Skip to comments.Indiana Supreme Court Saying Magna Carta Isnít Fit For Purpose About Freedom?
Posted on 05/14/2011 10:09:28 AM PDT by sussex
No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at theagedp.com ...
my humble only...
men in black
This has the potential to get police officers killed. Maybe some conservative LEOs in Indiana should test this decision by forcibly entering the justices’ homes.
Majority are communists criminals that think the robe makes them a god.
We all recall stories of Soviet people going into a restroom, turning the water on full blast and having a private conversation nearby. I feel sure that still goes on in that region today, even with the Soviet Union's collapse, and I'm equally certain that we're headed in that direction in this once free country. How sad that we've come to this. Our relief from this sort of oppression is many generations down history's time line, if ever.
"The poorest man may in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."
Pitt the Elder, speaking in the House of Lords, 1763
Read the case please. It wasn’t his cottage.
What’s the make up of the court? From the decision it would seem three leftists versus 2 conservatives.
His use of the word "modern" is significant in that it reflects his belief in the U.S. Constitution as being a "living" document, subject to shifting interpretation, at the whim of the justices.
Now he gazes into his crystal ball, and drifts into prior restraint. Meet the Indiana Department of Pre-Crime: "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest." Ahem...sir, that's why the Fourth Amendment prevents a great deal of broken crockery and blood on the floor.
Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson dissented: "The ruling runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure." Justice Rucker: "In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances." Justice Dickson: "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."
I wonder if they’re getting extra protection? There are a lot of crazies out there that might take their benevolent, thoughtful decision amiss.
FWIW, the Court was soundly criticized by the Indiana Legislature, which passed a new law that was approximately the same as the one the Indiana Supreme Court totally ignored in the ruling that is the subject of the OP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.