when do we build our own iron curtain?

[OCA]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
The ruling did not say they can detain you. It said they have a right to ask you to produce ID and that you must comply. You are really stretching the ruling to include fingerprinting, incarceration, detention, etc.

So i'm just curious because I guess I just jumped to that conclusion of hauling you in, what happens if you refuse?

Nah I wasn't saying the ruling included all those other things, just saying that cops already have those tools at their fingertips.

 

[NewGuy]

As has been said, this is a clear cut case of intrusion.

Lets take a look at the Constitution:

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.

Notice the punctuation giving the Amendment context.

Demanding information such as a name is illegal unless a document has written oath indicating things, places and PERSONS to be searched.

In other words, there can be NO PROACTIVE INVESTIGATION.

-ONLY REACTIVE INVESTIGATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

The punctiation in the Amendment makes it clear what it means. Our law has been formed by unConstitutional means and is thus invalid.

I do not recognize such a ruling as law.

If I am to believe our Constitution, I cannot.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Nice try RWA. First eliminate Big D type thinking then we'll think about your proposal, deal?

NO. Not at all. The two should not be linked. Institutional racism is something we can address through official channels, as evidenced by the fact that it took actions through official channels to put it in place. To say that all racism must be eliminated from society before government will stop the practice is ludicrous and silly, fodder for the weak-minded. The government should be a LEADER in stopping race-based discrimination. How about that deal? You're been dismissed.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.....

I guess if one has nothing to hide, what is the big deal? If you fear the police that much then either a) you do have something you want to hide or b) the police have become so distrustful that one is afraid of what the cops might make up.

Either position represents a sad commentary on the state of our nation.

Either so many of us are doing illegal things that we are afraid of being found out on or we fear our police so much that our cops have become the enemy. Scary!

Let he without sin cast the first stone....


I doubt any of us can honestly say they have nothing to hide from some all seeing legal eye.

The whole nightmare about living in a police state is how scared shitless anyone is to do anything, let alone do something that the higher authority deems a punishable offence.

The nature of our constitution is such that personal responsibility for ones own reasonable infractions and interpretations of "the law" can shape society. "The law" is there not to serve as an oppressive force but simply a reminder of ones own responsibility to others right to live freely within it.

America still remains the most unobtrusive modern society in the world with respect to personal freedom, even with the Patriot Act.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
As has been said, this is a clear cut case of intrusion.

Lets take a look at the Constitution:



Notice the punctuation giving the Amendment context.

Demanding information such as a name is illegal unless a document has written oath indicating things, places and PERSONS to be searched.

In other words, there can be NO PROACTIVE INVESTIGATION.

-ONLY REACTIVE INVESTIGATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

The punctiation in the Amendment makes it clear what it means. Our law has been formed by unConstitutional means and is thus invalid.

I do not recognize such a ruling as law.

If I am to believe our Constitution, I cannot.

IT all comes down to what reasonable is.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
IT all comes down to what reasonable is.

No.

Context defines resonable right there in the text.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Comrade


America still remains the most unobtrusive modern society in the world with respect to personal freedom, even with the Patriot Act. [/B]

Yes. Let's keep this in perspective people. Regardless of how fashionable it seems to be against bush by any means necessary. I'm sure the founding fathers would have been fairly supportive of a cops rights to ask for ID under REASONABLE circumstances.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yes. Let's keep this in perspective people. Regardless of how fashionable it seems to be against bush by any means necessary. I'm sure the founding fathers would have been fairly supportive of a cops rights to ask for ID under REASONABLE circumstances.

Again, context of the Amendment defines resonable.

They did not have the power to be proactive, but reactive.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
No.

Context defines resonable right there in the text.

Yes, the context must be factored in, using REASON. reasonable.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
NO. Not at all. The two should not be linked.

No the two are inextricably linked.

You don't dismiss me. I think you've known for about a week where you stand on the pecking order around here

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yes. Let's keep this in perspective people. Regardless of how fashionable it seems to be against bush by any means necessary. I'm sure the founding fathers would have been fairly supportive of a cops rights to ask for ID under REASONABLE circumstances.

Where would they have stood on the Patriot Act as a whole oh wee little guy?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Let unreasonable queries be dealt with as exceptions. Let's not force our cops to get a subpoena for every damn traffic stop or sign of supicious activity. IS this what you guys want: a cop must get a separate subpoena for a judge for every id he wants to get? That's ridiculous. Foolish, even. If that's not what you want, tell me what would make you happy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Where would they have stood on the Patriot Act as a whole oh wee little guy?

You tell me. Snickerdoodle.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
You tell me. Snickerdoodle.

They would've found it to be exactly what it is, a blatant violation of the constitution.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
They would've found it to be exactly what it is, a blatant violation of the constitution.

I'm not so sure of that. They were not used to domestic citizens and immigrants working directly for highly organized terrorist rings operated by heads of foreign, hostile governments. Think about it for a sec.

 

[NewGuy]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

---breaking right here:

It simply, without commas or sub points says:

"The right of the people to be secure

and then

"against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated"

Ok. Lets break this down simpler:
"The right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated."

Cool. The next part of the Amendment is still using commas, they are STILL DEFINING THE SAME POINT:

" 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."

In order to look at the sentence in proper context, punctuation is critical. This second part would be different if there were a period or something else to seperate the idea. Instead, there are commas COMPLETING the idea.

This second point can be said simpler: "and no Warrants shall issue WITHOUT probable cause which is supported by Oath or affirmation and has to describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

Put them together, and you have: "The right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue WITHOUT probable cause which is supported by Oath or affirmation and has to describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized"

Again, you MUST take things IN CONTEXT. -AND MUST CONSIDER PUNCTUATION.

Don't let a piece of paper outsmart you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So you would like every cop to get a warrant to get a person's id? For every traffic stop? For every suspicious character lurking around a crime scene?

Is this what you want newguy? A yes or no plus supporting elaborations would be acceptable!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
So you would like every cop to get a warrant to get a person's id? For every traffic stop? For every suspicious character lurking around a crime scene?

Is this what you want newguy? A yes or no plus supporting elaborations would be acceptable!

What I want is irrelevant.

What is CONSTITUTIONAL is what matters.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
What I want is irrelevant.

What is CONSTITUTIONAL is what matters.

But your prefer to go with what is 100% literally constitutional. So it is, by extrapolation, what you want, correct?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Call me unconstitutional, but this would render our ability to fight crime, nearly destroyed. It's stupid.