Free Republic

Source please?

we are not being Russia here.

Armed agents of the state are detaining people absent probable cause during their travels to check their papers and question them about where they have been and destination.

That's Russia. And China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Iraq. The who's who of oppressive states all behave as such. I guess we're special, so when we do it, it's ok.

...in Russia.

In America that practice was ended with the 4th Amendment which was a direct response to the British "General Warrant".

Roadblocks in the US were resurrected in 1992 with a SCOTUS ruling that admitted roadblocks did indeed violate the 4th Amendment, but ruled that taking drunks off the road was a compelling state interest that overruled 4th Amendment protection.

Pure, unmitigated court activism. SCOTUS has no authority to override the Constitution. Rehnquist wrote the decision, showing that "conservatives" just LOVE judicial activism when it suits their purposes. Hypocrites.

Your historical revisionism won't fly here.

We're Americans. We travel whenever we damned well feel like it, without being detained, without explanation and without showing papers. It's our birthright.

If you don't like it, move. There is no shortage of third world pissholes and communist hellholes that violate those rights.

Babushkas. But in these days of outsourcing, cost cutting and hi-tech, we Americans will just have to settle for cameras.

No other sentiment expressed on this site angers me more than people who think its OK to be subject to constant, random search because they "have nothing to hide."

He's mocking them as holding communist values, and rightly so.

It's sometimes hard to discern the sarcasm, I've made the same mistake.

Maybe they're being detained without probable cause at roadblocks?

They're all from google. I won't post any more. I've made my point and I don't want to hog bandwidth/slow page loading.

Ahem....

"One of the first questions asked of Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearing, came from Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Richard Lugar. He asked her if the administration would support ratification of the Law of the Seas Treaty. Her answer was an unequivocal "yes." LOST Treaty

Because if we ran the show, this guy wouldn't get whipped, nosiree.

We're far more civilized (and free!) so we'd merely throw him in jail for CFR/hate crime violations.

Harry Browne was quoted as saying his first question to potential SCOTUS nominees would be "Can you read?".

The funny thing is anyone who claims to be a constitutional originalist cannot be confirmed.

Imagine a nominee telling the Senate that they'd roll back the interstate commerce clause to pre-New Deal extents. Imagine how bad they'd be shot down after telling the Senate that they'd have absolutely no powers outside those specifically enumerated in Artice I, Section 8, that 95% of what they do is unconstitutional and they were going to put a stop to it.

I find it amusing when the SCOTUS quotes itself to justify its unconstitutional rulings.

Agreed. Stare Decisis is a poor substitute for the Constitution. If SCOTUS was in charge of science instead of law, the sun would still revolve around the Earth.

Agreed.

they will always leave after I tell them I'm not interested and shut the door on their faces

I agree that the vast majority behave that way. One time one of them put his hand on my shoulder (as I walked by him on my way out) after being told twice that we weren't interested. I stopped speaking, looked at his hand then looked at him and he took it off. I wasn't amused.

Is a delivery man 'trespassing' by knocking on your door to tell you about a package for you?

No, because I invited him onto the property (though indirectly) by ordering a package through his delivery service. If I hadn't ordered anything, yes he is most certainly trespassing.

[What a cry baby!]

I agree. Spineless doesn't begin to describe her.

Do you think that a 'no soliciting/no trespassing' sign will prevent a religious pamphleteer from leaving a flyer on your fence or door?

It has so far.

The US Supreme Court struck down the ordinance in Stratton. Jehovah's Witnesses said they are protected by the First Amendment, and they don't need to get permission from anyone to knock on doors

Nothing SCOTUS does surprises me. Their constitutionally ignorant decisions have made them a joke, albeit not a funny one.

The hand distribution of religious tracts is an age-old form of missionary evangelism-as old as the history of printing presses. It has been a potent force in various religious movements down through the years. [, , ,]

No trespassing signs are pretty old too, but both those facts are utterly irrelevent. It doesn't matter why someone trespasses, and evangelists are no more or less prohibited than anyone else: They are either invited on the property or they are not. The decision you cite is typical of the activism of the court.

This form of religious activity occupies the same high estate under the First Amendment as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits. It has the same claim to protection as the more orthodox and conventional exercises of religion.

"High estate" under the First Amendment????!!!!!!! Apparently SCOTUS thinks some people are more equal than others! Government has no business WHATSOEVER deciding what speech is preferable, that's the entire purpose of the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment! The irony, the arrogance, UGH!

It has the same claim to protection as the more orthodox and conventional exercises of religion.

WHAT?!!!!!!!! The whole point of the establisment cluase of the 1st Amendment is government doesn't get to decide those things! (Please note, my anger is directed against SCOTUS, not you. I appreciate your research.)

Once again SCOTUS makes an absurd mockery of the document it was created to uphold. Then again, if they didn't do that they probably wouldn't know what to do with themselves. After decades of decisions like that, they have undermined their legitimcy and earned contempt. The only reason one need now take them seriously is because they can back up their rulings with guns.

Regardless, anyone thinking SCOTUS gives them the right to trespass on my property because some judge thinks they're special is in for a rude surprise.

The ones around here have.

They claim that they are not soliciting

They are. But the sign also says "no trespassing", which makes it a lot harder for them to claim some sort of loophole.

they're just practicing their First-Amendment right to worship and proselytize.

Their First Amendment rights are not applicible within my yard.

how do you enforce your sign?

By being someone they will learn not to ignore, the hard way if they prefer. The details largely depend on their behavior. If they're respectful and polite and claim to have not seen the sign, I point it out to them and politely but firmly inform them that they are trespassing and request for them to leave.

If they want to be less than polite and respectful or refuse to leave when I tell them, I become less than polite and respectful.

Have you done any research on whether religious groups have ever been held accountable for ignoring "no solicitation" signs?

No, but I know the Mormons (which are the most common solicitors in my area) are instructed by their church to respect them and so far they have.

Since religious fanatics say that their right to knock on your door comes from God/Scriptures, they are not likely to be deterred by a homeowner getting a little upset.

Well then they're going to learn that I don't really care what their God says. If they refuse to leave when I tell them to, they are going to have to deal with more than my being upset. I'll physically remove them myself if need be. If they resist they're just giving me a free chance to practice my aikido.

And in the court cases I've read, the courts usually side with the religious canvassers.

They'll learn its not a local court they have to fear.

I used to answer the door partially clothed, holding a handle of whiskey, and a cat in the other hand, etc.. I'd wipe my mouth and pretend to be interupted having sex. The more outlandish the funnier it was. What a hoot! The looks I'd get would have me laughing so hard my ribs would hurt and I'd get the hiccups. Kind of like reverse trick or treating.

Lately I guess I've mellowed out a bit. The folks that came to my house lately were respectful and polite, so I've just thanked them and sent them on their way. They seem to mean well, and want to help me in their own way.

So far they've respected the no trespassing sign.

I think if it's not posted as such and they don't have to go through a gate it's not legally trespassing.

But once the no trespassing sign goes up and they ignore it, I say turn the garden hose on 'em.