The generational corruption of the Judicial Branch

[TNHarley]

No sir. You need quite a great deal more than that.

I’d say “but nice try” if I didn’t care about misleading you.

I dont believe I do. Its right there for the world to see. In plain English.

 

[BackAgain]

I dont believe I do. Its right there for the world to see. In plain English.

Well, you’re mistaken.

If, for instance, the 4th Amendment guarantee to be secure in one’s home or person were applicable to airline safety inspections, then either airlines would have to cease such inspections OR passengers would have to agree (upon the purchase of their flight tickets) to waive that right.

The point is that merely citing the words of a Constitutional provision does not always make it clear how it can be interpreted or misinterpreted.

 

[TNHarley]

Well, you’re mistaken.

If, for instance, the 4th Amendment guarantee to be secure in one’s home or person were applicable to airline safety inspections, then either airlines would have to cease such inspections OR passengers would have to agree (upon the purchase of their flight tickets) to waive that right.

The point is that merely citing the words of a Constitutional provision does not always make it clear how it can be interpreted or misinterpreted.

So the word "person" doesnt count because its an airline?
So they make us waive our constitutional rights, so we can participate in another constitutional right, the right to travel? No, that doesnt cut it.
TSA isnt the airlines. It is the government. If it was the airline, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

 

[BackAgain]

So the word "person" doesnt count because its an airline?

That was most assuredly not my claim.

So they make us waive our constitutional rights, so we can participate in another constitutional right, the right to travel? No, that doesnt cut it.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that our guaranteed rights amount to the Constitution being a suicide pact. It isn’t.

But, yes, an airline is certainly permitted to grant a license upon conditions.

TSA isnt the airlines.

So what? It’s a governmental entity which was created — after the 9/11 atrocities —by the government largely upon the request of the airlines (which had previously made use of private security entities). Your contention is that using a governmental entity to provide the manpower somehow violates any of our rights. That doesn’t pass the giggle test.

For example, see United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 9th Cir. 1973). Here’s what a a link:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/0430243.pdf

It is the government. If it was the airline, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

It was formerly the airlines, but the airlines lobbied to have a governmental entity assume the responsibility.

Legal challenges to the creation and existence of the TSA have been denied time and time again.

For example, you cite the right to travel. But, the right to travel does not guarantee a right to fly without conditions. Why? Because one can still travel by other means (car, train, etc.). See, for example, Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006). Here’s a link: 435 F.3d 1125

The very fact that it has been litigated, in cases like Davis and Gilmore, shows that merely citing the text of a Constitutional provision isn’t ,in itself, nearly sufficient to carry your burden, TN.

 

[80zephyr]

Basically, when people do not side with the constitution, they are against law and order, despite their rhetoric. They are for whatever happening, as long as they agree with it.

Who decides what is reasonable? Someone has to, correct?

 

[HikerGuy83]

So, I was having a chat with AI about the constitutionality of the TSA. In the discussion, we pretty much agreed about the constitutional aspect of it.

Just like a left to pick a for of AI that kisses his ass.

 

[TNHarley]

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that our guaranteed rights amount to the Constitution being a suicide pact. It isn’t.

Right? Its called amendments. There is a process. Just agreeing the govt can do what they want when its convenient, AKA bootlicking, is for the birds. Not Americans.

So what? It’s a governmental entity which was created — after the 9/11 atrocities —by the government largely upon the request of the airlines (which had previously made use of private security entities). Your contention is that using a governmental entity to provide the manpower somehow violates any of our rights. That doesn’t pass the giggle test.

For example, see United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 9th Cir. 1973). Here’s what a a link:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/0430243.pdf

Indeed. So our constitutional rights are involved.

It was formerly the airlines, but the airlines lobbied to have a governmental entity assume the responsibility.

Legal challenges to the creation and existence of the TSA have been denied time and time again.

For example, you cite the right to travel. But, the right to travel does not guarantee a right to fly without conditions. Why? Because one can still travel by other means (car, train, etc.). See, for example, Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006). Here’s a link: 435 F.3d 1125

The very fact that it has been litigated, in cases like Davis and Gilmore, shows that merely citing the text of a Constitutional provision isn’t ,in itself, nearly sufficient to carry your burden, TN.

It doesnt matter if they asked for it. Does the constitution say govt power and our rights change by lobbying? They dont just go away. Thats not how it works. Rather, thats not supposed to be how it works. Bootlickers have normalized this.
The constitution is not a living document. Its intent doesnt change because 50 years have passed.
If you want the govt to be able to search random people for no reason whatsoever, fine. Lobby congress, or start a movement for a convention of states. The fact is, TSA is unconstitutional.
Your words dont change anything, as your only argument is nuh-uh.

 

[TNHarley]

Who decides what is reasonable? Someone has to, correct?

So you think searching random people for no reason whatsoever is reasonable?

 

[TNHarley]

Just like a left to pick a for of AI that kisses his ass.

Stop trolling, fagggot. And learn English.

 

[HikerGuy83]

^^^

Stop trolling, fagggot. And learn English.

^^^Triggered^^^

 

[TNHarley]

^^^

^^^Triggered^^^

Is the OP too much for you, moonbat?
You are like a little chihuahua humping my leg. Its weird.

 

[BackAgain]

Right? Its called amendments. There is a process. Just agreeing the govt can do what they want when its convenient, AKA bootlicking, is for the birds. Not Americans.

Amendments are Constitutional provisions, as I correctly labeled them. And of course there is a process. That process was utilized. And the legal reasoning never claimed that the government can do whatever it wants. This is completely unrelated to “bootlicking.”

Indeed. So our constitutional rights are involved.

That was the basis for the challenge. And it was, indeed, a valid Constitutional question. But the fact that it’s a question doesn’t itself determine the answer.

It doesnt matter if they asked for it. Does the constitution say govt power and our rights change by lobbying? They dont just go away. Thats not how it works. Rather, thats not supposed to be how it works. Bootlickers have normalized this.
The constitution is not a living document. Its intent doesnt change because 50 years have passed.

Your reliance on emotionally charged hyperbole is silly of you.

Of course the Constitution is not (and never was) a “living” document. I never said it was. And whether it is or isn’t fails to address the question.

If you want the govt to be able to search random people for no reason whatsoever, fine.

I don’t. And the TSA doesn’t do that.

Lobby congress, or start a movement for a convention of states. The fact is, TSA is unconstitutional.

Nope. The fact is that it is not unconstitutional.

Your words dont change anything, as your only argument is nuh-uh.

Wrong again. My words are premised both on the actual text of the Constitution and a valid set of judicial decisions properly interpreting the words and meaning of the Constitution.

You remain perfectly free to disagree with those rulings. But they remain all the same.

 

[TNHarley]

That process was utilized.

How?

Your reliance on emotionally charged hyperbole is silly of you.

?

I don’t. And the TSA doesn’t do that.

Of course, that is a flat out lie.

Nope. The fact is that it is not unconstitutional.

I dont agree, and you saying nuh-uh when the constitution says the exact opposite, is NOT a valid argument. Try harder.

valid set of judicial decisions properly interpreting the words and meaning of the Constitution.

Ummm, the whole point of the OP IS judicial.

 

[DGS49]

A long, long time ago, a pundit named Joseph Sobran published a lengthy essay on the proposition that Constitutional Law exists in spite of the Constitution, and not as a result of the Constitution. One example of the time was his observation that despite the 14th Amendment's mandate that there be no discrimination, the Court said that the Constitution demands that there MUST BE State sponsored discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action, and initiatives of a similar nature.

How Tyranny Came to America (aka God, Man, and Law)

The biggest and most outrageous Constitutional abomination of our time is the expansive reading of Article I, Section 8, where it states, "Congress shall have the power to…regulate commerce…among the several states…" [the so-called "Interstate Commerce Clause"] which has been expanded to give Congress the power to, for example, tell health insurers whom they must accept as clients. Indeed, the entire Federal "social safety net" is founded upon the expansive reading of the Interstate Commerce Clause. You couldn't make it up.

The TSA thing is small potatoes in the great scheme of things. Who really gives a shit?

 

[TNHarley]

A long, long time ago, a pundit named Joseph Sobran published a lengthy essay on the proposition that Constitutional Law exists in spite of the Constitution, and not as a result of the Constitution. One example of the time was his observation that despite the 14th Amendment's mandate that there be no discrimination, the Court said that the Constitution demands that there MUST BE State sponsored discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action, and initiatives of a similar nature.

How Tyranny Came to America (aka God, Man, and Law)

The biggest and most outrageous Constitutional abomination of our time is the expansive reading of Article I, Section 8, where it states, "Congress shall have the power to…regulate commerce…among the several states…" [the so-called "Interstate Commerce Clause"] which has been expanded to give Congress the power to, for example, tell health insurers whom they must accept as clients. Indeed, the entire Federal "social safety net" is founded upon the expansive reading of the Interstate Commerce Clause. You couldn't make it up.

The TSA thing is small potatoes in the great scheme of things. Who really gives a shit?

I agree.
The TSA thing is just what started the conversation.
But as everyone knows, you give them an inch, they take a mile. EVERY right we lose matters.

 

[PeterPilot]

A long, long time ago, a pundit named Joseph Sobran published a lengthy essay on the proposition that Constitutional Law exists in spite of the Constitution, and not as a result of the Constitution. One example of the time was his observation that despite the 14th Amendment's mandate that there be no discrimination, the Court said that the Constitution demands that there MUST BE State sponsored discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action, and initiatives of a similar nature.

How Tyranny Came to America (aka God, Man, and Law)

The biggest and most outrageous Constitutional abomination of our time is the expansive reading of Article I, Section 8, where it states, "Congress shall have the power to…regulate commerce…among the several states…" [the so-called "Interstate Commerce Clause"] which has been expanded to give Congress the power to, for example, tell health insurers whom they must accept as clients. Indeed, the entire Federal "social safety net" is founded upon the expansive reading of the Interstate Commerce Clause. You couldn't make it up.

The TSA thing is small potatoes in the great scheme of things. Who really gives a shit?

You make a very good point, but seem to assign no value in your calculus to the fact that DHS and TSA were created in response to a false flag operation. They were created based upon deception.

I agree with your point about ICC, but that is simple misinterpretation as opposed to fraud from deception.

 

[BackAgain]

How?

Don’t be so ignorant.

?

Or, continue to be ignorant.

Of course, that is a flat out lie.

No. What you just posted is the lie.

I dont agree, and you saying nuh-uh when the constitution says the exact opposite, is NOT a valid argument. Try harder.

Try thinking and being honest.

Obviously, I posted a great deal more than just “huh-uh.” You can keep repeating that dishonest line. But the evidence confirms that you’re just incapable of refuting what I post AND supported.

Ummm, the whole point of the OP IS judicial.

Is it? It looks like the original claim is “generational judicial corruption.”

No part of your “argument” supports that ridiculous claim.

 

[80zephyr]

So you think searching random people for no reason whatsoever is reasonable?

Maybe. In a high crime area, etc

 

[TNHarley]

Don’t be so ignorant.

Or, continue to be ignorant.


No. What you just posted is the lie.

Try thinking and being honest.

Obviously, I posted a great deal more than just “huh-uh.” You can keep repeating that dishonest line. But the evidence confirms that you’re just incapable of refuting what I post AND supported.

Is it? It looks like the original claim is “generational judicial corruption.”

No part of your “argument” supports that ridiculous claim.

Bullshit, bootlicker.
People like YOU are the problem. "oohhhhh im scared of the brown men, so the govt can just do what they want"
**** you.

 

[BackAgain]

Bullshit, bootlicker.
People like YOU are the problem. "oohhhhh im scared of the brown men, so the govt can just do what they want"
**** you.

Ass suckers like you make baseless assumptions all the time all predicated on your cartoonish biased stereotypes about folks with contrary opinions

Your ignorance is astounding.

GFY, you stupid *****.