- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Do you think this is about illegals?
(and I love the part where the check point guy says, after the driver tells him he has no fruit, "I'm not going to take your word for it"...then why the hell even ask??? Just hold everybody at gun point and search their vehicles then. Gestapo!!
I should have used references to Hitler, Stalin and Mao but did not. I simply asked them if they had a warrant to search my vehicle which they said no, then I told them they could not search it then. They persisted and I said get a warrant then, and they may have tried and failed I do not know. They finally just let me go through.
Anything people get riled up about they are using to attempt to subdue us. that is what its all about, condition the Americans to be slaves and they will become slaves and get out of the way of the new world order.
Please note that the DHS plays by different rules. The Courts have limited where DHS roadblocks can be set up, but their searches do not need warrants and they can do a full search at will. They can temporarily confiscate electronic devices to examine their contents, as well, though that is under legal review.
In both cases, be polite and respectful. Don't have anything to hide and don't lie. You don't have to allow a search of your trunk without asking the officer to state their probable cause and you can respectfully decline to allow a search without a warrant for police, but not for DHS. Be knowledgeable of the gun laws of the state you are in, as some like DC are extremely strict (ie ridiculous) and can get you hit with a Federal firearms violation.
Inter armes, silent leges.
" they can initiate a forced search without a warrant because now they have "probably cause" or reasonable suspicion"
I missed this part of the Constitution, could you please point to it for me?
"No warrant shall ISSUE, except upon probable cause..."
That means they can't get a *warrant* without probable cause, NOT that they can search without a warrant if they have probable cause. And warrants are not issued by patrolmen, they are issued by judges.
But, as I said... "inter armes, silent leges".
Please note that I am not advocating for or against these policies, merely pointing out that the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment by courts has established these precedents and that we should be aware of them. In their interpretations, the Courts have generally weighed the needs to preserve individual rights "to be secure in their persons and possessions" against reasonable accommodations for law enforcement, but there is certainly much wiggle room afforded due to the ambiguousness of the word "reasonable".
And yes, I was one of those who after 9/11 cheered the passage of the Patriot Act - before I really understood what was in it. Now, I look at it as a law with severe flaws (as the Courts have thrown out several overreaching provisions) and still others with which I have severe reservations. I think that it - like a lot of complex laws - would be better if written to address one thing at a time. I strongly prefer specific, targeted laws to these ambiguous monstrosities (see ACA) for the simple expedient that I do not believe government is made up of less fallible or more logical people than the rest of us. ;)
(and the "voluntarily leave" clause is because of the government and "inter armes silent leges").
Not because simply by entering they're doing me harm, but because of the harm they might do, and possibly intend to do. Every illegal alien who enters the U.S. intends to do me harm.
You think that Galt and co wouldn't shoot invaders of Atlantis on sight?
(Dagny is a special case; she was known to be following Galt, she was a desired recruit, she had crashed and was injured, and Galt had been stalking her for years).
Oh, and what part of "I hate the sonsofbitches" did you miss in my earlier comment?
See the following pictograph for more:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/...
A judge does not have to issue a warrant for many kinds of searches conducted by police officers, including plain sight and consensual searches. A warrant for arrest also includes search provisions. You may also be searched without a warrant if caught in the commission of a crime. Even reasonable suspicion caused by things out in the open can subject you to a warrantless search of a limited degree because it then grants reasonable suspicion.
The Fifth Amendment provides a basic foundation for law, but I advise against relying on its literal words in place of legal precedent.
"A judge does not have to issue a warrant for many kinds of searches"
Again, point to this part of the Constitution?
And I do have a question about that pictograph... how can an American be required to show ID when we don't have IDs?
In the pictograph, the ID's they are referring to are government-issued photo ID's such as driver's license, passport, green card, etc. - basically the same documents you would have to show to board a commercial flight. If you don't have them, it just makes things more suspicious for you, as law enforcement has a legal and legitimate need to establish identity (thus the Burkha controversy). Remember, until you prove that you are a US citizen, you are NOT protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Heavens help an election official if he demands a proof of citizemship from an illegal imigrant.
It is OK for TSA to strip search an 80 year old woman or a 7 year old girl, but Heavens help if they require a cloth-wrapped figure with a vail over its face to uncover the face even without demanding nudity.
I wonder how long would things like aircraft engines, turbine-generators and nuclear reactors work if analogous contradictions (remember a lady by the name of Ayn Rand?) were built into them.
For a long time I thought of enginering as the "art of things that work" (I did not come up with the term, I learned it from someone else abot four decades ago). Makes me want to ask what kind of art is jurisprudence? Words like dissimulation, obfuscation, self-serving come first to my mind. And the damage to antire nation is much greater than from a plane crash, extended loss of power or mishandling of Three Mile Iland. Can someone of you enlighten me?
Another way to look at the issue is to tie rights to responsibilities. If they are granted rights, do they not only have the responsibilities as well? Would they not also be subject to the same penalties for criminal actions? The fact is that they are not. Because they are not US Citizens, we may not put them to death for murdering our citizens or engaging in espionage. If they appear in court, they are not legally represented by a court-appointed attorney, but by their consulate. We can't even do anything more than deport them. The problem is that because they are not citizens, there is no jurisdiction over them. No responsibilities also means no rights. Non-Citizens are guests in our Country, but this should not be confused with having the same legal rights.
My trial is my trial; it matters not what some other group of old men in black dresses decided about someone else's case 50 years ago.
A driver's license is a *license*, not an ID. This *used* to be common knowledge, and cause for much consternation amongst law enforcement.
I'm presumed a citizen if I claim to be one unless proven otherwise.
A common misperception is that legal appeals have to do with the facts of the case. This is not true. Appeals are almost always about procedure or the application of precedent. In very rare cases, the appeal may be on the basis of performance of either the attorney or the judge.
As for the rest, you are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter. I'm not going to disagree with you that certain aspects of our law have become corrupted and would benefit from a return to basic, Constitutional principles.
http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2014/01/...
Your first sentence is interesting and right on. You don't find the word reasonable in the 4th Amendment, but SCOTUS decided a few years ago that since the word unreasonable was in the 4th, that the founders must have also meant that reasonable searches were OK. When we allowed lawyers to be our Supreme Court judges, we opened ourselves up to this kind of nonsense.
http://www.tsa.gov/about-tsa/visible-int...
"VIPR operations promote confidence in and protect our nation’s transportation systems through targeted deployment of integrated TSA assets"
we're fuchin doomed
Scary, scary times.
yes.
I'lll see if I can trace some of them down.
It would be interesting to see how many "illegals" and "criminals" are caught at such checkpoints versus the cost of operating them and the number of hours taken away from those who are stopped.
Sobriety checkpoints around here are different as they tell you that you have to produce your papers and submit to a alcohol test.
See? Everybody skips the 9th and jumps right on the 10th... sigh
Whatever force a people allow to be used upon them is the exact amount of force a government will exert upon them. If you allow papers to be checked because they feel like doing so for some reason the next step to greater power will be taken down the road.
I would prefer we had stopped it at the idea of having a social security number to be tracked with, and allowing any kind of direct tax on the people to occur, but we allowed that and lost freedom.
At what point do you want to stop it? When they are attempting to take all kids into youth programs to indoctrinate them with how great equalization of results, rather than equalization of opportunities is? They are all ready doing that so do we wait until they make it law that all kids live in dormitories and not with there families from age 12 up?
It moves one step at a time to greater and greater control until you find yourself without any freedoms. Our founders understood this and pushed back at a stage far before where we are today.
Would you rather wait to push back until the only recourse we have is to pull out our guns and go to war? Maybe until we do not have even that method to attempt to preserve the freedoms we still have and reclaim some we have lost. Where do you draw the line?
I have been pulled over for speeding ticket and refused to provided any papers until they got a warrant. Its painful and you can only do it when you have no where you need to be, but its not constitutional for them to do anything without the warrant. They can not seize your drivers license or your vehicle registration without a warrant. Whenever you can make them do the work before you show it to them.
We must push back in every way we can or we will simply loose more and more freedom until we have non left.
Or maybe some of us just have nothing to lose:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVl8tJrSa...
As to Constitutional protection, it applies to any person in this country, not just citizens.
It only applies to people under the jurisdiction of the U.S. not simply WITHIN the jurisdiction.
But, since you feel that way, next time I have an accident, I'll put it on YOUR insurance. I'll sneak into your house first, so obviously the contract will apply to me.
will, I'm sensing you are a law and order man. I'm going to cut you some slack since you have little kids and rules are a big part of parenting. You should not have to state you are an american citizen when asked.
I don't worry too much about ID. When I get pulled over I hand the DL and permit out the window together without being asked to. I do this because both the cop and I are armed. There are things in this world worth dying or killing for, but a misunderstand is not one of them imo.
My line is drawn at the "where are you going" or "what are you doing" challenge. I remind them that I have been cooperating with them as far as presenting ID and permit, but that my business is my own. I work a rotation shift and travel at all times of the day and night, so I have had a few occasions to try this out. Seems to work pretty good.
The American people have sent a confusing message to Congress: We want absolute securrity and complete privacy. We will, of course, in reality get neither - but we are getting the laws that 'we' as a country have asked for...laws that are pretty damn confusing and incinsistent.
Jan