• Indiana Supreme Court Declares 4th Admendment Void Since It 'Conflicts With Public Policy"
    79 replies, posted
[QUOTE=nikomo;29817479]I thought the Amendments overrule shit like this?[/QUOTE] It should, but fucking retards don't get that it's not the amendment messing with their public policy, it's their public policy that's in violation of the amendment.
Great, we are living history over again. Under Andrew Jackson we faced a nullification crisis which developed into states rights issues which then led to the civil war.
Let me guess. Republicans. I [i]should[/i] be feeling pissed off on untold levels, and that's how I originally wanted to reply, but, you know what? At this point, with ALL of the shit bills they've been putting out, it's just like, "Ah, that's what they're fucking up now. I wonder what's next." [QUOTE=Bletotum;29817785]neverminding the derailment, how does a state government have the right to overturn national law? fire them[/QUOTE] Oddly enough, I have an odd feeling Donald Trump would actually support this.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;29817608]Does this also mean they can enter your property without a warrant if there is no probable cause for someone being in danger?[/QUOTE] Correct. It would protect all law enforcement from any unlawful and unwarranted entering. I can see one argument being that "well it's not like this power is going to be misused", but that is never true. Take the TSA for example. My argument will always be that there is no reason to give government more power than it needs, and it is far better to restrict government. The 4th amendment not only protects people, but it makes public officials accountable for any unlawful search in which if there is not enough evidence, there is not enough reason. Public officials such as police need to be held on a much higher standard.
Uh ok and any evidence they collect with unlawful entry will be tainted good job Indiana A+ states rights are a joke
[QUOTE=Last or First;29818581]Let me guess. Republicans. I [i]should[/i] be feeling pissed off on untold levels, and that's how I originally wanted to reply, but, you know what? At this point, with ALL of the shit bills they've been putting out, it's just like, "Ah, that's what they're fucking up now. I wonder what's next."[/QUOTE] The patriot act was voted for in 2001. The vote was. Republicans in favor: 211 Republicans not in favor: 3 Democrats in favor: 145 Democrats not in favor: 62 As you can see, Republicans were far more in favor, but the majority of Democrats were also in favor. To me, this says the Republican party are more likely to jeopardize rights, but the Democrats are also very likely. The second vote in 2006 had a 66-124 yes to no vote from democrats and a similar vote from republicans. I see this more as Republicans trying to stick with their position and Democrats appealing to reason and to the opposition. The thing about this though is that the patriot act was actually being put through congress prior to 9/11 and was being shot down by both parties very easily, there wasn't any real difference between party opinion. What this goes to show is that both parties are likely to vote for these types of laws given the circumstance, and that democrats are less likely to go for it under a Republican president. I believe that we would see the opposite trend in voting if there had been a Democratic president at the time.
[QUOTE=1239the;29812883]But there's not a single fucking chance that any founding father could have written it in foresight of the context of modern day society, so it is my opinion that it should be scrutinized and rewritten in a more up to date context.[/QUOTE] Indeed, how could the founding fathers have possibly thought that we'd be living in a future like this, where people who have doors on their houses are criminals, and the police force is the magical, infallible entity incapable of corruption and wrongdoing that it is.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;29817785]neverminding the derailment, how does a state government have the right to overturn national law? fire them[/QUOTE] They don't. Especially not an amendment from the Bill of Rights which is the only section of the constitution that cannot be repealed.
In a few weeks or months this will be over turned by The Supreme Court. Because, you know, a state can't decide that it suddenly doesn't want to adhere to part of the constitution.
How stupid can they be to declare an incorporated amendment unconstitutional. Police should not just arbitrarily break into somebodies house outright.
Goddamn, it's like these people aren't familiar with their own government. The Supreme Court must have their hands full with all of this repealing of stupidity they've been having to deal with for the last few months.
Woot hometown Indianapolis, IN. Indiana knows how to get shit done. It may not be right or wrong, but shit gets done. Who is the only state that almost made pi = to 3.2? That's right... Indiana
Broseph_ thread Obscure source claiming outrageous abuse of power by government Do the math sheeple!!!!
Good ol' Indiana. You never disappoint.
[QUOTE=TH89;29820438]Broseph_ thread Obscure source claiming outrageous abuse of power by government Do the math sheeple!!!![/QUOTE] Hey man it's the largest and most trusted media company in northwest indiana
states are disregarding the constitution (these assholes) and removing elected officials from power (Michigan) and the federal government isn't doing anything about it even though it's been going on for over a month. WTF are you doing Obama? (and yes I am talking directly to the president because he does have the power given to him by law to do something about this) [editline]14th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;29820438]Broseph_ thread Obscure source claiming outrageous abuse of power by government Do the math sheeple!!!![/QUOTE] [url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-ind-court-no-right-to-resist-unlawful-police-entry-20110513,0,2225708.story[/url] [url]http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/new-court-ruling-on-illegal-entry-could-have-lasting-effects-to-property-rights[/url] [url]http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/213f450e744c46ae969c8888ceefd697/IN--Police-Unlawful-Entry/[/url]
[QUOTE=TH89;29820438]Broseph_ thread Obscure source claiming outrageous abuse of power by government Do the math sheeple!!!![/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NWI_Times]It literally took me 20 seconds to see if the source was obscure or not[/url]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29821700][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NWI_Times]It literally took me 20 seconds to see if the source was obscure or not[/url][/QUOTE] As I said [editline]14th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;29821545]states are disregarding the constitution (these assholes) and removing elected officials from power (Michigan) and the federal government isn't doing anything about it even though it's been going on for over a month. WTF are you doing Obama? (and yes I am talking directly to the president because he does have the power given to him by law to do something about this) [/QUOTE] What power is that? Other than indirectly via SC justices, anyway
[QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;29821545]states are disregarding the constitution (these assholes) and removing elected officials from power (Michigan) and the federal government isn't doing anything about it even though it's been going on for over a month. WTF are you doing Obama? (and yes I am talking directly to the president because he does have the power given to him by law to do something about this)[/QUOTE] That is a state issue. It would be a Federal issue if they were removing people from the House or Senate, but that is not what you're complaining about. Congress does not have any power to delegate or interfere with state legislator. Congress does have the ability to nullify state laws with federal laws, but they can't directly make a state specific law. The Supreme court does have the ability to strike down state laws. I don't believe congress has any power really to directly interact with the states due to the 10th amendment, meaning that the president doesn't have any authority to involve himself in this. He can of course state his opinion, but he has no power when it comes to this.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29823537]That is a state issue. It would be a Federal issue if they were removing people from the House or Senate, but that is not what you're complaining about. Congress does not have any power to delegate or interfere with state legislator. Congress does have the ability to nullify state laws with federal laws, but they can't directly make a state specific law. The Supreme court does have the ability to strike down state laws. I don't believe congress has any power really to directly interact with the states due to the 10th amendment, meaning that the president doesn't have any authority to involve himself in this.[/QUOTE] It's sort of implied that the Executive Branch is responsible for carrying out the enforcement of the Supreme Court's decisions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if public policy and the constitution conflict, isn't it the public policy that is void?
Timeout, you can void amendments!?
[QUOTE=dogmachines;29823850]Correct me if I'm wrong, but if public policy and the constitution conflict, isn't it the public policy that is void?[/QUOTE] Move to indiana, cop breaks into your home shoot him what happens?
[QUOTE=Squarebob;29817933]Such is life in Fascist Indiana.[/QUOTE] Fixed. :colbert:
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;29823569]It's sort of implied that the Executive Branch is responsible for carrying out the enforcement of the Supreme Court's decisions.[/QUOTE] Yes, but, the person I was replying to was talking about a state issue and I don't believe the Federal Government can enforce any State law because that is the responsibility of the state. The executive branch would have the power to override Indiana's 4th amendment nullification because they would be enforcing Federal law. It's just like how medical marijuana is legal to sell in Cali, but there are Federal raids.
This is some scary shit. If they're saying the fourth amendment is void, then what's stopping them from saying any other amendment is void too? And just on this amendment alone. The fourth amendment is what protects the police from entering your house if they have an unbased suspicion, or for any arbitrary reason that isn't covered by a warrant. Anybody here who says they wouldn't mind the police randomly entering their house is mad, just because you have a smooth voice doesn't mean you can convince the police you're not a suspect. Letting them come into your house and find anything suspicious, whether it's actually related to a crime or not, is just setting yourself up to be incriminated for something, whether you actually did it or not. Do you really want to run the risk, whether or not you actually did anything? Did I mention the part where it prevents cops from [I]randomly[/I] entering your house? :v:
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;29825430]Fixed. :colbert:[/QUOTE] Pigdog! You are a disgrace to the name "Indiana!" You shame the land, the people, the blood! Indiana Uber Alles!
I love how the US Constitution is a little like Source, extremely flexible. you can change it as you go, the rules aren't set in stone, but it takes a fucking hell of a lot of effort to change it even a little, which is a good thing considering it is the basis for a fucking country.
[QUOTE=lorden;29826637]This is some scary shit. If they're saying the fourth amendment is void, then what's stopping them from saying any other amendment is void too? And just on this amendment alone. The fourth amendment is what protects the police from entering your house if they have an unbased suspicion, or for any arbitrary reason that isn't covered by a warrant. Anybody here who says they wouldn't mind the police randomly entering their house is mad, just because you have a smooth voice doesn't mean you can convince the police you're not a suspect. Letting them come into your house and find anything suspicious, whether it's actually related to a crime or not, is just setting yourself up to be incriminated for something, whether you actually did it or not. Do you really want to run the risk, whether or not you actually did anything? Did I mention the part where it prevents cops from [I]randomly[/I] entering your house? :v:[/QUOTE] That's not what it says. What this says is that you can't stop cops from entering your house illegally at the time. Later you can bring action against them, and anything gathered this way is useless in court. It's still a violation of your right to privacy or something. [editline]15th May 2011[/editline] Oh shit time to rob banks in indiana while dressed as police after all, they can't stop me
goddamn i keep on clicking on this thread thinking it's about indiana jones but instead i get politics fuck :canada:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.