|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Sorry but looking in on your yard from the sky is no different than me standing at your property line. Like it or not it's legal and there's nothing you can do.
Actually, it is much more different when you're seeking a criminal.
And, there is actually a great deal that could be done about it and some states are doing things about it. People could individually do things about drones.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
But, most Americans are so conditioned to accepting that the government wouldn't do anything harmful against their citizens.
Tell it to the Jews (and anyone else that questioned the government) in 1930 and the first half of the 1940s in Germany (and the land they occupied).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Yeah, because Dredd Scott wasn't overruled...
That Dredd Scott ever existed is the point. That was the Supreme Court that you trust.
And Obamacare hasn't been overturned.
Quote:
The ability of law enforcement to look into your yard from above has been around for a while.
And therefore it is acceptable? God help us with these notions in the minds of the populace.
Quote:
If non-state actors have a legal right to view your yard from the air space, so does the government.
The question is whether they have the 'legal right' to do so. It seems to be an obvious violation of the 4th Amendment. And you could extrapolate it and argue that it's a violation of the 5th Amendment as well.
Quote:
I'm not arguing ideology with you. I'm just stating the facts.
What you're stating is that you willingly accept violations of the U.S. Constition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
On one hand you cry about your constitutional rights, and then on the other hand you dismiss the institution that is a central part of the Constitution and was put into place to say WHAT THE LAW IS.
You don't see any hypocrisy there?
I suppose you're better suited to interpret the Constitution. What could the Supreme Court - made up exclusively of people who have spent their entire careers studying the law - know about what's Constitutional?
Although I agree the Supreme Court makes mistakes, your premise makes no logical sense. If not the Supreme Court, then who? For all their faults, they are the best positioned to judge the constitutionality of a subject. After all, the Constitution gives them that duty.
As for drones being used for warrantless searches, all it takes is one instance of that happening for it to be brought up in court and the practice will be deemed unconstitutional since your home is the "most sacred place protected by the 4th amendment". There is no expectation of privacy in open fields. Only your home and curtilage.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,657
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,657 |
Now we're getting way too tangential.
We can rehash Dredd Scott and all the silly decisions made by the Supreme Court as much as you want. We can also discuss the many more decisions that make sense, but that's not germane to the point. The point of introducing the Supreme Court case in the first place is bringing about the fact that air searches of private property have been permissible for decades. That's my point outside of ideology which I made to you before, but let's discuss ideology now.
Here is the Fourth Amendment:
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.
So I suppose your argument bases on the "unreasonable" portion. I guess we should remove windows from AF-1 so the president while acting in his stately role can't look out and search private property from the air. No more police helicopter manhunts when a criminal is on the loose in a certain area because they may not have probable cause to search every area of private property.
As far as a "legal right" goes, the government doesn't need a "legal right." Their job is to enforce the laws. The BoR doesn't give the government any rights, but rather restricts it. I don't really see a viable argument taking the Fourth Amendment and placing a ban on looking at outdoor private property through aerial views. Again, it would apply if the government was using sensors to search through the walls and roof of a person's home, which has been done and has been struck down as unreasonable by Scalia himself, who often sides against Fourth Amendment claims.
Here is the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I'll leave that open to you to expand your Fifth Amendment claims.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
You could indict a ham sandwich!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,657
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,657 |
That's a fair point. I would add the Supreme Court, per capita (hell even maybe just aggregately) has more intelligence than any other branch, and is easily the most detached from politics. They have great job security.
I think bringing up Dredd Scott is quite a bit off base, but I do get his point about the Obamacare decision. I am a huge fan of Justice Roberts, but, man, he really lost me on that one.
That being said, they are fulfilling their Constitutional duty. You can't clamour to preserve the Constitution while at the same time berating the authority given to one of its branches of power.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
As far as a "legal right" goes, the government doesn't need a "legal right." Their job is to enforce the laws. The BoR doesn't give the government any rights, but rather restricts it. I don't really see a viable argument taking the Fourth Amendment and placing a ban on looking at outdoor private property through aerial views. Again, it would apply if the government was using sensors to search through the walls and roof of a person's home, which has been done and has been struck down as unreasonable by Scalia himself, who often sides against Fourth Amendment claims.
This argument really does lie in the details.. yes, we have used aerial recon to look for fugitives, etc for a long time.. but they are up there with a purpose. What if they see some illegal activity.. say a pot growing operation while looking for the fugitive.. can they report that and go arrest somebody? I honestly don't know the answer to that.
Now we are talking about having them flying around regularly just looking for "stuff"... what stuff? I don't know
Is there a difference between a patrol car on the street looking for stuff and a drone in the air looking for stuff? I don't know that either....
What kind of technology do (or will) these drones carry? Will they be recording what they see? I don't know those answers either.
I believe that a lot of people are in the same boat I'm in, they have more questions than answers.... and while this is similar to other things, it's also different in some ways.... It is sort of a cross between patrol cars driving around and helos flying overhead looking for a specific target...
I consider myself much more of a slippery slope guy than a tin foil hat guy so count me in on the side of people who are wary of federal/state/local government having thousands of these things flying overhead 24/7 just looking for "stuff"...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
You could indict a ham sandwich!
well, it shouldn't have killed Cass Elliot
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,657
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,657 |
I don't disagree with anything you say.
I do think there should be a codification establishing the parameters of UAV (I hate the word "drone") usage.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
but drone sounds so much more ominous.  Unfortunately rather than have legislators proactively codify the law, they will just wait for things to happen and let the court sort it out.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
I use to live in that area. The area as I took that they were scanning is mostly desert. Once you go south from Big Bear there are some homes and very few communities. Palms Springs is more southeast than south and Temecula is more southwest. Nothing else is there except national parks and majority of the area is unpopulated.
You all are arguing over nothing. Unless the Joshua trees feels violated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
You all are arguing over nothing.
Actually we are arguing over precedent, defining privacy rights, the scope and reach of the government and law enforcement, application of the 4th amendment, and other trivial crap like that... If you think this is about one incident over some trees then feel free to move along because the next time could be in the suburbs or anywhere else for that matter... Then there is the issue of what happens when they aren't up there looking for somebody specific, they are just prowling around...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,411
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,411 |
Quote:
Which in a lot of states, is also illegal. So I will plant trees and bushes inside my fence that grow to at least 8'... you seem to be missing the point.
which is why I dug under your fence and peek through the trees. your to busy looking up to notice me 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Which in a lot of states, is also illegal. So I will plant trees and bushes inside my fence that grow to at least 8'... you seem to be missing the point.
which is why I dug under your fence and peek through the trees. your to busy looking up to notice me
I hope you come up right in the area where the dog poops.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,411
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,411 |
Like I would even notice the smell 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Like someone else stated... Check out google maps.
As far as precedent... many of you raising hell kept MUM when Bush was tapping our own servicemen and american citizens convos. Then there are the same rebel rousers who argued against both.
But as far as precedent. What is the difference of using a Helicopter with imaging equipment and a drone? To me, it is just a matter of man power and the area able to be covered.
So by your reasoning all the helicopters in LA with the big search lights on them are a violation of rights?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
The local news is insane right now. They have live coverage of a gunfight between Dorner and the police.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
many of you raising hell kept MUM when Bush was tapping our own servicemen and american citizens convos.
So what? Many on the other side blasted Bush for doing stuff and are now praising Obama for doing much the same thing.. what does that contribute to the discussion?
Quote:
So by your reasoning all the helicopters in LA with the big search lights on them are a violation of rights?
Not that I ever said anything remotely close to that but..... since you asked, I don't know... are they? What are they looking for? Where are they looking? What are they doing with the information?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
And that is the key. As you said, there are many more questions than answers, but in general, your outdoor areas are not considered wholly private.
Unless you are inside your home, your right to privacy is simply implied, but not guaranteed. Repeatative peering would be covered under stalking and trespassing laws if they enter your property in the process.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
Quote:
many of you raising hell kept MUM when Bush was tapping our own servicemen and american citizens convos.
So what? Many on the other side blasted Bush for doing stuff and are now praising Obama for doing much the same thing.. what does that contribute to the discussion?
I never said praising... stop putting words in my mouth. But one is a clear violation of our rights and constitution... the drone thing is not. Yet the same people are (forthemostpart) have an issue with this.
Quote:
Quote:
So by your reasoning all the helicopters in LA with the big search lights on them are a violation of rights?
Not that I ever said anything remotely close to that but..... since you asked, I don't know... are they? What are they looking for? Where are they looking? What are they doing with the information?
The same thing the drones are now. Criminals on the run.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
I don't disagree with anything you say.
I do think there should be a codification establishing the parameters of UAV (I hate the word "drone") usage.
The FAA is currently in the process of establishing that codification for what it's worth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
On one hand you cry about your constitutional rights, and then on the other hand you dismiss the institution that is a central part of the Constitution and was put into place to say WHAT THE LAW IS.
I'm not dismissing the Supreme Court. What I am saying is that they aren't infallible and you shouldn't count on them to protect your God-granted rights as a human being.
Quote:
You don't see any hypocrisy there?
No. I find gullibility by those that your government can't be corrupted and oppress you legally. Legality does not make something constitutional. You should learn the difference. They could pass a law tomorrow confiscating everything that you (and only you) own. They could single you out specifically. That doesn't mean that you should submit to surrendering everything (or anything) that you own to the government.
Quote:
I suppose you're better suited to interpret the Constitution. What could the Supreme Court - made up exclusively of people who have spent their entire careers studying the law - know about what's Constitutional?
I dare say that I understand it better than many of the jurists. Yes. The jurists on the SCOTUS don't even agree. I dare say that you'd be hard-pressed to find very many unanimous SCOTUS decisions. And I do dare say that I am no less qualified than any of them and I don't care what they spend their entire careers doing. It's not difficult to understand what the words in the U.S. Constitution mean. If you think it takes a miraculous mind or even just a genius mind (and I'd question that many jurists are even geniuses) to understand.
Much of what we see hashed out in decisions are a repetition of bad decisions taken as 'case law' or 'precedent'. Just because one ruling happened in a case doesn't make it a good decision. Too often, we don't utilize common sense in our judgments and just take someone else's bad decision and duplicate the error.
Quote:
Although I agree the Supreme Court makes mistakes, your premise makes no logical sense. If not the Supreme Court, then who? For all their faults, they are the best positioned to judge the constitutionality of a subject. After all, the Constitution gives them that duty.
Why are they the best positioned? Because they were nominated by corrupt politicians and approved of by corrupt politicians? I have the same power to read and interpret the words of the Constitution as any of these jurist or anyone else.
Quote:
As for drones being used for warrantless searches, all it takes is one instance of that happening for it to be brought up in court and the practice will be deemed unconstitutional since your home is the "most sacred place protected by the 4th amendment". There is no expectation of privacy in open fields. Only your home and curtilage.
Oh really? Have you read the 4th Amendment? I can see that you haven't and are just following the lead of the stupid.
The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: 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.
I think that it's quite clear that it doesn't refer to just your home. You can be on an public street and not have an expectation that the next passerby will rummage through your pockets. You can be in your vehicle on a public road and have an expectation that you will not be asked to have your car searched. You have a reasonable expectation in most aspects of your life while in public to not be asked to prove your identity by the state.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
Oh really? Have you read the 4th Amendment? I can see that you haven't and are just following the lead of the stupid.
Well at least you didn't make a personal attack 
I have to read and study the Constitution every day so I am very familiar with the 4th amendment. My last statement was regarding the state of the current law, especially with the aforementioned Riley v. Florida decision, which has now stood for 25 years.
Quote:
What I am saying is that they aren't infallible and you shouldn't count on them to protect your God-granted rights as a human being.
Who said they were infallible? There is a system in place that even if a decision is passed that you disagree with it, it can be overturned. It's not an easy process, but it's not supposed to be.
Quote:
They could pass a law tomorrow confiscating everything that you (and only you) own. They could single you out specifically.
Anything can happen. This won't.
Quote:
I dare say that you'd be hard-pressed to find very many unanimous SCOTUS decisions.
This statement is just flat out wrong, both historically and today. Today's court has a 44% unanimous rate, and historically courts have had even a 50% unanimous rate. http://epstein.usc.edu/research/unanDecisions.pdf
Quote:
It's not difficult to understand what the words in the U.S. Constitution mean.
It's easy to read them, it's incredibly difficult to apply them to the modern world, especially since the US has stare decisis.
Quote:
I dare say that I understand it better than many of the jurists.
No, you don't.
Quote:
And I do dare say that I am no less qualified than any of them and I don't care what they spend their entire careers doing.
Yes you are.
Quote:
Why are they the best positioned?
They are the pinnacle of the legal profession. They are the top of the top when it comes to legal knowledge. You're not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
j/c
Drones, red light cameras, speed cameras........It's all about money. You have it, the gov't. wants it, and they'll take it as they see fit.
At least with the drones, they'll have video of the tv and computer being taken out of someone's house. Then they'll send the cops to take a report. That saves you making a phone call in order to have the cops come and take a report.
Wait - you'll still have to call.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Drones kinda go along with the letter I got from my cpa last week.
"The state of Ohio has decided that every company operating in Ohio has made at least 1 purchase through a vendor that did not charge sales tax......." therefore, pay us, and if you don't, you run a higher risk of being audited, and we WILL find something, and you WILL owe the tax, plus a 50% penalty, plus 5% interest.
Self report, and we'll waive the interest and penalty.
The state is looking at businesses as "guilty until you pay or prove you are innocent. Take your pick - because you are guilty, or you will pay, or you'll never be proven innocent."
Follow the money - it all leads to gov't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Now we're getting way too tangential.
Nothing tangential about it. The meaning in the Constitution is quite clear. What you're trying to do is cover the meaning in an all-encompassing fog.
Quote:
So I suppose your argument bases on the "unreasonable" portion. I guess we should remove windows from AF-1 so the president while acting in his stately role can't look out and search private property from the air.
And I'm being tangential?
Quote:
No more police helicopter manhunts when a criminal is on the loose in a certain area because they may not have probable cause to search every area of private property.
If they have no warrant to search the private property, then my response would be 'Yes, no police helicopter manhunts.'
I'll quote someone that I trust to know much more about what the writer's of the U.S. Constitution meant than anyone alive today (yes, including myself). Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Quote:
As far as a "legal right" goes, the government doesn't need a "legal right." Their job is to enforce the laws. The BoR doesn't give the government any rights, but rather restricts it.
Actually, only the 'executive' branch of governments are charged with enforcing the laws but they cannot violate those laws to enforce them. That's a contradiction of law.
I won't even expound on that statement about the Fifth Amendment because I think it's abundantly clear. You cannot be asked to incriminate yourself. Even committing acts that are against the law (which doesn't denote constitutionality or unconstitutionality) on your own property (whether inside a house, in a corn field, in an open field or under water) cannot constitutionally be used against you if the information was obtained without a warrant. They do have constitutional bounds that, in a civilized society, they should be held to abide. If they do not have to abide those constitutional limits then those limits are fraudulent and mean nothing. The government can violate any of those codified laws and protections with impunity and it means nothing. When that happens, you're living in a totalitarian state.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Like someone else stated... Check out google maps.
As far as precedent... many of you raising hell kept MUM when Bush was tapping our own servicemen and american citizens convos. Then there are the same rebel rousers who argued against both.
But as far as precedent. What is the difference of using a Helicopter with imaging equipment and a drone? To me, it is just a matter of man power and the area able to be covered.
So by your reasoning all the helicopters in LA with the big search lights on them are a violation of rights?
Anyone that knows my views on the so-called 'Patriot Act' know that I said then (and still do) say that it violates the U.S. Constitution in a variety of ways.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,817
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,817 |
Quote:
Quote:
You could indict a ham sandwich!
well, it shouldn't have killed Cass Elliot
I thought it was a chicken bone, but none the less, some intelligent discussion in this thread.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,817
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,817 |
Who said they were infallible? There is a system in place that even if a decision is passed that you disagree with it, it can be overturned. It's not an easy process, but it's not supposed to be.
Good point Joker.......it isn't. If black letter law is easy to overturn, is it really black letter?
Last edited by Ballpeen; 02/12/13 08:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 42,413 |
The dude is dead, no need for the drones.
Watching this all day on the local news was craaaaazy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Well at least you didn't make a personal attack
Take it any way that you wish.
Quote:
I have to read and study the Constitution every day so I am very familiar with the 4th amendment.
It isn't apparent from your statements about it. Cite me another ruling will you. Please! I know that you are all about case law and precedent. Why not throw in all the particulars too! It ought to make for much boring reading.
Anyone with half a brain knows that all you have to do is get one judge to agree with your lunacy and precedent is set. It doesn't matter how many tries and rejections of the lunacy preceded it. One decision in the affirmative is all that is needed. Why do you think that these cases on one issue (and even one aspect of an issue) get litigated 10 ways from Sunday? Keep attacking the laws until you get a favorable result and you're set.
Save me the bulk of your gibberish. It's rather clear what the meanings of the Constitution is and it's meaning has been so corrupted with everything from 'it was written by slave owners' to 'it is a living document' to 'it is outdated and not applicable to modern times and technology'.
Quote:
Who said they were infallible? There is a system in place that even if a decision is passed that you disagree with it, it can be overturned. It's not an easy process, but it's not supposed to be.
Oh, decisions can always be overturned, in theory. Reality is much harsher than theory though. While you can overturn a decision, the practical implementation of laws (especially ones that deal with confiscating property) are not generally reversible. Want proof? Ask any American Indian tribe about the so-called 'Indian Appropriations Act'.
Quote:
Anything can happen. This won't.
Okay. It won't. Let's say that Obama issues a decree making it illegal to privately hold gold and that all privately held gold must be handed over to the government. FDR did exactly that. It wasn't even a law. It was an 'executive order' but was carried out as if it had the force of law. FDR's executive order 6102 criminalized the private ownership of monetary gold by any person or group of people.
Quote:
This statement is just flat out wrong, both historically and today. Today's court has a 44% unanimous rate, and historically courts have had even a 50% unanimous rate. http://epstein.usc.edu/research/unanDecisions.pdf
It isn't wrong. From the link you provided, "We define
unanimous decisions as ones in which no Justice dissented, even if
there were also one or more concurring opinions." This is followed later with this, "An alternative definition of a unanimous decision, which would be more realistic in
recognizing that concurring opinions often indicate disagreement with, rather than merely supplementation or extension of, the majority opinion, would be a decision in which all the Justices joined the majority opinion, whether or not any of them also wrote a concurring opinion. We have not broken down the data sufficiently to enable us to analyze unanimous decisions so defined."
So, they are telling you from the start that their definition isn't reliable.
Quote:
It's easy to read them, it's incredibly difficult to apply them to the modern world, especially since the US has stare decisis.
Of course. Civilized men can't truly be free in a modern world. Once something has been decided, it's settled. In other words, once precedent has been set in limiting freedoms and inherent rights of the individual, that's all that has to be said. We have our legal victory and nothing else matters. 
Quote:
No, you don't.
But I do. Not only that, I understand it more completely than they do.
Quote:
Yes you are.
Really? Enlighten me. I'd be interested to know. I could dispel your argument easily enough and it would take just a few words. I'll put them at the end of this response, but I'm curious to understand the magnitude of the farce that is your mental capacity.
Quote:
They are the pinnacle of the legal profession. They are the top of the top when it comes to legal knowledge. You're not.
Oh, and I should bow down to them because of it? They are? They're simply nominees that weren't rejected. Do you know that you do not have to be a legal mind to be nominated and approved to sit on the SCOTUS? You don't even have to have any legal requirements to hold any position as a federal jurist. None whatsoever. That shoots that argument to hell. On top of that, there have been nominees that have been rejected that were eminently more knowledgeable than those currently sitting on the SCOTUS. Of course, that may all be subjective to one's own political views.
Alas, I'll make my last point, as promised. I'm just as qualified as any of them because I'm a U.S. citizen charged with the responsibility to serve on a jury. Every person sitting on a jury is so charged with the same responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Drones kinda go along with the letter I got from my cpa last week.
"The state of Ohio has decided that every company operating in Ohio has made at least 1 purchase through a vendor that did not charge sales tax......." therefore, pay us, and if you don't, you run a higher risk of being audited, and we WILL find something, and you WILL owe the tax, plus a 50% penalty, plus 5% interest.
Self report, and we'll waive the interest and penalty.
The state is looking at businesses as "guilty until you pay or prove you are innocent. Take your pick - because you are guilty, or you will pay, or you'll never be proven innocent."
Follow the money - it all leads to gov't.
Sounds to me like an extortion racket.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,790 |
Quote:
Quote:
many of you raising hell kept MUM when Bush was tapping our own servicemen and american citizens convos.
So what? Many on the other side blasted Bush for doing stuff and are now praising Obama for doing much the same thing.. what does that contribute to the discussion?
I don't see that as a "so what" discussion at all.
One president opened the flood gates and the other has refused to close them. Both equally as wrong. But I don't see the "so what" in any of that.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Out of curiosity, why do you have to read and study the constitution every day?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Just FYI
The 4th Amendment
"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.["
It doesn't say private property, it says "persons, houses, papers, and effects". It also says "against unreasonable searches and seizures", nothing about looking at or seeing.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I never said praising... stop putting words in my mouth.
You start a question with... So by your reasoning.... and then ask something not even remotely close to what I was saying and then accuse ME of putting words in YOUR mouth.. that's great. 
Quote:
But one is a clear violation of our rights and constitution... the drone thing is not. Yet the same people are (forthemostpart) have an issue with this.
The drone issue is relatively new and its evolving... using a drone to chase one criminal I have no problem with... my concern is the other part of the article...
Quote:
The same thing the drones are now. Criminals on the run.
In reading the one article that was posted, it sure looks like they want to use them for a lot more than chasing the occasional criminal on the run..
Quote:
Brossart's lawyer is looking at challenging the drone use. It's a potential test case for the country, because the rest of the country's getting a lot more of them. Everyone wants an eye in the sky: real estate agents to view properties; farmers to find thirsty crops; energy companies to build pipelines; local police departments want to launch neighborhood surveillance flights , or find hard to catch criminals.
Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, thinks the FAA was dragging its feet on allowing domestic drones. "No question about it. And that's why we acted," Mica said. The committee just passed legislation that the FAA estimates will put 10,000 drones in the sky by 2017.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I don't see that as a "so what" discussion at all.
One president opened the flood gates and the other has refused to close them. Both equally as wrong. But I don't see the "so what" in any of that.
The "so what" part of the discussion is the attempt to break it down into "Well you supported this thing that Bush did but you don't like what Obama is doing."
And Bush didn't open the flood gates, they have been open for decades just flooding at a slower pace... the technology we now have that didn't exist just 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago is the instrument that is causing this to go so much faster... faster than lawmakers can keep up.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't disagree with anything you say.
I do think there should be a codification establishing the parameters of UAV (I hate the word "drone") usage.
The FAA is currently in the process of establishing that codification for what it's worth.
What authority does the FAA have to codify law as it relates to constitutional search and seizure issues? I can see them having some authority of when and how they fly and the safety standards and such... but as far as what they are actually doing while they are up there, that seems to me to be completely out of the FAA's jurisdiction and control and is a matter for state and federal legislators...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
j/c http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2013/02/13/Ohio-agencies-request-airspace-use-for-drones.htmlFrom the article: "In Ohio, the Department of Transportation, Medina County sheriff, Ohio University in Athens, Sinclair Community College in Dayton, and Lorain County Community College have all either won FAA authorization or are seeking it. So have the University of Michigan and Northwestern Michigan College." Good read. Raises some questions though.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... 1st Drone strike on US soil?
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
