Posted on 06/24/2011 10:04:33 AM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
THIS spring was a rough season for the Fourth Amendment. The Obama administration petitioned the Supreme Court to allow GPS tracking of vehicles without judicial permission. The Supreme Court ruled that the police could break into a house without a search warrant if, after knocking and announcing themselves, they heard what sounded like evidence being destroyed. Then it refused to see a Fourth Amendment violation where a citizen was jailed for 16 days on the false pretext that he was being held as a material witness to a crime.
In addition, Congress renewed Patriot Act provisions on enhanced surveillance powers until 2015, and the F.B.I. expanded agents’ authority to comb databases, follow people and rummage through their trash even if they are not suspected of a crime.
None of these are landmark decisions. But together they further erode the privilege of privacy that was championed by Congress and the courts in the mid-to-late-20th century, when the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement was applied to the states, unconstitutionally seized evidence was ruled inadmissible in state trials, and privacy laws were enacted following revelations in the 1970s of domestic spying on antiwar and civil rights groups.
For over a decade now, the government has tried to make us more secure by chipping away at the one provision of the Bill of Rights that pivots on the word “secure” — the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The point you keep sailing right past is that how can we be a "civilized society" that has "some ground-rules", when those we hire to enforce our ground-rules, simply ignore them altogether far too often?
You get all puffed up at the mere thought of someone painting the cops with a broad brush yet here you are more or less doing the same, just in the opposite direction...
You would much rather risk being killed by the cops or a SWAT Team who are acting under the guise of exigent circumstances, furtive gestures or information obtained via a criminal informant?
The pendulum swings both ways.
I acknowledge that there are good cops, and you don’t acknowledge there is even one. This to you indicates that I am as biased as you are.
Wow.
You really don’t have a clue what I believe or don’t.
I think our society has gone SWAT crazy. I don’t believe in quite a bit that is taking place. I’m am perfectly willing to address problem areas. I am not in lock step behind everything the police do.
The place to address what police do, is not to hate the individual officer. It’s to make it so hot for the local city council and managers that they reign in the attack dog portion of their police departments.
If a particular officer is known to be a very problematic guy, then by all means take it to the police chief and the city council and get the guy or guys reigned in. If they won’t do anything, then wage a war against them. Get them removed. Get new people in there who are more sane on such matters.
It is all about how much risk you are willing to shoulder for yourself. I want the government hindered and the people free.
This scenario is not without risk. That is why we need an unfettered 2nd amendment.
You call it anarchy. I call it liberty.
DB, it seems to me that people who make the arguments you are making, have not thought it all the way through. You may think I haven’t either. I guess that’s the nature of this argument.
Someone could come to your home during the day and cause all sorts of havok with your family.
Witnesses could tell the police a lot of information, but then there are no police. No license plate can be presented. No description of the car can be presented. No description of the man or even his name can be provided, even if people know it.
No, the guy is free to drive off and do it again in the U.S. or some place else.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of scenarios like this that could play out pretty much the same way.
It would take no time at all before war-lords would take over much the same way Somalia was (perhaps still is) being run.
Is that Liberty? Really? No, you give up civilized society for an uncivilized one.
Are you free to travel today? Are you free to associate with whom you chose to? Are you able to procure what you want? Are you able to chose what line of work you wish to participate in? Are you able to chose your own wife, and have relationships with family and friends in a safe environment?
With few exceptions, you are.
You look at exceptions to the rule and blow them out to make it look like we’re living in a police state. I do recognize there are some problems, and I’ve addressed ways to counter them.
We are not living in a police state. We are living in a civilized society, where the power has temporarily swung too far in the direction of law enforcement.
There are ways to remedy that. Campaign for it locally. Get a group together to oppose city councilmen and the police chief who disagrees with you.
Don’t advocate for war-lord replacements.
If we have warlords it is cities next to interstate farming the traffic for revenue. That is just “good government” to most people. I reject it as State sponsored extortion.
The idea of having Police to protect property is fine with me. That is a very limited mission. But you keep telling me over and over how little respect you have for the fourth amendment.
I want Liberty. I demand Freedom. It is my birthright it is my heritage. You want safety. You are willing to give up far too much to get it.
Let me ask you. Should I be required to have a permit to carry a revolver in my belt?
DB, there’s so much confusion in your posts that it’s pointless to continue this.
I haven’t defended one fourth amendment violation. I have explained ways to counter what I believe to be Fourth Amendment infringements.
You say we don’t need police and then you say you actually do see a need for them. Your definition of what cities are, is just bazaar.
You may wish we could live like six people on an island, but it’s not that sensible laws help protect individual rights.
Should read..
You may wish we could live like six people on an island, but it’s not that way, and sensible laws help protect individual rights.
Your confusion lies that I have two threads. One thread is supporting the fourth amendment, the other thread of thought is my criticism of the way conservatives vote.
I want freedom. I don't want overlords. How is that confusing?
I know that’s how you see it. I can’t change that.
When I deal with people who think the fourth amendment and Constitution guarantee them that they should never run into a road-block, they frequently state something to the effect that they should be able to do anything they want, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. Ah, there’s the catch.
Who determines what harms anyone else? If a city agency comes up with a law that you can’t park more than 12-18 inches from the curb, it’s some people’s take that it’s an infraction of their Constitutional right to do as they please. Never mind that some other citizen might want to pass their parked car without having to cross the center median to do it. Yes, that person would be infringing on another person’s right to free unobstructed passage with his/her car parked too far out in the street.
You want to claim a Constitutional guarantee that prevents any public entity from setting up such ground rules.
I’m sorry, but just like the thirteen year old, you’re going to have to accept some rules in life.
It’s this thirteen year old kid’s view of why they can’t take the family car out for a spin thing, that makes me dismiss your take on things.
Now you are arguing for road blocks? Have you ever read the fourth amendment?
You have a patronizing tone. You liken me to a thirteen year old simpleton. I am always fascinated that when I assert liberty and freedom that desire is always demeaned$ this is FreeRepublic.
I love freedom. You do not. You make my point that as a “conservative” you advocate for more and more laws.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are incompatible with road blocks. I do not want to live in your world. Liberty is precious and rare. You don't want it. You never answered my 2nd amendment question either. Do you support permits for carrying firearms? I can't wait to see your reasons to ignore the second as you have supported road blocks.
Are you law enforcement? Have you drunk the kool aide?
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.