I suspect FreeRepublic is vulnerable to SQL injection...
Fight the Free Sh☭t Nation
Posted on 03/15/2014 9:01:05 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
No, I don't need a Federal judge to tie my shoes. But when I find myself arguing the Constitution against what Scalia -- and a conservative majority -- believes, I find it best to check the quality of my arguments. Clearly you haven't. Like it or not, Incorporation is a fact, and the Exclusionary Rule is part of due process; not substantive, but actual. That finding, like the Incorporation of the 2nd Amendment is correct, and your position is ... NOT.
As for being dumb, again, I'll let the quality of your "arguments" against sitting conservatives let anyone reading the thread decide how "bright" you are, comparatively speaking.
Because Eric Holder simply does not tell the FBI what to do. [Marty Feldman quality eyeroll.]
They come to the court such as it is, and could not, under their jurisprudence principles, overturn things that happened 100 years ago, and the entire line of cases since, without a proper case being brought to it that challenged the entire system. No one has brought such a case, and they therefore have to fit the cases they are brought within the framework they are given.
I would suggest, with respect to the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule, that a different method of penalizing rogue officers be imposed, and that the federal mandate to exclude valid evidence of guilt (as, for example, the child raped and murdered and left in a corn field whose murderer walked free) be reviewed in light of the operation of other ways to prevent violation of rights. Bring that case to the court, and let me know what Scalia says. And if he and I differ then, it wouldn't be the first time. We have a lot of decades of legal overreach piled onto what people think the Constitution requires. It wasn't put there overnight, and it wouldn't be pruned back overnight. Idiots have come to think it is required.
Some days I feel like a guy who has gotten into an argument with a monkey, and it does no good to try to explain things to the monkey. Today, I feel like that would be unfair to the monkey.
Did you break into Daddy's liquor cabinet this weekend?
Your first two rambling, bloviating, paragraphs say nothing more than what I've said in exactly four words: "Incorporation is a fact."
Nevertheless, not all of the Bill of Rights is Incorporated, and the conservative majority was not forced to Incorporate Amendment II by any precedents that existed when they came to the court, respectively; and indeed the opinion in DC v. Heller made it clear that the majority considered the question of Incorporation as an entirely separate matter. The Seventh Circuit agreed: In McDonald v. Chicago, they found no such precedent for Incorporation in the Federal case law. In finding Amendment II Incorporated on reversal, the USSC majority applied THEIR OWN criteria -- and surprisingly, Scalia found his justification in Privileges and Immunities. But in NO CASE was the Court obligated by any precedent to do so, and the various concurring justifications make that clear.
So let's sum up for the drunken kindergartner who thinks he's lecturing a monkey: your logic about why conservatives don't agree with you is incorrect, and your understanding of the history of stare decisis regarding Incorporation is laughably wrong.
Keep drinking. Daddy will be home soon to lock up his whiskey.
No, DA's are even worse. They're political Law Enforcement. For example: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3133856/posts
How many laws are created each and every year, as opposed to repealed each year?
Yawn. The pig likes it.
Yeah. Sure it does. Colorado is feared across the planet.
You suck..Your ignorance is a testament
Schoolboy; I see your ad hominem skills are as sharp, and playground strong, as ever. The very definition of a loser.
Be comforted. Nothing terrifies a native born son of Texas, or a U.S. Marine more than a shoolboy from Colorado.
I suspect FreeRepublic is vulnerable to SQL injection...
Fight the Free Sh☭t Nation
“No, DA’s are even worse. They’re political Law Enforcement.”
On THAT basis, all laws are political; so what then, no laws??
The Exclusionary Rule has clear deterrent effects or LEO's would not have been whining about it in various jurisdictions for various kinds of evidence for several centuries, and when it breaks down it is self-policing at the point of application by the trial judge or through corrective appeals.
You do realize that the 5th Amendment is essentially nothing more or less than an Exclusionary Rule for a very specific kind of evidence, don't you? You do realize that the 5th Amendment is why we do not rack US persons in criminal trials, don't you?
Or are you in favor of repealing the Exclusionary Rule against compulsion of self-incriminating testimony as well? That worked so well in English jurisprudence...
no problemo
Thanks. Your explaination was worth posting, imo.
Lemme guess: the lead judge is elected and takes contributions from the Fraternal Order of Police.
Not my question. It's here:
How many laws are created each and every year, as opposed to repealed each year?
My point is, for example, how many punitive EPA laws and regulations have been enacted and made law of the land, as opposed to repealed?
It was John Adams in his 7th “Novanglus” Letter published in 1774 that voiced the idea of many of the founders to provide us with a “government of laws, not of men”.
The modern U.S. judiciary with it’s “living constitution” has subverted that, by taking Constitutional “interpretation” further and further from the Constitution and any intentions in it, and the modern courts’ version of the “exclusionary rule” is just one such attempt, which its own history clearly shows is not from “the Constitution” (foundational, basic LAW) but from mere judicial fiat.
The very first case addressing anything near to the so-called “exclusionary rule”, in 1886 (nearly 100 years AFTER the Constitution was written) did not find that the Fourth Amendment, according to the Court in that era, the extended to “excluding testimony” about wrongful searches and seizures.
And, even in 1897 (more than 100 years after the Constitution was written), when the Supreme Court found that involuntary confessions were not admissible, they DID NOT find any general “exclusionary rule” was embedded between the lines in the Fourth Amendment.
The first use of any strong exclusionary rule by any court is not until 1902 (113 years after the U.S. Constitution), by the state courts of Iowa and it was based on the Iowa state constitution, not the Federal Constitution.
The first Federal court invention of a broad “exclusionary rule” is at the beginning of the progressive era, in 1914 (Weeks vs The United States)(125 years AFTER the Constitution), and even then that ruling made clear it only applied to federal cases. That ruling was uphold by SCOTUS later, in 1920, when it used it’s “fruit of the poisonous tree” language AND EVEN THEN did not extend the “exclusionary rule” to any but federal cases (131 years after the Constitution was written, and 5 decades AFTER the post-Civil War amendments). And even as late as 1949 (Wolf vs Colorado)(160 years AFTER the Constitution was written), SCOTUS ruled it did not apply to state courts [Like Texas??].
It is not until 1961 (Mapp vs Ohio) (172 years AFTER the Constitution is written) that SCOTUS discovers hidden in the “living Constitution” (not the Constitution we the people wrote) that its own late invention (in 1914) is applicable to the state courts.
It - the “exclusionary rule” - is not a product of the Constitution nor even the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It is a product of judicial fiat, literally writing a new Constitution from the bench, abrogating the most basic political right we have, that we the people (through our elected representatives), not the judges, are the authors of our Constitution.
Were THAT not the case, the “exclusionary rule” would have been “self evident” to the founders, and to the courts, from the beginning, not hidden for 97, or 106, or 111, or 113, or 125, or 131, or 160, or 172 years to be “discovered” hidden in somewhere (undiscovered by anyone else), like Deuteronomy.
Judges are men, they are NOT the law, and when they make up law themselves, via judicial fiat, they deny what the founders intended for us - a government of laws, not of men.
Most laws are not repealed by saying [for example]
Amendment XXI. "Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."
They are repealed by the application of new laws, which moots them or changes them. To count such laws as "new laws" and not as "repeals" is an error, because that is exactly what they are.
Regulations are something else entirely.
The Framers indeed did recognize the importance of an Exclusionary Rule as applied to certain kinds of evidence, or there would be no Fifth Amendment, a concept which did not come to them via the Common Law.
That Exclusionary Rule exists because the Framers quite properly understood that allowing law enforcement to torture confessions from the accused could never be mitigated by holding the police responsible, post conviction, for their own criminality.
Was the way in which the Exclusionary Rule [for evidence other than self-incrimination] arrived at improper? Yes. I'll give you that. It was improper. That does not vindicate the Common Law remedy in force prior to 1914 a better system. If the discussion is about what Federal Courts should do, we agree. If the discussion is about the best way to provide due process, I will never agree that allowing the police to commit crimes in the collection of evidence and then dealing with that later on is acceptable.
The Exclusionary Rule should have been placed in the Constitution AND Incorporated against the States by a Constitutional Amendment. Farther than that, we must agree to disagree.
You’re evading the questions...Lets try again.
For example, like 2nd amendment, how many punitive EPA laws and regulations have been enacted and made law of the land, as opposed to repealed?
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.