Thread: Welcome to our Post-Constitutional America.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

I get what you are saying but I think the overriding point here is that checkpoint stops themselves are unconstitutional, not just the behavior of officers manning them. Restricting someone's right to travel down the road freely and detaining them for any reason for any amount of time without probable cause is illegal. That's the point here, more than anything else. The poor behavior by LEO's as they conduct the stops is just adding insult to injury. And that's my source of heartburn, as you say.

What I just said above is where my reference to treating everyone as a criminal comes from too. Probable cause means that a LEO has to reasonably suspect that there is criminal conduct when they detain you. Pulling you over is detaining you, and it's unreasonable.

They are in fact not unconstitutional - what is in fact constitutional is not determined by any individual or group other than the courts, the final word being the Supreme Court of the United States. You may not like it - but the Constitution itself setup this system. You stating something is 'unconstitutional' implies that a court has held as much - which on this issue is not the case and is misleading.

Originally Posted by iravedic

They are in fact not unconstitutional - what is in fact constitutional is not determined by any individual or group other than the courts, the final word being the Supreme Court of the United States. You may not like it - but the Constitution itself setup this system. You stating something is 'unconstitutional' implies that a court has held as much - which on this issue is not the case and is misleading.

What if the court itself has become unconstitutional?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2.

Originally Posted by SourceSkills

What if the court itself has become unconstitutional?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2.

Not sure how that is possible given the fact that Article III of the Constitution starts with the clause: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court" doesn't get any broader than that - ALL judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court. Maybe possible with some of the lower Article III courts or courts created under different provisions - like Article I courts. But the basic tenant of your comment is impossible.

Originally Posted by iravedic

Not sure how that is possible given the fact that Article III of the Constitution starts with the clause: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court" doesn't get any broader than that - ALL judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court. Maybe possible with some of the lower Article III courts or courts created under different provisions - like Article I courts. But the basic tenant of your comment is impossible.

When the right people pay the justices the right price to support the law that is clearly unconstitutional to maximize corporate greed.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2.

Originally Posted by SourceSkills

What if the court itself has become unconstitutional?

All human systems rely on humans at some level. A goal of the current system was to account for the failings of individual leaders by building institutions that segregated power.

I suppose the remedy to your case involves:

(a) revolution

... which was also a remedy included in the thinking of our current system's designers.

(b) start building SkyNet

... because the rise of the machines will surely be the fix for human failings.


Æ

Originally Posted by SourceSkills

When the right people pay the justices the right price to support the law that is clearly unconstitutional to maximize corporate greed.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2.

If that were the case the individual would be subject to impeachment, and if impeached they would be removed. The Court itself would continue and is perfectly in it's rights and powers to reverse course on any particular issue if they deem it necessary.

Go find the proof and call your congressman to get the impeachment ball rolling - that's how it works.

Originally Posted by iravedic

They are in fact not unconstitutional - what is in fact constitutional is not determined by any individual or group other than the courts, the final word being the Supreme Court of the United States. You may not like it - but the Constitution itself setup this system. You stating something is 'unconstitutional' implies that a court has held as much - which on this issue is not the case and is misleading.

Which case are you citing, and am I correct in assuming you mean that I cannot disagree with the Supreme Court? I can say it's unconstitutional all I want, last I checked.

Originally Posted by iravedic

The Police exceeding constitutional authority has been an issue since the country was founded. Most of the 'lines' which are being discussed here have only been fairly recently implemented by the courts. Before 1961 there was no prohibition on using illegally obtained evidence in a criminal case (Mapp v. Ohio 1961), Miranda warnings have been required since 1963, and accused have only had a right counsel since 1963. Furthermore, stop and search has only been allowed formally since 1968 with 'probable cause'.

The law on check-points is all over the map - literally. The majority of states (38), and the feds, have either explicitly authorized checkpoints or have had their highest courts rule them to be constitutional under both their state constitution or the US Constitution. The 12 who prohibit checkpoints are comprised of both traditionally Red (Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Texas, Wyoming) and Blue states (Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin).

One of the primary issues I have with this topic is exemplified by its title: "Post-Constitutional" really? The Constitution is not a static document, it has been interpreted over the years and those interpretations have helped build our country. Many of the 'rights' people scream about in here wouldn't exist without multiple evolutionary interpretations of the Constitution based on changing facts, and many things we take for granted every single day wouldn't be legal or protected without those interpretations. You may disagree with a ruling on what in fact passes constitutional muster - but to claim that we are in a post-constitutional America is unnecessarily inflammatory.

Yes, really. We live in a country where the President can make proclamations that exceed their authority (see any of Executive orders as examples), announce selective enforcement of laws passed by congress (see obamacare). In a country where our federal agencies regularly illegally search, seize, and/or store private data of innocent individuals with no probable cause, and can take a citizen against his or her will and without due process (which that provision in the NDAA is again illegal and unconstitutional). In a country where even the Supreme Court regularly misappropriates the intent of congress in their review of laws they are asked to rule on the constitutionality of (see the Obamacare decision and specifically Chief Justice Roberts' opinion as an example) in order to support or deny in bald face the political goals and influence of the other branches. In a country where the 10th amendment is regularly ignored, where the second amendment is seen as a "guideline" and where the rest of the bill of rights is really only ever subjectively applied, again often based on the political aspirations of those involved. There's obviously more, so much more to point out, but I'll stop in the interest of brevity.

The bottom line is that yes, this is unfortunately a post-constitutional republic. We can fix that. By we I mean we the people. But before we do, people like you are going to really need to give a shit about the facts at hand. If you won't, then things will keep getting worse. The United States government and most local governments as well have gone far beyond the boundaries set for them by the constitution. They are going to continue in that direction until we say no with our vote and collective voices. You point to "legal precedent" and decisions by the Supreme Court that are clearly troublesome in terms of their reach and scope in redefining laws they are called to review, and sit there and act like it's all good. Well I'm saying it's not all good.