The Fourth Amendment is dead.

[The2ndAmendment]

It's not dying, it's not under siege, it's not being infringed. It's dead.

Between the successive tyrannies of President Bush and President Obama, it's gone, and we will never get it back. The era of General search warrants, under King George III has returned, the very system in which the Fourth Amendment was constructed to protect against.

Here's the latest development on the death and burial of the Fourth Amendment:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/los-angeles-cops-argue-all-cars-la-are-under-investigation

Do you drive a car in the greater Los Angeles Metropolitan area? According to the L.A. Police Department and L.A. Sheriff’s Department, your car is part of a vast criminal investigation.

The agencies took a novel approach in the briefs they filed in EFF and the ACLU of Southern California’s California Public Records Act lawsuit seeking a week’s worth of Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) data. They have argued that “All [license plate] data is investigatory.” The fact that it may never be associated with a specific crime doesn’t matter.

This argument is completely counter to our criminal justice system, in which we assume law enforcement will not conduct an investigation unless there are some indicia of criminal activity. In fact, the Fourth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution exactly to prevent law enforcement from conducting mass, suspicionless investigations under “general warrants” that targeted no specific person or place and never expired.

Trial by Jury is next. Between the NDAA and the Obamacare penalty, both which void your right to trial by Jury, your Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments are next.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The framers of the Constitution did not anticipate the ability of successive generations to gather large amounts of data through computer technology. A "search" to them was something done manually. Nonetheless, how is identifying license plates a search?

To limit this type of activity would lead to the limitation of merely visually spotting important details in high-traffic areas.

 

[Mojo2]

It's not dying, it's not under siege, it's not being infringed. It's dead.

Between the successive tyrannies of President Bush and President Obama, it's gone, and we will never get it back. The era of General search warrants, under King George III has returned, the very system in which the Fourth Amendment was constructed to protect against.

Here's the latest development on the death and burial of the Fourth Amendment:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/los-angeles-cops-argue-all-cars-la-are-under-investigation

Do you drive a car in the greater Los Angeles Metropolitan area? According to the L.A. Police Department and L.A. Sheriff’s Department, your car is part of a vast criminal investigation.

The agencies took a novel approach in the briefs they filed in EFF and the ACLU of Southern California’s California Public Records Act lawsuit seeking a week’s worth of Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) data. They have argued that “All [license plate] data is investigatory.” The fact that it may never be associated with a specific crime doesn’t matter.

This argument is completely counter to our criminal justice system, in which we assume law enforcement will not conduct an investigation unless there are some indicia of criminal activity. In fact, the Fourth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution exactly to prevent law enforcement from conducting mass, suspicionless investigations under “general warrants” that targeted no specific person or place and never expired.

Trial by Jury is next. Between the NDAA and the Obamacare penalty, both which void your right to trial by Jury, your Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments are next.

Now, let's send a @mention to ALL of the silly little Liberal posters who always follow criticisms of Obama with, "Bush did it, too!!" Or, "Bush did it FIRST!!!"



Because I want to ask every single one of them to tell me what it matters NOW that the shit has started to hit the fan, whether Bush did it too or first or anything about Bush!!!

We are in trouble NOW!

With Obama.

Bush isn't driving us over the cliff, you stupid asses!

What are we going to do to save ourselves NOW?

Not ten years ago!!!

 

[freedombecki]

I don't think that when the Amendments were written to the Constitution people had the same expectations that we have today, because of the push to federal control of most every little thing.

Wikipedia has this commentary on the Fourth Amendment:

Because the Bill of Rights did not initially apply to the states, and federal criminal investigations were less common in the first century of the nation's history, there is little significant case law for the Fourth Amendment before the 20th century. The amendment was held to apply to the states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
Under the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it. Fourth Amendment case law deals with three central questions: what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure"; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed. Early court decisions limited the amendment's scope to a law enforcement officer's physical intrusion onto private property, but with Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court held that its protections, such as the warrant requirement, extend to the privacy of individuals as well as physical locations. Law enforcement officers need a warrant for most search and seizure activities, but the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations.

I remember how outraged the public was when Miranda rights were first initiated in my lifetime. They've actually let killers who reoffended go free because they bragged on their crimes to whoever would listen, causing whether it was under duress by law enforcement questioners to come under civil rights. Miranda changed justice, and so did a professor in the state of Illinois who showed evidence that 11 people on death row were innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted.

 

[bucs90]

OK. In simple terms:

When people suggest requiring a license for owning a gun, just like for driving a car, we get the reaction of "DRIVING IS A PRIVILEDGE, NOT A RIGHT" and gun nuts say that the roads are publicly owned and driving on them is not a "right".

Ok. So, if you drive a car on a government road, and register it with a license tag.......then your govt issued license tag, on a government road, visible in plain sight........is not under the "reasonable expectation of privacy" is it?

OR, are you gonna argue NOW that driving is a right?

 

[bucs90]

In other words, if you drive your car down Main Street, and a cop watches it go by, and he can see your license tag, he can legally run your tag through the computer.

That does not need a warrant.

Been that way since 1776. Or.....well, the invention of cars and computers.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I don't agree there is a Constitutional violation here.

 

[bucs90]

I don't agree there is a Constitutional violation here.

You're saying you disagree, that you do not see a violation? If so, I agree with you. The govt is not violating anything in this case.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In other words, if you drive your car down Main Street, and a cop watches it go by, and he can see your license tag, he can legally run your tag through the computer.

That does not need a warrant.

Been that way since 1776. Or.....well, the invention of cars and computers.

Apparently you do not understand the potential for abuse of mass general search warrants. Read about John Hancock sometime.

 

[Mojo2]

The framers of the Constitution did not anticipate the ability of successive generations to gather large amounts of data through computer technology. A "search" to them was something done manually. Nonetheless, how is identifying license plates a search?

To limit this type of activity would lead to the limitation of merely visually spotting important details in high-traffic areas.

F.Y.I.

They did, however, anticipate what we might need if/when a Central Government became too oppressive, like this Obama regime has become.

They left us an emergency cord to pull in case of just THIS type of shit that's goin on.

ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION: AN EMERGENCY SOLUTION, HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT

Did you catch the second way to change the Constitution?

In addition to the way stated above, the founders put a little gift in Article V for us. In fact, George Mason is the one who made sure to include what some have called a “Constitutional Emergency Cord” to be pulled in case of government overreach.

Mason urged his fellow founders, “It would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.”

The founders paid attention to Mason’s argument and changed Article V to reflect this second way: Congress will call a convention if two thirds of the states petition to call a convention in which they can consider new amendments. In both the first and second scenarios, three fourths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendments before they become permanent.

Therein lies the beauty of Article V. It gives us two ways to change things up when times get challenging. Amending the Constitution isn’t too easy (which would throw society into chaos), and it’s not too hard (which would make the Constitution so rigid that the people might rebel against it).

Since the government has tried to reach into our homes, medical care, and pockets, frustrated citizens have talked of rebelling against the government or even secession. But this extreme reaction ignores the fact that the founders saw this day coming and gave us a Constitutional tool which allows us to restrain the out-of-control federal government.

Knowing human nature, the founders knew the federal government would eventually grow like a fungus and try to cover every aspect of our lives. That’s why there’s a modern-day interest in Article V. Mark Levin’s book The Liberty Amendments brought it into the public eye, Glenn Beck has also been promoting it on his show, Hannity and Limbaugh are talking about it, and several well-known leaders – such as Tom Coburn, Michael Farris, Mike Huckabee, and David Barton – have publicly endorsed it.

As President of Citizens for Self-Governance, I’ve been advocating a convention of states since long before the idea reached the general public. We’ve even created a viable strategy to bring a convention to reality.

Many times, people lament how powerful and abusive our federal government has become, without realizing there’s a way to fight it – right there in Article V of the Constitution. So now you know. Now you see.

But we have to do more than just see it.

Article V of the Constitution: An Emergency Solution, Hidden in Plain Sight

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

In other words, if you drive your car down Main Street, and a cop watches it go by, and he can see your license tag, he can legally run your tag through the computer.

That does not need a warrant.

Been that way since 1776. Or.....well, the invention of cars and computers.

Apparently you do not understand the potential for abuse of mass general search warrants. Read about John Hancock sometime.

There is no mass general search warrant taking place here.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The framers of the Constitution did not anticipate the ability of successive generations to gather large amounts of data through computer technology. A "search" to them was something done manually. Nonetheless, how is identifying license plates a search?

To limit this type of activity would lead to the limitation of merely visually spotting important details in high-traffic areas.

F.Y.I.

They did, however, anticipate what we might need if/when a Central Government became too oppressive, like this Obama regime has become.

They left us an emergency cord to pull in case of just THIS type of shit that's goin on.

ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION: AN EMERGENCY SOLUTION, HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT

Did you catch the second way to change the Constitution?

In addition to the way stated above, the founders put a little gift in Article V for us. In fact, George Mason is the one who made sure to include what some have called a “Constitutional Emergency Cord” to be pulled in case of government overreach.

Mason urged his fellow founders, “It would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.”

The founders paid attention to Mason’s argument and changed Article V to reflect this second way: Congress will call a convention if two thirds of the states petition to call a convention in which they can consider new amendments. In both the first and second scenarios, three fourths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendments before they become permanent.

Therein lies the beauty of Article V. It gives us two ways to change things up when times get challenging. Amending the Constitution isn’t too easy (which would throw society into chaos), and it’s not too hard (which would make the Constitution so rigid that the people might rebel against it).

Since the government has tried to reach into our homes, medical care, and pockets, frustrated citizens have talked of rebelling against the government or even secession. But this extreme reaction ignores the fact that the founders saw this day coming and gave us a Constitutional tool which allows us to restrain the out-of-control federal government.

Knowing human nature, the founders knew the federal government would eventually grow like a fungus and try to cover every aspect of our lives. That’s why there’s a modern-day interest in Article V. Mark Levin’s book The Liberty Amendments brought it into the public eye, Glenn Beck has also been promoting it on his show, Hannity and Limbaugh are talking about it, and several well-known leaders – such as Tom Coburn, Michael Farris, Mike Huckabee, and David Barton – have publicly endorsed it.

As President of Citizens for Self-Governance, I’ve been advocating a convention of states since long before the idea reached the general public. We’ve even created a viable strategy to bring a convention to reality.

Many times, people lament how powerful and abusive our federal government has become, without realizing there’s a way to fight it – right there in Article V of the Constitution. So now you know. Now you see.

But we have to do more than just see it.

Article V of the Constitution: An Emergency Solution, Hidden in Plain Sight

This isn't going to happen.

 

[Desperado]

The Fourth Amendment is dead just as "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Probable Cause"
These three have been dead since the early 2000's. Law enforcement agencies no longer have any use for them.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The framers of the Constitution did not anticipate the ability of successive generations to gather large amounts of data through computer technology. A "search" to them was something done manually. Nonetheless, how is identifying license plates a search?

To limit this type of activity would lead to the limitation of merely visually spotting important details in high-traffic areas.

Then amend it, the framers anticipated that. If you cannot succeed in changing it, there's a good reason why you could not.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In other words, if you drive your car down Main Street, and a cop watches it go by, and he can see your license tag, he can legally run your tag through the computer.

That does not need a warrant.

Been that way since 1776. Or.....well, the invention of cars and computers.

Apparently you do not understand the potential for abuse of mass general search warrants. Read about John Hancock sometime.

There is no mass general search warrant taking place here.

Is this what you say about the NSA as well?

Edward Snowden, hero or traitor, what say you?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The framers of the Constitution did not anticipate the ability of successive generations to gather large amounts of data through computer technology. A "search" to them was something done manually. Nonetheless, how is identifying license plates a search?

To limit this type of activity would lead to the limitation of merely visually spotting important details in high-traffic areas.

Then amend it, the framers anticipated that. If you cannot succeed in changing it, there's a good reason why you could not.

The genie is out of the bottle. Collection of vital statistics by computers is here to stay and will only grow like wildfire. Face-recognition, radar-detection of speeding vehicles, for example, will be slowly phased in.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The genie is out of the bottle. Collection of vital statistics by computers is here to stay and will only grow like wildfire. Face-recognition, radar-detection of speeding vehicles, for example, will be slowly phased in.

Then amend it.

You're advocating for the Rule of the Jungle based on the "living Constitution" narrative of Progressives.

What do you think of Edward Snowden.

 

[The T]

It's not dying, it's not under siege, it's not being infringed. It's dead.

Between the successive tyrannies of President Bush and President Obama, it's gone, and we will never get it back. The era of General search warrants, under King George III has returned, the very system in which the Fourth Amendment was constructed to protect against.

Here's the latest development on the death and burial of the Fourth Amendment:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/los-angeles-cops-argue-all-cars-la-are-under-investigation

Do you drive a car in the greater Los Angeles Metropolitan area? According to the L.A. Police Department and L.A. Sheriff’s Department, your car is part of a vast criminal investigation.

The agencies took a novel approach in the briefs they filed in EFF and the ACLU of Southern California’s California Public Records Act lawsuit seeking a week’s worth of Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) data. They have argued that “All [license plate] data is investigatory.” The fact that it may never be associated with a specific crime doesn’t matter.

This argument is completely counter to our criminal justice system, in which we assume law enforcement will not conduct an investigation unless there are some indicia of criminal activity. In fact, the Fourth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution exactly to prevent law enforcement from conducting mass, suspicionless investigations under “general warrants” that targeted no specific person or place and never expired.

Trial by Jury is next. Between the NDAA and the Obamacare penalty, both which void your right to trial by Jury, your Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments are next.

So what's next? Article 5 exercise, or ARMED insurrection? THOSE are the last two options.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The genie is out of the bottle. Collection of vital statistics by computers is here to stay and will only grow like wildfire. Face-recognition, radar-detection of speeding vehicles, for example, will be slowly phased in.

Then amend it.

You're advocating for the Rule of the Jungle based on the "living Constitution" narrative of Progressives.

What do you think of Edward Snowden.

I never advocate such things but just try to understand them. Knowledge is power, and to solve problems, we need to have an adequate understanding of just how bad it is. Otherwise, it is impossible to kill a giant with a pea-shooter. lol

 

[KNB]

What are any of you going to do about it?