Things like this don't happen in the land of the free, ...

KLook wrote:I do not know why some of you attack jpete about the Constitution. He obviously knows the document and explains repeatedly that it is written in PLAIN english so as to be read without debate by common people. Changes in technology do not effect whatsoever the limitations it places on the GOVERNMENT. Not you as individuals. It is the Ten commandments of what a gov. CANNOT do to you based on the history of what the effects are when they do. You cannot give up some part of them. If the Constitution was updated every ten years say, what sane people would vote to give up the basic rights guaranteed by each one if taken one at a time and explained and debated? The answer to that scares me as much as this last election and what has transpired since in the gov. Just look at the new post about bailing our Detroit and think about her mental state.

Kevin

To ask him to answer a question when he has quoted the appropriate Constitutional law pertaining to that freedom is silly. And riding a horse to town still subjects you to search ans seizure.

Northern Maine wrote:
Is the Constitution a living document or original document? Either way it is NOT black and white and left to the interpretation of the reader in its application....Hence picking a "side" would be only based on one's interpretation and not black an white. What if a person chooses to pick bits and pieces from two different interpretations for application? Where do they stand...plausibly the wrong side based on both interpretations? If things were black and white and no gray area...there would inevitably be a side to choose and defend...however, In my opinion (for better or worse depending on the interpreter) the gray is where a lot of people stand! Just curious if you could answer the questions posed here without being defensive, and at face value?

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.

jpete wrote:

Northern Maine wrote:
Is the Constitution a living document or original document? Either way it is NOT black and white and left to the interpretation of the reader in its application....Hence picking a "side" would be only based on one's interpretation and not black an white. What if a person chooses to pick bits and pieces from two different interpretations for application? Where do they stand...plausibly the wrong side based on both interpretations? If things were black and white and no gray area...there would inevitably be a side to choose and defend...however, In my opinion (for better or worse depending on the interpreter) the gray is where a lot of people stand! Just curious if you could answer the questions posed here without being defensive, and at face value?

Are some things "right" and other things "wrong"? If you can't answer that question, then the Constitution doesn't matter.
The constitution is our guiding principle, so yes it matters
If everything is 50 shades of gray, then who gets to decide if a law is broken or a right has been abridged?
The judicial system

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.

Agreed...but reality is that there are entities out there that will and do this without the knowledge of the individual and I don't necessarily mean the govt.

We know what a "right" is. It's something that can't be withheld unless you've had due process.

Agreed

I assume we know what "persons, houses" and "papers" are. I posted the definition of "effects" for those who didn't know. It's all other things belonging to the individual.
Is the Constituition a living document or original document in it's application?
Some might have a question as to what "unreasonable" means. Can a cop kick in your door at 3am and start turning your house over? I'd say that's unreasonable.
Agreed
Can he stop you on the street because you "looked suspicious" and have you turn out the contents of your pockets? I call that unreasonable but I suspect some here don't.
Probable cause backed by Articulable facts come into play here that answer whether or not he can do so
What does "shall not" mean? Does it mean "sometimes"? Does it mean "if we really, really, really want to find a criminal"? Or does it mean "never"?

What's a "warrant" and how do I get one? Well looky there, an explanation! The police supply "probable cause" then affirm that the evidence presented is true and accurately and specifically describes the "persons and things to be seized". And then a judge puts his John Hancock on the line and off they go.
Probable Cause backed by Articulable facts
Is it REALLY that ambiguous? Do you REALLY not understand how succinct that is? Because if the Fourth isn't what it says it is, then there isn't any point to having it at all.

Like I said. You can't be half pregnant. You either have privacy, or you don't.

jpete wrote:And BTW, I don't agree with most of what you said but I'm not going to waste time reediting your response.

Northern Maine wrote:

jpete wrote:And BTW, I don't agree with most of what you said but I'm not going to waste time reediting your response.

Hence your freedom to do so!

jpete wrote:

Northern Maine wrote:

jpete wrote:And BTW, I don't agree with most of what you said but I'm not going to waste time reediting your response.

Hence your freedom to do so!

No thanks to you. I suspect you'd give it all up for a few well crafted sentences and the vague threat of some government constructed boogey man.

grumpy wrote:December 6, 2012 at 3:10 pm
NHTSA gets White House OK to mandate vehicle 'black boxes'

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012 ... z2EJ4P9wbe

lsayre wrote:

grumpy wrote:December 6, 2012 at 3:10 pm
NHTSA gets White House OK to mandate vehicle 'black boxes'

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2012 ... z2EJ4P9wbe

Did Congress get lost in the sauce here somehow? They looked at this in 2010, but now they are aparently once again unnecessary. How long before we crown a King?

Northern Maine wrote:These type of systems have been installed on tractor trailer trucks for some time now...If a fatal accident occurs, the information is downloaded to see what factors were involved.

Apparently we are so far removed from freedom that we haven't got a clue as to what freedom actually is.