The Not So Gradual Erosion of the 4th Amendment at the Hands of Well Intentioned Laws

[editec]

I'm not at all convinced of the "well intentioned" part.

Well, I was being charitable - and was generally referring to the good citizens who are in favor us such laws without having the slightest idea what they really mean.

When it comes to those enacting them, of course not - they are nothing but a bunch of disingenous jerks.

Yeah, but it's time to stop being charitable.

They're mostly fucking control freaking thugs.

Let's stop pretending otherwise.

 

[editec]

Thank you George! Great post!

Our pea brain friends on the right believe they are tough on crime, but all they are tough on is freedom and liberty. What totally floors me is they have no problem calling you, me or any liberal a 'Statist' if we support a government program intended to help Americans. And they constantly show utter contempt and disdain for government. It is so inept that it can't chew gum and walk at the same time...BUT when it comes to arresting, incarcerating and executing human beings; government is our benign friend. It suddenly becomes flawlessly efficient, totally competent, always just, fair and NEVER EVER heavy handed or deserving of scrutiny ...

This is how the right sees the criminal justice system...

It is the WORST form of Statism, because NO totalitarian state would ever succeed without citizens that carry their views...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

SAdly it is not ONLY the RIGHT who are willing to give police powers that they really should not have,.

Would that that were true, I might still be associating with my leftist collaborators.

The DEMS are no better (and in many cases arguable worse!) than the Republicans when it comes to giving cops and officials of the state the right to invade our privacy.

 

[Oddball]

Why do you suppose he ran from the challenge to find links to examples of leftist police state tyranny?

Because party man hacks like him don't care when "their team" is doing it, that's why.

 

[Annie]

Why do you suppose he ran from the challenge to find links to examples of leftist police state tyranny?

Because party man hacks like him don't care when "their team" is doing it, that's why.

While the guys in blue uniforms may overstep their powers, the real usurpers of freedoms would be the police branch of state, which folks, is the executive branch. Just look at FBI, CIA, IRS, DOJ, HS, NSA, and on and on...

Selective enforcement? Profiling? Red squads?

 

[Bfgrn]

Why do you suppose he ran from the challenge to find links to examples of leftist police state tyranny?

Because party man hacks like him don't care when "their team" is doing it, that's why.

Hey DUD, get off your high horse and BRING them. If you want to state or make a case, take personal responsibility. Maybe mommy and daddy dote on you, but I won't...

Now, don't cry...

 

[Oddball]

I ain't bringing anything but my callout to you for being a blind partisan hack and intellectual fraud.

In fact, I do believe you'd defend, to your death, the politician who got caught in bed with the live boy and the dead woman, as long as he carried that (D) by his name.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thank you George! Great post!

Our pea brain friends on the right believe they are tough on crime, but all they are tough on is freedom and liberty. What totally floors me is they have no problem calling you, me or any liberal a 'Statist' if we support a government program intended to help Americans. And they constantly show utter contempt and disdain for government. It is so inept that it can't chew gum and walk at the same time...BUT when it comes to arresting, incarcerating and executing human beings; government is our benign friend. It suddenly becomes flawlessly efficient, totally competent, always just, fair and NEVER EVER heavy handed or deserving of scrutiny ...

This is how the right sees the criminal justice system...

It is the WORST form of Statism, because NO totalitarian state would ever succeed without citizens that carry their views...

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

SAdly it is not ONLY the RIGHT who are willing to give police powers that they really should not have,.

Would that that were true, I might still be associating with my leftist collaborators.

The DEMS are no better (and in many cases arguable worse!) than the Republicans when it comes to giving cops and officials of the state the right to invade our privacy.

You have the right to your opinion, but the authoritarian personality is a conservative marker. Maybe you mislabel collaborators.

The Dems are not without fault, but I am old enough to remember when America and politics were dominated by liberals until the late 1960's.

Does it need to get any MORE graphic than this?

 

[Bfgrn]

I ain't bringing anything but my callout to you for being a blind partisan hack and intellectual fraud.

In fact, I do believe you'd defend, to your death, the politician who got caught in bed with the live boy and the dead woman, as long as he carried that (D) by his name.

You NEVER do bring anything but DUDEbonics, meaningless cat calls and undying Monica Lewinsky worship of Boooooooooooooooooooooosh from the peanut gallery. At least I am willing to make a case and debate an issue.

You are nothing but a spectator of life...an inert object.

 

[ConHog]

Sobriety check points. Driver's license check points. Laws prohibiting cell phone usage while driving. Search and seizure conditions of probation.

All of this sounds pretty good, doesn't it? ...

...

And that status is being threatened from all sides these days.

George, where do you live? These are all laws that deal with the privilege of having a driver's license. Do you consider driving a civil right?

I know Dude and others have cluelessly overlooked this obvious fact. But I have faith in you. You know what is really bothering you. Spit it out.

Well put - I'm chuckling a tad here. OK, yes - perhaps I failed to state my case properly in the OP. I'll try again here.

Probably I should have referred to laws which are supported by well-intentioned people, rather than being enacted by well-intentioned people. One of the things I hate most in politics, in interpersonal relationships, in government, hell, in LIFE, is the hidden agenda, pretext, if you will.

There is a hidden agenda to these "acceptable" practices that, on their face, appear benign and actually beneficial to society. A guillible public accepts them as such. But those of us who deal with the criminal justice system on a daily basis know better. These laws are enacted for a purpose that transcends their apparent justification. That purpose is to allow law enforcement to do things it would not otherwise be able to do because of the 4th Amendment prohibition against illegal search and seizure.

There - I guess that's what is "really" bothering me. And thanks for asking.

On your other point - no, driving is not a right - it is a privilege; or, at least, that's the way the law interprets it. But that does not mean that the Constitution has to take a back seat merely because people don't have a right to drive. I don't think you have a right to own a house. Does that mean that the police can enter your house without a warrant or probable cause and search it whenever they feel like it?

Big difference here George. IF your house was built on public property, then yes LEO could search it at will. Which is EXACTLY how the SCOTUS viewed it in Sitz when they acknowledged a small violation, but ruled that the public safety on a public highway over ruled the minor violation of civil rights.

 

[ConHog]

Well put - I'm chuckling a tad here. OK, yes - perhaps I failed to state my case properly in the OP. I'll try again here.

Probably I should have referred to laws which are supported by well-intentioned people, rather than being enacted by well-intentioned people. One of the things I hate most in politics, in interpersonal relationships, in government, hell, in LIFE, is the hidden agenda, pretext, if you will.

There is a hidden agenda to these "acceptable" practices that, on their face, appear benign and actually beneficial to society. A guillible public accepts them as such. But those of us who deal with the criminal justice system on a daily basis know better. These laws are enacted for a purpose that transcends their apparent justification. That purpose is to allow law enforcement to do things it would not otherwise be able to do because of the 4th Amendment prohibition against illegal search and seizure.

There - I guess that's what is "really" bothering me. And thanks for asking.

On your other point - no, driving is not a right - it is a privilege; or, at least, that's the way the law interprets it. But that does not mean that the Constitution has to take a back seat merely because people don't have a right to drive. I don't think you have a right to own a house. Does that mean that the police can enter your house without a warrant or probable cause and search it whenever they feel like it?

I agree with you in part -- there are those with ulterior motives that are there to enforce a police state mentality.

but then there are those well intentioned (by their world view) do-gooders like the woman out here who survived cancer. She stood up as a cancer survivor and has made smoking on the beach, or smoking within a specified distance of an outdoor bus stop with children nearby (high schoolers), a crime.

She is a well meaning do-gooder. Then there are those crazy fucks from MADD and DARE.

Laws that are enacted because of an emotional reaction to a specific event are invariably bad laws. They are poorly written and they also abound with unintended consequences. California's Three Strikes law is a very good example. Nothing wrong with putting third time offenders away for life - but, as presently worded, that can be done if the third (or "triggering") offense is something as benign as possession of a small amount of meth or petty theft with a prior theft conviction. The triggering offense should also be a serious or violent felony, i.e, a strike.

Say what? In baseball a foul tip with two strikes is strike three, so in law a small crime with two strikes is strike three. Do you have any idea , I'm sure you do, how big of a loser you have to be to reach strike three? Such dumbasses belong in prison.

 

[ConHog]

regulating behavior is bad?

Concerning murder? Paying taxes? Licensing drivers, doctors? No.

Personal behaviors and property rights? Yes, for the most part. Most drug laws are right up their with prohibition. While a meth lab is not something I want next door to me. So, in answer to your question, bad for the most part, necessary in some part.

I understand, about the silly drug laws. I make distinctions between legalization and decriminalization. But I think about the helmet and seat belt laws. One needs to be licensed and insured to drive. I do not support the laws to control behavior. I support those laws like I do laws saying you must be insured to drive on public roads.

One can drive a cycle without a helmet or drive a car without a seat belt, as long as the driving is done on a private road.

as with anchor babies, with accidents, we all pay.

however, I would support dropping helmet and seat belt laws if there were a law demanding particular insurance policies for those who want to ride sans helmet, or drive free of seat belts.

not all support for behavioral laws are based on your false assumptions of the motives of others.

Forgive George, he's been a defense attorney for 100 years and has obviously came to believe that all LEO are evil and all criminals are innocent if not for a stupid law that shouldn't be enacted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have the right to your opinion, but the authoritarian personality is a conservative marker. Maybe you mislabel collaborators.

The Dems are not without fault, but I am old enough to remember when America and politics were dominated by liberals until the late 1960's.

Does it need to get any MORE graphic than this?

It always amazes me how liberals ignore facts that flatly disprove their assertions, like the one that authoratarian personalities are not partisan. If the only authoritarian personalities were conservatives then Cuba would be an island paradise because Castro and Che started out as liberals and were fighting for the rights of individuals to be free from oppression, as did Stalin before them. Authoritarianism emanates from all of the political spectrum, which is why it must be watched for and guarded against by anyone who ever gains power.

 

[ConHog]

You have the right to your opinion, but the authoritarian personality is a conservative marker. Maybe you mislabel collaborators.

The Dems are not without fault, but I am old enough to remember when America and politics were dominated by liberals until the late 1960's.

Does it need to get any MORE graphic than this?

It always amazes me how liberals ignore facts that flatly disprove their assertions, like the one that authoratarian personalities are not partisan. If the only authoritarian personalities were conservatives then Cuba would be an island paradise because Castro and Che started out as liberals and were fighting for the rights of individuals to be free from oppression, as did Stalin before them. Authoritarianism emanates from all of the political spectrum, which is why it must be watched for and guarded against by anyone who ever gains power.

That right there illustrates my biggest "problem" with the left. They REFUSE to admit any wrongdoing from their end while chastising anyone for anything if they are from the right. It's unbelievable that they are SO arrogant that they wish us to believe that the left side of the political spectrum never does anything "wrong"

 

[Oddball]

You have the right to your opinion, but the authoritarian personality is a conservative marker. Maybe you mislabel collaborators.

The Dems are not without fault, but I am old enough to remember when America and politics were dominated by liberals until the late 1960's.

Does it need to get any MORE graphic than this?

Both Carter and Clinton (y'know DEMOCRATICS) were presidents during the time that chart trends up, yet the trend line doesn't change direction whatsoever during their presidencies.

Hack.

 

[Bfgrn]

I agree with you in part -- there are those with ulterior motives that are there to enforce a police state mentality.

but then there are those well intentioned (by their world view) do-gooders like the woman out here who survived cancer. She stood up as a cancer survivor and has made smoking on the beach, or smoking within a specified distance of an outdoor bus stop with children nearby (high schoolers), a crime.

She is a well meaning do-gooder. Then there are those crazy fucks from MADD and DARE.

Laws that are enacted because of an emotional reaction to a specific event are invariably bad laws. They are poorly written and they also abound with unintended consequences. California's Three Strikes law is a very good example. Nothing wrong with putting third time offenders away for life - but, as presently worded, that can be done if the third (or "triggering") offense is something as benign as possession of a small amount of meth or petty theft with a prior theft conviction. The triggering offense should also be a serious or violent felony, i.e, a strike.

Say what? In baseball a foul tip with two strikes is strike three, so in law a small crime with two strikes is strike three. Do you have any idea , I'm sure you do, how big of a loser you have to be to reach strike three? Such dumbasses belong in prison.

You are comparing the value of a human beings life to a trip to the plate in a fucking baseball game? Were you raised by wolves??

The three strikes laws and mandatory sentences have had horrible consequences. Our criminal justice system is a Chinese finger. If you have one offense and you are stopped for a traffic violation, the officer may be very pleasant when he asks for your drivers license, but after he runs your ID through his computer, he will return hell bent on a total search of you and you vehicle. The best you can expect is to be detained for 2 hours.

Three strike laws and mandatory sentences undermine the way courts were meant to administer justice. Juries and judges should decide a person's fate, based on the severity of the crime and that person's threat to society.

You police state fascist are dangerous to a free and open society.

 

[Oddball]

How many of those "police state fascists" in the Senate with the (D) by their name voted for the USAPATRIOT Act, hackasausrus rex?

 

[Big Fitz]

To the OP:

"It's for your own 'good'."

Motto of the progressofascist left.

 

[Bfgrn]

How many of those "police state fascists" in the Senate with the (D) by their name voted for the USAPATRIOT Act, hackasausrus rex?

TOO many. I don't defend all Democrats, but I will always defend my liberal beliefs. This nation was founded on liberal tenets. There was a time when the GOP had liberals and men with a conscience, like Everett Dirksen. That is no longer the case. I have voted for republicans in the past like Jack Kemp and local Republicans. But the current GOP national party has been hijacked by theocrats, neocons and authoritarians.

How loud did you cheer for torture, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo Jethro?

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Bfgrn]

You have the right to your opinion, but the authoritarian personality is a conservative marker. Maybe you mislabel collaborators.

The Dems are not without fault, but I am old enough to remember when America and politics were dominated by liberals until the late 1960's.

Does it need to get any MORE graphic than this?

It always amazes me how liberals ignore facts that flatly disprove their assertions, like the one that authoratarian personalities are not partisan. If the only authoritarian personalities were conservatives then Cuba would be an island paradise because Castro and Che started out as liberals and were fighting for the rights of individuals to be free from oppression, as did Stalin before them. Authoritarianism emanates from all of the political spectrum, which is why it must be watched for and guarded against by anyone who ever gains power.

There really is no such thing as a liberal authoritarian. You need to understand parochial indoctrination. What tenets, values and beliefs would a Joseph Stalin want to 'conserve'...free markets, capitalism, democracy???


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth.
Me

 

[Annie]

You have the right to your opinion, but the authoritarian personality is a conservative marker. Maybe you mislabel collaborators.

The Dems are not without fault, but I am old enough to remember when America and politics were dominated by liberals until the late 1960's.

Does it need to get any MORE graphic than this?

It always amazes me how liberals ignore facts that flatly disprove their assertions, like the one that authoratarian personalities are not partisan. If the only authoritarian personalities were conservatives then Cuba would be an island paradise because Castro and Che started out as liberals and were fighting for the rights of individuals to be free from oppression, as did Stalin before them. Authoritarianism emanates from all of the political spectrum, which is why it must be watched for and guarded against by anyone who ever gains power.

There really is no such thing as a liberal authoritarian. You need to understand parochial indoctrination. What tenets, values and beliefs would a Joseph Stalin want to 'conserve'...free markets, capitalism, democracy???


While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth.
Me

Bullshit.

Most of the rules laid down regarding smoking, publishing calories in restaurants, etc., have been put out by the left.

Many of those would like to just outlaw fast food, meats, sugar, etc.

If you fail to see that as authoritarian, I feel sorry for you. While not necessarily reflecting your opinion, many liberals do.