First Amendment?

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012 … t-mix?lite
   
   This officer openly declares he doesn't like the Constitution.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin 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."

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Josakposted 11 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  The good ole days when we had Constitutional rights .

                  replyreport
               2. 74

                  Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
            2. 74

               Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Try and mention Constitutional Rights in a trial!

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Lots of individuals successfully have notable example is Larry Flint.

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin 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/

                     replyreport
2. 70

   Cagsilposted 11 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.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Druid Dudeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Cajones pocitos

      replyreport
   2. 94

      Daughter Of Maatposted 11 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
3. 78

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport