Posted on 03/26/2013 9:39:18 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies
Scalia should have been made Chief Justice. Roberts is a faggot and not a constitutionalist.
"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."
J. Scalia, concurring in Raich
The weaker the government, the safer I feel.
I trust the average drug dealer more than Obama to not steal my stuff.
I trust the average drug dealer more than Obama to not steal my stuff.
Drug dealers aren't interested in stealing your stuff because the War on Drugs has handed them a much easier way to make money - one where the 'victims' actively seek out the crime.
One does shudder to think to what uses 0bama and his fellow leftists could put the tools created for the War on Drugs: militarized police forces, no-knock raids, asset forfeiture, ...
J. Scalia, concurring in Raich
Very scary stuff. If, as Scalia says, the Necessary And Proper clause means that Congress can do anything that increases the effectiveness of an exercise of its enumerated powers, then either the courts get to determine what increases effectiveness or Congress gets to define the limits of its own authority.
If it’s illegal for a police dog to sniff your porch....how come the TSA can fiddle with your junk?
The authority is in the fact that trespass, or right to enter, applies only to humans. A dog or a deer cannot trespass. An animal can be denied entry without explanation, except a very specific case of a guide dog, and only because the right belongs to the dog's owner. In some cases there are very sound reasons to keep animals out (allergy, cat in the house, a child, flower beds, phobia, live wires, rat poison, etc.)
Dogs have been domesticated for about 12,000 years
He didn't have to throw a monkey wrench into his dissent. This phrase clearly indicates that dogs are instruments of humans. Instruments are used. In this case the dog was used for an illegal search.
It could be even understood if the LEO took the dog with him because the dog wanted to walk, or it was lonely in the car. But then the dog handler may not pay attention to what the dog indicates. As soon as he does that, the dog transforms from being a companion to being a tool.
uh ... no
Nice to see the Court breathing some life into the Fourth Amendment after strangling it for so long.
That will put a lot of dogs out of work —
It is amazing how the word “Treason” is thrown around here, isn’t it?
By the actual definition of it it is about the rarest crime imaginable. Sad that a lot of people think “treason” is merely advocating for something that is unconstitutional, arguing against a policy or the procedure of the government or mere civil disobedience. Sometimes I wonder if ‘conservatives’ throw around ‘treason’ even more than liberals throw around ‘racism’ to mean anything with which they disagree or feel harms the country.
The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they made the definition narrow and specific.
Since the Constitution came into effect, there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. There were none between 1952 and 2006.
Bkmk
but its not a dog, its a *police officer* in this instance...albeit one that cannot articulate its sensory perceptions on a warrant request...
which begs the question, how did the first instance of using a dog not get tossed out by any competent defense attorney, being as though he cannot cross examine the *witness* ???
or, if the dog is just a well calibrated *tool* for smell, like a breathalyser, then the defense could easily show the potential for false positives, and render that evidence moot too...
I know, Rights be damned if the state needs evidence in the WO[some]D and that easy evidence is something that a faithful pooch can acquire...
Sadly, there are those even here on FR who will see this as hindering law enforcement rather than empowering the citizenry.
Based on their posting histories, it seems certain - but they've been remarkably quiet on this thread. Maybe they realize that defending the most rabid (no pun intended) excesses of the WoD has become a losing battle on FR.
“uh ... no”
We need to get away from the home/castle approach to searches. The Constitution is clear that we’re to be secure in our persons. Just because I’m in public doesn’t give the government or their delegated agents any right to me or my person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Dunn
US v. Dunn is the cursed thing that started this mess. The issue is the “plain view doctrine”.
Thank the useless and endless War on Drugs for the neo-police state we live in. Getting the drugs trumps all the rights God gave you.
Excellent and true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.