Warner says Constitution can be a luxury

What of the general warrants the British issued? Wasn't the 4th Amendment directly inspired as a result of those, so that such abuses would not recur?

By the way, you should also note that the 4th Amendment cannot be legitimately applied to the states.

Well, if you want such a strict interpretation of the constitution, I'll agree with you. It doesn't apply to the states, only to the fed. States are to come up with their own constitutions that may or may not have 4th Amendment protections.

And since we're being so strict in our constitutional interpretation, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment prohibit the fed from doing anything not specifically enumerated in Article I, Section 8.

Every crime save counterfeiting, piracy and treason is the jurisdiction of the states.

So, no more federal war on drugs, among many, many other things. Are you really such a strict constructionist, or is it only when convenient?

The problem is that 99.99% of the violations of the Constitution are not of the nature you specify.

Instead, they are intended to deprive us of more of our Rights.

True. But if you read the article, that's the only case he's talking about. And that's the only type of case I'm defending.

If these people really want something to complain about, they should be up in arms about Ashcroft charging some guy with hate crimes because he murdered a couple of lesbians.

As I understand it, the man as already been convicted of those murders in West Virginia's courts and is now in prison. Why is the federal government going to try him for the same murders?

I agree. But read what the man said. He said if a man has a nuke in your city, you find the nuke. You don't worry about search warrants. You don't worry about racial profiling. You find that nuke.

This is a moot argument. If there were strong evidence as to the reality of a rogue nuke being planted, the duly elected authorities already have it in their power to declare a state of emergency or impose martial law until the threat is removed. The Constitution provides for the suppression of rebellion or invasion, for which a nuke would represent it's most extreme expression.

For lesser threats, say a nut with dynamite, or a deranged cop on a bender with an MP5, the time honored tactic of employing road blocks, which have passed Constitutional muster since their inception, will do.

You still need a warrant to search as to whether the nutcases possess dynamite or machineguns without the proper tax stamp.

What of the general warrants the British issued? Wasn't the 4th Amendment directly inspired as a result of those, so that such abuses would not recur?

Absolutely. But remember, those warrants were generalized insurance policies. They meant that the people doing the searches couldn't be sued. The 4th Amendment didn't say that federal police couldn't do generalized searches. Just that they'd have to take the consequences if they did.

By the way, you should also note that the 4th Amendment cannot be legitimately applied to the states.

Well, if you want such a strict interpretation of the constitution, I'll agree with you. It doesn't apply to the states, only to the fed. States are to come up with their own constitutions that may or may not have 4th Amendment protections.

I do want to be a strict constructionist. I wish the government would be too.

And since we're being so strict in our constitutional interpretation, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment prohibit the fed from doing anything not specifically enumerated in Article I, Section 8.

Amen.

Every crime save counterfeiting, piracy and treason is the jurisdiction of the states.

Yep. I'm not even sure that espionage is something the federal government can prohibit.

So, no more federal war on drugs, among many, many other things. Are you really such a strict constructionist, or is it only when convenient?

Scrap them all today.

I have argued that the Libertarians should never talk about the war on drugs because people think they are all a bunch of druggies. Instad, they should talk about getting rid of all unconstitutional federal laws. The federal government does not have a generalized police power, so the WOD (and many others) would go away.

This may sound extreme, but I think the damage done to our nation by abandoning the Constitution would be more severe than could be done by any terrorist attack. Nukes included.

You wouldn't be saying that if the guy was going to vaporize your kids. You'd want the bomb found. You wouldn't want people to fool around with search warrants. You wouldn't care if the cops used some racial profiling. You'd just want the bomb found so your kids didn't get blown up.

I'm slowly coming around to the viewpoint that in that event I'm probably better off going to a private-sector group to effectively deal with the problem rather than a bunch of bureaucrats more interested in their department regulations [driven by both constitutional limitations and political decree] and their present paychecks and future retirement taken from my pocket in the form of taxes.

Aside from the liklihood that I'll be able to pick a more effective unit not more concerned with the correct racial statistics in their makeup and the right number of female supervisors demonstrating their lack of field experience, the private sector also offers a better venue for retribution againsty those so tasked should they fail in their mission- thereby improving the breed. And there's less concern about a Edward Lee Howard or Hannson spilling the beans to the other side for a few bucks.

This is a moot argument. If there were strong evidence as to the reality of a rogue nuke being planted, the duly elected authorities already have it in their power to declare a state of emergency or impose martial law until the threat is removed. The Constitution provides for the suppression of rebellion or invasion, for which a nuke would represent it's most extreme expression.

That's why I don't see why people are making such a big deal out of what the man said. It's not like he's advocating something horrible. He just says we'll do what's necessary to protect our cities from being vaporized.

I'm slowly coming around to the viewpoint that in that event I'm probably better off going to a private-sector group to effectively deal with the problem rather than a bunch of bureaucrats more interested in their department regulations [driven by both constitutional limitations and political decree] and their present paychecks and future retirement taken from my pocket in the form of taxes.

You're probably right.

What Warner missed was that the "danger" Jefferson was referring to was people like Warner

Read Jefferson's words. That's not what he said. He said sometimes it's sensible for government to break the law, and he gives examples(self-serving ones, at that).

If there were strong evidence as to the reality of a rogue nuke being planted, the duly elected authorities already have it in their power to declare a state of emergency or impose martial law until the threat is removed. The Constitution provides for the suppression of rebellion or invasion, for which a nuke would represent it's most extreme expression.

Where in the Constitution does it give the "elected authorities" the power to declare martial law or otherwise suspend any constitutional provisions? I must have missed that part. Could you give me the Article and Chapter?

Thank you.

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;..."

Article II, Section 2 states that: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states..."

Here then we have the basis for duly elected officials in the U.S. exercizing military force domestically against it's own citizenry, in violation of the citizen's right to bear arms and assemble freely, so it would seem.

Congress then gives the President a blank check via 10 USC Sec. 332 01/26/98:
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law

PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 15 - INSURRECTION

Sec. 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

Also, as you know the 3rd Amendment only prevents soldiers from quartering in your home during times of peace. Once public officials call forth the militia, they can stomp all over your living room - whatever it takes - to quell the rebellion. Just ask the nice Wives of the Confederacy who were unfortunate enough to be in Sherman's way.

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;..."

Here then we have the basis for duly elected officials in the U.S. exercizing military force domestically against it's own citizenry, in violation of the citizen's right to bear arms and assemble freely, so it would seem.

Hmmmmm, close, but not quite, in my mind, anyway. In the case of suppressing insurrections and repeling invasions, the force is used against only the people (criminals?) that are already breaking some constitutional laws. True, it may be acting against those citizen's rights to bear arms, assemble, etc., but that is the case against all criminals. It's quite different from suspending the constitution or delaring martial law against innocent citizens. I do not see anywhere in the Constitution any provision for suspending itself, for any reason.

Congress then gives the President a blank check via 10 USC Sec. 332 01/26/98:

A law passed by Congress without Constitutional authority is null and void. They just don't know it yet. Hasn't been sufficently tested.

Obviously two schools of thought here. Pragmatists vs. strict interpretation. Don't think we'll settle it right away. Free Republic would be pretty dull if we all agreed.

Unfortunately there is certainly precedent for this. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

Warner's right. Sometimes, you gotta do what you gotta do.

Warner's wrong. When you do what you gotta do, then you also suffer the consequences. No one said that those following the path of righteousness would go unpunished. Example: If some jackal harms my family, I will deal with them harshly, and outside of Constitutional authority. The police will come and deal with me appropriately. Of course, this is where, in a truly great nation, jury nullification comes to the rescue. ;^)

The government must conform to the Constitution in all cases. It is up to individuals (even those within government) to step up and act on their own in those rare cases when the nation might be lost because of that strict adherence... even under the risk of punishment or loss. That's why we call 'em heroes.

Dang, I didn't read as far as #43 when I posted. You beat me! =^)

It is about time that American citizens recognize the fact that our rulers do consider the Constitution a luxery for us, and that they can take away that luxery at their convenience.

The government must conform to the Constitution in all cases. It is up to individuals (even those within government) to step up and act on their own in those rare cases when the nation might be lost because of that strict adherence... even under the risk of punishment or loss. That's why we call 'em heroes.

Bingo!

Bruce Willis-Die Hard. Clint Eastwood-Dirty Harry. Fictinal heroes.

The brave men on the plane that went down in Pennsylvania--True Heroes. I think they broke a few laws, and may God bless them for it. A nation is grateful.

The government must conform to the Constitution in all cases.

You know it's easy to sit here safe in our houses and argue this. But I'd be willing to bet that if the bomb was in your city, you'd want them to find that bomb. You wouldn't want them to fill out paperwork. You wouldn't care if they used racial profiling, you'd want them to find the bomb.

Do you really think that if millions were killed by a nuke, their last thought would be, "Well at least the government didn't violate those terrorist's Constitutional rights"?

Of course not. Sometimes, you have to get beyond form and go with the spirit of the Constitution. The government's job is to protect citizen's constitutional rights. You don't protect the citizen's contitutional rights by letting some maniac murder them. Dead people don't have rights. If that means bending a few (judge invented) rules in extreme cases, that's what the government should do.

Excellent reminder. I keep forgetting about that great story, FReeper Barbara Olsen, and the history of "Let's Roll".

You know it's easy to sit here safe in our houses and argue this. But I'd be willing to bet that if the bomb was in your city, you'd want them to find that bomb. You wouldn't want them to fill out paperwork. You wouldn't care if they used racial profiling, you'd want them to find the bomb.

No, I would want them to fill out the paperwork and adhere to the Constitution... otherwise, all they have to do is declare an emergency, concoct some Kristallnacht story about a mad bomber, and suddenly your house and mine are getting torn asunder, our guns, assets, and freedom get confiscated, and the Democrat's Socialist pogrom will be complete and justified by those who agreed that the Constitution is was a luxury.

Freedom isn't easy, and it most assuredly isn't a guarantee of perfect safety... but it's still worth it.

(And of course, even IF we agreed with the suspension of Constitutional guarantees under those circumstances, AND we had a government that wouldn't abuse it, we STILL would have no more of a guarantee that the mad bombers would be stopped at all!)

It's in my copy of the Constitution under powers of Congress, Article I, Section 8. Specifically it says,

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;

Oh, I forgot!! You're reading the abridged version with Militia Acts allowing for throwing out the Constitution at a whim. Don't worry Huck, there are some of us that still remember the intent of the Founders and the freedoms they promised