Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: matthew fuller

That was Scalia and crew with Heller. They helped put limitations on gun ‘rights’.

16 posted on 02/18/2014 10:36:59 PM PST by Theoria (End Socialism : No more GOP and Dem candidates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem; 2ndDivisionVet; doc1019; ThunderSleeps; Olog-hai; matthew fuller; Army Air Corps; ...
Revel: It is time to understand the USSC is a lawless bunch who rule for political and devilish reasons.
Theoria: That was Scalia and crew with Heller. They helped put limitations on gun ‘rights’.

Despite what some people think, Scalia is not a Constitutionalist; support of the War on Drugs and Constitutionalism are mutually exclusive, as the War on Drugs has damaged 90% of the Bill of Rights:

Amendment 10 — Destroyed by combining “necessary and proper” with the intrastate/interstate regulation of Wickard.
Amendment  9 — Everything. Seriously, EVERYTHING about the War on Drugs is about the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution.
From Justice Thomas’s Dissent in Raich:
“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.”
Amendment  8 — Mandatory minimums and zero tolerance combine to make the punishments outweigh many of the “crimes”, even is you accept the crime as valid.
Amendment  7 — In [civil] asset forfeiture, the victims are routinely denied jury-trials even though the amount in controversy exceeds $20.
Amendment  6 — The clogging of the courts with drug-related cases erodes the notion of a “speedy trial” to a joke. Often drug charges are added on to the list of crimes, which can “taint” the jury w/ prejudices. Often police act on informants whose identities are “protected”, which impairs the ability to confront the accuser.
Amendment  5 — How does “Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984” comply with “No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”?
Amendment  4 Kentucky v King
”The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. [...] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment , to dispense with the warrant requirement.”
In other words: Yes, the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches, but… fuck that!

Amendment  3 — [Nope, nothing here... yet.]
Amendment  2 — Arguably, the “prohibited persons” from the `68 GCA.
Amendment  1 — Religious freedom is denied via the war on drugs ( ), there are stories of “legalization”-advocacy publishers being raided/harassed.

62 posted on 02/19/2014 10:08:40 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson