It means there are numerous exemptions to the search warrant requirement...that not all rights are absolute
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Constitutional Amendments are no longer absolute?
- Thread starter Remodeling Maidiac
- Start date
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,983
- 47,197
- 2,180
What exemptions? All it means is that government ignores the Constitution.It means there are numerous exemptions to the search warrant requirement...that not all rights are absoluteThey have never been absolute. For example, people lose their voting, and gun rights if they have committed certain crimes....additionally, people who are committed can lose their gun rights.[/ATTACH]
What part of "without due process of law" didn't you understand? The 5th Amendment specifically allows for that.
There are also numerous exceptions to search warrants
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
The key here is due process must happen first and foremost.
No duh, exactly as stated in the 5th Amendment.
The Terry Stop, upheld in Terry v OhioWhat exemptions? All it means is that government ignores the Constitution.It means there are numerous exemptions to the search warrant requirement...that not all rights are absoluteThey have never been absolute. For example, people lose their voting, and gun rights if they have committed certain crimes....additionally, people who are committed can lose their gun rights.[/ATTACH]
What part of "without due process of law" didn't you understand? The 5th Amendment specifically allows for that.
There are also numerous exceptions to search warrants
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
The key here is due process must happen first and foremost.
No duh, exactly as stated in the 5th Amendment.
Vehicular searches, the Open Fields doctrine....but here is a list of a few more, that don't require a search warrant...https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/valid-searches-and-seizures-without-warrants
Concerned American
Diamond Member
Not since the 26th amendment in 1971.This means states can change their voting ages to 25, yes?They have never been absolute. For example, people lose their voting, and gun rights if they have committed certain crimes....additionally, people who are committed can lose their gun rights.
There are also numerous exceptions to search warrants
The key here is due process must happen first and foremost.
NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
Or attorneysIf it was all clear and concise, then we'd have no need to Courts....
schmidlap
Platinum Member
- Oct 30, 2020
- 9,917
- 6,523
- 938
Universal self-indulgence was not the objective of the Founding Fathers, nor would it be possible since individual rights are necessarily circumscribed by the rights of others in this or any society.What?Your antic definition of government necessarily negates government.The government's responsibility is to ensure that our rights are not limited.
Universal self-indulgence is hardly the hallmark of any advanced society.
The Constitution is written to negate universal self-indulgence.
The process to amend the Constitution is deliberately difficult. Fads, whims, and Marxist/Socialist/Communist mentalities are flash in the pan concepts that are harmful and the Founding Fathers set forth to make it exceedingly hard for these kinds of 'societal' changes to happen.
Slow and deliberate is the correct path.
History shows us that governments are harmful and universally corrupt. That is why individual rights are supreme and exceed the power of government. This was the intentional condition of our country.
Do some extremists attempt to arrogate individual freedoms to the State? Indeed. Women and their wombs are a perennial target. Freedom-loving folks must be vigilant in repelling such Statist usurpations.
JusticeHammer
Platinum Member
- Apr 20, 2017
- 6,882
- 4,099
- 940
Lying pos. The constitution was written to limit government. A lib has no idea what the constitution says. Retarded fool.It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.
No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.
That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.
Concerned American
Diamond Member
Just watching the whack job takes on some of the issues here pretty much demonstrates the need for courts and attorneys. You could prove to some of these idiots that the grass is green and why and they would still argue that is purple because that's the way they feel it should be.Or attorneysIf it was all clear and concise, then we'd have no need to Courts....
No, everyone can have the USSC's interpretation.If an amendment doesn't mean anything concrete, then how does a state know its overriding it? Everyone can have their own interpretation.I am not sure what you are askingHow can you help but override amendments that aren't absolute?No, a State law can't override the US Constitution, which sets the age at 18.This means states can change their voting ages to 25, yes?They have never been absolute. For example, people lose their voting, and gun rights if they have committed certain crimes....additionally, people who are committed can lose their gun rights.
There are also numerous exceptions to search warrants
The key here is due process must happen first and foremost.
Depends if you're talking the people or an individual, in which case: no, yes.Sorry, NAZI, but the Bill of Rights is the law, not a guideline. The government has no authority to place such limits. In fact the BOR was created specifically to tell the government what it cannot do. What restriction comports with "shall not be abridged?"It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.
No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.
That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #52
No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.
How does infringing a right that is explicitly affirmed and identified as belonging to the people, comport with “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”?
MadChemist
Platinum Member
- Sep 11, 2017
- 3,750
- 2,316
- 940
You disagree with both liberal and conservative justices, past and present and you distort and misinterpret the federalist papers.The federalist's papers.Where did you find your misinformation?The government's responsibility is to ensure that our rights are not limited. You are, as always, ignorant of what the Constitution says.It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.
No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.
That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.
Where did you find yours?
Never mind. You're an extremist and your opinion is worthless.
How does he misinterpret the federalist papers ?
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
That's what members of congress do, they cheat on their taxes constantly.
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #55
That's what members of congress do, they cheat on their taxes constantly.
More to the point, they have the power to cheat on everyone's taxes. It's not about what taxes actual members of Congress do or do not pay; it's about how much they steal from us in taxes.
Justices, especially Justice Scalia believe, or in Scalia's case believed, there were no absolutes in the Constitution. I believe they and he can be considered as experts.You disagree with both liberal and conservative justices, past and present and you distort and misinterpret the federalist papers.The federalist's papers.Where did you find your misinformation?The government's responsibility is to ensure that our rights are not limited. You are, as always, ignorant of what the Constitution says.It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.
No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.
That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.
Where did you find yours?
Never mind. You're an extremist and your opinion is worthless.
How does he misinterpret the federalist papers ?
MadChemist
Platinum Member
- Sep 11, 2017
- 3,750
- 2,316
- 940
Justices, especially Justice Scalia believe, or in Scalia's case believed, there were no absolutes in the Constitution. I believe they and he can be considered as experts.You disagree with both liberal and conservative justices, past and present and you distort and misinterpret the federalist papers.The federalist's papers.Where did you find your misinformation?The government's responsibility is to ensure that our rights are not limited. You are, as always, ignorant of what the Constitution says.It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.
No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.
That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.
Where did you find yours?
Never mind. You're an extremist and your opinion is worthless.
How does he misinterpret the federalist papers ?
So you really don't read questions.
You just say what you need to.
Or do you believe Scalia was associated with the Federalist Papers.
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,983
- 47,197
- 2,180
Could you translate that into English?Depends if you're talking the people or an individual, in which case: no, yes.Sorry, NAZI, but the Bill of Rights is the law, not a guideline. The government has no authority to place such limits. In fact the BOR was created specifically to tell the government what it cannot do. What restriction comports with "shall not be abridged?"It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.
No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.
That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,983
- 47,197
- 2,180
They are all political hacks. They didn't get appointed for speaking the truth.Justices, especially Justice Scalia believe, or in Scalia's case believed, there were no absolutes in the Constitution. I believe they and he can be considered as experts.You disagree with both liberal and conservative justices, past and present and you distort and misinterpret the federalist papers.The federalist's papers.Where did you find your misinformation?The government's responsibility is to ensure that our rights are not limited. You are, as always, ignorant of what the Constitution says.It’s remarkable how ignorant most conservatives are concerning American governance and law; indeed, that ignorance is what makes a conservative a conservative – this thread being one of many examples of that.
No right is absolute or unlimited; government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with the Constitution.
That these fundamental tenets of American governance and law must be explained to conservatives is what makes conservatism such a danger to the American nation.
Where did you find yours?
Never mind. You're an extremist and your opinion is worthless.
How does he misinterpret the federalist papers ?
- Apr 1, 2011
- 169,983
- 47,197
- 2,180
No, everyone can have the USSC's interpretation.If an amendment doesn't mean anything concrete, then how does a state know its overriding it? Everyone can have their own interpretation.I am not sure what you are askingHow can you help but override amendments that aren't absolute?No, a State law can't override the US Constitution, which sets the age at 18.This means states can change their voting ages to 25, yes?They have never been absolute. For example, people lose their voting, and gun rights if they have committed certain crimes....additionally, people who are committed can lose their gun rights.
There are also numerous exceptions to search warrants
The key here is due process must happen first and foremost.
So you believe the SC is infallible?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 191
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 232
- Replies
- 181
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 111
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 2
- Replies
- 60
- Views
- 179
- Replies
- 156
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 53
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8037
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-