what a joke ruling by the courts

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
Okay, let me try this a different way. I will give you the precise question you called for.

Is it an unreasonable search, forbid by the Constitution, to search all the black men in a bar full of black men, because you received an anonymous tip that a black man in the bar was carrying an unregister firearm?
My initial thought is this is an unreasonable intrusion on the rights of everyone that was searched.

It is. The ammendment stands on its own. Read it and notice there are only commas and how that affects the sentence:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Which simply means that a "reasonable" search does not violate the Constitution, and must have a warrant by the criteria listed herein. If there were any open ended criteria, the sentence would not have been run-on with commas, but have seperate ideas seperated by periods. This is why we have been dumbed down by TV and public education, so we could not read stuff like this which was common language of the age.

What if the anonymous tip was that the man was carrying a bomb and intended to destroy the entire building?

Big Whoop. It MUST follow the criteria listed to get a search. If you had PROACTIVE instead of REACTIVE police as the Constitution dictates, you would have a police state, not liberty.

What if the tip was that the man was in his apartment and about to set off a nuclear device?

Again, same scenario. If we didn't have the right to bear arms as infringed upon as it is today, that guy would most likely be found with a small hole in his head just before detonation and nobody would know who did it.

Well, under these circumstances, it seems more reasonable in to execute the search, but who is to make the final decision? Where do you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable?

It may be reasonable when you consider today's common views where people trade liberty for security, but those who do deserve neither, as was beautifully said by one of the framers of our Constitution. Drawing the line, as pointed out above, has already been done.

Somebody has to make that call. Somebody has to interpret what the vague phrase "unreasonable search" entails. Under our system of government, it is the courts that make this determination - that interpret the vague words of the Supreme law of the country.

And there it is. As soon as you make that excuse, by taking the Constitution out of context, you make the Constitution a document that is incompetent and incapable of doing its job as intended. You give judges the right to BE the Constitution. It is in this way that anyone who sees your view as correct would have no right to complain about "activist judges".

For another example, the Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. Is that to be read literally? Is the government absolutely forbidden from arresting or preventing a person from inciting a violent mob riot. Most people would say no.

1. Yes it is to be read literally. Do you see conditions there?
2. Yes they are forbidden from arresting a person for their speech. If a person goes into a theater, for a classic example, and yells "Fire!", just for kicks, and 10 people are stampeded, it should be perfectly legal and ok for him to do it.

-BUT you then charge him for 10 counts of assault.
The Constitution nails it down perfectly, you don't have a police state, nor do you have a parenting government, you have absolute liberty with full individual responsibility. If "most people" disagree, it is because they were not alive when the Constitution was written (obviously), and only have history to go on. To whose advantage is it to have an informed public? Not your activist judges, nor politicians, nor military. Hmmm. Who has the power these days?

That kind of activity is not protected. But who is to decide what Freedom of Speech means? The courts, obviously.

Only currently, it is not intended to, it is not legally entitled to, and it is not right.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
The idea that the judiciary interprets the laws and can declare them unconstitutional was established by the case Marbury vs. Madison in 1801. This is hardly some new-age power grab. The Constitution set up an independent judiciary as a specific check on the powers of both the executive and legislative branches. The independent judiciary was to be the protector and interpreter of the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison defined this principle as being carried out by judicial review.

acludem

As proven already, this IS a power grab, and no matter how a check and balance was set up, it has nothing to do with subverting the Constitution. How the heck do you think it CAN if it is a check and balance?

 

[Big D]

According to an NAACP press release, African-American males between the ages of 15 and 24 are almost five times more likely to be injured by firearms than are white males in the same age group. "Firearm homicide has been the leading cause of death among young African-American males for nearly 30 years," it stated.

The fact is that while blacks make up only 12 percent of the population, they account for 46 percent of total violent crime and 90 percent of the murders of other blacks.

http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/08/16/naacp/

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Big D
According to an NAACP press release, African-American males between the ages of 15 and 24 are almost five times more likely to be injured by firearms than are white males in the same age group. "Firearm homicide has been the leading cause of death among young African-American males for nearly 30 years," it stated.

The fact is that while blacks make up only 12 percent of the population, they account for 46 percent of total violent crime and 90 percent of the murders of other blacks.

http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/08/16/naacp/

As a conservative racist, do you know you are quoting a liberal rag and this has nothing to do with anything?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
First, let me respond to the argument about the definition of "arms" in the Constitution. When the document was written, the only arms most people could get was a simple flintlock rifle or a Brown Bess, both of which required powder and a ramrod. When the Constitution was written, when the bill of rights was written, the founders had no idea that weapons would be created for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible in as short an amount of time as possible. Somehow, if those weapons had existed at that time, I think they would've written the 2nd amendment differently.

This line of reasoning is fickle at best. Weapons technology has been improving throughout history. And the sole purpose for having weapons has always been to kill either people (in war or self-defnse) or animals (hunting). It was a fact of life, and still is. To say that you think they would have seen things differently if they had been alive is pretty arrogant, IMO.

The reason why I'm opposed to the citizenry having assault rifles is illustrated beautifully in Iraq. How do the police, the army, or anyone else do their job when everyone has a cache of large weaponry in the closet? That's the reality in Iraq, and that's why it's a killing field. The right is so hypocritical on this issue, from one side of their mouths they talk about the need for the Patriot Act to restrict liberties so they can spy on us for "security" and in the very next breath they want to let everyone have a rocket launcher at home. That doesn't sound too secure to me. I'm for reasonable compromise on both issues. The Patriot Act goes too far, and so does a ban on all handguns. I do think that reasonable limits can be set, including deciding that the public at large doesn't need to own weapons designed for use by the military in warfare.

An armed citizenry is a secure one. To say that everyone in Iraq being armed is dangerous assumes that everyone in Iraq is looking to attack the US or the Iraqi police/army. It's not the case - and I think it's besides the point. In America, an armed citizenry is secure from the threats of criminals and threats against a tyrannical government. I'm not saying that we have a tyrannical government, but if someone ever came into the White House, suspended the Constitution, etc.etc., then you'll see how effective the 2nd Amendment is. I certainly don't think that scenario will happen anytime soon, but I'm certainly not going to wait for it to happen.

 

[acludem]

How about the fact that 20 of our service people in Iraq have been killed in two days by the "armed citizenry." Of course, we're the invaders there, so I suppose they have a right to defend their homes.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
How about the fact that 20 of our service people in Iraq have been killed in two days by the "armed citizenry." Of course, we're the invaders there, so I suppose they have a right to defend their homes.

acludem

This applies to a completely different argument. They DO have that right unless the US had a direct threat pressed on it by their leader poining weapons at us or declairing war. -Therefore justifying American invasion. Since the populace has been told of no such activity, we cannot assume that to be the case.

The American Constitution holds no authority to their people nor against the US once a legal invasion has begun.