http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012 … t-mix?lite
This officer openly declares he doesn't like the Constitution.
Don't ya know, mentioning the Constitution raises a red flag with Law Enforcement.
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."
But that is not true, it was just a judge's interpretation a long time ago which has never been upheld since.
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.
The good ole days when we had Constitutional rights .
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.
Try and mention Constitutional Rights in a trial!
Lots of individuals successfully have notable example is Larry Flint.
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/
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.
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.
The obvious progressive solution here is to ban cell phones in public places.
by Justin Earick 4 years ago
And what makes some believe that they can take down most well-funded and -armed military in the world with shotguns and assault rifles?
by Marlene Bertrand 16 months ago
Do American citizens give up their civil rights when they join the military?My husband told me that when he joined the military, they told him he was the property of the United States. That got me to wondering if that meant he lost his civil rights while he was serving in the military.
by retired2 8 years ago
Just starting in the Security filed could anyone tell me, I have been told that the 4th Amendment has alot to do with a Security Officer and his job. I know the 4th Amendment and have read it but how does it pertain to security guards. Thanks Retired2
by Doug Hughes 7 years ago
The 14th AmendmentSection 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall...
by WTucker 8 years ago
What does the second amendment mean to you? Please include historical precedence and logical deduction for your meaning. I would discourage what you wish the gun policy would be for the US but rather what you feel the amendment actually means.A well regulated militia being necessary to...
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
Every day we hear from hubbers about how Obama is out to destroy the Constitution. Across this great nation there is a movement of very vocal, very serious "pro-contitutionalists."The Constitution is suddenly quoted and defended like the Bible.It's all the vogue -- ALL OF A SUDDEN.My...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|