getting into it on private property

[03DOHC]

I agree with you. But after taking one year of Constitutional Law and reading the 1400 page book that goes along with it. I can tell you we have no absolute rights in this country, there is almost always an exception.

For instance since the days of the Magna Carta, there has been the right to a writ of Habeas Corpus, but the 2006 Military Commissions Act has virtually suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

You took a course for one year but I've been reading about the subject for the last 15+ years. Besides, a course like that probably tells you "what is" and not why something is right, wrong, just, unjust, moral or immoral, because that's not the purpose of the course. That said, it has no bearing on right and wrong, what should or should not be, and only on what is legal or not legal (which is not the same thing as right and wrong). I already know this isn't a free country. Evidence in daily life, no book or 1 year course needed to see that.

There are no exceptions, period, or they aren't rights. You can call it what you want, but it isn't a right if it can be taken away. This government has violated the rights of its citizens way too many times. I'm frankly sick of it, which is why I speak up all the time on the subject (freedom), to the chagrin of the conservative boneheads here who see nothing wrong with the draft but somehow think they are for freedom.

Anyway...

 

[FordSVTFan]

I hate ADAM...........................


lucky and also hard working bastard(got my dream job)

It may appear to be a dream on paper, but in reality it is something less than that. Like every other profession it has its ups and its downs. But overall I truly enjoy it. I had seen agents leave because what they thought it would be and what it is were two different things.

 

[FordSVTFan]

You took a course for one year but I've been reading about the subject for the last 15+ years. Besides, a course like that probably tells you "what is" and not why something is right, wrong, just, unjust, moral or immoral, because that's not the purpose of the course. That said, it has no bearing on right and wrong, what should or should not be, and only on what is legal or not legal (which is not the same thing as right and wrong). I already know this isn't a free country. Evidence in daily life, no book or 1 year course needed to see that.

The year long course is in addition to my prior knowledge and experience with Constitutional Issues. As for what is right, wrong, just, unjust, moral or immoral is a large part of Con. Law. There is a huge public policy component which makes up all those factors. Con Law concentrates on the application of the Constitution in history and today and how the interpretation and application changes over the years.

There are no exceptions, period, or they aren't rights. You can call it what you want, but it isn't a right if it can be taken away. This government has violated the rights of its citizens way too many times. I'm frankly sick of it, which is why I speak up all the time on the subject (freedom), to the chagrin of the conservative boneheads here who see nothing wrong with the draft but somehow think they are for freedom.
Anyway...

A literal reading of the U.S. Constitution yields more problems than not. Justice Scalia believes that the original document should be evaluated on its face, yet decides cases based on the dynamic nature of the Constitution.

The drafters of the Constitution, could not have imagined "flying machines," let alone 100 story buildings, not to mention a group of terrorists taking the flying machine and taking down two 100 story buildings.

 

[jshen]

It is indeed a horrible feeling. When arguing I even threw up a little bit in my own mouth :xpl:

Check and see if you're growing scales...Once you pass the bar we turn into reptiles you know.......

 

[SHAKER3]

I was told it was bottom dwellers...

 

[mswaim]

The year long course is in addition to my prior knowledge and experience with Constitutional Issues. As for what is right, wrong, just, unjust, moral or immoral is a large part of Con. Law. There is a huge public policy component which makes up all those factors. Con Law concentrates on the application of the Constitution in history and today and how the interpretation and application changes over the years.



A literal reading of the U.S. Constitution yields more problems than not. Justice Scalia believes that the original document should be evaluated on its face, yet decides cases based on the dynamic nature of the Constitution.

The drafters of the Constitution, could not have imagined "flying machines," let alone 100 story buildings, not to mention a group of terrorists taking the flying machine and taking down two 100 story buildings.

Amen to that. :beer:

 

[WTF]

The drafters of the Constitution, could not have imagined "flying machines," let alone 100 story buildings, not to mention a group of terrorists taking the flying machine and taking down two 100 story buildings.

What's that they say? ... Even if we capture and punish these terrorist... ultimately, the terrorist win because we have already forfeited our rights to adapt to them. Airport security rights violations that are deemed acceptable now, are prime examples of how quickly things are changing. Oh well.

 

[FordSVTFan]

We could always bury out heads in the sand, and hope they all go away.

 

[WTF]

We could always bury out heads in the sand, and hope they all go away.

I say just nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[swoosh_stang]

What's that they say? ... Even if we capture and punish these terrorist... ultimately, the terrorist win because we have already forfeited our rights to adapt to them. Airport security rights violations that are deemed acceptable now, are prime examples of how quickly things are changing. Oh well.

What right would that be? The "right" to ride on a privately owned aircraft carrying weapons?

If you want to ride in my car, you follow my rules, why should it be any different in an airplane?

If my rule is that you have to strip naked and endure a full body cavity search to ride, you can either do it, or not ride.

 

[WTF]

What right would that be? The "right" to ride on a privately owned aircraft carrying weapons?

If you want to ride in my car, you follow my rules, why should it be any different in an airplane?

If my rule is that you have to strip naked and endure a full body cavity search to ride, you can either do it, or not ride.

You're taking only one aspect of that example and running with it. Privately owned yes. Follow their rules yes. But when people are being selectively chosen based on race, skin color, gender, etc for full cavity searches or interrogations while others (seemingly unlikely terrorist) walk through without question, rights are being violated. Also the "privately owned" argument doesn't carry alot of weight when airports that host them are city, state or government owned and are using the police.

Again, air transportation is only one example. Our rights are diminishing more and more as we grow fearful. 10 years from now, things that you and I would consider absolutely unacceptable maybe the acceptable norm.

Let me just throw this out there: Let's say for example, the idea of regulating yours and everyone else’s' driving habits. The government decides to mandate the installation of GPS units on ALL registered vehicles on the road to regulate your cooperation to the traffic laws. They could make it automated to where if you exceed 70mph, you’re automatically sent a fine by mail. This would effectively reduce excessive speeding and provide more income for the government. And why not, the sell is, it's only collecting money from "law breakers" anyways. Unacceptable right? That's only because you haven't warmed up to it yet. Maybe we need a politician to show how many deaths are caused by speeding. It's a "privilege to drive" they say. Makes for a great argument to add unlimited restrictions. Never mind everyone and their frigin' mother DEPENDS on it to make an income and daily life necessities. Again, only one example.

It's only a matter of time. We grow to accept more and more freedom losses in all aspects of our lives. All hail to big brother. :rockon:

 

[fordmanforever]

Funny

It's nice to see a laugh from a leo. They are human. Sometimes you can't tell though. I was once told by a cop to take it to a open parking lot.

LOL, i never seen FordSVTFAN crack a funny. :lol: This thread goes down in Dount shop history.

 

[fordmanforever]

GOLF CART FRENZY. Excuse me officer,... " I'm not sure why you pulled me over,...cause I know I wasn't speeding"

 

[carrrnuttt]

I know and He knows but cops are humans too. Also, when your a cop, you get that special "blue wall of silence". Its against the rules to arrest or fine a fellow blue. If your a rookie and you do this, I feel sorry for you.

I can't speak as a street cop, but when I was a Corrections Officer, where being tight-knit is quite essential, being that you're locked in with the, and outnumbered by CONVICTED felons, most of us took pleasure in bringing down any corrupt or bad Officer. It's a chink in the "armor" that just weakens everybody that should be behind it.