when do we build our own iron curtain?

Originally posted by NewGuy
What I want is irrelevant.

What is CONSTITUTIONAL is what matters.

I have to agree with you on your interpretation.


But I am loath to admit an alternative conclusion supercedes your own...

What is RULED AS CONSTITUTIONAL is what matters.


And so it seems we're all boned.
 
I say we extend to the cops the right to determine the justness of collecting a person's id. I know, this is headin towards fascism? :rolleyes: WHatever.
 
This idea of what is "ruled" Constitutional is to be adressed tonight with Jeff's point.

The Constitution does not grant a supreme court any authority in ruling what is Constitutional and what is not.
 
Originally posted by NewGuy
No.

Context defines resonable right there in the text.

No-it defines what is an illegal search. Does it say a warrant has to be issued before any search is conducted ?
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I say we extend to the cops the right to determine the justness of collecting a person's id. I know, this is headin towards fascism? :rolleyes: WHatever.

I say we allow the populace unrestricted access to ARMS as the Constitution allows.

Crime will not need much of a police ofrce to counter it. The populace will BE the police force.

Backed by a jury of your PEERS, freedom rings.
 
Originally posted by NewGuy
This idea of what is "ruled" Constitutional is to be adressed tonight with Jeff's point.

The Constitution does not grant a supreme court any authority in ruling what is Constitutional and what is not.

That's right. THat's your job!:)
 
Originally posted by dilloduck
No-it defines what is an illegal search. Does it say a warrant has to be issued before any search is conducted ?

Quite clearly by definition of how the warrants are to be issued, yes.
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I say we extend to the cops the right to determine the justness of collecting a person's id. I know, this is headin towards fascism? :rolleyes: WHatever.

If we grant a right to such authority then by all legal means each citizen should be divested of any right to conceal their ID.

The natural result being some form of expedient identification implanted upon such citizen.


That's why cops don't get rights. Citizens get rights.
 
Originally posted by NewGuy
Quite clearly by definition of how the warrants are to be issued, yes.

I have to agree this is what it says. I think we should deviate from the letter of the constitution, and allow cops to collect ID, anyway.
 
Originally posted by NewGuy
Quite clearly by definition of how the warrants are to be issued, yes.

so this would require every officer to obtain a warrant before even asking a question ?
 
Originally posted by dilloduck
so this would require every officer to obtain a warrant before even asking a question ?

On the job, yes.

Why do you ask for an opinion instead of reading the text?
 
Originally posted by Comrade
If we grant a right to such authority then by all legal means each citizen should be divested of any right to conceal their ID.

The natural result being some form of expedient identification implanted upon such citizen.


That's why cops don't get rights. Citizens get rights.

OK. "rights" was the wrong word to use, I meant it should be within the legal authority of cops to collect id in the course of protecting the citizens and finding criminals.

Implantation is not the only logical result here. You've been reading too much "newguy". ;)
 
You absurd anti bushies will go so far in making ludicrous points it's laughable. "If our cops are going to ID people, we might as well build our own Iron Curtain." Laughable. And it's insult to those who died under ACTUAL tyranny.
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You absurd anti bushies will go so far in making ludicrous points it's laughable. "If our cops are going to ID people, we might as well build our own Iron Curtain." Laughable. And it's insult to those who died under ACTUAL tyranny.



The Farewell Address of
President George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 17, 1796

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
 
Originally posted by NewGuy
This idea of what is "ruled" Constitutional is to be adressed tonight with Jeff's point.

The Constitution does not grant a supreme court any authority in ruling what is Constitutional and what is not.

The Supreme Court trumps whatever is addressed. You can't possibly imagine otherwise.
 
The liberals so want to live out this archetype of an oppressed peasant that they have to streeeeeeettttcccchhhhh reality to accomodate their delusionary worldview....If you are a well off sububuranite liberal...you have to manufacture the condition of struggle in order to feel as though you are on your "hero's journey"....its laughable that they are putting forth these arguments on internet message boards...veritable bastions of free speech and tolerance
 
It's Clintonesque---like what "is" is. Strict constructionism is similar to anarchy the way it is defined by some. Unworkable !
 
Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
The liberals so want to live out this archetype of an oppressed peasant that they have to streeeeeeettttcccchhhhh reality to accomodate their delusionary worldview....If you are a well off sububuranite liberal...you have to manufacture the condition of struggle in order to feel as though you are on your "hero's journey"....its laughable that they are putting forth these arguments on internet message boards...veritable bastions of free speech and tolerance

You would call ME a liberal, then?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top