Just a few comments
As a constitutional purist, you then recognize the powers granted to the courts by the constitution in Article III.
With that said, the Supreme Court is the only court that can resolve matters regarding the constitution. The 4th amendment granted government agents power to search and seize if done in a reasonable manner, and the Supreme Court had determined that cursory seizures such as the ones set up at fixed points, within a reasonable distance from the border as reasonable. It's the law of the land, respect it.
I do respect the law of the land, the Supreme Court, nor any other branch of government, decidedly
does not.
The 4th Amendment gave very specific guidance concerning how "reasonable" searches and seizures are to be conducted:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Nowhere in
Link Removed is the high Court given authority to "interpret" anything that is written in the Constitution or subsequent amendments. They are charged by the Constitution with the responsibility to judge disputes based on
what is written, without respect to their personal views or ideologies. The Supreme Court has become nothing
but a political entity, starting (at least) with them "ruling" themselves more power and authority than The People granted them in The Constitution with "judicial review" in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. If not before then, at least since then, they have been a criminal and treasonous enterprise. They are not authorized to lower standards set in the 4th Amendment from "probable cause" to "reasonable articulable suspicion" or to put time limits on the word "reasonable" when time has nothing to do with the restrictions
upon them specifically articulated in the amendment.
I have
zero respect for such unabashed crimes against The People! And I consider it treasonous activity to boot, which, added to all the other treason committed by nearly every Congress-critter and President to ever be elected, makes this government wholly illegitimate, completely unworthy of respect by anyone who respects and reveres the Constitution.
The same applied to DUI check points. The Supreme Court applied the same logic here with respect to DUI check points, and determined if done correctly and reasonable it is not unconstitutional. Some states do not allow it altogether, and some states do. In states that allow it, there are disclosure requirements to the public on when and where the stops would be conducted. You may not agree with the outcome, but it's the law of the land. Respect it.
I'll respect the court
and whatever you say when the court and you start speaking from a position of respecting, but more importantly,
adhering to, the Constitution.
The 4th amendment does not ban all search and seizure by the government. In fact, it allows it, as long as it is done reasonably.
And what We, The People consider "reasonable" is
very clearly defined after the word "unreasonable" is written.
Respect it.
The Supreme Court determined DUI check points and border patrol check points are constitutional.
They also decided that it was within their authority to rewrite the word "fine" to "tax" in order to "make" ObamaCare "constitutional." They are traitors to the Constitution, not protectors or watchmen for its unambiguous laws protecting The People's God-given rights.
Not sure what infringement you were referring to. Reasonable Search and seizures are both intrusions specifically allowed by the constitution.
Not without probable cause they're not. Not without
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized within the warrants that
shall not be issued without such descriptions, they're not.
Respect it!
The 4th Amendment needs no "interpretation" or "judicial review." It is clear as a bell what it means.
RESPECT IT!!!
I can make the same argument that you really don't have to drive through the check point because you know where it is, and driving is not a right so you can do away with driving then you wouldn't be subjected to these check points.....?
You can make any argument you wish to make, but if they don't comport with the text of the 4th Amendment (for the purposes of this limited discussion only), then they're not worthy of consideration
or respect.
And here in AL, you're wrong, it is up to the citizen to subscribe to the only (far-left) newspaper available here if you want to get notified of where the stops are being set up. I will not be forced by my government to subscribe (support) companies that I don't support.
RESPECT IT!!!
Blues
