Federal Court Has Finally Erased the Constitution

Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 11 months ago to Government
25 comments | Share | Flag

With the help of Psychiatry, Government has found a legal way to bypass the Constitution's guarantee of liberty without proof or cause.

"Under new statutes passed by the federal government these emergencies and dangers could potentially include any number of scenarios. Senator Rand Paul recently highlighted that there are laws on the books that categorize a number of different activities as having the potential for terrorism, including things like purchasing bulk ammunition. Last month, when a group of concerned citizens assembled at Bundy Ranch in Nevada to protest government overreach, Senator Harry Reid dubbed them “domestic terrorists.” Even paying with cash or complaining about chemicals in water can land an American on the terror watch list. Non-conformists who do not subscribe to the status quo can now be considered mentally insane according to psychiatrists’ Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders.

Law enforcement has an almost unlimited amount of circumstances they can cite to justify threats to one’s self or others, and thus, to ignore Constitutional requirements when serving at the behest of the local, state or federal government."


All Comments

  • Posted by RevJay4 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Most....". The guy in Aurora, CO didn't really think he would get away with it and live. Suicide by cop, or some armed individual(s), is still suicide.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    my point, exactly...
    I forwarded the link to this thread to some friends and that started a bit of a conversation about whether the shrink was operating out of bounds in terms of patient privacy, or, as was my guess, today's society is so hell-bent on making sure that Everyone is Perfectly Protected Against Any and all Dangers, that this is just a barometer reading on the unintended consequences.

    Perfectly Safe and Protected seems to lead to Perfectly Controlled.... (cue allusions and references to Germany of about a hundred years ago or so...?)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by skidance 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I never saw her again, and subsequently she was incarcerated. Given her history of substance abuse and other circumstances, I wonder if she's still alive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 10 years, 11 months ago
    Worked with shrinks years ago. Most had the "God" complex and needed help themselves. No matter what the patient said to them, they had to try to fit a diagnosis to describe it. While I was monitoring groups, I found that straight talk and common sense seemed to help most of the patients through temporary crisis in their lives. The rest were just nuts of one degree or another.
    The shrink in this case didn't seem to know what to do, other than call the cops and make the patients life more complicated. Needs to be retrained in active listening.
    Most actual suicides do not announce their intentions, they just do it. The ones who announce their intentions, over and over again, seem to be seeking a rescuer and attention.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Absolutely. It is her business and no one else's. If she chooses to end her life and take no one with her, the law should not interfere. The "shrink" needs to stay out of it, especially if he/she cannot tell the difference between a real threat and tongue in cheek statement.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You did the right thing, plus. Otherwise, you might still be experiencing the attention you didn't really need for being human.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago
    Back in the mid '70s, my ex and I decided to take advantage of a 'free health screening' being done by a nearby hospital.

    The physical tests were fine, but when we saw the psychological test questions, we tore them up and exited the facility as quickly as possible.

    It was patently clear that just about anyone who'd been in any kind of personal therapy (psychotherapy) program and been marginally successful in it, would answer Yes to questions like "do you ever feel sad?"

    As innocent as those questions appear on their face, the hazards associated with doctors and psychiatrists or psychologists interpreting those answers just scared us right out of there.

    A person without 'self-awareness' might answer honestly and benefit from help and attention, but someone already with 'their foot firmly on that path' would see nothing but risk.

    And this kind of crap is exactly what we were concerned about.

    1984 +30... a coincidence? :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ski, that leaves out one key piece of information...
    "And then what happened...?"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago
    Since I live just north of Milwaukee, this has been a topic on the Mark Belling show on radio (Mark sometimes fills in for Rush, so you might have heard of him). There is a bit more to the story than just that the court approved a warrantless search/confiscation of weapons. Evidently this woman had just gone to her psychiatrists office and expressed suicidal feelings. The psychiatrist otherwise knew that she had firearms. This psychiatrist called the police after she left his office and said that he feared for her safety and that she had weapons.

    Here's where I think the court got things wrong - the police then went to the apartment of this woman and when she let them in, they confiscated her weapons stating that the comments by the psychiatrist created exigent circumstances of her potential suicide. This even though she had called the psychiatrist after she arrived home (and before the cops arrived) to reassure the dr. that she wasn't going to commit suicide.
    This is a situation where there seems to be a fine line. The cops only had the word of the psychiatrist as to the state of mind of this woman, and he said that she was suicidal. Did they have time to obtain a search warrant from a judge or was suicide imminent to a degree where the time to obtain such search warrant would be negligent? Hard to tell.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 11 months ago
    Such a clear constitutional violation! We are sliding down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism and picking up speed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson)

    "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16: 45.

    I would say that the events at the Bundy Ranch, regardless of the Bundy's disrespect of the BLM, is strongly supported with the intent of the founders of this nation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wow, you really need to read more about that whole situation. It was the BLM that was the instigator there. They even tasered one of Bundy's sons who was trying to check on his own cattle! And since when is the BLM owner of its own mini-militia with SWAT team, snipers, etc.? Why did they not simply call the local Sheriff, who actually HAS JURISDICTION?

    As for Bundy being a moocher - his family had been grazing that land for 100 years and improving it at their own cost. He only stopped paying when the BLM arbitrarily decided to change the terms of the lease agreement and refused to give him grandfathered rights because they were under orders from Harry Reid to protect some "endangered" animal!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by Boothby171 10 years, 11 months ago
    "Last month, when a group of concerned citizens assembled at Bundy Ranch in Nevada to protest government overreach, Senator Harry Reid dubbed them “domestic terrorists.” Even paying with cash or complaining about chemicals in water can land an American on the terror watch list."

    Because taking up arms to defend a moocher, and threatening government forces with weapons is just like complaining about fracking, or buying with cash.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It makes me question the actual professionalism and ability of the psychologist, who should be able to discern between tongue-in-cheek sarcasm and sincere depression.

    IMO, this guy should have his license suspended.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, but does any of that lead to a convincing argument to eliminate the protections of the 4th and 6th Amendments as well as just plain common sense.?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by skidance 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Here's my take on this situation:

    The ITarasoffI decision mandates a therapist to report potential suicidal or homicidal behavior, if the victim can be identified, if a time frame can be estimated, and if the means to commit the deed are available.

    The psychiatrist may have had reason to disbelieve the woman's statement that she was no longer suicidal. Or perhaps he consulted with a supervisor or his attorney before calling the police.

    I once had a suicidal friend. She agreed to have me drive her to the hospital, where she created a major scene that required 5 people to hold her down on a gurney. She swore and cussed like a sailor, called me a B.... (for saving her life). The next morning, she convinced hospital staff that she was no longer suicidal, and she had to be released.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 11 months ago
    It is her life and if she choses to end it, it is only her business. no guns there are knives etc. the psychiatrist needs one himself. as I have said before you must be concerned about those who administer the law.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A doctor found himself, his wife, and his 3 week old baby (with an arrest warrant written on the spot, out of "humanity") sent to a re-education camp because the doctor owned a French-Vietnamese dictionary. The officer arresting him had to have explained to him what the book was. Then he arrested them.

    I always found that the most chilling example of collectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ISank 10 years, 11 months ago
    A unanimous decision rejecting the 4th based on some kind of "qualified immunity"? That is nutz! It's the slow and deliberate exchange of social power to the hands of state power.
    Come on scotus I sure hope this is not the final say.
    Shutter field v. City of Milwaukee I'll be sure to remember that gem. Thanks for posting!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago
    In
    Every
    Single
    Communist
    State

    People were put in mental hospitals for not conforming. Rejecting communism was considered de-facto proof of insanity.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo