Hoosierland, no warrant needed now..

[davewindsor]

@javipa post:39

We have a precious document that continues to theoretically limit government, protect us FROM government, and empower each of us to pursue life, liberty and happiness. At least it gives us the right to revolt, if the government oversteps it’s constitutional bounds.

Maybe enough of us can reconquer progressive government through the ballot box and push these freedom robbers back into their unhappy hell of an existence, or back to Greece …France …China …or Iran.

Either way, good riddance.

Good riddance to what? If switching the standard to ‘reasonable suspicion’ from ‘probable cause’ is what really happened here and it went against the constitution, then the law was effectively changed to fit the changing times. If the “right to revolt” means pushing a cop against your wall so he can’t effectively do his job, then the majority of Indiana supreme court judges affirmed that you don’t have that kind of right, which is really the whole point of this thread. These rights aren’t absolute. It’s not historically absolute as shown by hypocritical founding fathers and it’s not currently absolute as shown by the judges.

Or you can just argue that what happened here wasn’t really relevant to the 4th amendment and the 4th amendment wasn’t changed because evidence wasn’t seized and used against the accused.

Either way, you can’t cheerlead and say “good riddance” because you never got rid of it.

[javipa]

@jmd_forest post:40

javipa,

Your post is much more eloquent and appropriate than any I could have produced.

Thank you.

Thank you, back! This last year, I’ve been dong a lot of reading about the founders and the constitution. It seems there’s no end to resources on this topic, and I’ve got tons more to read, but the thing that motivated me most were the attacks on the founders themselves, as if any hiccup or inconsistency would justify the complete invalidation of the constitution they assembled.

Our nation’s unparalleled and completely unsurpassed power, influence and prosperity can be traced directly to the adherence to the spirit (and letter) of the U.S. constitution.

What’s interesting to me is that the founders didn’t have a lot of faith that the US would last much more than a generation. They believed, rightly, that forces would attempt to move away from this “faith based” constitution, toward some more totalitarian form of government, as had been experienced under King George. Not everyone wanted to break from England’s rule…

There’s “safety” for those who want their decisions made for them… There’s no end to the supply of people who’d gladly trade liberty for security. We see this today, as people are quite willing to give up liberty for security at airports while submitting to a body search like they were newly inducted victims of a concentration camp; assuming the entire traveling population was in the process of committing a crime. This is sick. It’s just another tick mark toward totalitarianism desensitization.

It’s even more interesting that the most at-risk population, that has suffered under direct and notorious humiliation/death by a totalitarian regime, doesn’t do body checks at airports. Hmmm.

No, they profile passengers and ask questions. It’s fast, cheap and so far 100% effective. How’s that compare to us?

No, we can’t profile the dear hearts of Middle Eastern young men that, so far, make up the entire population of terrorists. No, bless their hearts, we have to grope Grandmas and little girl’s vaginal areas for bombs, because questioning male Arabs coming in from Yemen is too intrusive. All thanks to the politically correct sensitivities of a progressive, middle-aged lesbian in charge of the TSA. No thank you.

[jmd_forest]

Every small erosion of rights makes it easier for ever more intrusive and oppressive laws restricting individual liberty and the associated responsibilities. Just 10 to 20 years ago it would have been unthinkable that you would not be allowed to defend yourself from UNLAWFUL acts of the state, or that electronic monitoring of an individuals communications and private data without warrants would be allowed, or that secret searchers of your property would be considered proper law enforcement, or that warrantless seizures in a “constitution free zone” would be considered normal. The erosion will continue as long as more and more fearful people believe the government can actually protect them.

It seems following the Constitution has become too inconvenient so in many cases it is interpreted such that it no longer says what it actually says or mean what it actually means.

[javipa]

Yes! Yes! Yes!

@jmd_forest post:43

Every small erosion of rights makes it easier for ever more intrusive and oppressive laws restricting individual liberty and the associated responsibilities. Just 10 to 20 years ago it would have been unthinkable that you would not be allowed to defend yourself from UNLAWFUL acts of the state, or that electronic monitoring of an individuals communications and private data without warrants would be allowed, or that secret searchers of your property would be considered proper law enforcement, or that warrantless seizures in a “constitution free zone” would be considered normal. The erosion will continue as long as more and more fearful people believe the government can actually protect them.

It seems following the Constitution has become too inconvenient so in many cases it is interpreted such that it no longer says what it actually says or mean what it actually means.