We dun need no 4th Amendment!

We dun need no 4th Amendment! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Hippiekinkster -> We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 12:12:19 AM)
It just keeps getting worse and worse. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/02/national/main3991241.shtml?source=mostpop_story The Constitution has been so watered down and distorted that it has lost its relevancy. I'd be in favor of a Constitutional Convention.

farglebargle -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 4:05:28 AM)
Yeah, we're all pretty much U.S. Gov't Slaves at this point. One Law for us, and NO LAW for them. Since the Constitution and Amendments GRANT all legitimate authority, their proscriptions on any acts are absolute. Only the stupidest, or evil would contend otherwise.

seeksfemslave -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 7:43:57 AM)
Doesn't this 4th amendment talk about "reasonable" search and seizure. What does that really mean ? What could be reasonable for a suspected thief may definitely not be reasonable for someone who is suspected of wanting to bomb a building or aeroplane.

Real0ne -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 7:59:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster The Constitution has been so watered down and distorted that it has lost its relevancy. I'd be in favor of a Constitutional Convention. you gotta be joking! Have a convention at this point with the criminal syndicate in charge will forever destroy the fragments we have left. Name one time in history people got their constitutions back once lost through a convention? I htink history would show the only way constitutiuons are won back once lost are well described by jfk and others. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. -- John F. Kennedy The question is where on a scale are we and what good would a convention do? Congress is going to save it? LMAO

Real0ne -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 8:03:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Doesn't this 4th amendment talk about "reasonable" search and seizure. What does that really mean ? What could be reasonable for a suspected thief may definitely not be reasonable for someone who is suspected of wanting to bomb a building or aeroplane. reasonable is determined by the fisa court not the criminal syndicate at large.

Real0ne -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 8:04:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Yeah, we're all pretty much U.S. Gov't Slaves at this point. One Law for us, and NO LAW for them. g1 farg! Bang on! quote: "Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations," the footnote states, referring to a document titled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States." Hence the creation of the second amendment which I expect the SCOTUS to destroy later this year.

DomKen -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 8:30:40 AM)
What's annoying about this is it is another Yoo memo. John Yoo is the unelected littel fucktard who came up with the unitary executive theory that basically says the president is above the law. I'm not saying GWB wouldn't have found other ways to be a law ignoring disgrace but Yoo is the one that gave him and his advisors legal advice that he could do anything and not be held responsible.

Real0ne -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 11:58:01 AM)
one of the biggest fucktards I have ever had the displeasure of their bullshit entering my existance is fucktard gonzales. bush did not ignore the law he simply fucking broke it and then made it all secret or tried to. secrecy is repugnant to a republic. --jfk

farglebargle -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 2:54:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Doesn't this 4th amendment talk about "reasonable" search and seizure. What does that really mean ? It means the Pig asks a Judge, who provides oversight, and will, if he agrees issue a warrant.

Pyrrsefanie -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 3:02:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It means the Pig asks a Judge Please don't use the term "pig" to refer to a police officer. Several members of my family are in various law enforcement divisions and it does make me grind my teeth when people talk shit about cops. Edited to add that I'm well aware there are also some police officers out there who really should NOT have their badge, but I'm happy to say I'm not related to any of them.

farglebargle -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 3:22:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pyrrsefanie quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It means the Pig asks a Judge Please don't use the term "pig" to refer to a police officer. Several members of my family are in various law enforcement divisions and it does make me grind my teeth when people talk shit about cops. Edited to add that I'm well aware there are also some police officers out there who really should NOT have their badge, but I'm happy to say I'm not related to any of them. ACTUALLY -- As long as the SO-CALLED "Good Cops" tolerate and PERMIT the "Bad Cops" to remain on the force, then they aren't "Good Cops", but just "More Bad Cops who are deluding themselves and their families that they're Good Cops". Once the pigs have earned some respect, by cleaning up their ranks, then they will get the respect due to them.

Pyrrsefanie -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 3:26:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle blah blah blah This post infuriated me to the point that my vision just whited out. You're amazing.

seeksfemslave -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 3:44:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Doesn't this 4th amendment talk about "reasonable" search and seizure. What does that really mean It means the Pig asks a Judge, who provides oversight, and will, if he agrees issue a warrant. It is probable that it will take time to get together info. such as will convince a non street wise, bookish, academic judge of the seriousness of any threat. so we have YOUR apartment is burgled, not serious in the great scheme of things or a building is destroyed due to aircraft being flown into it. quite serious IMO. Also,why do you assume a Judge will be reasonable? The time for all this to be decided is in court when any prosecution that follows after any seizure is taking place.

farglebargle -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 4:16:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Doesn't this 4th amendment talk about "reasonable" search and seizure. What does that really mean It means the Pig asks a Judge, who provides oversight, and will, if he agrees issue a warrant. It is probable that it will take time to get together info. such as will convince a non street wise, bookish, academic judge of the seriousness of any threat. CORRECT. The idea is that before YOUR or MY privacy is infringed, there is someone making sure that there is a real reason TO infringe on your privacy. quote: so we have YOUR apartment is burgled, No we don't. First, the classical doctrine of "Hot Pursuit" would pertain in the commission of a felony, and second, I own a fucking pitbull, baseball bat and rifle. quote: a building is destroyed due to aircraft being flown into it. Um... Maybe you need to learn how FISA would apply. There is a 72 hour grace period to obtain RETROACTIVE permission from a secret judge as the law is now, to validate foreign wiretaps. quote: Also,why do you assume a Judge will be reasonable? I actually expect them to rubberstamp the warrants. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than tossing out Constitutional Amendments.

farglebargle -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 4:17:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pyrrsefanie quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle blah blah blah This post infuriated me to the point that my vision just whited out. You're amazing. Reality can affect people like that. If you don't like it, use the block button. I believe it's the one labelled 'hide' on bottom bar towards the left hand side of the post.... Down here \| \| v

slaveboyforyou -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/3/2008 5:01:52 PM)
quote: This post infuriated me to the point that my vision just whited out. You're amazing. Pyrrsefanie, I will try to parrot what Fargle said in a ligher manner (Fargle and I generally disagree on everything, but I happen to agree with him here.) I majored in several things in college. My first major of which I accumulated 95 hours was in criminal justice. I wanted to work in law enforcement when I was your age. I wanted to help people. I had a lot of classes with cops, and I worked at a shelter for UM's, many of whom had been adjudicated there by the courts. I was disgusted by what I saw. I met the most negative people I have ever met in my life. I tried to get past it by excusing it as a side-effect of job stress, but much of what I saw was inexcusable. I saw juveniles get the hell beat out of them for smarting off. I actually stepped between a deputy and a UM once and was threatened. I didn't back down, and I was labeled a trouble maker after that. They couldn't fire me over that offense, because they knew I would sue them. But they looked for every little chance they could get, and they found one. I was fired for being late ONE time when my girlfriend's daughter was in the hospital. The "good" cops do go along with the program. They don't want to "rat" on their buddies, which makes police work into something akin to the Mafia. It's bullshit. I am not a tattle tale, but there is a difference. If I see someone causing harm to innocent people at my job, you better believe I will say something. I work for a company that subcontracts for the Feds and our decisions can really cause people grief. I don't give a fuck who calls me a snitch; I won't participate in dishonesty or corruption of any kind. Police officers don't always do that. They cling to this belief in a blue line between "us and them." Well, that's just plain horse shit. You do not keep your mouth shut when other people are at risk.

Real0ne -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/4/2008 7:48:14 PM)
you know I disagree with much of what you say as a rule but I have to hand it to ya on this one. Bang on target!

OrionTheWolf -> RE: We dun need no 4th Amendment! (4/4/2008 8:04:19 PM)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/ The internet can be a great thing. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Doesn't this 4th amendment talk about "reasonable" search and seizure. What does that really mean ? It means the Pig asks a Judge, who provides oversight, and will, if he agrees issue a warrant.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375