jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (15 posts)

First Amendment?

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 5 years ago

    http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012 … t-mix?lite

    This officer openly declares he doesn't like the Constitution.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image92
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Don't ya know, mentioning the Constitution raises a red flag with Law Enforcement.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image92
        Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Padelford, Fay & Co. v. Mayor and Aldermen of City of Savannah
        14 Ga. 438, 1854 WL 1492 (Ga., Jan Term 1854) (NO. 64)

        "No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it."

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But that is not true, it was just a judge's interpretation a long time ago which has never been upheld since.

          1. Paul Wingert profile image79
            Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hmmmmm. A quick way to make some serious cash. But realistically, don't these cops have the first clue that violating a person's constitutional rights have serious consequences? Wheren't they ttaught that in cop school? Law enforcement's violation of the 4th Amendment,which guards against unreasonable searches and seizure, is another one of their popular past times.

            1. profile image0
              Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The good ole days when we had Constitutional rights tongue.

            2. Reality Bytes profile image92
              Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The 4th Amendment is irrelevant. Police may now author their own search warrants on site without consulting a Judge.  They may also break in to a home and conduct a "sneak and peak" search, without your knowledge.  Making it look like a burglary.

          2. Reality Bytes profile image92
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Try and mention Constitutional Rights in a trial!

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Lots of individuals successfully have notable example is Larry Flint.

              1. Reality Bytes profile image92
                Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The United States Constitution is irrelevant!


                ITHACA, NY, March 12, 2012 — Last week, President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech on national security at Northwestern University Law School in which he explained—rather, attempted to explain—the administration’s approach toward the targeted killing of U.S. citizens.

                The man who as recently as 2008 railed against the Bush administration’s supposed excesses — in a much-touted speech to the American Constitution Society he deplored “the disastrous course” it had set and argued that its “needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the War on Terror” had diminished America’s global standing — sealed the debate on whether the Obama administration has followed through on its high sense of morality.

                The answer, of course, is no. 

                According to Holder’s address at Northwestern, “due process and judicial process are not one and the same.” As Holder would have you believe, contrary to the inaccurate belief of so many, belief is the key word here, the President is not required by law to acquire permission from a federal court before targeting an American citizen abroad.

                If the President believes that an American on foreign soil poses an imminent danger to the United States, concludes that his arrest is impractical, and gives the order to kill, that individual will promptly perish.


                All of these guidelines, as they often are in matters of national security, rely on the judgment of the administration. Who is a “top al-Qaeda operative?” Who in his right mind would trust the executive branch with carrying out “a thorough and careful review?” And who would take as satisfactory the White House’s word that an American—someone whom the president has accused behind closed doors of being a terrorist without providing material evidence to a court to prove it—can legally be targeted and killed?

                The answer should be: no one. 

                http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ … -citizens/

  2. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Yeah, I've heard cops continue the assault on the First Amendment. It goes to show that police officers don't respect the Constitution, nor do they respect people in general. Being a police officer apparently is a power and ego trip for most of them. Very rarely have I seen a police officer not use it's power in an abusive manner.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Cajones pocitos

    2. Daughter Of Maat profile image98
      Daughter Of Maatposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wow... that's really scary... I know many cops abuse their power, and I know a very few who don't. But if you think about it, if a cop didn't like what you have hanging from your rearview mirror (in my case a pentacle) they could throw you in jail. That's super scary to me. Especially considering they carry guns.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    The obvious progressive solution here is to ban cell phones in public places.
    roll

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.  Let's ban everything we don't like tongue.

 
working