[x]

See Where You Rank in Virginia

  1.  

    ALL I was saying (and have explained twice now) is that if police lied and said they smelled burning marijuana and they really didn't, then you have nothing to worry about as long as no other evidence can be found in plain view.

    If we have nothing to worry about then why aren't cops allowed to enter any home they want since we have nothing to worry about? Why have a 4th amendment if we have nothing to worry about?
     3
  2.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    So rich people will get justice eventually but poor people that can't afford top lawyers and expensive appeals will get screwed.

    yes.
     2
  3.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    Probable cause = listening through a closed front door of an apartment to determine that weed is being destroyed? Seriously?

    Ha. It's ok dyz, everything will be just fine.

     
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    If we have nothing to worry about then why aren't cops allowed to enter any home they want since we have nothing to worry about? Why have a 4th amendment if we have nothing to worry about?

    The 4th amendment isn't being violated. Police don't need warrants. There are proper restraints on police conduct as the caselaw is now.

     
    Originally Posted by warden View Post

    yes.

    Nothing new there lol
  4.  
    Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton View Post

    Why hasn't this commie bitch been arrested and executed yet? She spits in the face of freedom!

    in talking about Johnson v. United States, 1947:

     

    In Johnson, the Court confronted this scenario: standing outside a hotel room, the police smelled burning opium and heard “some shuffling or noise” coming from the room. 333 U. S., at 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). Could the police enter the room without a warrant? The Court answered no. Explaining why, the Court said:

    “The right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is . . . a grave concern, not only to the individual but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is,as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not a policeman . . . .
    . . . . . “If the officers in this case were excused from the constitutional duty of presenting their evidence to a magistrate, it is difficult to think of [any] case in which [a warrant] should be required.”
    Id., at 14–15.

    I agree, and would not allow an expedient knock to over-ride the warrant requirement.* Instead, I would accord that core requirement of the Fourth Amendment full respect. When possible, “a warrant must generally besecured,” the Court acknowledges. Ante, at 5. There is every reason to conclude that securing a warrant was entirely feasible in this case, and no reason to contract the Fourth Amendment’s dominion.

    sucks that we don't live in 1947 anymore.
  5. yeah budo ffs, your gonna make sucha shitty lawyer!!! lmaooo
  6.  

    The 4th amendment isn't being violated. Police don't need warrants. There are proper restraints on police conduct as the caselaw is now.

    Just because you say so does not make it true.
     3
  7.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    Just because you say so does not make it true.

    Lol you're right I'm making shit up. You got me dyz!
  8.  
    Originally Posted by budo09 View Post

    Lol you're right I'm making shit up. You got me dyz!

    No just trying to argue right and wrong with someone who confuses the idea with legal and illegal makes it difficult for you to understand. You think, because you are taught that way, that whatever precedent and the Supreme Court says, is the final arbiter on what is Constitutional when that isn't truly the case. Somehow you guys are able to make the leap of logic required when the Supreme Court reverses its position on something and forget that what they said was Constitutional as if what they said on the matter affected the actual truth of the question. In other words my argument is the truth is the truth, regardless of which way the political winds of the SCOTUS decides on a question.
     3
  9. So when are you getting appointed to the SCOTUS.
  10.  
    Originally Posted by budo09 View Post

    So when are you getting appointed to the SCOTUS.

    Are you implying that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter?
     3
  11.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    Are you implying that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter?

    given that their rulings have the force of law, i'm going to say 'yes.'

    this isn't about right/wrong. this is about legal/illegal. your "absolute truth" nonsense with regard to the constitution is ridiculous and it shows far too much of a dedication to the constitution than it deserves.

    again: the constitution will not save you.
     2
  12.  
    Originally Posted by warden View Post

    given that their rulings have the force of law, i'm going to say 'yes.'

    this isn't about right/wrong. this is about legal/illegal. your "absolute truth" nonsense with regard to the constitution is ridiculous and it shows far too much of a dedication to the constitution than it deserves.

    again: the constitution will not save you.

    I was only using the Constitution because that is the system within which the argument was taking place, not as vindication for the document itself as an effective bulwark against oppression. Kind of my point in that the SCOTUS is not in fact the final arbiter on any law. Nor is the Constitution even.

    And I disagree with your "force of law" point since a state or jury can nullify anything it wants. We've seen proof of this in both criminal cases as well as recently with states nullifying the Real ID Act, ObamaCare, Medical Marijuana, etc.
    Edited By: Dyzalot May 17th, 2011 at 10:34 PM
     3
  13.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    Just because you say so does not make it true.

  14.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    Are you implying that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter?


    Haha

     
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    I was only using the Constitution because that is the system within which the argument was taking place, not as vindication for the document itself as an effective bulwark against oppression. Kind of my point in that the SCOTUS is not in fact the final arbiter on any law. Nor is the Constitution even.

    And I disagree with your "force of law" point since a state or jury can nullify anything it wants. We've seen proof of this in both criminal cases as well as recently with states nullifying the Real ID Act, ObamaCare, Medical Marijuana, etc.

    Nevermin...hard to read on phone
    Edited By: budo09 May 17th, 2011 at 11:37 PM
  15. dyzalot killing this thread
  16.  
    Originally Posted by AMARTIN1181 View Post

    dyzalot killing this thread

    Lol Wut
  17. i've enjoyed his point of view on this subject, what is there to explain BUDO
  18.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    And I disagree with your "force of law" point since a state or jury can nullify anything it wants.

    this is not true.

     
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot

    We've seen proof of this in both criminal cases as well as recently with states nullifying the Real ID Act, ObamaCare, Medical Marijuana, etc.

    i'm not sure what exactly you're talking about. states can challenge federal action, but that's not the same thing as "nullifying." last i checked, the DEA is still raiding dispensaries in california periodically.

    what states CAN do is limit searches by their state's officers. if california thinks that the smell of marijuana is not enough for probable cause, they can make the rule for their state different.

    but if you accept nullification on the level you're suggesting, a state could say, "i don't think the 4th amendment requires a warrant at all; it just requires that searches are reasonable" and embrace that. is that okay?
     2
  19. scary shit. Land of the free is no more. And I never smoke anything except cigars.
  20.  
    Originally Posted by AMARTIN1181 View Post

    i've enjoyed his point of view on this subject, what is there to explain BUDO

    Lol he's wrong
  21.  

    i'm not sure what exactly you're talking about. states can challenge federal action, but that's not the same thing as "nullifying." last i checked, the DEA is still raiding dispensaries in california periodically.

    An example of a state nullifying a federal law is one in which a state passes a law making the use of medical marijuana legal. If a state refuses to assist with the fed's attempts to enforce a law then it is in fact nullified. This was very common back in the day as some states used this principle to nullify the fugitive slave laws. Another way a state can nullify a law is the way some states are attempting to criminalize conduct by TSA agents that the federal government currently requires them to perform.

    http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/01/just-say-no

    http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/13/take-the-10th-please

    As for your Wiki link, who enforces ObamaCare if 20+ states "nullify" it? As an example...

     
    Originally Posted by budo09 View Post

    Lol he's wrong

    And so simple to disprove that statement. So tell me Budo in your esteemed lawyerly wisdom, exactly who does one appeal to when a jury decides to acquit even when the person confesses on the stand? Where is your precious SCOTUS then? The people are the final arbiter, not SCOTUS.
    Edited By: Dyzalot May 18th, 2011 at 12:14 AM
     3
  22.  
    Originally Posted by niptuck View Post

    scary shit. Land of the free is no more. And I never smoke anything except cigars.


    not for long
  23.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    If a state refuses to assist with the fed's attempts to enforce a law then it is in fact nullified.

    not really. if the federal government can still enforce the action on its own, i don't see how it is nullified.

     
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot

    This was very common back in the day as some states used this principle to nullify the fugitive slave laws.

    not very effective

     
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot

    Another way a state can nullify a law is the way some states are attempting to criminalize conduct by TSA agents that the federal government currently requires them to perform.

    probably won't work

     
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot

    As for your Wiki link, who enforces ObamaCare if 20+ states "nullify" it?

    the federal government
     2
  24. You seem to think the federal government has a lot of manpower to enforce laws. In fact that isn't true as they couldn't even enforce just federal drug laws in California if they wanted, never mind the rest of the laws being enforced around the country. The feds rely on the states to enforce their laws.
     3
  25.  
    Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post

    You seem to think the federal government has a lot of manpower to enforce laws. In fact that isn't true as they couldn't even enforce just federal drug laws in California if they wanted, never mind the rest of the laws being enforced around the country. The feds rely on the states to enforce their laws.

    can they enforce strictly? no.

    can they attach conditions to funding to encourage enforcement of federal law? yes.

    do i consider it "nullification" if someone is still enforcing the law (as is the case w/ federal drug laws in california)? no.
     2


  26.  

    As would be expected, this new legislation outraged abolitionists, but also angered many citizens who were previously more apathetic. In 1851, 26 people in Syracuse, New York were arrested, charged and tried for freeing a runaway slave named William Henry (aka Jerry) who had been arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act. Among the 26 people tried was a U.S. Senator and the former Governor of New York! In an act of jury nullification, the trial resulted in only one conviction. “Jerry” was hidden in Syracuse for several days until he could safely escape into Canada.

    http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...nullification/

    Effective.

     

    Rather than being deterred, however, Wisconsin, along with several other states, such as Connecticut (1854), Rhode Island (1854), Massachusetts (1855), Michigan (1855), Maine (1855 and 1857), and Kansas (1858) all went on to pass even more personal liberty legislation designed to neutralize federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
    It was no coincidence that the 1859 statement of the Wisconsin Supreme Court borrowed words directly from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:

    “Resolved, That the government formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
    Resolved, that the principle and construction contended for by the party which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infractions; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”

    Edited By: Dyzalot May 18th, 2011 at 12:33 AM
     3
  27. i don't think you read the case i cited, since it directly overruled the "1859 statement of the wisconsin supreme court" you cited. the dude got convicted.

    and again, my question:

     

    but if you accept nullification on the level you're suggesting, a state could say, "i don't think the 4th amendment requires a warrant at all; it just requires that searches are reasonable" and embrace that. is that okay?

     2
  28.  

    Get used to the increasing police state. The civilian police force is being militarized and federalized in this age of "terror". Policing is no longer a civil service with the primary objective of protecting the citizen. It is now about protecting the interests of the government. Get used to more military garb, predator drones flying overhead, SWAT vehicles, assault rifles, more surveillance cameras, increased warrantless searches - all to "keep you safe". Orwellian, citizen-consuming, authoritarian, police state. Just like the 3rd world countries offer their rights-denied citizenry.

    QFT

  29.  

    but if you accept nullification on the level you're suggesting, a state could say, "i don't think the 4th amendment requires a warrant at all; it just requires that searches are reasonable" and embrace that. is that okay

    I wasn't speaking of state courts when I was speaking of state nullification simply because they can be overruled. It is the executive department that can nullify a law by not enforcing it and it is the people who can nullify a law by not convicting. I note you ignored my example from Syracuse that made this point. Also note that both Jefferson and Madison argued that obviously the final arbiter of Constitutionality was the states since the Constitution is an agreement between the states with the federal government created as a result of such an agreement. It would make no sense for a contract to be decided by something created by the contract. Only the creators of the contract logically can say what it means. Of course this logic leads to one eventually coming to the conclusion that it is "legal" for a state to secede or withdraw from the contract and people don't like to think down that road.
     3
  30. yes/no question:

    could a state say, "the 4th amendment does not require that searches be accompanied by a warrant; they only require that searches be reasonable" and get rid of a warrant requirement entirely?

    or, say, could a state say "the 14th amendment is stupid and we want to continue to segregate our schools" and ignore brown v. board of education entirely?

    my contention is that they basically can't. you can say that the federal government's manpower isn't enough to enforce most of these laws, but the fact is that if the federal government wanted to, they could.

    you can say, "a state could do these things!" but then the federal government jams the national guard down their throat and we see that they can't. maybe you think they should be able to, and maybe the founders did too, but those things are basically besides the point.
     2
Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 41 2 3 4

Similar Threads