus for a generalized talk of this sort. These are issues that all political stripes have a stake in. I agree with you in general of course. But the problem with a unified enforcement system is that it tends to be all good or all bad all at the same time, or so we imagine. I wonder if we shouldn't look to England and France for examples of better policing, though. Chaz