So, mistake no. 1 that you make: No one said that cops have a right to violate the bill of rights, least of all me. Let me repeat that for the slow of learning: No one said that cops have a right to violate the bill of rights. What was stated was that the federal courts did not have the authority to decree that the remedy for a cop's violation of the 4th amendment is to exclude evidence of guilt from a criminal trial in state or federal court. If you can't understand that last sentence, I may have to repeat it again for you.
No one said that a state can't legislate exclusion as a remedy, if it is the best way to keep the cops honest. No one said the Congress can't legislate that as a remedy in federal criminal cases. What was said was that federal courts can't decree that as a remedy from the bench, and then decree that their remedy applies to state as well as federal courts.
Your inability to craft a cogent argument continues. You state:
Attempts to claim that the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to emancipated slaves are preposterous given its language and history.
Again, a problem with reading comprehension. No one has claimed that the 14th amendment applies only to emancipated slaves. (Sorry fellow Freepers, but so Freddy can understand I have to repeat that last statement again: No one has claimed that the 14th amendment applies only to emancipated slaves. That is different than saying that the intent of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that former slaves be treated equally under the laws of their states. The 14th amendment was meant to protect former slaves, but it by its terms applies to all citizens of the United States, and extends to all citizens "due process of law". What "due process" meant is to be interpreted in light of the intent of those who passed the amendment, but has been twisted to new, and unintended purposes by leftist judges in the last 100 years.
This is the problem when people with limited abilities read something and think they know what it says or signifies, but they don't really. I have no doubt you have read some history and perhaps even the text of the 14th amendment. You just haven't understood it, and I know you don't how legislative intent is to be derived under legal principles. Oh well. We have low information voters; now we have low comprehension legal analysis. It's the nature of modern America. I am glad we encounter such an extreme example so rarely on FR.
You criticize "my supposed remedy" when in fact I don't have one. I only require that the people be responsible for developing the remedy, through their elected representatives. You are clearly a strong proponent of the exclusionary rule, and then you make legislative arguments in its favor. If so, have them passed. Don't rely on DC judges telling the people of far away states what to do with evidence that has freed killers who raped and killed children. That is what you want. Not me. It's the same kind of thinking that got us abortion.
Here, have a champagne coolie, your brain is obviously getting tired:
