B
Boosted98gsx
Guest
then the logical solution is to ban all checkpoints that stop citizens in bulk, traveling in a single direction, for the sole purpose to drive police revenue (which they are), and violating TRUE civil rights.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Boosted98gsx
Guest
You have to remember, it's nrabroad
a backpedal when a liberal does it. That's called LEARNING.
a backpedal when a liberal does it. That's called LEARNING.
S
Sgt. Baker
Guest
They don't care about the constitution.
D
DCC
Guest
courts view that it is thus it is the current standing in most jurisdictions.
D
DCC
Guest
Sure I'll start disagreing with standing and fail the bar exam. That's a great idea.
Go back to working at best buy and leave the thinking to rabroad
hers.
Go back to working at best buy and leave the thinking to rabroad
hers.
J
Jas0n
Guest
Rehnquist said it's a seizure. A reasonable one.
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
Yes. The solution is to make the police do police work. Force them to gather evidence and have probable cause before they can do searches. Don't infringe on the rights of EVERYBODY to make it easier to get convictions.
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
He schooled you, bro. JUST NOW.
B
BoomBoomBoy
Guest
You're ignorant of how this transpired, so you're forgiven. I posted, with support that the USSC upheld sobriety checkpoints. From there, a number of retards went off on tangents (which by the way, are morabroad
in the face of reality).
I let them continue while stating I was right (USSC upheld sobriety checkpoints).
It's nrabroad
my responsibility to keep these members on topic.
Case closed!
in the face of reality).
I let them continue while stating I was right (USSC upheld sobriety checkpoints).
It's nrabroad
my responsibility to keep these members on topic.
Case closed!
D
Divine Vengeance
Guest
the fuck, did you just call BBM a liberal?
J
Jas0n
Guest
I clearly didn't complete that thought before posting. I'm on my phone, which is a lame excuse but I expect no mercy.
In any case, let me rephrase:
Show me please where in the fourth amendment it says that no seizure shall occur without a warrant.
In any case, let me rephrase:
Show me please where in the fourth amendment it says that no seizure shall occur without a warrant.
B
BoomBoomBoy
Guest
I think you're incorrect.
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
I don't care what precedents it was based on. Telling me the ruling was based on this precedent or that precedent won't accomplish anything for you. It's an unconstitutional ruling because it is contrary to the constitution, and allows precisely what the 4th amendment was created to prohibit.
I'm constantly astonished at how easily you people discard the constitution in favor of cout rulings. "That's interesting about the constitution, but this precedent said..."
The constitution is superior to the courts. Nrabroad
the rabroad
her way around, and the ruling in Sitz is a blatant violation of it.
I'm constantly astonished at how easily you people discard the constitution in favor of cout rulings. "That's interesting about the constitution, but this precedent said..."
The constitution is superior to the courts. Nrabroad
the rabroad
her way around, and the ruling in Sitz is a blatant violation of it.
J
Jas0n
Guest
That you have to resort to English case law, rather than the United States Constitution, to demonstrate what you allege the fourth amendment was written to prevent, suggests that maybe your interpretation goes beyond the actual.