United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Police Celebrate 4th Of July With Nationwide No Refusal Checkpoints and Forced Blood Draws
Source:
Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/po ... ationwide-refusal-checkpoints/
Published: Jul 4, 2015
Author: John Vibes
Post Date: 2015-07-04 10:46:33 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 68971
Comments: 141
Happy 4th of July, the day where Americans celebrate imaginary freedom, and police departments nationwide make millions of dollars violating the rights of nonviolent individuals. Under the pretense of catching drunk drivers, police will be patrolling the streets and setting up checkpoints all over the country this weekend. In some cases they will arrest drunk drivers, in others they will search and arrest nonviolent drug offenders, while other people may get citations for problems with their vehicle or registration. Especially for people who haven’t even done anything wrong, these checkpoints are a gross violation of privacy and other natural born rights. Free people should not be stopped and searched or questioned in any way if they are attempting to travel freely. However, we sadly now live in a world where rights like traveling are seen as privileges, to be given and taken by government. As it stands right now, the way that the state deals with drunk driving is tyrannical and infringes upon everyone’s rights, even people like myself, who hardly ever drink. Economist Jeffrey Tucker wrote an article on this subject and discussed the problems with the status quo while offering some solutions as well. Laws against drunk driving have vastly expanded police power and done nothing to stop the practice. The best prevention against unsafe driving from drinking has been provided privately: friends, services offered by bars and restaurants, community interest groups, etc. This is the humane and rational way societies deal with social risks. The police have only messed up this process by adding a coercive element that targets liberty rather than crime. And we can see where this is heading. Texting is now illegal in most places. So is talking on the phone. Maybe talking itself should be illegal. Some communities are talking about banning eating. All of this is a distraction from the real issue. If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn’t matter if it’s caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage. Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway. Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn’t about making the roads safer. It’s about a lingering hostility toward demon rum. There is no doubt that drunk driving should be discouraged and that solutions to prevent people from driving drunk should be explored. However, it is entirely possible to do this without violating anyone’s rights in the process. Meanwhile, in police state USA, it is business as usual. John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work he organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at bookpatch.com.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-26) not displayed.
.
.
.
#27. To: GrandIsland (#25)
Are we talking fish here, or those who lord over us in our bureaucratic chambers and dungeons? Never mind ;-)
It is as you say….more YELLA propaganda! Meanwhile, in the USA, there is no news in any media source that confirms a “4th Of July Nationwide No Refusal Checkpoints and Forced Blood Draws.” Only thing in the news are the routine checkpoints conducted each 4th of July. The locations and times of those are published in the local media….always have been. But wait, Deckard….you say we are supposed to believe a concocted story by this guy:
How terrible... a police state where the police tell you IN ADVANCE where they will have a check point. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
That can't be squared with this The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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 Maybe you honestly think that is the right thing to do. But you can' honestly say it squares with the requirements laid out in the constitution. To Rand Pauls credit I believe he would disagree with you.
To Rand Pauls credit I believe he would disagree with you. I don't believe stopping for 3 seconds on a public funded roadway and then driving though is unreasonable. They are only stopped longer and more intrusive if there is PC they are committing a crime. I won't agree with everything Rand stands for. I won't agree on everything any candidate stands for unless I run. I pick the lessor of how many evils that run. That's what we've done since the 2nd election. We pick the best of the lot... not the perfect. Problem is, sheeple don't pick best anymore. They choose because the color of their skin, if they have tits and special interests reasons. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Routine crime is no more legal than spontaneous crime. "Checkpoints" are a 4th amendment violation. Crimes by government officials are no less of a crime either. You've achieved independence from the rule of law. Enjoy your 4th of July crime spree!
PROVE THAT! You can't. Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can. The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.
Duh? A crime committed by anyone is a crime, I agree.
Stone already proved it by quoting the 4th in post #30. Wake UP!
The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. I would really like to know where in the constitution the Supreme Court gets these powers. Could you quote it for me? Please? I'll marry a fag if you can find it for me in the constitution. Ok I won't marry a fag but you can't because it isn't there.
The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure. http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/searches/Edmond.htm “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Could you quote it for me? Please? How do you suggest we deal with grey areas? Surely, a few second stop, on a public roadway, funded and maintained by the populace, isn't unreasonable... if it makes the populace safer? Who should decide what's "unreasonable"? You? Me? Deckard? I don't agree with all of the USSC's decisions... but like presidential candidates, nothing is perfect. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You can have an opinion….but your opinion is just that, your opinion. It is the Supreme Court’s ruling that is final on the matter. Excerpts From Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Sobriety Checkpoints ….is here Additional Information: Sobriety checkpoints or roadblocks involve law enforcement officials stopping every vehicle (or more typically, every nth vehicle) on a public roadway and investigating the possibility that the driver might be too impaired to drive. They are often set up late at night or in the very early morning hours and on weekends, at which time the proportion of impaired drivers tends to be the highest. Checkpoints are also often set near the exit points of public events, to prevent large numbers of drunk drivers from being released into traffic simultaneously from the event. With a portable and quick alcohol breath test, the police can test all drivers (if the law permits), and process the cars one by one as in a conveyor belt. When there is no quick test, a more complicated routine is necessary. Upon suspicion, the stopped driver is required to exit the vehicle and take a roadside sobriety test that requires the demonstration of both mental and balance skills. If the officer determines based on his observations during the tests, the driver is then required to take an alcohol breath test (referred to as a Breathalyzer test in the United States). It is important to note that you can not pass or fail a field sobriety test as they are not "pass-or-fail", they are only meant to aid the officer in determining if you are impaired based on observations of the subjects performance of these tests. Being subjected to perform this test is not prohibited by the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution if the law enforcement entity posts or announces in advance that these checkpoints will occur and at what location; law enforcement agencies often post a sign in a small road or street during the weekdays when it is only seen by local residents and not by those attending a special event or those that only travel in that area of the city during the weekend to patronize local bars and clubs. These announcements are also sometimes printed in news papers. Numerous websites host a database of check points that are to occur based on information found in news papers, the internet and tips from visitors of such sites. There are also some smartphone apps that include a function to report sobriety checkpoints, show them on a map and use the device's GPS to alert the driver when a sobriety checkpoint is nearby. Sobriety checkpoints regularly catch much more than just drunk drivers. [citation needed] The identity checks will catch individuals wanted by the police, and DUI often occurs together with other crimes, such as vehicle inspection and registration violations, vehicle tax avoidance or driving without a license.
I never said it was in the Constitution, I said: “Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can (decide if checkpoints are illegal).” Now, my turn. If SCOTUS doesn’t decide….then who does?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Indianapolis_v._Edmond President Adams famously said "Mr Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" regarding the Dept of Interior requiring Preachers to obtain a permit to evangelize on Indian reservations. None were ever busted for preaching to Indians without buying a permit, the SCOTUS decision was just ignored. The supremes gave themselves the power to determine constitutionality of legislation in Marbury v Madison. The SCOTUS was supposed to be for disputes between the States.
Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final. They've overruled themselves before, and presidents have also openly defied and refused to enforce their rulings. The supremes have zero enforcement powers for their edicts.
All a president needs is a pen and an Obama phone, eh? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The constitution and a dictionary. I know it would require honest people. So all liberals would be disqualified.
Your attribution is incorrect. The correct president was Andrew Jackson and the story is quite possibly apocryphal. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html
I had to look in the dictionary for that one.
So under your concept, a cop and a perp will argue it out at the DUI check point.
It's the local lawless thug cop who delivers tyranny to your door. Pens and phones are inanimate objects. They could never throw a flashbang into a babies crib, or shoot a 4 year old out of fear for "officer safety". Ogongo's goons on the local PD perform those type of functions.
Tell that to the folks under Obamacare. Tell that to the folks who oppose gay marriage. You live in a make believe world....wake up. You are now quibbling....stop it.
Wait just a minute! You first said SCOTUS has no power to determine constitutionality. Now you say they have the power because they gave it to themselves. Which is it? Do they, or do they not, have the power?
both Georgia and Jackson simply ignored the decision. Ooops, brain fart. That's the important part. SCOTUS rulings are not necessarily "the law". The three branches of government are not supposed to rubber stamp each others actions. Unfortunately there is almost no disagreement between the branches these days. A sure sign of a corrupted system. It's a good 'ol boys 'n girls club, where everyone looks the other way as America dies. It pays well though.
This seems to be an argument about terminology. Court opinions are considered final when there is no further possibility of judicial proceedings upon the case in the issuing court unless it is reversed or set aside by a higher court. SCOTUS opinions cannot be appealed to a higher court. They are considered final. The holding can always be overturned by a ruling in a subsequent case or by a change in the law it relied upon. That does not change the final opinion in a prior case, but changes the court's interpretation of a legal point, and sets a new precedent. The 13th Amendment did not change the final opinion in Dred Scott but changed the law, invalidating Scott as binding precedent based upon a law that no longer exists. The SCOTUS opinion is final, but the legal issue may be revisited and a new opinion may set a new precedent. The opinion is final but the holding may be challenged in subsequent cases.
SCOTUS holdings are considered the law. SCOTUS does not enforce the law where others choose to ignore or violate the law. A lawless executive does not make a SCOTUS holding any less obligatory. It just makes the executive a law breaker.
Tell the rest of the story.
It's the polite way of saying somebody probably made it up and it has been repeated so many times it has assumed a life of its own, but is untraceable to the purported source, usually some historical figure.
Don't be a Deckard. You're the one that espouses that any group, faction or president can disregard any law, ruling or case law you don't like. So who's the "lawless thug"? If the USSC ruled against Obamacare, don't you think O'bunghole would have acted just like you do with drug laws? He would have said, "fuck that, I don't need to listen to the USSC... I'm the most important fucker I know". Would you have agreed with it, dummy? It doesn't really matter what you think, Hondo. Contrary to your self important liberal nature, you ain't the most important person you know. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Ah, but the judgments by the Supreme Court are virtually final. Their decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. And when they interpret a statute, then new legislative action can be taken. If you are suggesting that they need not be obeyed, then you are entirely wrong.
The legislature does not require any sort of court action to do their job, which is to legislate. You'd better check in with Acorn HQ for the latest talking points bulletin, this stuff you're coming up with is WEAK.
You had better learn to read.... When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is nullified and becomes unenforceable. Sometimes Congress quickly rewrites the law to bring it into compliance with the Constitution. Do you know of another way?
Direct Action. The federal cattle rustlers left, and the livestock was recovered. Jury nullification has been used extensively as well, particularly just prior to the amendment repealing prohibition. If you can't get a conviction on a so called "law" then it in effect doesn't exist, even though it's on the books. Mass civil disobedience works. Like Ghandi, but USA style... armed to the teeth.
That is only precisely accurate when SCOTUS rules on a constitutional issue. If it is ruling on a statute, its opinion may be overturned by a change in statute law. It may seem picky, but its worth keeping in mind.
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
I disagree. But I'd rather go this route. Don't they also have the option to limit the jurisdiction of the so called supreme court.
But I'd rather go this route. Don't they also have the option to limit the jurisdiction of the so called supreme court. The Legislature has attempted to pass laws contrary to Roe. SCOTUS plays whack-a-mole striking them down. The appellate jurisdiction case is Ex Parte McCardle. The case was fully argued and taken under advisement. Jurisdiction was withdrawn, preventing any opinion from being issued. http://supreme.justia.com/us/74/506/case.html Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 506 506 (1868) Ex parte McCardle 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus 1. The appellate jurisdiction of this court is conferred by the Constitution, and not derived from acts of Congress, but is conferred "with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as Congress may make," and, therefore, acts of Congress affirming such jurisdiction have always been construed as excepting from it all cases not expressly described and provided for. 2. When, therefore, Congress enacts that this court shall have appellate jurisdiction over final decisions of the Circuit Courts in certain cases, the act operates as a negation or exception of such jurisdiction in other cases, and the repeal of the act necessarily negatives jurisdiction under it of these cases also. 3. The repeal of such an act, pending an appeal provided for by it, is not an exercise of judicial power by the legislature, no matter whether the repeal takes effect before or after argument of the appeal. 4. The act of 27th March, 1868, repealing that provision of the act of 5th of February, 1867, to amend the Judicial Act of 1789, which authorized appeals to this court from the decisions of the Circuit Courts in cases of habeas corpus, does not except from the appellate jurisdiction of this 74 U. S. 507 court any cases but appeals under the act of 1867. It does not affect the appellate jurisdiction which was previously exercised in cases of habeas corpus. The case was this: The Constitution of the United States ordains as follows: "§ 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." "§ 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States," &c. And in these last cases, the Constitution ordains that, "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make." With these constitutional provisions in existence, Congress, on the 5th February, 1867, by "An act to amend an act to establish the judicial courts of the United States, approved September 24, 1789," provided that the several courts of the United States, and the several justices and judges of such courts, within their respective jurisdiction, in addition to the authority already conferred by law, should have power to grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the Constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States. And that, from the final decision of any judge, justice, or court inferior to the Circuit Court, appeal might be taken to the Circuit Court of the United States for the district in which the cause was heard, and from the judgment of the said Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States. This statute being in force, one McCardle, alleging unlawful restraint by military force, preferred a petition in the court below, for the writ of habeas corpus. 74 U. S. 508 The writ was issued, and a return was made by the military commander admitting the restraint, but denying that it was unlawful. It appeared that the petitioner was not in the military service of the United States, but was held in custody by military authority for trial before a military commission upon charges founded upon the publication of articles alleged to be incendiary and libelous, in a newspaper of which he was editor. The custody was alleged to be under the authority of certain acts of Congress. Upon the hearing, the petitioner was remanded to the military custody, but, upon his prayer, an appeal was allowed him to this court, and upon filing the usual appeal bond, for costs, he was admitted to bail upon recognizance, with sureties conditioned for his future appearance in the Circuit Court, to abide by and perform the final judgment of this court. The appeal was taken under the above-mentioned act of February 5, 1867. A motion to dismiss this appeal was made at the last term, and, after argument, was denied. [1] Subsequently, on the 2d, 3d, 4th, and 9th March, the case was argued very thoroughly and ably upon the merits, and was taken under advisement. While it was thus held, and before conference in regard to the decision proper to be made, an act was passed by Congress, [2] returned with objections by the President, and, on the 27th March, repassed by the constitutional majority, the second section of which was as follows: "And be it further enacted, That so much of the act approved February 5, 1867, entitled 'An act to amend an act to establish the judicial courts of the United States, approved September 24, 1789,' as authorized an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, or the exercise of any such jurisdiction by said Supreme Court, on appeals which have been, or may hereafter be taken, be, and the same is hereby repealed. " 74 U. S. 509 The attention of the court was directed to this statute at the last term, but counsel having expressed a desire to be heard in argument upon its effect, and the Chief Justice being detained from his place here by his duties in the Court of Impeachment, the cause was continued under advisement. Argument was now heard upon the effect of the repealing act. 74 U. S. 512 THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. The first question necessarily is that of jurisdiction, for if the act of March, 1868, takes away the jurisdiction defined by the act of February, 1867, it is useless, if not improper, to enter into any discussion of other questions. It is quite true, as was argued by the counsel for the petitioner, that the appellate jurisdiction of this court is not derived from acts of Congress. It is, strictly speaking, conferred 74 U. S. 513 by the Constitution. But it is conferred "with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make." It is unnecessary to consider whether, if Congress had made no exceptions and no regulations, this court might not have exercised general appellate jurisdiction under rules prescribed by itself. For among the earliest acts of the first Congress, at its first session, was the act of September 24th, 1789, to establish the judicial courts of the United States. That act provided for the organization of this court, and prescribed regulations for the exercise of its jurisdiction. The source of that jurisdiction, and the limitations of it by the Constitution and by statute, have been on several occasions subjects of consideration here. In the case of Durousseau v. The United States [3] particularly, the whole matter was carefully examined, and the court held that, while "the appellate powers of this court are not given by the judicial act, but are given by the Constitution," they are, nevertheless, "limited and regulated by that act, and by such other acts as have been passed on the subject." The court said further that the judicial act was an exercise of the power given by the Constitution to Congress "of making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court." "They have described affirmatively," said the court, "its jurisdiction, and this affirmative description has been understood to imply a negation of the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it." The principle that the affirmation of appellate jurisdiction implies the negation of all such jurisdiction not affirmed having been thus established, it was an almost necessary consequence that acts of Congress, providing for the exercise of jurisdiction, should come to be spoken of as acts granting jurisdiction, and not as acts making exceptions to the constitutional grant of it. The exception to appellate jurisdiction in the case before us, however, is not an inference from the affirmation of other 74 U. S. 514 appellate jurisdiction. It is made in terms. The provision of the act of 1867 affirming the appellate jurisdiction of this court in cases of habeas corpus is expressly repealed. It is hardly possible to imagine a plainer instance of positive exception. We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution, and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words. What, then, is the effect of the repealing act upon the case before us? We cannot doubt as to this. Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and, when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause. And this is not less clear upon authority than upon principle. Several cases were cited by the counsel for the petitioner in support of the position that jurisdiction of this case is not affected by the repealing act. But none of them, in our judgment, affords any support to it. They are all cases of the exercise of judicial power by the legislature, or of legislative interference with courts in the exercising of continuing jurisdiction. [4] On the other hand, the general rule, supported by the best elementary writers, [5] is that, "when an act of the legislature is repealed, it must be considered, except as to transactions past and closed, as if it never existed." And the effect of repealing acts upon suits under acts repealed has been determined by the adjudications of this court. The subject was fully considered in Norris v. Crecker, [6] and more recently in Insurance Company v. Ritchie. [7] In both of these cases, it was held that no judgment could be rendered in a suit after the repeal of the act under which it was brought and prosecuted. 74 U. S. 515 It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal, and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer. Counsel seem to have supposed, if effect be given to the repealing act in question, that the whole appellate power of the court, in cases of habeas corpus, is denied. But this is an error. The act of 1868 does not except from that jurisdiction any cases but appeals from Circuit Courts under the act of 1867. It does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised. [8] The appeal of the petitioner in this case must be DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. [1] See Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wallace 318. [2] Act of March 27, 1868, 15 Stat. at Large 44. [3] 10 U. S. 6 Cranch 312; Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dallas 321. [4] Lanier v. Gallatas, 13 Louisiana Annual 175; De Chastellux v. Fairchild, 15 Pennsylvania State 18; The State v. Fleming, 7 Humphreys 152; Lewis v. Webb, 3 Greenleaf 326. [5] Dwarris on Statutes 538. [6] 54 U. S. 13 Howard 429. [7] 72 U. S. 5 Wallace 541. [8] Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wallace 324.
Do you know of another way? Direct Action. Cite the law SCOTUS declared unconstitutional here. We are discussing SCOTUS and constitutionality.
The legislature does not require any sort of court action to do their job, which is to legislate. When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, my statement: Is correct....right?
Comments (67 - 141) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe only good shark is a dead shark.
#28. To: GrandIsland, Deckard (#18)
More YELLA propaganda…
Meanwhile, in police state USA, it is business as usual.
Punk Rock Libertarians
No way Jose!!!
#29. To: Gatlin (#28)
Only thing in the news are the routine checkpoints conducted each 4th of July. The locations and times of those are published in the local media….always have been.
#30. To: GrandIsland (#29)
How terrible... a police state where the police tell you IN ADVANCE where they will have a check point. lol
#31. To: A K A Stone (#30)
(Edited)
Maybe you honestly think that is the right thing to do. But you can' honestly say it squares with the requirements laid out in the constitution.
#32. To: Gatlin, organized, routine scheduled crime, OK? (#28)
Only thing in the news are the routine checkpoints conducted each 4th of July.
#33. To: hondo68 (#32)
(Edited)
"Checkpoints" are a 4th amendment violation.
#34. To: hondo68 (#32)
Crimes by government officials are no less of a crime either.
#35. To: Gatlin, routine lawlessness, A K A Stone (#33)
PROVE THAT!
#36. To: Gatlin (#33)
(Edited)
Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can.
#37. To: Gatlin, hondo68, A K A Stone (#33)
Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#36)
would really like to know where in the constitution the Supreme Court gets these powers.
#39. To: hondo68 (#35)
PROVE THAT!
Quoting the Fourth Amendment does not prove: "Checkpoints are a 4th amendment violation."
Stone already proved it by quoting the 4th in post #30. Wake UP!
#40. To: A K A Stone (#36)
Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can.
The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.
I would really like to know where in the constitution the Supreme Court gets these powers. Could you quote it for me? Please?
I'll marry a fag if you can find it for me in the constitution.
Ok I won't marry a fag but you can't because it isn't there.
#41. To: CZ82, nolu chan (#37)
Holding
Police may not conduct roadblocks "whose primary purpose is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing." Such roadblocks must have a specific primary purpose, such as keeping roadways safe from impaired drivers, or enforcing border security.
#42. To: Gatlin (#39)
(Edited)
It is the Supreme Court’s ruling that is final on the matter.
#43. To: hondo68 (#42)
They've overruled themselves before, and presidents have also openly defied and refused to enforce their rulings.
#44. To: Gatlin (#40)
If SCOTUS doesn’t decide….then who does?
#45. To: hondo68, CZ82 (#41)
President Adams famously said "Mr Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it"
Marshall lived another nine years, during which time he won over Jefferson's political successor, the states' rights partisan Andrew Jackson. Marshall had initially opposed Jackson's election to the presidency, and in the Cherokee Indians case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), Marshall infuriated Jackson by insisting that Georgia laws that purported to seize Cherokee lands on which gold had been found violated federal treaties. Jackson is famous for having responded: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Although the comment is probably apocryphal, both Georgia and Jackson simply ignored the decision.
#46. To: nolu chan (#45)
apocryphal
#47. To: A K A Stone (#44)
If SCOTUS doesn’t decide….then who does?
The constitution and a dictionary.
I know it would require honest people. So all liberals would be disqualified.
Is that what you are saying?
I hope not, because we know who will always win that argument.
#48. To: GrandIsland (#43)
All a president needs is a pen and an Obama phone, eh?
The People of Athens Tennessee clean up their corrupt police department and government The "McMinn County War"
Many of the protesters broke in to the National Guard Armory and obtained arms. A gun battle lasting several hours ensued and finally the door to the jail was dynamited and breached. The deputies surrendered themselves and the ballot boxes.
#49. To: hondo68 (#42)
#50. To: hondo68 (#41)
he supremes gave themselves the power to determine constitutionality of legislation in Marbury v Madison.
#51. To: nolu chan (#45)
The correct president was Andrew Jackson
#52. To: hondo68, Gatlin (#42)
Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final.
#53. To: hondo68 (#51)
SCOTUS rulings are not necessarily "the law".
#54. To: hondo68 (#48)
Many of the protesters broke in to the National Guard Armory and obtained arms. A gun battle lasting several hours ensued and finally the door to the jail was dynamited and breached. The deputies surrendered themselves and the ballot boxes.
The new government encountered challenges including at least eleven resignations of county administrators. On January 4, 1947, four of the five leaders of the GI Non-Partisan League declared in an open letter: "We abolished one machine only to replace it with another and more powerful one in the making." The League failed to establish itself permanently and traditional political parties soon returned to power.
#55. To: A K A Stone (#46)
apocryphal
I had to look in the dictionary for that one.
#56. To: hondo68 (#48)
(Edited)
#57. To: hondo68 (#42)
Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final.
#58. To: Gatlin, needs Acorn update memo (#57)
And when they interpret a statute, then new legislative action can be taken.
#59. To: hondo68 (#58)
(Edited)
#60. To: Gatlin (#59)
Do you know of another way?
#61. To: Gatlin, hondo68 (#57)
Their decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court.
#62. To: hondo68, Gatlin (#58)
The legislature does not require any sort of court action to do their job, which is to legislate.
#63. To: nolu chan (#62)
When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#63)
I disagree.
U.S. Supreme Court
#65. To: hondo68 (#60)
(Edited)
When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is nullified and becomes unenforceable. Sometimes Congress quickly rewrites the law to bring it into compliance with the Constitution.
#66. To: nolu chan, hondo68 (#62)
When a law is declared unconstitutional, it is nullified and becomes unenforceable. Sometimes Congress quickly rewrites the law to bring it into compliance with the Constitution.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]