Indiana, you just lost your 4th Amendment...

[RMCG]

[YOUTUBE]Klqv9t1zVww[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Cort]

I found this here:
Although it's never been used, I contend that the United States Senate has the power to act as an appellate court to the Supreme Court, but only in cases where the Supreme Court has made a decision, or failed to act when they had a duty to act, in a manner that would be Treason to the Constitution.

Brilliant piece.

One question though. The use of the words "I CONTEND" leave me wondering if in fact the Senate has the duty to oversee the SC or if its just this guys opinion. While it is true that Legislative branch has the power to remove a judge, I have not seen where the Legislative branch has the power to over rule the SC. The Legislative branch makes the laws, the SC decides if they are legal. Im not a legal scholar by any means but if the LB made a law, the SC struck it down and the LB then said, "na, we are right" just dont seem balanced.

I do agree that there needs to be a balance to the SC.

My mind dont always work, but if you can follow my ramblings I think the point is there.

 

[dextr0]

I dont know either but he has a page full of interesting stuff. Also crazy shit. Imma do some searching and look to see whats up. Thats why I say WE need some help. We notice shit aint looking good but dont know what to do.
Im looking.

 

[wantaknow]

no warrent blood draws on the side of the road in texas now also ,if i lived in one of these states i would burn down the capatal builing or the suprema court house that passed that fucking law,evelution is coming and i believe they intend to attack the usa again very soon like the sears towers ,so they can continue the war on us ,i mean terriorism ,shoot hillary first ,thenkill the prez ,and string up all the congressmen an d women by they way they voted aganst our civil rights

 

[Cort]

Talk like that on the net will get a knock on your door. I would suggest a line item veto on your post

 

[RMCG]

Agreed.
I'd edit that post ASAP.

 

[dextr0]

If you want to know how your state handles arrests, warrant or warrant-less, check your states code of criminal procedure.

 

[mal]

Great Ruling

At least mitch daniels vetoed a bill that said cops and the da could keep at least 85% of contraband owned by a criminal. With these two laws in effect I'd think the sound of doors being broken down would be heard statewide. The article said they underhandedly already keep almost 100%, but if the law was passed it would assuredly be 100%. I would hope that law will be overturned rather quickly



mal

 

[RMCG]

At least mitch daniels vetoed a bill that said cops and the da could keep at least 85% of contraband owned by a criminal. With these two laws in effect I'd think the sound of doors being broken down would be heard statewide. The article said they underhandedly already keep almost 100%, but if the law was passed it would assuredly be 100%. I would hope that law will be overturned rather quickly



mal

Jeezus. It's like King George never died...

 

[kolah]

N. W. O.

 

[GanjaAL]

After shooting the intruder and he lay dying on my carpet, I'd call the police and claim I thought it was a burgler with a gun.......

Remember... they have to identify themselves as police... if you hear it... you hear it... if you don't... well... you don't.

:boogie:

 

[Seamaiden]

Ganja, that's a huge part of what's going down in San Fransisco right now, buncha cops are in trouble because a flop house has them on surveillance just letting themselves in, not identifying themselves as po-po, stealing shit, all kinds of crap.

The entire system is corrupt. They is zero chance for reform. The head of the beast must be severed. The majority of americKans remain silent.

Nazi Germany II is in full swing and right on schedule.

I can't ding you with the mad rep again.

Power corrupts at all levels. People like to say that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but my own take is a little different. People use whatever power they have, from the lowly Micky D's guy handing out burgers for free (hey man, I used to feed this one homeless guy when I was 14yo working at Tastee Freeze, got into a shitload of trouble for it but I kept doing it anyway) to city employees forcing people out of their homes
( www.auditoaklandceda.com ) (sorry dex, but I really want more people to know about this, especially since so many think Oakland is sooo progressive and so great) to garnering the ability to commit real and true crimes with complete and total impunity. Not to mention who writes the history at that point--power corrupts.

We're so fucking simian, why don't we just own it? Stinky monkeys.

no warrent blood draws on the side of the road in texas now also ,if i lived in one of these states i would burn down the capatal builing or the suprema court house that passed that fucking law,evelution is coming and i believe they intend to attack the usa again very soon like the sears towers ,so they can continue the war on us ,i mean terriorism ,shoot hillary first ,thenkill the prez ,and string up all the congressmen an d women by they way they voted aganst our civil rights

Are you fucking kidding me??? So now the state can invade your person.

Yes, whoever said talking like this will get you a knock on your door is half right. You're on their list, now!

Jeezus. It's like King George never died...

I just watched that flick the other night. Great movie, The Madness of King George.

 

[dextr0]

Home / News / State And Regional News / Indiana
PDF: Supreme Court ruling in Barnes v. State

Posted: Thursday, May 12, 2011 4:56 pm

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

That was State Supreme Court right , wouldn't the next step be Federal?

 

[GanjaAL]

Then the people need to stand up and do something about it. One way would be to put an initiative forward that would hold them liable for it. Hit them where it hurts... their money.

Right now in socal we have a few LE arrested for rape and some countay officials arrested for illegal dealings. This is getting out of hand.

 

[dextr0]

From what im understanding if you want a US Supreme Court ruling ousted, you have to have Congress either amend the law or how the law reads or amend the Constitution.

 

[RMCG]

From what im understanding if you want a US Supreme Court ruling ousted, you have to have Congress either amend the law or how the law reads or amend the Constitution.

Correct. A Constitutional Amendment.

Luckily, historically speaking, Amendments further define your FREEDOMS (except for the 18th, which required the 21st to repeal) by limiting governmental powers, not typically limiting the peoples.

 

[RMCG]

When you have 8 or so hours...


[YOUTUBE]_nOMbfsgZ9s[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Darth Fader]

What does it matter which "side" made the ruling, really, in the grand scheme of things? Your post only serves to prove what I've been saying for decades--Republicrat, Demoplican--they're simply one leg of the same fucking beast. That beast is entirely still beholden to the same interests, operates in the same manner because it pretty much has only one head.

It matters because those of the "strict constitutionalist" ideology ALL sided in favor of the property rights of the individual, while the other side (call them what you wish, I will avoid the commonly used label) sided with the STATE in abridging personal rights by compelling (by force) the transfer of property from one private party to another. So if you're arguing that the state is out-of-hand in abridging constitutionally guaranteed individual rights, look no further than the defenders of this abuse of power. They will, in nearly every case value the "good of the state" over individual rights. Pretty clear to me. We ARE all supporting the position here that the State has overreached it's constitutional authority. I would argue that this position is part of a philosophy we share with those 4 strict constitutionalist justices.

I think you're conflating these justices and their "interpretive philosophies" with politicians and political parties. I would agree that politicians ARE pretty much the same, or at least have the same M.O. All with the exception of Ron Paul & Co.

 

[Seamaiden]

How am I the one conflating the justices when you're the one who brought up liberal vs conservative in this?

 

[Cort]

America, you just lost your 4th Amendment rights

At least Indiana does not stand alone.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against a Kentucky man who was arrested after police burst into his apartment without a search warrant because they smelled marijuana and feared he was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.

Voting 8-1, the justices reversed a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that threw out the evidence gathered when officers entered Hollis King's apartment.

The court said there was no violation of King's constitutional rights because the police acted reasonably. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

Officers knocked on King's door in Lexington and thought they heard noises that indicated whoever was inside was trying to get rid of incriminating evidence.

Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court that people have no obligation to respond to the knock or, if they do open the door, allow the police to come in. In those cases, officers who wanted to gain entry would have to persuade a judge to issue a search warrant.

But Alito said, "Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame."

In her dissent, Ginsburg said her colleagues were giving police an easy way to routinely avoid getting warrants in drug cases.

"Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant," she said.