Glory Days;748043 wrote:where does it say anywhere that this CAN be or ALLOWED to be used on a traffic stop? the author of the article is the only one saying that and he is just saying that to get people like you all worked up.

If the article is incorrect, then I stand corrected.

georgemc80;748078 wrote:Rights???? I am not losing any rights. Do nothing wrong. Nothing wrong happens to you.

Come now, George. You've got to be joking. Do you think the 4th Ammendment was created by a bunch of lawbreakers? Pretty sure they didn't throw that one in there so they could cover their asses if they were pulled over for speeding in their carriages.

I'm all for protecting individual rights. I just think this might make the general population safer. I like that and believe it's worth it. The constitution is a living document dependent on the interpretation of nine people. It's intended meaning very rarely apply to today's world. The fact that it can adjust to the times makes it as close to everlasting as any piece if paper can be.

georgemc80;748192 wrote:I'm all for protecting individual rights. I just think this might make the general population safer. I like that and believe it's worth it. The constitution is a living document dependent on the interpretation of nine people. It's intended meaning very rarely apply to today's world. The fact that it can adjust to the times makes it as close to everlasting as any piece if paper can be.

How does this make anyone safer?

CenterBHSFan;748047 wrote:So, you don't think that those scenarios will EVER happen in the future?
Not a chance?

i guess you can go through life worrying about the "what ifs" if you want.

Glory Days;748426 wrote:i guess you can go through life worrying about the "what ifs" if you want.

That's kind of the type of thinking that leads to this sort of machine.

georgemc80;748078 wrote:Rights???? I am not losing any rights. Do nothing wrong. Nothing wrong happens to you.

How un-American.

georgemc80;748192 wrote:I'm all for protecting individual rights. I just think this might make the general population safer.

Where in the constitution does the latter justify taking away the former?

I like that and believe it's worth it.

I'll side with Franklin on this one. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

The constitution is a living document dependent on the interpretation of nine people.

The "living document" argument is obviously flawed by the great care taken in specifying exactly how it can be changed. The writers would not have done so had their intent been to have future generations say "it means what we want it to mean".

It's intended meaning very rarely apply to today's world.

It holds up extraordinarily well, actually. This argument seems to be trotted out when someone wants to take away rights without the bother of going the effort the framers so wisely set up.

The fact that it can adjust to the times makes it as close to everlasting as any piece if paper can be.

Indeed, the amendment process is one among many brilliant parts of the document.

I Wear Pants;748436 wrote:That's kind of the type of thinking that leads to this sort of machine.

the same can be said about the opposite side of thinking. (ie living in fear of the slippery slope)

Glory Days;748536 wrote:the same can be said about the opposite side of thinking. (ie living in fear of the slippery slope)

We're way passed the slippery slope. Can't really make fun of people fearing the government when they are violating our rights each and every day to millions of people.

queencitybuckeye;748487 wrote:

The "living document" argument is obviously flawed by the great care taken in specifying exactly how it can be changed. The writers would not have done so had their intent been to have future generations say "it means what we want it to mean".

I assure you it is not just the amendment process that makes the document a living work. It didn't take an amendment for Plessy v. Ferguson to be overturned, it took 5 justices. Roe can be reversed by 5 justices. You can't deny the purpose of the SCOTUS, hell their power isn't even outlined in the constitution, yet they gave themselves their power.

Doesn't mean any and everything they do is right and if you don't like it you've got something to hide.

Seems like you and Mccarthy would have liked each other.

georgemc80;748629 wrote:I assure you it is not just the amendment process that makes the document a living work.

The amendment process was the means by which the framers intended for the constitution to be a living work. Anything outside of that process diminishes the power of the constitution.

georgemc80;748629 wrote:It didn't take an amendment for Plessy v. Ferguson to be overturned, it took 5 justices. Roe can be reversed by 5 justices..

A simple majority of five people now hold sole control of the constitution. The other two branches whimpered off.

georgemc80;748629 wrote:You can't deny the purpose of the SCOTUS, hell their power isn't even outlined in the constitution, yet they gave themselves their power.

You are correct the power of the SCOTUS as sole interpreter of the constitution is not outlined in the constitution. And yes you are also correct the judicial branch gave themselves that power. What if the executive branch had given themselves sole power to interpret the constitution? Or the legislative branch? I thought they were coequal?

The Supreme Court has elevated its power above that which was intended by the framers of the constitution. By claiming judicial supremacy in interpreting the constitution for all three co-equal branches of government, they in effect elevated themselves above the legislative and executive branches, handing themselves the power to interpret the constitution for the nation.

Under article III the court has laid claim to judicial power to tell the President or Congress what they can or cannot do under the Constitution. When instead it states the Court's power, as a co-equal branch of government, to act on its own interpretation of the Constitution in deciding what it can and cannot do within the judicial branch. The framers never intended the judiciary to have the power to overturn acts of the legislature. In fact when discussing this matter they derived the presidential veto.

This ascension of judicial power began with Marbury v. Madison. Thomas Jefferson condemned the decision because he felt it could be used by the Court to impose their constitutional interpretations on the other branches.

Jefferson, in his opposition to judicial supremacy, in a letter to William C. Jarvis September 28, 1820 The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in Congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them; if the President fails to provide the place of a judge, to appoint other civil and military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him.

The Court usurped judicial supremacy in matters of interpretting the constitution once and for all with Scott v. Sanford, placing the other two branches inferior to itself. This strike against republican government took the guardianship of the constitution farther away from the people, who have a more direct say through the legislative and executive branches, and handed it to an unelected tribunal. The constitutuion is now in the hands of a majority of 5 people who can decide for all 300 million its meaning.

majorspark;748697 wrote:The constitutuion is now in the hands of a majority of 5 people who can decide for all 300 million its meaning.

All the more reason we need to boot BHO to the curb. If we allow Obama to select the next couple of SCOTUS judges - keeping in mind these are lifetime appointments - the Supreme Court will lean heavily left for years. Scary, scary outlook IMHO.

tk421;748542 wrote:We're way passed the slippery slope. Can't really make fun of people fearing the government when they are violating our rights each and every day to millions of people.

Thats a nice opinion. however no rights have yet to be violated(in reference to this article). if i conduct a LEGAL search on you or your property, just because you feel it was wrong, doesnt make it a violation of your rights.

Glory Days;748722 wrote:Thats a nice opinion. however no rights have yet to be violated(in reference to this article). if i conduct a LEGAL search on you or your property, just because you feel it was wrong, doesnt make it a violation of your rights.

"Legal search" definitions are somewhat nebulous in much the same manner that the Feds have usurped states rights via the much-abused Commerce Clause to increase its authority outside constitutional bounds. Just sayin'......

georgemc80;748192 wrote:I'm all for protecting individual rights. I just think this might make the general population safer. I like that and believe it's worth it.

A lot of things could make the population safer. Heck removing most human freedoms would, in many ways, make them safer. Things like forced diets would be safer. Limited and monitored interaction with others would be safer. Extreme limit of information accessible via Internet would be safer. Illegalization of contact sports would be safer. Illegalization of automobiles would be safer. Illegalization of alcohol would be safer.

A lot of things would be safer for the general population, but (put plainly) it is not the job of lawmakers to legislate "safety at all cost to freedom."

georgemc80;748192 wrote:The constitution is a living document dependent on the interpretation of nine people. It's intended meaning very rarely apply to today's world. The fact that it can adjust to the times makes it as close to everlasting as any piece if paper can be.

The problem with this view is that it was not, and would not, be INTENDED to be subjectively interpreted by any nine throughout history. The writers wrote what they wrote for a reason. They had an intended interpretation in mind, and whether we like it or not, that interpretation is that the document actually means.

If I write on a piece of paper, "metal sinks," I am doing so meaning something in particular. Now, you may debate whether I was conveying the lack of buoyancy of certain elements in the Periodic Table or describing a basin where I prefer to wash my vegetables, but regardless of whether or not it can be read more than one way, I meant it one very specific way. That's what we SHOULD do when engaging the Constitution. Not submitting it to our own subjective points of view, but figuring out what it is intended to mean, so that the letter of the law can best match the spirit of the law.

Moreover, given that this was written by a group of people whose everyday lives were affected by tyranny, and that such effects were what drove them to independence, it makes no logical sense to suggest that the document was intended to impact people's everyday lives.

What can make it a lasting document is that it is intended to preserve the power of the populace over the government, and prevent a government from ever being able to force itself into a position of consistent oppressive power.

Another erosion - http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/05/10/secret-gps-on-cars-upheld.html?sid=101

So, if you are on public property, the government now has unquestionable and legal authority to monitor your movements. Doesn't matter who you are, your livelihood is now no longer yours to keep private.

Holbrook wrote that "a reasonable expectation of privacy" does not exist for those parking and traveling on public roads.

"The device was attached to a vehicle found on public property" and "monitored their travel in public and at no time did the defendant attempt to shield the vehicle from the public," he wrote.

"Clearly, without an expectation of privacy, the defendant cannot assert the protection of the Fourth Amendment."

Sullivan's attorney, Joe Scott, called it "a sad day," not just for his client, "but for all (of) us who believe in the Constitution.

"It says that police can put a GPS device on any of our cars, without probable cause, without a court order, and follow us indefinitely."

And another - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mandated-messages-the-president-and-homeland-security-coming-to-your-cell-phone/

Before you quip, "it's just a cell phone messaging device, what's so bad about that? It provides safety for the public". Umm...remember the story a couple weeks ago that Apple has a file engrained in you cell phone that tracks everywhere it's been? Nobody knew it was there, but, alas...there it is. Wonder if this new technology, that is designed with public safety in mind, can also act as a GPS device that can be tracked without the user's knowledge, court order, consent, nor Constitutional protections? Don't be naive....it's the reasoning behind this whole idea of keeping the public safe.

BGFalcons82;764263 wrote:Another erosion - http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/05/10/secret-gps-on-cars-upheld.html?sid=101

So, if you are on public property, the government now has unquestionable and legal authority to monitor your movements. Doesn't matter who you are, your livelihood is now no longer yours to keep private.
Holbrook wrote that "a reasonable expectation of privacy" does not exist for those parking and traveling on public roads.
"The device was attached to a vehicle found on public property" and "monitored their travel in public and at no time did the defendant attempt to shield the vehicle from the public," he wrote.
"Clearly, without an expectation of privacy, the defendant cannot assert the protection of the Fourth Amendment."
Sullivan's attorney, Joe Scott, called it "a sad day," not just for his client, "but for all (of) us who believe in the Constitution.
"It says that police can put a GPS device on any of our cars, without probable cause, without a court order, and follow us indefinitely."

1. Pretty sure the police had probable cause in the case.
2. This is about as dumb as people who post stuff on facebook then get mad people find out. This is nothing new. Maybe if it was similar to when the GPS was attached to the car in the guy’s driveway, you might have an argument. If you are talking in phone booth and don’t close the door, how can you expect anything to be private? The cops don’t need probable cause or a warrant to follow you on public land and track you, why would they need that for a GPS to follow and track you on public land?

There is a clear trend towards our privacy being eroded in the name of safety. Franklin said it well "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." and it's not just because of this stuff but almost everything that's happened after 9/11.

I read a good quote when i was looking up case law for this. "People believe they have more rights to privacy than the law recognizes"

I Wear Pants;764650 wrote:There is a clear trend towards our privacy being eroded in the name of safety. Franklin said it well "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." and it's not just because of this stuff but almost everything that's happened after 9/11.

Nothing is being eroded here, this case goes along with case law from 50 years ago.

The law not recognizing it has nothing at all to do with what is right.

And I did say it's "not just because of this stuff". If you can't recognize the pattern of rights and privacy being stripped away piece by piece since 9/11 then you're blind or holding your eyes shut.

Glory Days;764303 wrote:1. Pretty sure the police had probable cause in the case.
2. This is about as dumb as people who post stuff on facebook then get mad people find out. This is nothing new. Maybe if it was similar to when the GPS was attached to the car in the guy’s driveway, you might have an argument. If you are talking in phone booth and don’t close the door, how can you expect anything to be private? The cops don’t need probable cause or a warrant to follow you on public land and track you, why would they need that for a GPS to follow and track you on public land?

Yep...they likely did have probable cause. No argument here. BUT---- they did NOT do their constitutional diligence and OBTAIN said order to track these scum. They just put tracking devices on their cars because they were on state highways. What about the time their car was NOT on state roads? What about the times it was parked on private property? Does that count?

Ben Franklin is spinning in his grave and all because of public safety, our rights are eroding away, like topsoil from the fields. Once gone...they'll NEVER return. Got that? Never. Go read 1984 and tell me we are mere inches away from total monitoring by our lovely and trusted government. Or better yet, have more illegal search and seizure at roadblocks across America. If I ever get pulled over in one of these Nazi-stings, I'll either make the news or rot in jail because they aren't searching one inch of me.

I Wear Pants;765652 wrote:The law not recognizing it has nothing at all to do with what is right.

And I did say it's "not just because of this stuff". If you can't recognize the pattern of rights and privacy being stripped away piece by piece since 9/11 then you're blind or holding your eyes shut.

then who determines what is right if not the law? you?

I Wear Pants;764650 wrote:There is a clear trend towards our privacy being eroded in the name of safety. Franklin said it well "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." and it's not just because of this stuff but almost everything that's happened after 9/11.

Dude, that's been my signature for awhile.