[freedomwarrior998]

You lied. You got caught, and now you are retreating to ad hominem attacks. You prove my point.

BTW: The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the job of interpreting what the Constitution means. The Supreme Court has unanimously interpreted the word "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment to sometimes allow the use of a no-knock warrant.

I agree that no-knocks should be limited to the circumstances outlined by Justice Thomas. However, you seem to think that you know more about the law and the Constitution than Justice Thomas (and the rest of the Supreme Court), and that the Framers were wrong to place the Constitutional role of interpreting the law (along with the judicial power) in the Supreme Court.

If that is indeed your contention, then it is you who is arguing against the Constitutional system.

If you really think that you know more than Justice Thomas, please make your case. Cite authority to back your position.

[TigersEye]

I agree that no-knocks should be limited to the circumstances outlined by Justice Thomas.

The case you cited earlier wasn't even about a no-knock warrant. Now who is the liar?

[TigersEye]

However, you seem to think that you know more about the law and the Constitution than Justice Thomas (and the rest of the Supreme Court), and that the Framers were wrong to place the Constitutional role of interpreting the law (along with the judicial power) in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade. How's that work for your conservative philosophy?

[dcwusmc]

Would you be so kind as to point out exactly WHERE in the Constitution the authority for the Supremes to “interpret” the Constitution is enumerated?