Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
'probable cause' means an officer cannot stop you or search you or your belongings without knowledge of an actual crime happening. An example one of my constitutional law instructors used was if you were looking for something the size of a tv you could not look in a night stand drawer and find drugs and arrest the person for having drugs.
'due process' in the context of the United States, refers to how and why laws are enforced. It applies to all persons making everybody equal, example you cannot try someone for murder because they said they wanted someone dead.
'speedy' trail means to have an even smooth flow, no unnecessary delays.
If you look up you might just glimpse my point sailing waaaayyy over your head - it's pretty high though so you probably won't see it.
You're attempt to throw some bullshit and hope it sticks is just plain stupid. What I posted is not above you, how would you know anything about American law if you never had to deal with it? Kind of reminds me, you never ask a person what a filet mignon taste like when all they eat is bologna.
But...how do you determine if those basic rights have been infringed upon?
By court interpretration of a law against the constitution.
At the moment smoking dope is unlawful, who's to say that it isn't a constitutional right?
On the other hand, maybe it has, at some time, already been ruled that it isn't a constitutional right and therefore laws prohibiting it are right and proper.
All good.
But, consider in 30 years time that decison could be over-ruled.
Can you see my point...laws are there partly to interpret the constitution, so, because interpretation is required, what is constitutional today may not be tomorrow.
Our rights are specifically stated in our bill of rights. There is no question on what those rights are. Amendments are not interpretation but amendments. They are not the same as you later try to allude to.
Interpretations of the laws are additions of specifics within the bill of rights and the constitution. The smoking dope thing is a matter of the common welfare of the general public since its a mind altering substance which is covered under the law. If they legalize weed its because they are deregulating it, there is nothing that could be found that could deem it a "right". You are free to smoke pot, not free to posses it.
If you look up you might just glimpse my point sailing waaaayyy over your head - it's pretty high though so you probably won't see it.
You're attempt to throw some bullshit and hope it sticks is just plain stupid. What I posted is not above you, how would you know anything about American law if you never had to deal with it? Kind of reminds me, you never ask a person what a filet mignon taste like when all they eat is bologna.
...a bit like trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone that simply doesn't possess the tools.
If your argument is that you can't have any understanding of something without personal experience then that's going to limit your conversation even more isn't it - when was the the last time you were in Egypt?
Tell me, if the application of the constitution is so clear in all situations why the need for constitutional lawyers and courts?
Exactly how I was feeling about you....a bit like trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone that simply doesn't possess the tools.
If your argument is that you can't have any understanding of something without personal experience then that's going to limit your conversation even more isn't it - when was the the last time you were in Egypt?
Tell me, if the application of the constitution is so clear in all situations why the need for constitutional lawyers and courts?
So you just agreed with the law yet you still think it can be used as a police force? The Military wouldn't be an issue, most members of the military happen to be "Right wing" to begin with and they wouldn't fallow an unlawful order knowing that it affected them as much as any private citizen. Odds are that the Joint Chief's would have him thrown out or even jailed for such an order depending on how detrimental the order was.I know the military, I know posse comitatus, and I know what Congress did. You gotta grow up and get over it. Don't ever think you can mess with the military.
I served faithfully for almost 12 years active duty as army airborne is a variety of assignments. The army personnel will follow their leaders, and they will not tolerate their peers picking which orders are lawful or not. Don't ever think the Army will permit soldiers to pick and choose.
Jake I also served and know plenty in the military and I know a few LEO's on a personal level I go shooting with them. They will never disarm the people and they will be the one that will do it not the U.S. Military.
So you just agreed with the law yet you still think it can be used as a police force? The Military wouldn't be an issue, most members of the military happen to be "Right wing" to begin with and they wouldn't fallow an unlawful order knowing that it affected them as much as any private citizen. Odds are that the Joint Chief's would have him thrown out or even jailed for such an order depending on how detrimental the order was.
I served faithfully for almost 12 years active duty as army airborne is a variety of assignments. The army personnel will follow their leaders, and they will not tolerate their peers picking which orders are lawful or not. Don't ever think the Army will permit soldiers to pick and choose.
Jake I also served and know plenty in the military and I know a few LEO's on a personal level I go shooting with them. They will never disarm the people and they will be the one that will do it not the U.S. Military.
Are you confused again? No sane Republican or Democrat wants to disarm the people in violation of their 2nd Amendment rights. As a codacil: the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee you the right to have the same weapons as the military: no, you are not going to get your own gunship.
There are some wacks on the left, indeed, as there are militia wacks on the right. You know it, I know it, and all of them on both sides know it so they yell at the other side. What the Founders' intentions were then and their being unable to foresee technology today, the Founders would probably suggest is that civic virtue is a better shield than bigreb having a gunship.
There are some wacks on the left, indeed, as there are militia wacks on the right. You know it, I know it, and all of them on both sides know it so they yell at the other side. What the Founders' intentions were then and their being unable to foresee technology today, the Founders would probably suggest is that civic virtue is a better shield than bigreb having a gunship.
There are some wacks on the left, indeed, as there are militia wacks on the right. You know it, I know it, and all of them on both sides know it so they yell at the other side. What the Founders' intentions were then and their being unable to foresee technology today, the Founders would probably suggest is that civic virtue is a better shield than bigreb having a gunship.
No, I bet the founders, if they saw how powerful the Fed has become, and the Technology the Military has, would be asking why the hell we took independent control of State militias away from the states.
Sounds like he spends a lot of time wacking the middle....
There are some wacks on the left, indeed, as there are militia wacks on the right. You know it, I know it, and all of them on both sides know it so they yell at the other side. What the Founders' intentions were then and their being unable to foresee technology today, the Founders would probably suggest is that civic virtue is a better shield than bigreb having a gunship.
No, I bet the founders, if they saw how powerful the Fed has become, and the Technology the Military has, would be asking why the hell we took independent control of State militias away from the states.
Talk to the secessionists, not us. Those bozos 150 years ago could not accept constitutional electoral process, pissed in their pants, and then tipped over the apple cart. The morons were very lucky the rads did not have their way: they would have put the Confed leaders and generals against the wall.
So you just agreed with the law yet you still think it can be used as a police force? The Military wouldn't be an issue, most members of the military happen to be "Right wing" to begin with and they wouldn't fallow an unlawful order knowing that it affected them as much as any private citizen. Odds are that the Joint Chief's would have him thrown out or even jailed for such an order depending on how detrimental the order was.
I served faithfully for almost 12 years active duty as army airborne is a variety of assignments. The army personnel will follow their leaders, and they will not tolerate their peers picking which orders are lawful or not. Don't ever think the Army will permit soldiers to pick and choose.
Jake I also served and know plenty in the military and I know a few LEO's on a personal level I go shooting with them. They will never disarm the people and they will be the one that will do it not the U.S. Military.
Are you confused again? No sane Republican or Democrat wants to disarm the people in violation of their 2nd Amendment rights. As a codacil: the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee you the right to have the same weapons as the military: no, you are not going to get your own gunship.
What the LEOs do? Obey the law.
What will the military do? Obey the law, and heaven help those members who try to pick and choose. Military LEO I do know, and I know they have no trouble arresting superiors in grade to them.
Well let's start with the big chesse himselfNo sane Republican or Democrat wants to disarm the people in violation of their 2nd Amendment rights.
There are some wacks on the left, indeed, as there are militia wacks on the right. You know it, I know it, and all of them on both sides know it so they yell at the other side. What the Founders' intentions were then and their being unable to foresee technology today, the Founders would probably suggest is that civic virtue is a better shield than bigreb having a gunship.
Maybe the citizens should be limited to black powder muskets and sail-powered gunships as intended by the Founders?
There are some wacks on the left, indeed, as there are militia wacks on the right. You know it, I know it, and all of them on both sides know it so they yell at the other side. What the Founders' intentions were then and their being unable to foresee technology today, the Founders would probably suggest is that civic virtue is a better shield than bigreb having a gunship.
Maybe the citizens should be limited to black powder muskets and sail-powered gunships as intended by the Founders?
No, what they meant was weapons as modern as the times. But what the hell they never thought we would have computer so should we go back to writing on parchment and with quail and do away with the cell phones and computers and TVs. No more texting or email. no more message boards to voice our first amendment rights
Barack Obama on the Issues
Let's see the President on most of the issues
* No litmus test; nominate to Court based on their fairness. (Oct 2008)
* 1990: Wrote law article that that fetus cannot sue mother. (Aug 2008)
* FactCheck: Abortions HAVE gone down under Pres. Bush. (Aug 2008)
* 1997: opposed bill preventing partial-birth abortion. (Aug 2008)
* Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions. (Aug 2008)
* Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)
* We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)
* Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)
* Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)
* GovWatch: Obama’s “present” votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)
* Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
* Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
* Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
* Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
* Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
* Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
* Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
* Moral accusations from pro-lifers are counterproductive. (Oct 2004)
* Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
* Protect a woman’s right to choose. (May 2004)
Voting Record
* Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law. (Oct 2008)
* Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
* Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
* Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
* Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
* Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
edited short
Maybe the citizens should be limited to black powder muskets and sail-powered gunships as intended by the Founders?
No, what they meant was weapons as modern as the times. But what the hell they never thought we would have computer so should we go back to writing on parchment and with quail and do away with the cell phones and computers and TVs. No more texting or email. no more message boards to voice our first amendment rights
Aaaaaaa...*sigh*...the good old days........
