Posted on 01/27/2005 3:40:30 PM PST by Wolfie
Fair enough. Drugs are purer, cheaper, and as readily available as ever. Demand has actually risen slightly since 1989.
What should be the penalty for illegal drug possession, in your opinion?
2. I don't know. I am not a Constitutional scholar.
One of the primary duties of the federal government is to protect the citizens by protecting the borders from unwanted people, animals and things including certain drugs. What clause gives the power to federal law enforcement to go after interstate criminals like bank robbers or kidnappers?
No argument re the borders. In the case of kidnapping, you are dealing with an acute, life threatening emergency. Police may disregard the Fourth and Fifth in a hostage situation, for example, and no one that I know of thinks otherwise.
Basically the law makes any random search of an auto legal IMO. All one needs is a "dog" and its "handler" who interprets the dog makes a "hit" and the searchers are home free.
"Since one can't have property rights for illicit drugs, a search can't violate the Fourth Amendment."
_____________________________________
Catch 22.
Since our government has decreed that they can declare most anything "illicit", -- one obviously has virtually no property rights.
"A search for illicit property can't violate the Fourth Amendment" is sheer idiocy: -- illogical thinking enshrined in legalistic sounding BS.
It's nearly time.
8 jones
I hope that some of the WOD Warrior totaliatrian freepers pause at this latest slip. I doubt it, they dont know they are part of the problem.
The USC was written to reign in government, but at the very same time the USC was written, many state and local governments had extremely strict laws governing substance abuse. THe USC did not erase any of them. These local laws reflected the concerns of society and protected the rights and liberties of individual citizens from the abuses brought upon them by drunks and dopers.
The Fe'ral government got involved when moonshiners and dope runners got too well organized and powerful for local governments to manage - the same reason why we have a national military rather than a generic call of arms of all able bodied men.
Dopers who say idiotic things like you have uttered are the reason why the Fe'ral government had to get involved - because dopers were causing a societal crisis. You may no t have a problem with open drug sales on the street, and you may find it amusing to find homeless people throwing-up and dieing on your front lawn. You may pooh-pooh the hundreds of billions of dollars of costs on society - a needless expense that is incurred because of thoughtless self-centered clods thinks that doping themselves into oblivion is some sort of Constitutionally protected Right.
The Constitution was made for honest, self-regulating, moral people. Dopers, who demonstrate an obvious absence of common sense and self-control, are not suited for the USC, they are suited best under strict supervision by responsible people.
If dopers didn't want the Fe'ral Government cracking down on civil rights - then quit assaulting society with your dangerous and costly habits.
The one at the link you gave me. It doesn't list any products at all and says that protocol draft is expired.
Clearly cost-and-effect is lost on you. We didn't have schoolyard drug dealers until federal enforcement made it profitable. The cost to society was far lower when we didn't have to fund a multibillion dollar enforcement industry, whose net effect, curiously enough, is approximately zero. There was no "societal cost" that forced the federal government to slice and dice the Bill of Rights, only a smear campaign by a major media mogul looking to put his competitors out of business by catering to public prejudice.
I bet you can't even name him. Your post is nothing more than an ignorant rant.
These are the same people who bitch about smokers and fatties losing their jobs at Weyco. Ah, the irony.
These cases are pretty common in Illinois. State Police have a program called "Valkyrie" where they look for suspicious folk, pull them over on some pretext, then ask for consent to search (which they frequently obtain). Illinois has some pretty well-developed case law on stops, and I don't think that police will be able to extend the length of a routine stop to give the K-9 time to get there. If the dog's around handy, fine, but if you have to wait longer than it would reasonable take to get the ticket, they will have a problem.
It is a strange rationale that depends on the 100% reliability of dogs' ability to sniff out drugs. By this rationale, any technology that will seek out only contraband without implicating legitimate privacy/property interests will be allowed. Creative prosecutors and police may give us some interesting issues.
Scroll down and check out some of the neato commercial products.
Then tell me you live in a free country.
By the way, some common LI protocols are X1_1, X2P, and X3P. These are XML-based. Funny how they do not show up in the product documentation. No need for the sheeple to know how easy it is for Big Brother to listen in.
You won’t get any brownie points from the “conservatives” here though.
The decision was 6-2; Souter and Ginsburg dissented, and Rehnquist did not vote.
Ick. Bad.
Maybe you should ask why investigative and court resources went to bust a doctor who was not wilfully part of a drug ring, instead of going to bust this jerk.
Hate Prohibition? Thank those damn drinkers. If only people would be sober. Then we would have no problems.
I did scroll down... they're all links to organizations, but I didn't see any products. Still looking...
BTTT
All you need to do of course is train a dog that gives positive signals whether there are drugs or not, and you've got free reign to search anyone, anytime.
Thank you for your honesty...the Constitution is VERY specific on the crimes the federal government has the authority to punish, & the 10th Amendment leaves everything else to the states to hash out among themselves as they people so desire. Thomas Jefferson did an excellent job @ listing them in his Kentucjy Resolutions, & since the time of its writing, there have been only a few more crimes added to the Constitution (slavery, & denying people the right to vote based on race or sex)...& THAT'S ALL.
Case closed.
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.