Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Free Speech 1st Amendment      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 227
Free Speech 1st Amendment Page 20 of 21    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
Hypocrite

Partnership for Civil Justice
Thursday, February 17, 2011

McGovern Bloodied and Arrested at Clinton Speech McGovern assaulted

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her speech at George Washington University yesterday condemning governments that arrest protesters and do not allow free expression, 71-year-old Ray McGovern was grabbed from the audience in plain view of her by police and an unidentified official in plain clothes, brutalized and left bleeding in jail. She never paused speaking. When Secretary Clinton began her speech, Mr. McGovern remained standing silently in the audience and turned his back. Mr. McGovern, a veteran Army officer who also worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years, was wearing a Veterans for Peace t-shirt.

Blind-sided by security officers who pounced upon him, Mr. McGovern remarked, as he was hauled out the door, “So this is America?” Mr. McGovern is covered with bruises, lacerations and contusions inflicted in the assault.

Mr. McGovern is being represented by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF). “It is the ultimate definition of lip service that Secretary of State Clinton would be trumpeting the U.S. government’s supposed concerns for free speech rights and this man would be simultaneously brutalized and arrested for engaging in a peaceful act of dissent at her speech,” stated attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the PCJF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyVKPtsF0I0
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 228
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/3/2011 2:40:09 PM
Did the Supreme Court make the right call in Snyder v. Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church case? When the demonstrators held up their signs condemning homosexuals in the U.S. military near the funeral of the Marine (who was not gay), were they commenting on a matter "of public concern," as the Court said? Or did they themselves convert a private funeral into a public matter by alerting the news media ahead of time?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 229
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/3/2011 5:07:47 PM
^^^^I gave the decision a quick read, and I have to agree with Justice Alito's dissent. The Court's own rule for deciding if the speech was public or private requires it to consider the *whole record.* But after the funeral, Westboro posted a long internet article explaining what it did. It mentioned Matthew Snyder and his parents by name, and it emphasized the fact he was a Catholic in justifying what it did.

The majority didn't consider this article--it said it "was not properly before us." But I agree with Alito that it was all part of the same action; Mr. Snyder didn't read the signs, either, during the funeral, because they were about 1,000 feet away. He only found out what they said when he watched TV that evening. It was seeing and hearing all this abuse then which inflicted extreme emotional distress on him.

So the intentional infliction of emotional distress--the tort Mr. Snyder had successfully sued for under Maryland law--didn't have to occur during the funeral. Afterwards was enough. Then why not consider the internet article too? If the Court *had* considered it, it would be very hard to find that Westboro had spoken only on a matter of public concern. And if it hadn't, its First Amendment defense wouldn't have worked.
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 230
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/4/2011 10:33:42 PM
If you keep nipping at the heels of someone thats not bothering you, their is a good chance you may loose your teeth !
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 231
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/8/2011 7:56:24 AM
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
- Thomas Jefferson
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 232
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/8/2011 11:01:40 AM
PH, You have to understand that this poster's comment wasn't supposed to mean anything. Like the comments she made to me recently, it was only a cheap personal shot--this time at you.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 233
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/8/2011 9:38:42 PM
March 8, 2011

Homeland Security Says It Has Every Right To Spy On Peaceful Protest Groups

The Department Of Homeland Security has concluded that it is perfectly reasonable for it to spy on dozens of peaceful advocacy groups and monitor scores of lawful protests and political rallies in the name of national security.

The ACLU details the DHS’ response to a complaint the group filed with the DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL).

The ACLU demanded an investigation into whether DHS officials abused their authority by improperly collecting and disseminating information regarding political demonstrations, following revelations that Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Service (FPS) had been engaging in such activity dating back to 2006.

The OCRCL has refused to disclose the memorandum detailing its investigative findings, however it sent a letter to the ACLU last week reaffirming that it sees no wrongdoing in the actions whatsoever, while admitting that there was no adequate differentiation between civil activist and violent extremist organizations.

“We strongly disagree with the OCRCL’s finding that FPS acted within its authority to compile and disseminate a list tracking the political activities of advocacy groups.” The ACLU states on its website.

“No agency or department in government has the right to monitor the peaceful and lawful political activities and speech of Americans.” the statement continues.

“Protection from this type of government monitoring is exactly the reason why the First and Fourth Amendments were adopted… The government must immediately stop any ongoing programs or activities that monitor lawful political speech and advocacy of American citizens.” it concludes.

Of course, asking the DHS to investigate itself on these matters is the equivalent of asking Charles Manson to chair his own parole hearing. The ACLU could not have expected any different result.

The federal government now openly admits that it spies on Americans and compiles lists of subversives if they choose to engage in their Constitutional rights.

Welcome to the new America.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 234
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/9/2011 7:09:22 AM
Thinking you always have to make this left right thing, so i will respond with this article. I am against it on fundamental constitutional principles. Yes it was created by Bush but Obama has done nothing to slow it down.
You might want to view the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNRSs6LsGeI&feature=player_embedded

and here is one from your side
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBdPEK5pNtE&feature=related

February 28, 2010

Obama waited until Saturday night to renew the Bill of Rights busting Patriot Act. It was set to expire today. Both the Senate and the House signed off on the extension last week. So called “privacy protections” were dumped when Senate Democrats failed to raise a 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Cast aside were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government’s authority to spy on Americans and seize their records, the Associated Press reports.

“The Obama administration wanted to extend the measure because of provisions it says are important in tracking suspected terrorists, including roving wiretaps to track multiple communications devices,” Reuters reported on Thursday.

“Disappointingly, the government’s dangerously broad authority to conduct roving wiretaps of unspecified or ‘John Doe’ targets, to secretly wiretap of persons without any connection to terrorists or spies under the so-called ‘lone wolf’ provision, and to secretly access a wide range of private business records without warrants under PATRIOT Section 215 were all renewed without any new checks and balances to prevent abuse,” Kevin Bankston wrote last week after the act sailed through Congress.

Instead of tracking terrorists, the bill has been used to track the American people. In 2008, for instance, the Justice Department made 763 requests for “sneak-and-peek” warrants, but only three of those had to do with terrorism investigations, according to senator Russ Feingold.

Judge Andrew Nepalitano denounced the Patriot Act in 2007.

Feingold told a Senate Judiciary Committee in September of 2009 that 65 percent of the cases for which sneak-and-peek warrants were used were drug investigations.

The Patriot Act was not designed to be used against supposed terrorists. “It’s not meant for intelligence, it’s for criminal cases,” Assistant Attorney General David Kris told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “So I guess it’s not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases.”

The Patriot Act allows the government to search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without probable cause to assist “terror” (drug and other victimless crime) investigations. It prevents a right to a speedy and public trial (ask American Jose Padilla about this one). It discourages freedom of association, freedom of speech (the government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation), and the right to legal representation (the government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes).

The act allows the government to abduct citizens and jail them without charge or the ability to confront witnesses against them. It allows the government to hold anybody deemed an “unlawful combatant” incommunicado forever. It effectively turns America into East Germany or Stalin’s Russia.

Democrats and moonstruck liberals should be held directly responsible for turning American into a police state. After all, they bought into Obama’s “yes we can” mantra and packed Congress with Democrats who voted last week to extend the Patriot Act.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 235
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/9/2011 8:45:20 AM
This is very recent update to what Obama has done making Bush look like a pacifist.

http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4575007/judge-napolitano-obama-ignoring-the-constitution/?playlist_id=87485
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 236
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/9/2011 8:58:02 AM
There's a lot to the Patriot Act, and I don't know that much about it. But I know your author's wrong about at least a couple points. I'll just talk about one of them.

The author calls him "American Jose Padilla," saying he had 6th Amendment rights to a speedy and public trial that the Patriot Act violated. If so, how did the Supreme Court miss that little detail when it heard his case? Here's the Court in Ex Parte Quirin, the 1942 decision that applied to Padilla and still applies to other Muslim jihadists who attack this country:

"Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and, with its aid, guidance and direction, enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. . . Nor are [they] any the less belligerents if . . . they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations . . . The offense was complete when, with [hostile] purpose, they entered . . . our territory in time of war without uniform or other appropriate means of identification."

One of the Nazi saboteurs in Quirin was also a U.S. citizen, and he was convicted of war crimes by a military commission. No 5th Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury; no 6th Amendment right to a jury trial; and no right to a court martial, as U.S. servicemen charged with crimes have. Just the commission, and after it convicted him, the right to file a habeas petition claiming the U.S. had no right to hold him. He did, the Court denied it, and he was soon electrocuted.

Padilla is a murderer from Chicago who'd spent years in prison. After he became a Muslim jihadist, he went to Afghanistan and met with Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He wanted to offer his services, and they suggested he might attack targets in the U.S. The plan they finally hit on was for him, working with another man, to break the gas mains in large apartment buildings, and when the gas had spread through them, ignite it.

The U.S. only found out who Padilla was and what he was planning when KSM coughed it up after being waterboarded. Padilla was then tracked as he flew between several Muslim countries, then to Switzerland, and finally to Chicago. He was captured when he landed at O'Hare and held several years by the military. He fit the rules from Quirin pretty well--and the fact he was a U.S. citizen no longer meant a thing. Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, dismissed Padilla's habeas petition.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 237
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/9/2011 10:33:25 AM

where Franken actually had to read the 4th Amendment to remind him that spying on Americans doesn't seem to pass constitutional muster.


I'm surprised that illegitimate a$$hole even knew what the 4th Amendment was. And his completely ignorant opinion on whether a law complies with it doesn't mean a damn thing.


Liberals are conservatives to the Progressive Party


And even more so to Marxists.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 238
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/9/2011 1:35:04 PM
You described the "scenario." And there's no bias involved--just fact. The idea of an ignorant clown like Franken pretending to lecture anyone on whether some part of the Patriot Act complies with the 4th Amendment is laughable. He doesn't know a damn thing about that, and neither do you.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 239
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/11/2011 11:37:12 PM
OSHA, no need for unions for safety issues
Labor Dept. no need for unions on labor issues
Pay, unions want more money
Benefits, unions want more benefits, public sector want them all paid for by the taxpayer
Medical, well unions got a waiver from Obama
So as I can tell the only thing to bargain for is more pay and benefits. I would say give them a cost of living raise each year and that's it.

I have been on both sides of the picket line and all the unions ever did was screw us and spend our money on politics.
Strike pay is a sham, while the President of the union drives off in his limo. Millions to the leadership of unions and politicians, but strike pay stays the same.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 240
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/13/2011 7:47:11 AM
On another subject here is Dennis Miller at his best!!!!

http://thehayride.com/2010/11/from-dennis-millers-hbo-special-brilliance/
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 241
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/14/2011 1:01:20 PM
Aside from the fact corporations do not pay taxes, the collect taxes (it's just a pass through). If for example Wal Mart paid 50% corporate tax rate prices would rise to create the same ROI as today. Who shops at WalMart? It would simply reduce the standard of living of middle class and poor folk.

Seriously progressives need to go back to school.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 242
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/15/2011 12:10:41 PM
The federal government could create plenty of jobs right away--and "shovel-ready" ones, too. It could pay half the unemployed to keep digging holes in the ground, and pay the other half to keep filling them in. And just raise taxes to cover the costs. Full employment, and every American with a living wage! Isn't that what we all want?

Government never produces anything. It never has, and it never will. It just redistributes it, losing a good deal in the process to administer the redistribution. Collecting more taxes just takes away that much money the taxpayers could have spent on whatever goods and services they wanted, distributing it in billions of little transactions every day.

That's why statism LIMITS individual freedom--it lets millions of other people who took no part in earning your money decide where a large part of it is spent. Conservatives want each individual to be free to decide how to use whatever money they own, after paying taxes to support essential services.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 243
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/15/2011 3:27:03 PM
How about shutting down all the railroads and giving everyone a basket to carry coal from Montana to Chicago?


Lefties brains at work zzzzz.

Yesterday Larry Summers was caught saying Japan's econly could rebound nicely as a result of this disaster. That's like saying if you beak into my house, steal all my stuff and chop off my feet the economy will improve. Incredibly stupid people populate the land of the left.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 244
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/16/2011 12:55:38 PM
For starters, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and possibly even Allen West. Mr. Obama's his own greatest challenge. Unless he's able to make some drastic improvement in the economy pretty soon, it won't take a particularly strong candidate to defeat him--assuming he's the candidate.

Palin's far more intelligent that her detractors want to believe (always an advantage), and she has a knack for connecting personally with voters that Mr. Obama will never have. Get Obama in a debate where he has to think on his feet, and he's not very impressive. Bachmann, as a former federal prosecutor, would score a lot of points on him. He would have a very hard time defending a lot of his past. He's been thick as thieves with any number of communists, Jew-haters, and people who openly hate this country all his adult life. And that's only the beginning of the things he's lied about. And it's all been well documented.


What creates jobs is creating tax incentives to keep jobs here. And any product coming back in from overseas imported by companies in the US should be taxed at a higher rate.


That's just a form of protectionism. It would make consumers pay a premium for domestic goods. What do you imagine that would do to this country's ability to export those goods? What would prevent other countries from retaliating by doing the same kind of thing? You might want to read what most economists think the role the Smoot-Hawley Act--pure protectionism for farmers--had in starting the Great Depression. More than 1,000 economists at the time wrote urging Congress not to pass it.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 245
view profile
History
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/18/2011 6:17:30 PM

she should have been brought up on charges of treason


The government sure could have made a very strong case against her. First Amendment freedom of speech doesn't protect you nearly as much when you run the U.S. down while you're in a country it's at war with, as it does when you do it here. And God knows they could have found the required two witnesses to testify at trial to the things she did.

What saved her was the fact that treason has always been kind of a political crime in the U.S. In a lot of the early cases, it was used to ruin the reputation of a political enemy. And with the opposition to the Vietnam War as strong as it was by the time she went to North Vietnam, the will to prosecute her just wasn't there. I believe LBJ's fellow Texan Ramsey Clark was Attorney General then, and he was probably rooting for North Vietnam to win. I don't believe he suddenly turned into a communist head case years after he left the Justice Dept.--I suspect he leaned that way all along.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 246
Free Speech 1st Amendment
Posted: 3/18/2011 11:54:35 PM
This an essay I recently did for a writing course.

A Short War

September 12, 2001, the President dispatches all needed CIA and Special Operations Groups to run preliminary advance operations for the attack on Afghanistan. The Navy's 5th Fleet is dispatched, Air Force personnel are put on alert for an imminent strike against Afghanistan. Allowing for the time frame to get everything in place and targets to be identified, Operation Reckoning is given a go.

October 8, 2001, the President's press conference,” America sleeps at night because brave honorable men are willing to commit horrifying acts of controlled violence; and in doing so trade pieces of their soul for your safety and security. I have unleashed these men on our enemies. Yesterday the 5th Fleet along with the CIA, Special Operations Groups and, 24 B2 Stealth Bombers armed with MOABS (mother of all bombs), began Operation Reckoning in Afghanistan. As of noon local time, the Capital, Kabul no longer exists. The 5th Fleet has flown over 500 air missions using Napalm, and has eliminated the poppy fields through methodical carpet bombing. Over 200 Tomahawk long range missiles were launched by the 5th Fleet and have eliminated specified targets. CIA and SPECOPS have killed 850 enemy human targets. We will enforce a remote curfew and no fly zone over Afghanistan with Air Force drones. Estimated enemy casualties are 4.5 million currently. Effective immediately I have stopped all foreign aid to all countries. The United Nations has been de-funded and we are currently deporting all U.N. personnel. The time for America to take care of its self has arrived. We will not tolerate any attacks on our homeland or our forces abroad. Let me forewarn any group or any country that wants to attack us, we will find you, hunt you down and eliminate you with extreme prejudice, we will retaliate, we will not rebuild, and we will not apologize, God bless America."

There are many reasons to fight a war but the most important ones are to not apologize for it, win, and go home, making it a short war.

We could save trillions of dollars that could be spent at home, save American military lives, and not have to live with the ongoing fear mongering propaganda. Think of what the money would do for the peaceful side of the American economy; if it were invested in, for example, in alternative energy or infrastructure.

According to the Center for Defense Information, America has spent 1.29 trillion dollars in Iraq, Afghanistan and on enhanced homeland security from 2001 to 2011(Belasco). A short war would not feed billions of dollars to the military, civilian industrial complex that blows it up and then rebuilds it on the backs of the American taxpayer.

A short war would not allow for the testing of the latest and greatest weapons systems that these companies are trying to sell to our government. A Sacramento based company, Composite Engineering Inc. announced on February 11, 2011, that they were awarded a $66 million contract to develop new attack drones for the Navy(Melanie Turner p CRS 9). The sales pitch is it will add forty five jobs to their current work force. These drones will be tested in Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe even Pakistan. The current stocks of drones are already being deployed across the United States southern border in the name of security. If the United States Government begins to feel threatened by its own citizens it just may be a matter of time before they replace the drone's cameras with something more lethal.

The state of fear that the "War on Terror," has created is a lie, but you will never be told the truth. According to a 2011 CNN interview, National Security Adviser General James Jones estimated that there were fewer than one hundred Al Qaeda Operatives in Afghanistan (Esposito, Cole, Ross). Yet, we continue to send troops, money and attempt to rebuild a country that has been in chaos throughout history.

In the meantime American politicians attempt to take the high moral ground, fighting this "Hearts and Minds War," while they use the," War on Terror" to feed the war machine and the expanding technology control grid at home in America. The propaganda machine brought on by these wars will lead to the unintended consequences of an American soft tyranny. Worse yet, most people will accept all this in the name of safety and security, or some other feel good propaganda.

September 11, 2001 was a dream comes true for the control minded in the American government. "The War on Terror," gives the State the perpetual war, as in George Orwell's book, 1984. We suffer the realms of the State being able to feed us whatever they want us to believe, while stripping our civil liberties in the name of security. You have to ask yourselves where security ends and control begins in America; and what is the end goal?

So America doesn't fight short wars in this manner. Would we be ostracized by the rest of the world for conducting wars in this manner? That really doesn't matter since they already blame us for the world's problems and we are already hated by most of the world, if you believe the media. Would America join the ranks of the despots of history; if we were to conduct short wars with a take no prisoners approach? Historically, leaders who have decimated their enemies and wanted systemic control over nations have not ended well for their enemies or their citizens. Stalin, 100 million, Pol-Pot, 4 million, Hitler, 6 million, Chairman Mao, 50 to 100 million, who have died in the name of obedience.

"When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion." (C. P. Snow p 195)

These two wars have been some of the longest wars that America has been involved in and are being stretched on purpose to feed the money machine and the control grid corporations. Should we find ourselves in this type of situation again, we need to take off the gloves. War is necessary at times but, If they hit us in the mouth, we drop kick them, and go home, embracing the short war.


Works Cited

Belasco, Amy "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL33110, p. CRS9 (2010).
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Richard Esposito, Matthew Cole, Brian Ross. "President Obama's Secret; Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan." 2 December. 2009. 1 March, 2011
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda- now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861

C.P. Snow. Public Affairs (London: Macmillan, 1971) p. 195

Turner, Melanie. "Drone-maker lands $66M military contracts." Sacramento Business Journal Online 11 February, 2011. 1 March. 2011 http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/2011/02/11/drone- maker-lands-66m-military.html
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 247
Bill of Rights
Posted: 5/17/2011 6:07:27 AM
No warrant? No problem: Cops can break in if evidence in danger
Comments 8
May 16, 2011 1100 PM
David G. Savage/Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence might be destroyed.

The justices said officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case gives police an easy way to ignore the Fourth Amendment. She said its "core requirement" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.

"How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and ... forcibly enter?" Ginsburg asked.

An expert on criminal searches said the decision would encourage the police to undertake "knock and talk" raids. "I'm surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in. I'm even more surprised that nearly all of them went along," said John Wesley Hall, a criminal defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark.

In the past, the court has insisted that homes are special preserves. As Alito said, the Fourth Amendment "has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house." One exception to the search-warrant rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence.

The Kentucky case began when police in Lexington sought to arrest a man who had sold crack cocaine to an informer. They followed him to an apartment building, but lost sight of him. Upon smelling marijuana coming from one apartment, they pounded on the door and called "Police. Police. Police," and heard sounds of people moving.

At this, the officers announced they were coming in and broke down the door. The suspect was not in the apartment; instead, police found Hollis King smoking marijuana and put him under arrest. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

The Supreme Court ruled in Kentucky v. King that the officers' conduct "was entirely lawful," and they were justified in breaking in to prevent the destruction of the evidence.

"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," he wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant, he added.

The ruling was not a final loss for King. The justices said the Kentucky state court should consider again whether the police faced an emergency situation in this case.

Ginsburg, however, said the court's approach "arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases." She said the police did not face a "genuine emergency" and should not have been allowed to enter the apartment without a warrant.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 248
Bill of Rights
Posted: 5/17/2011 7:45:25 AM
It must be the end of the world, I agree with Ginsburg. Catching drug users/sellers is far, far less important than protecting the sanctity of a mans home. After having said that it is easy to imagine police being in some other situation, meth lab?, where public safety would argue for this kind of entry.

It would also seem that to prevent misuse of my argument that pot smokers, people using incandescent light bulbs, etc. could not be prosecuted if the public safety argument was used to gain entry.

Not being trained in law I'm sure my arguments have more elegant expressions that have stood tests of time and practice.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 249
view profile
History
Bill of Rights
Posted: 5/17/2011 10:38:02 AM
I read it, and it sounds fine to me. Police may enter a home without a search warrant when there are "exigent circumstances." One way these circumstances arise is when it looks like evidence is about to be destroyed--where the police either must seize it now, or lose it for good.

Several states, including Kentucky, had said that the police couldn't create these exigent circumstances themselves, as an excuse to get around the warrant requirement. OK, but the Kentucky Supreme Court had gone even further. It had said that if it was "reasonably foreseeable" that what the police themselves did would create the exigent circumstances--i.e. the imminent destruction of evidence--the exception to the warrant requirement didn't apply.

But the Court said there was no way to determine--objectively--if the police themselves did something which made it "reasonably foreseeable" that the occupant(s) would destroy evidence. And the fact this determination would necessarily be so subjective made it impractical. It would be almost impossible for a trial court to decide, in a given case, if the police had knocked loud enough for the occupants to hear, used a tone of voice which made them think they had to destroy evidence, etc.

So, the Court sent the case back to let the state court determine if the facts showed the exigent circumstances existed--but this time, without applying the "reasonably foreseeable" standard.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 250
Bill of Rights
Posted: 5/28/2011 8:59:00 AM
You'd want to think that your government has your best interests at heart, wouldn't you? However, time and again they just keep proving that we're engaging in wishful thinking when it comes to the "why" of what they do and the legislation that they pass. In fact ...
... we are subject to a government that seeks at every turn to undermine our constitutional rights ...
Take these executive orders, for instance:
• Executive Order 10995: Seizure of all communications media - radio, television, newspapers, CB and Ham radio, telephones and the internet (in effect, suspension of the first amendment)
•Executive Order 10997: Seizure of all electrical power and fossil fuels
•Executive Order 10998: Seizure of all food sources, farms and farm equipment. Food will be rationed. Today some states have anti-hoarding laws on the books, stating that anything over a one week's supply of food is considered hoarding and against the law.
•Executive Order 10999: Seizure of all transportation and control of all highways, interstates and seaports. Any vehicle, public or private, can be taken.
•Executive Order 11000: Seizure of all civilians for work under Federal supervision.
•Executive Order 11003: Seizure of all airports and aircraft, public or private.
•Executive Order 11004: Housing and Finance given authority for population relocation.
•Executive Order 12919: Directs various Cabinet officials to be ready to take over virtually all aspects of the United States economy during a "state of national emergency" at the direction of the president.
• Executive Order 13010: Directs FEMA to take control over all government agencies in times of emergency. FEMA is under the direct control of the executive (presidential) branch of government.
• Executive Order 11490: Establishes presidential control over all United States citizens, businesses, and churches in times of "emergency"
These are executive orders passed by presidents--Republican and Democrat alike--elected to preserve our freedoms and the Constitution. Their very duplicities show that they have no intention of honoring the ideals of the constitutional republic handed down to us, that they are the very men that the Founders warned us about.
In fact, our Founders understood that this constitutional model could be overturned and made ineffective should the restraining power of the people against the federal government be made moot through judicial or legislative process.
Men like John Adams, James Madison, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton all viewed the separation of powers to be indispensable to the continuation and preservation of liberty and the United States.
So what does the passage of these Executive Orders tell us? It tells us this ...
The dominoes are in place to subject the American people to a state of martial law nationwide.
And the sad thing is, this isn't even a new occurrence. American presidents, governors, and mayors have flexed their martial-law-imposing muscles at various times throughout our history.
•In 1871, President Grant sent troops into South Carolina to confiscate all private guns.
•In 1914, President Wilson ordered the infantry into Colorado to disarm everyone involved in a labor union dispute, including members of law enforcement and the National Guard.
•In 1993, the U.S. Army provided advice, tactical support, and military equipment to the FBI and the BATF to raid the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, which resulted in the deaths of 74 men, women and children.
•Martial Law was declared by General Andrew Jackson during the War of 1812.
•President Lincoln declared it again during the War Between the States, arresting anyone who dissented from his war-time policies, including newspaper editors and legislators.
•In 1931, Texas Governor Ross used National Guard troops to enforce limits on the size of private property.
•Much of the Pacific Coast was under martial law after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
•And as recently as 2005, New Orleans was under orders of martial law after Hurricane Katrina, orders which stripped remaining law-abiding citizens of their ability to protect and defend themselves and their property.
Not only do we have Executive Orders paving the way for martial law, we have precedence for it. All that's needed in order to put it into motion is a trigger point, whether real or imaginary
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 251
view profile
History
Bill of Rights
Posted: 5/28/2011 1:21:19 PM

You'd want to think that your government has your best interests at heart, wouldn't you?


I look at it like the men who founded this country did. I assume no government ever has my best interests at heart. So for me, make the federal government no larger or stronger than it needs to be to do the basic things the Constitution authorizes it to do.

I don't like the way executive orders have come to be used--as a substitute for real laws passed by the elected members of Congress. There are several ways to control them, but none of them's a sure thing.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > Free Speech 1st Amendment