The legal basis that cops do not get to search on a whim has nothing to do with your reasoning. It is for one and only one reason. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution spells it out in black and white.dudejcb wrote:Cops do't get to search at will becasue searching at whim in violation of one's privacy would make us a police state. True, crime would fall. but once you're a police state what else might fall by the wayside.
It's not the law because you think it is a good law or a bad law. It's because it is the law as spelled out in the Constitution as amended. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant.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.
dudejcb wrote:what's your point?
yeah, I gave the thumnail reason, which is short and correct. The founders didn't want gov't to have unlimited power over individuals.SpinnerMan wrote:The legal basis that cops do not get to search on a whim has nothing to do with your reasoning. It is for one and only one reason. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution spells it out in black and white.dudejcb wrote:Cops do't get to search at will becasue searching at whim in violation of one's privacy would make us a police state. True, crime would fall. but once you're a police state what else might fall by the wayside.It's not the law because you think it is a good law or a bad law. It's because it is the law as spelled out in the Constitution as amended. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant..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.
SpinnerMan wrote:The 4th amendment does not guarantee rights that are of greater legal weight than any other part of the constitution. If you can disregard the 2nd Amendment when it serves the greater good, then under what legal premise can you not disregard the 4th amendment.
All Constitutional rights are of equal legal weight. Obama's argument and your argument say the 4th is a sacred right (because we like it) while the 2nd is just a guideline (because it's inconvenient). It is a completely self-centered view with no higher authority beyond one's one beliefs. That is a recipe for disaster.
I believe they are all absolute rights that can only be modified by the prescribed procedure. Why can't you say that? Why don't you believe that? You want to allow 5 people to define our rights. Obama wants to appoint those 5 people. I simply don't see how you cannot see the inherent instability in this vision of Constitutional Rights.
That is not the reason that cops cannot search. The law is the reason. You were trying to explain why the law came into existence, which doesn't change the law. If it were not ratified, it would not be the law. All argument for or against would be irrelevant.dudejcb wrote:yeah, I gave the thumnail reason, which is short and correct. The founders didn't want gov't to have unlimited power over individuals.
That is why local authorities cannot supercede it in the name of reducing violence, regardless of the merits of the effectiveness.dudejcb wrote:The 2nd is as valid as the 4th.
Not in the least. You do not have a right to privacy when you cross our border or when you ship things or send communication. Your rights do not extend beyond our borders. This is a long standing interpretation of the Constitution. How could you possibly protect the country if the enemy was free to cross the border, ship goods, or send communications across our border and be given the 4th Amendment protection afforded to U.S. citizens residing within the U.S. The Bush haters did not like Bush abiding by the same rules that had governed every preceding President, so they demanded the rules change in the name of nonexistant constitutional rights.dudejcb wrote:Can you say warrantless wiretapping, electronic surveillance? these are all problematic.
I don't support criminal activity, or do I support irrespnsible mysogneistic absentee fathers. I suppose if the housing were not built across form your parents house, the SOB criminals that live there now, would be living somewhere else and still be criminals. The womena her "boyfriend" who put baby's head through the wall are criminal too. I doubt that the healthcare system is knowingly giving them drugs. It's not the policies that cuase this... it's the people themselves, who choose to abuse the good intentions of the policies.SpinnerMan wrote:What has jaded me is the failure of the basic policies you support and the destruction they have wrought on the area I grew up in and everywhere else they have been embraced such as Obama's southside district. What was once a good place to raise children is devolving into a place where children are suffering. There have been actual gang arrests across the street from my parents previous home. Why? They built a bunch of low income housing to "help" people. These poor unfortunate people with no choices need their drugs and the baby daddies want to get some from the baby momma's. A women near the house I grew up with allowed her boyfriend to put her baby's head through the wall.:
Sadly, peoples lives get ruined regarldess, whether there's a "do-gooder" activity nearby or not. The do-gooder stuff is not the reason cerain people are shitheels. Your parents may have suffered because the do-gooder stuff happened near them, but who's to say it wouldn't have happened anyway, or to someone else with or without a "project" nearby? Some people suck. I've had sucky neighbors, sucky inlaws, sucky coworkers. some people suck, and some of those suck more thatn others. The program or plicy doesn't cause this, the suckers do.SpinnerMan wrote:I have no doubt most people think I take this stuff too seriously, but we are ruining people's lives with this feel-good do-gooder mentality.:
I do understand. there are negative consequences with any judicial ruling. it's only a question of who's ox is being gored. here again, I didn't say this particular issue wasn't serious.SpinnerMan wrote:I know you care, but you just don't understand all the negative consequence that result from what you propose and what Obama will sign into law as President. You do not comprehend the impact of Judges that interpret the Constitutional Amendments as a guideline and not a hard requirement. This things will harm far more people then they help. If that isn't something to take seriously, I don't know what is.
You interpret it as lying, and I interpret it differently. What was the lie? he supported the attempt to address inner city gun violence, and recognized the conflict of that effort with the 2nd amendment. So.... shall we do nothing, try nothing, not try another apporach when one attemt doesn't pan out? (as a scientist, you are familiar with trial and error experimentaion, right?)SpinnerMan wrote:You can't even admit Obama is lying when he has two contradictory statements on tape. I rip on McCain alot as most Republicans do of every politician. Obama says something that is impossible. Your gut reaction is to say he didn't say it. We show you that he said it. You dismiss it and change the subject and then believe everything else he says as the Gospel