when do we build our own iron curtain?

[Annie]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
The story I saw said the police had to have a "reasonable suspicion", invoking reason, (which I don't know, maybe "reason" is unacceptable inhere too) and it said the penalty was a 250 dollar fine...

Just started looking at some legal writers sites. Here's one:

http://volokh.com/

Hiibel and the Fifth Amendment(another in my series of posts today on the Court's Hiibel decision):

The most interesting debate in Hiibel has to do with the privilege against self-incrimination. Though the text of the Fifth Amendment only bars "compell[ing] [any person] in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," the Court has applied this to pretrial questioning as well as to questioning of witnesses at trial -- not unreasonable, since otherwise the provision could be easily circumvented by forcing people to make statements before trial, and then introducing those statements into evidence against them. And the Court has generally held that the Amendment covers not just forced confessions ("I did it, and I'm glad"), but also forced statements that may indirectly suggest the person's guilt, or even that may lead to the discovery of evidence against him. Moreover, as Justice Stevens points out in his dissent, requiring a person to give his name will often lead to the discovery of evidence against him, especially when the police are asking precisely because they reasonably suspect criminal activity.
CON'T

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
tell me how we were outsmarted and outclassed by someone who freely gives up their rights afforded to them by the constitution so they can FEEL safer?

Bamm powww! I smell a faux conservative on board.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
alright, we live in a police state...big brother is everywhere and they only want our ids to start the final solution...

Now you're on the right track.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
tell me how we were outsmarted and outclassed by someone who freely gives up their rights afforded to them by the constitution so they can FEEL safer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by OCA
Bamm powww! I smell a faux conservative on board.

Maybe a compassionate conservative?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
tell me how we were outsmarted and outclassed by someone who freely gives up their rights afforded to them by the constitution so they can FEEL safer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Maybe a compassionate conservative?

More like a logical liberal? (Hey I like that DK) :

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases," he wrote in a dissent. Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) also disagreed with the ruling. [/B]

The government should have all available information about you when they make contact with you. All government information at all levels should be integrated. Criminals should not escape because law enforcement agencies' data systems are not integrated.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Kathianne
More like a logical liberal? (Hey I like that DK) :

A logical liberal? Isn't that an oxymoron?:

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
A logical liberal? Isn't that an oxymoron?:

Not for DK. We keep trying to figure out where to place him.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

in a situation where the police would have to show probable cause or ANY CONVINCTION following inability to show i.d. would not stand up in court (you know...the way the law actually is before dishonest distortions)...I still don't see the problem...you people, like it or not, are still just arguing to make the system favor criminals EVEN MORE in the guise of being civil liberterians....absolutely officer, you may see MY i.d. cause as a law abiding citizen I have nothing to fear....

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Not for DK. We keep trying to figure out where to place him.

just when you think you have me figured out.........WHAM!! I throw something new at ya. :

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
in a situation where the police would have to show probable cause or ANY CONVINCTION following inability to show i.d. would not stand up in court (you know...the way the law actually is before dishonest distortions)...I still don't see the problem...you people, like it or not, are still just arguing to make the system favor criminals EVEN MORE in the guise of being civil liberterians....absolutely officer, you may see MY i.d. cause as a law abiding citizen I have nothing to fear....

This country wasn't designed to root out criminals, it was designed so that men may be free. We've integrated rules to allow law enforcement to do their job with enough encroachment on our freedoms. How many more would you like to give them? In a country of your design I can see cops scanning the back of your hand just to see if you've jaywalked lately.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
in a situation where the police would have to show probable cause or ANY CONVINCTION following inability to show i.d. would not stand up in court (you know...the way the law actually is before dishonest distortions)...I still don't see the problem...you people, like it or not, are still just arguing to make the system favor criminals EVEN MORE in the guise of being civil liberterians....absolutely officer, you may see MY i.d. cause as a law abiding citizen I have nothing to fear....

No.

You have EVERYTHING to fear, and nothing to defend against it.

What is worse is you either don't even know it, or are trying to promote ignorance and distort reality.

When our Constitution and Bill of Rights were instituted, the basic understanding was that all citizens could do whatever they wanted within reasonable limits of Christian morals and ethics.

It was those grounds that government stepped AWAY FROM by the power of the Constitution dividing and checking government power with citizens at the top of the food chain. The Bill of Rights gave the citizens their freedom.

The following law was designed only to fill in gaps left behined (on purpose) -which morality would eventually decline and not be able to control. This is evidenced by our Virginia Declaration of Rights and writings by Jefferson and Washington.

When Christian morality disappears, and the law must take over, the government can only have a very small amount of power and bring a person to stand trial.

This is the ultimate justice:

A small group of PEERS: -That is a small group of individuals who can speak to the character and nature of the individual on trial, get to determine several things:

1. Did the individual comit the crime in question?
2. Does the individual deserve punishment?
3. Is the law a stupid law?
4. Is the law applied fairly against the individual standing trial?

A guilty vote punishes, and not-guilty frees the individual. No power on Earth can control the ABSOLUTE POWER OF THE JURY.

If the jury makes a mistake, which is impossibly rare when following these rules, and the tried individual gets off, the right to bear arms comes into play.

Say the individual now murders after getting away the first time. Joe citizen shoots and kills Mr. Murderer. Joe Citizen now stands trial under the same identical circumstances with the same jury rules.

Does Joe Citizen go to jail?

Not likely. Why? He did the world a favor and FIXED THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.

Find a group of his PEERS that would convict him.

Not gonna happen.

THIS is perfect and just justice.

-NOT a corrupt police state with proactive nazi police taking the power from the citizens and declaring martial law on a whim.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

What is worse is you either don't even know it, or are trying to promote ignorance and distort reality.

careful now....that sounds dangerously close to a personal attack...
Seriously new guy...you don't have to keep repeating yourself...I know what you mean and simply disagree with your characterization of the law, why it is, and what it will lead to...

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
careful now....that sounds dangerously close to a personal attack...
Seriously new guy...you don't have to keep repeating yourself...I know what you mean and simply disagree with your characterization of the law, why it is, and what it will lead to...

You didn't understand the post.

I did not post redundancy. You stated a point about not agreeing with what the law represents and why it was there. You also disagreed with what is will lead to.

I just gave you:

1. Little known details about the jury system.
2. The reference of what led to our foundational documents complete with reasoning as to why those documents say what they do.
3. Proof of perspective of our founders and their ability to fortell the downfall of government by predicting exactly where we are today.

In other words, I just gave you all the pointers to a world class history/government/law lesson that makes politicians blush and puts "Constitutional" lawyers to shame.

-And you think I am trying to argue with you.

 

[leojoeyjoe]

In other words, I just gave you all the pointers to a world class history/government/law lesson that makes politicians blush and puts "Constitutional" lawyers to shame.

without a doubt...you're ego is second to none...I don't agree with your interpretations of the material and characterizations...I can read the same text and interpret it differently...because you end with this:

NOT a corrupt police state with proactive nazi police taking the power from the citizens and declaring martial law on a whim.

you try to sneak in the nazi argument again and it undermines everything before it...your conclusion in regards to the i.d. law is this damned nazi police state line and I disgree, to the death, with your characterization....

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
without a doubt...you're ego is second to none...I don't agree with your interpretations of the material and characterizations...I can read the same text and interpret it differently...

Note I made no reference to ME knowing anything, but I listed material for you to view without mention.

Then, you need it spelled out.

After I spell it out, you claim I am egotistical and my points are "characterizations" and "interpretations".

Worse, you imply literal, in-context writings CAN be interpreted.

Are you reading, or typing?

You certainly aren't doing both. It is amazing you have such a closed mind to reality and choose to go with preconcieved ideas without looking at any evidence of anything.

You are doing exactly what the socialists want you to do. Sit back, and let THEM do the thinking for you.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
you try to sneak in the nazi argument again and it undermines everything before it...your conclusion in regards to the i.d. law is this damned nazi police state line and I disgree, to the death, with your characterization....

Sneak?

I think not.

What do you know about Hitler's rise to power?

Why did he do what he did in taking guns and issuing papers?

What do you know about the American Constitution, liberty, and contrast to Hitler's Germany?

How about the fall of Rome?

How about Christian morals which the nation and its liberties are founded on?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
without a doubt...you're ego is second to none...I don't agree with your interpretations of the material and characterizations...I can read the same text and interpret it differently...because you end with this:

you try to sneak in the nazi argument again and it undermines everything before it...your conclusion in regards to the i.d. law is this damned nazi police state line and I disgree, to the death, with your characterization....

All in all, the following makes you look rather uninformed:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7850

 

[leojoeyjoe]

Next you'll be accusing the fire department of setting reichstag style fires....you're wrong....I disagree....you'll never persuade me and you assume WAYYYYY too much about what I do and do not know...

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by leojoeyjoe
Next you'll be accusing the fire department of setting reichstag style fires....you're wrong....I disagree....you'll never persuade me and you assume WAYYYYY too much about what I do and do not know...

I assume only what you say. What you have said so far proves you have no clue about foundations of law, American government, founder perspectives, and Constitutionality in America.

That is enough to choke a horse......and kill a nation.