Checkpoint No Consent, Warrantless Vehicle Search, Right to

[X Factor]

No, there are plenty of good cops that should be left alive. But there is an underlying point. I don't want to kill, and I don't want to advocate violence; but if they leave us with no choice, then we are left with no choice. So the actual decision is on their hands.

You said the time is now. So let's see how this should work in your mind. A police officer is working a checkpoint. You don't feel you should be subjected to such a thing, so rather than have your DL and proof of insurance ready, you have a gun and blow the cop away when he approaches your window and you doing that would actually be the fault of the cops. That about cover it?

 

[Ikari]

Just trying to help you not look foolish.






Too late.

Your opinions are inconsequential. There are some real boundary conditions and they've been in play since day 1, in case history ain't your thing. Government is for the People, of the People, by the People; and if government acts counter to our rights and liberties, it is our right and duty to do away with it. Declaration of Independence....read it.

 

[Ikari]

You said the time is now. So let's see how this should work in your mind. A police officer is working a checkpoint. You don't feel you should be subjected to such a thing, so rather than have your DL and proof of insurance ready, you have a gun and blow the cop away when he approaches your window and you doing that would actually be the fault of the cops. That about cover it?

If the courts do not work for us, then they work against us. Should government rise against our rights and liberties, it is our right and duty to replace it. This was established with the creation of the Republic. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[clownboy]

It shouldn't need an amendment because what a right is hasn't changed in hundreds of years. If the courts and government act counter to that, they force only 1 outcome should they choose to employ said strategy for too long.

Nonsense and not at all supported by American history. The Constitution became a "living document" when the SCOTUS first used Madison v Marbury as precedent. Their changing and self-referential interpretation of the Constitution and law has gone unchallenged (not successfully at least) for two centuries thereafter. Stronger now than ever.

 

[Henrin]

It fails the clarity test because it is doublespeak plain and simple. By definition these are not "illegal search and seizure" because the court has found them legal and not at odds with our constitutional rights, including the 4th. You seem to want to alter the nature of reality. And hey, I can agree with you, having a star chamber like the SCOTUS run things this way is NOT what we signed up for as a country. But it is indeed the reality.

Again, if you want the rights you think you should have, the way you think you should have them as opposed to the rights you do have in the way you have them now - a constitutional amendment is the only avenue, short of a successful revolution, that remains. Or I suppose you could also choose to just go on bitching about it.

I've long been on record here for a privacy amendment.

A privacy amendment would just get violated as well. It would serve no purpose if the court does not have the decency to do their job.

 

[clownboy]

If the courts do not work for us, then they work against us. Should government rise against our rights and liberties, it is our right and duty to replace it. This was established with the creation of the Republic. Is that clear enough for you?

So, as I said, your only remaining option is successful revolution since you're not up for amending the Constitution. I just don't see that happenning, do you, really?

 

[Ikari]

Nonsense and not at all supported by American history. The Constitution became a "living document" when the SCOTUS first used Madison v Marbury as precedent. Their changing and self-referential interpretation of the Constitution and law has gone unchallenged (not successfully at least) for two centuries thereafter. Stronger now than ever.

Living document in the sense that the Republic was meant to become free-er as time went on, not the reverse. It is living in that as we grow and evolve as a People, we understand the expansion of rights and liberties and move to restrict government more. You have the opposite, which was not intended but none the less predicted.

“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.”
― Daniel Webster

 

[Captain Adverse]

Source for that? IIRC If they ask you to step out, but refuse to answer "Am I being detained?" its not.

If you're not being detained, you don't have to talk to them because you're free to go.

This is true. In fact I have posted something similar to this in two other threads about citizen rights. It is interesting to note that despite repeated requests the officer refused to answer and simply kept telling the young man to pull over.

Unfortunately, very few local courts would back up a driver's claim that the actions of the officer were insufficient notice that he was being detained.

The one point that the young man made in that video which was not quite correct was that he could refuse to provide the police with his identification. SCOTUS has ruled in Hiibel v. Nevada that police may ask you for your ID, and you can be arrested if the state has a law that requires you to provide it when asked and you fail to do so.

It is also interesting to note that when he tried to explain, the officer ASKED if he was a lawyer. I'm willing to bet if he was they would have told him to get in his car and leave.

 

[Ikari]

So, as I said, your only remaining option is successful revolution since you're not up for amending the Constitution. I just don't see that happenning, do you, really?

I don't see it right now, I see it rising in popularity as the government continues to work against us. Honestly, it's on them. I say nothing shocking, I say nothing out of line with the creation of our Republic. Government must respect our rights, and if it chooses not to then we are of right and duty to replace it. Nothing more, nothing less. Is that wrong?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

And advocating cop killing is one of the reasons I'm not libertarian. I have moral beliefs against such things.

How is advocating cop killing a part of libertarianism? Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle.

That being said, if a dirty cop was trying to unlawfully execute you... you wouldn't fight back?

 

[X Factor]

If the courts do not work for us, then they work against us. Should government rise against our rights and liberties, it is our right and duty to replace it. This was established with the creation of the Republic. Is that clear enough for you?

Not especially, since you keep changing what you're saying. Now how about actually responding to what I wrote. Is that how you think a scenario like I posted should go down?

 

[Linc]

If checkpoints are legal in that state, then I have no problem with what they did. He wouldn't even talk to them. If a copper gives you a lawful order, you obey. Period.

He was making some sort of test case of himself. It probably cost him a couple hundred dollars. Stupid. Serves him right.

I can attest to how those with Illinois plates need to be very careful driving in Red parts of this Country, especially eastern Colorado on I-76, especially since Obama has been POTUS. Even a clean blood test for drugs and alcohol cannot remove a DUID arrest from the FBI database, a dismissed arrest.

 

[clownboy]

A privacy amendment would just get violated as well. It would serve no purpose if the court does not have the decency to do their job.

Perhaps. However they do have an image they are married to, a self-supporting method for maintaining the power. In light of a successful constitutional amendment, I believe they would indeed honor it. To do anything else, at least during the first generation that recalls it's enacting would be to show the man behind the curtain.

 

[X Factor]

How is advocating cop killing a part of libertarianism? Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle.

That being said, if a dirty cop was trying to unlawfully execute you... you wouldn't fight back?

Even if he was lawfully trying to kill me, I'm sure I'd resist. I wouldn't shoot one because he pulled me over, nor would I say that others should.

 

[Henrin]

Perhaps. However they do have an image they are married to, a self-supporting method for maintaining the power. In light of a successful constitutional amendment, I believe they would indeed honor it. To do anything else, at least during the first generation that recalls it's enacting would be to show the man behind the curtain.

Everyone knows what is behind the curtain. Simply look at the Obamacare ruling or pretty much any ruling since the 1930's. Almost all of them were complete tripe.

The best example will forever be the first amendment. Congress can pass no law, but low and behold the supreme says that they can. Go figure, they can't read.

 

[Linc]

So, as I said, your only remaining option is successful revolution since you're not up for amending the Constitution. I just don't see that happenning, do you, really?

The inability of this House and this Senate to come close on immigration proves your point about amending the Constitution.

 

[X Factor]

I don't see it right now, I see it rising in popularity as the government continues to work against us. Honestly, it's on them. I say nothing shocking, I say nothing out of line with the creation of our Republic. Government must respect our rights, and if it chooses not to then we are of right and duty to replace it. Nothing more, nothing less. Is that wrong?

And that revolution starts with shooting cops? Yes, I'd say that's wrong.

 

[Ikari]

Not especially, since you keep changing what you're saying. Now how about actually responding to what I wrote. Is that how you think a scenario like I posted should go down?

I keep changing what I'm saying? Well here's this X Factor, go back in this thread and quote where I said "the time is now". And to refresh your memory I said:

Or time to shoot more cops. Either or.

That response was to an authoritarian who believed that I should submit to all government force and pressure, and that any force and pressure was just because the government did it. The contrasting statement is that the power is not held within the Government, but within the People and as such should the government abandon its purpose, the People are free to replace it.

Changing what I'm saying? No. It's called context and perchance you should learn it.

 

[Ikari]

And that revolution starts with shooting cops? Yes, I'd say that's wrong.

If revolution would to start, then yes, government agents are legitimate target. Though nothing in your misrepresentation of my point changes anything I said.

 

[Henrin]

The inability of this House and this Senate to come close on immigration proves your point about amending the Constitution.

I don't see how that is bad thing since they lack the authority to pass the law in the first place.

 

[clownboy]

I don't see it right now, I see it rising in popularity as the government continues to work against us. Honestly, it's on them. I say nothing shocking, I say nothing out of line with the creation of our Republic. Government must respect our rights, and if it chooses not to then we are of right and duty to replace it. Nothing more, nothing less. Is that wrong?

In some ways, yes. By arguing that we are as a nation what we are not the attention is taken away from the solutions. Yes, I do love the republic as it was created and intended. However, it has not been that since the court took power. And it is especially not that now. It is what it is and the SCOTUS has the final word in telling us what rights we are guaranteed and how they may be applied, or not applied. That is the system we have become.

There is still a possibility of change. We can move forward to a republic more in line with the vision of our founders. But we seem to have lost the will to care for and amend our constitution. As the centuries slip by it gets more difficult because generations know what they grew up with and the republic as envisioned is foreign to them. That includes our generation btw.

 

[Linc]

I don't see how that is bad thing since they lack the authority to pass the law in the first place.

Constitutional wrangling on all issues all around me. We can't even agree on the shape of the peace table.

 

[Ikari]

In some ways, yes. By arguing that we are as a nation what we are not the attention is taken away from the solutions. Yes, I do love the republic as it was created and intended. However, it has not been that since the court took power. And it is especially not that now. It is what it is and the SCOTUS has the final word in telling us what rights we are guaranteed and how they may be applied, or not applied. That is the system we have become.

There is still a possibility of change. We can move forward to a republic more in line with the vision of our founders. But we seem to have lost the will to care for and amend our constitution. As the centuries slip by it gets more difficult because generations know what they grew up with and the republic as envisioned is foreign to them. That includes our generation btw.

There were plenty of loyalists too that were a touch unhappy with rule, but unwilling to make a change. We see how it turned out.

There is still possibility of change. Do not mistake my instance that violence is a proper tool for the People to mean that violence is the ONLY tool of the People. But the government must be reminded, it must know whom the true sovereigns are. I much prefer that we reassert ourselves as proper rulers and get the government out of control rather than being forced to pick up gun and fight against it. Peaceful means are always preferable.

 

[clownboy]

Yeah, don't get me wrong I understand the language of revolution, I just don't see it as likely (violent or non). We're not even close to the point of oppression where folks will risk shucking off what they've lived with (mostly comfortably) their whole lives. A constitutional amendment is only slightly more likely, but far more preferrable.

The most likely outcome in my view right now is Idiocracy. :mrgreen:

 

[Henrin]

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

It's a bit disturbing when you come to realize just how many of those have happened since.