US Supreme Court To Rule On Cops Who Get Law Wrong (traffic stops)

the Newspaper ^ | 08/04/2014 | n/a

[Ken H]

If he doesn't even define the terms of the Clause, as J. Thomas and the Heritage Foundation have done in their arguments, then how can he make any statement about the meaning of the Clause itself? The answer is obvious - he cannot do so credibly.

If Privileges and Immunities are taken to mean ancient fundamental rights of Englishmen, then the meaning of the Clause is simple. No state may violate these fundamental rights.

[PapaNew]

If Privileges and Immunities are taken to mean ancient fundamental rights of Englishmen, then the meaning of the Clause is simple. No state may violate these fundamental rights.

The argument is not about the historical definition of P&I. It is about what and how it was intended to mean and be used in the 14A. The P&I of Article IV is not so much about what P&I itself is so much as the P&I in one state is valid for out-of-staters. Beyond this, you guys are displaying a "fundamental" flaw of understanding a basic presumption of the Constitution.

The original body of the Constitution doesn't name specific "rights" or P&I's. It is well understood that those rights named in the so-called "Bill of Rights" were listed only to appease the anti-federalists so the Constitution could be ratified. Whatever rights, powers, and liberties not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution or forbidden to the states by it belongs to "the States and the people respectively." The ninth and tenth amendments confirm that.

So the effort to define P&I is inconsistent with the whole presumption of the Constitution, that as far as the Constitution is concerned, all rights not delegated or forbidden belong to the states and the people. They don't have to be listed nor should they be listed because as far as the Constitution is concerned those rights and P&I's are none of the feds business. Only discrimination of P&I by one state upon non-state citizens is a concern of the federal government.

You and Thomas want to ratify the "fundamental" rights in Corfield v. Coryell which is pure conjecture which the single Justice of the Supreme Court as much as admitted in his opinion, which evidently the drafters but not the ratifiers wanted to use in the 14A. We've already been over that.

There is no proof that is what the ratifiers intended by P&I. Your conjecture is as good as mine, that the ratifiers meant nothing more than to confirm former slaves had the same P&I as understood in Article IV among the states as any other U.S. citizen. In the sense of probability, mine is much more likely than yours because yours would have resulted in a Constitutional revolution of which there would have been some record of the debates and discussions that would have ensued. We've already been over this also.

[Ken H]

The argument is not about the historical definition of P&I.

Yes it is.

It is about what and how it was intended to mean and be used in the 14A.

You can't possibly make an informed opinion on what and how a clause was intended to mean and be used without understanding the terms used in the text of the clause itself.

So the effort to define P&I is inconsistent with the whole presumption of the Constitution, that as far as the Constitution is concerned, all rights not delegated or forbidden belong to the states and the people. They don’t have to be listed nor should they be listed because as far as the Constitution is concerned those rights and P&I’s are none of the feds business.

That is not so if there is an amendment which says otherwise.

You and Thomas want to ratify the “fundamental” rights in Corfield v. Coryell which is pure conjecture which the single Justice of the Supreme Court as much as admitted in his opinion, which evidently the drafters but not the ratifiers wanted to use in the 14A.

How do you know what the ratifiers thought? Bork says it was 'less clear' and there was 'no evidence' the ratifiers agreed with the drafters.

Presumably, the ratifiers read the senate debates and knew the intent of the drafters. Given that they still voted to ratify, the burden is on you to show that they disagreed with the drafters on what the Clause meant.

[PapaNew]

You can't possibly make an informed opinion on what and how a clause was intended to mean and be used without understanding the terms used in the text of the clause itself.

You miss the point. You can understand the meaning of a particular term is still not know or understand the intention of it's use in a given clause.

Generally your argument is weak. You don't address the amount of evidence against an intended constitutional revolution you seem to wish for. Why do you wish for it?

Besides the point and the weight of evidence against your theory, I'm puzzled why someone here on FR who is supposedly a conservative is in favor of unlimited federal power to regulate the states. The enemy of gun possession or any of your freedoms and rights is not the states, it is the feds. Why do you want expansive federal power that has proven to be the greatest threat to our way of life. It's not only constitutionally invalid, it is degenerative to our healthy and free society.

[Ken H]

You can understand the meaning of a particular term is still not know or understand the intention of it's use in a given clause.

So? You still must understand the meaning of a particular term being used in the text of a clause before you can make an informed opinion on the intention of its use in that clause. It's a self-evident point.

I'm puzzled why someone here on FR who is supposedly a conservative is in favor of unlimited federal power to regulate the states.

It is neither an unreasonable nor radical position that every US citizen has the RKBA, regardless of what any level of government says. I gave you two pre-Civil War cases that agree with that position, as well as Clarence Thomas. You, OTOH, think the states can outlaw guns and impose a tyranny on their citizens, and there is nothing in the Constitution to stop them.

Here's what Jim Robinson says about our fundamental rights =>

Our Constitution explicitly restricts the power of our federal government; and our Bill of Rights guarantees that NO government may infringe upon our God given unalienable rights.

http://www.freerepublic.com/about.htm

I seem to be in good company.

[PapaNew]

OK well if you're going to use names as a basis of a valid argument, I'd say Bork trumps Robinson in Constitutional law. Your mostly assertive and somewhat conclusory arguments have failed to overcome the weight of evidence & reasoning I've offered.

I think we're done.

I've enjoyed discussing this subject with you and you've challenged me to drill down on these issues which always helps sharpen my understanding of a particular subject.

The weight of argument and evidence I have laid out especially in post# 69 and it's consequences in later postings are a significant preponderance in this discussion in favor of the judicial restraint of limiting the scope of the 14A based on sound analysis of original understanding and intent.

[Ken H]

1. You did not define the key terms in the text of the 'P or I' Clause. You simply must know the meaning of the terms in a clause to know the meaning of the clause itself. That killed your argument right there.

2. It's fair to say my position prevailed on original intent. You conceded that my view is consistent with that of the framers, while yours is not. You also failed to provide any evidence that the ratifiers agreed with your position or disagreed with mine. The fact remains that they knew the intent of the framers and voted in favor of it.

I've enjoyed discussing this subject with you and you've challenged me to drill down on these issues which always helps sharpen my understanding of a particular subject.

Same here! So long.

[PapaNew]

You simply must know the meaning of the terms in a clause to know the meaning of the clause itself.

Of course. There was and is no debate about the historical meaning of the words Privileges and Immunities. That was never the issue. It was it's application that's in question.

It's fair to say my position prevailed on original intent. You conceded that my view is consistent with that of the framers

Wrong again, mon FR-ami. The only concession Bork and I have is that the DRAFTERS intended a widespread incorporation based on Corfield v. Coryell, but as Bork accurately points out, it is the intent of the RATIFIERS, not the drafters that count.

Bonne chance.

[Ken H]

I meant the framers of the 14th and should have specified so, as I did in earlier posts. Let me edit #87 for clarification =>

________________________________________________________________

2. It's fair to say my position prevailed on original intent. You conceded that my view is consistent with that of the framers of the 14th, while yours is not. You also failed to provide any evidence that the ratifiers agreed with your position or disagreed with mine. The fact remains that they knew the intent of its framers and voted in favor of it.

________________________________________________________________

Now I'm absolutely, positively outta here... ...I think!

[PapaNew]

You conceded that my view is consistent with that of the framers of the 14th

No. In saying "framers" you're not distinguishing between DRAFTERS (Bingham and Howard) who wanted to add the Corfeld rights and whose whose intent is irrelevant and the RATIFIERS whose intent is the dispositive intent in construing the 14A.

[Ken H]

Here you go =>

_______________________________________________________________

2. It's fair to say my position prevailed on original intent. You conceded that my view is consistent with that of the drafters of the 14th, while yours is not. You also failed to provide any evidence that the ratifiers agreed with your position or disagreed with mine. The fact remains that they knew the intent of its drafters and voted in favor of it.

________________________________________________________________

[PapaNew]

You also failed to provide any evidence that the ratifiers agreed with your position or disagreed with mine.

Better read post #69 again. It is chock full of reasons why the ratifiers more likely than not did not agree with the drafters on this.

[PapaBear3625]

2) Even if we assume the sheriff was sincerely mistaken, I think the court should throw out the search, as if they deem this stop acceptable, some cops (not all or even most but some) around the country will start “forgetting” traffic laws, in order to make random stops without reasonable suspicion, much less probable cause.

One sure way to put a stop to that, real fast, is that every time a cop makes a stop for something that isn't against the law, he has to go to a one day refresher course on traffic laws, on his own time, at his own expense.

[OneWingedShark]

A major principal of our Common Law based legal system is, that if something is not expressly illegal, it is by default legal.

This being said, in this case there was no justified reasonable suspicion to permit the stop, determined after the fact, so without that, there could be no determination of probable cause, and no arrest. Thus anything found after the initial error should be inadmissible.

Which is why they (the elites) hate Common Law — they've been dismantling it for a long time now. Look how they've reduced the jury's power: nullification is virtually unheard of in the mainstream and presentments are practically verbotten.