Posted on 04/12/2002 7:56:30 AM PDT by chuknospam
What Warner missed was that the "danger" Jefferson was referring to was people like Warner, and would be dealt with via the 2nd Amendment.
Not by Government, but by the People!
Yes he is, though perhaps not intentionally.
Once the Constitution is suspended, it's gone.
The American way of life isn't being being bound hand and foot by formalities either. Especially stupid ones.
And yes. I said it. Stupid formalities. Stupid, court-imposed, formalities that were never part of the Constitution anyway.
Do you think the "Constitutional" guarantee against profiling is really in the Constitution? If it is, it was hiding really well. Because they only managed to find it a couple of years ago.
Think of how devious those old boys in Philadelphia were to have hidden that "Constitutional right" so well that no one could find it for over two hundred years.
Most of our present 4th Amendment law is the same sort of thing. Junk that judges invented over the last 50 years. Stuff that was never part of the original understanding of the Constitution. Hell, the 4th Amendment doesn't even apply to the states and it wasn't until a trumped up case (Wolf v. Colorado) in 1949 that the Courts decided that the "exclusionary rule" applied to states.
Jesus warned against letting form rule over substance. If the ox is in the ditch, you get it out. If the bomb is in your city, you find it.
Actually, they did.
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."Live and learn Warner.
Justice Davis, Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 18 L.Ed 281 (1866)
Or before them.
Too late, the government already did that with the CFR law.
Not so fast. If he is of the same party as 90% of the people here, they will have to twist into pretzels to defend him. They don't want to know his party.
Once the Constitution is suspended, it's gone.
Ok. Then the Constitution no longer exists. Hasn't existed since Abe Lincoln. He suspended habeas corpus. The argument is moot.
Here's the question. A terroist with a nuke is in a house next to yours. Let's say you have three kids, all at home. You're a cop. If you rush right in, you can defuse the nuke and nobody dies. If you go downtown, wake up the magistrate, fill out the paperwork, and get a warrant -- which you can't get anyway because you used "racial profiling" to figure out who the terrorist was -- the nuke goes off and two million Americans are killed. Including your kids.
What do you do?
Do you love the Constitution so much that you're willing to sacrifice the lives of 2 million Americans (including your kids) in order to fill out some paperwork? Do you really think that's what the Constitution means?
No they didn't. That's the point. The exclusionary rule is an invention of the judges. It wasn't inventied until the early 1900's. It wasn't applied to the states until 1949.
Many believe that it should be abolished. That includes the current Chief Justice.
When you think of it, they're right. Who does the exclusionary rule punish? The cops? No. It punishes the ordinary, law-abiding citizen because it turns criminals back on the street to commit more crimes.
What you call a stupid formality, many call an unalienable right.
Take that right away, and ask me to fight for my country. I won't.
Do you think the "Constitutional" guarantee against profiling is really in the Constitution?
Yes, I do. Here's how:
Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
No probable cause, no warrant, no search.
A profile is not probable cause. Not by any stretch of logic. You can't adhere to the 4th Amendment while searching at will, anyone who 'fits the description' (which is exactly what profiling is). You must have probable cause to link an individual to a crime. Then you have to take this probable cause before a judge to get a warrant.
Probable cause is not how someone looks. It isn't their ethnicity, it isn't their age. It is actions that are indicative of a crime. Do you think the 4th Amendment allows a search of everyones house under 30 years of age for drugs, because those are the individuals most likely to have them?
No nation that can rightfully call itself free can go without such protections. And a nation that tries to will not have my help or loyalty. I wouldn't lift a finger to protect a government that would do such a thing. In fact, if any effort is to be expended at all, it would be to remove those people from office, and restore the Constitution.
Do you love the Constitution so much that you're willing to sacrifice the lives of 2 million Americans (including your kids) in order to fill out some paperwork? Do you really think that's what the Constitution means?
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.
how pro-constitution of you!
in case of 9/11, this wouldn't have helped.
Where do you even get a warrant requirement to search? I can assure you that when it was adopted, no such requirement was thought to be present.
At the time -- and for years afterward -- no warrant was thought to be necessary for a search. But, I hear you ask, what about the bit about "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched..."?
At the time, an officer could be sued for false arrest or for a unreasonable search or seizure. A warrant was merely an insurance policy. If the officer had a warrant, he couldn't be sued. If he searched without a warrant, he risked being sued. Of course, if he found evidence of a crime, the search wasn't considered "unreasonable". How could it be?
At some point, the law evolved to give federal officers immunity from such suits. That's when the courts started invention things like the exclusionary rule and rules against "profiling".
Personally, I think the country would be better served with the original method.
By the way, you should also note that the 4th Amendment cannot be legitimately applied to the states.
I agree with that sentiment. I don't think Osama Bin Laden should be affored the same Constitutional protections as American Citizens. Afterall, Osama Bin Laden is NOT a United States Citizen. He is a cold blooded murderer that attacked and killed thousands of innocent men, women and children of various different nationalities. Osama Bin Laden should be dealt with as such! That is why Military Tribunals are the only way to guarantee that Bin Laden is punished. The Civilian, and World Courts won't adequately punish him.
The point is, if you've got limited resources, use them where it will do the most good. If you suspect Moslem terrorists of having a nuke, you don't waste time searching a Baptist Sunday School picnic.
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.