The US Constitution

Is the US Consititution that important to you?

  • strictly a legal document and should be followed to the letter and intent

    Votes: 14 70.0%

  • a living document that ebbs and flows interpreted by 9 people on the supreme court

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • it's old and antiquated and should be totally ignored by the courts for the good of society?

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Yeah, but if they aren't patriots what makes you think they'd responsibly apply jury nullification?
 
I was at school today and I found it in everyones best intrest to write an anarchy sign on my desk.

Emma Goldman is my savuoir
 
Southern Man said:
I just respond to the lawyers first question with one of my own: "Is that the guilty guy"?
Click to expand...
Glad to see you have no respect for the Constitution or the presumption of innocense. I truly hope one day you sit accused of a crime you did not commit, and someone asks that question of your lawyer.
 
Socrtease said:
Glad to see you have no respect for the Constitution or the presumption of innocense. I truly hope one day you sit accused of a crime you did not commit, and someone asks that question of your lawyer.
Click to expand...
I was being facetious, of course. I've been to jury duty several times, and everyone jokes about what they'll wear, do or say to get themselves kicked out, but when the time comes, we all sit up straight and do our duty. Its pretty amazing when you think about it.
 
Socrtease said:
I understand where you coming from so lets evaluate your way of doing this. If your world existed, no one would be able to appeal the illegal search of their house. Instead they would have to petition their representative, from prison, to introduce a constitutional amendment which would say that any search without a warrant would be unconstitutional, which the fourth already says, and that any evidence siezed would have to be excluded from the trial of the guilty guy whose house they found the evidence at. Just for my edification what would motivate a legislator to introduce that particular amendment?

Lets move on to Miranda, which the court not to long ago upheld. In your world, people who were coerced into confessing to a crime would have to wait for the same procedure to get a NEW Amendment that says people accused of a crime cannot be made to confess and if they do then the confession must be excluded. Again the motivation for a legislator, one that is up for re-election from time to time, to introduce amendments which would appear to assist criminals escapes me.

The guy that wore a t-shirt that said "Fuck the Draft" would have to wait for the amendment that said, "hey dumbasses, written words on shirts are also protected speech."

Larry Flynt would have had to wait for the amendment that says, "hey, you all are still dumbasses and satire and wholly unbelievable ads in magazines are also protected speech."

And the Jehovas Witnesses who were being force to have their kids pledge to the flag would have to wait for the Amendment that says "Even unpopular religious beliefs are protected by the Free Exercise Clause.

I can do this all night long. Do you understand WHY your solution is unreasonable and untenable? Do you understand how many people who had their 4th Amendment rights violated would have to sit in jail waiting for congress and all the states to pass your exclusionary rule amendment? Do you understand how NO LEGISLATOR in her right mind would EVER introduce those amendments. Do you understand how no legislator hoping to be re-elected would ever vote for it and how states would NEVER ratify them?

You idea is to keep people in prison when they shouldn't be and limit peoples rights to only those things that are popular.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is apparent you can go on indefinitely using innuendo, deliberate misrepresentation of what has been said, outright lies, and other little tricks of those whose reading comprehension is lacking, or whose argument cannot be otherwise supported. The only reason "My" solution cannot work is because you completely misunderstand and/or misrepresent what "my" solution is.

I CLEARLY stated in an earlier post that there is a place for SCOTUS to determine where there are holes in the constitution. It is their JOB to protect the people from the excesses of government actions that violate the constitution. Exclusionary rule is one such place.

But the problem with the exclusionary rule as it stands is a SCOTUS ruling is not law of the land. When push comes to shove, the exclusionary rule, which we both agree is a very good principle, is no more than legal precedence. As such, it can be as easily reversed as it was formed. That is the drawback of legal precedence - we have to trust future SCOTUS complements to uphold it. I don't know about you, but I palce ZERO faith in the benevolence of future makeups of the branches of government. The way to protect our rights on a long term, stable basis is to add those protections (and consequences) as needed so they cannot be later reversed at the whim of nine men.

And again, you focus on one good result that came out of SCOTUS. What if separate but equal were still legal precedence? Would that be a good thing? Just because you can point to one good result does not make the ability of nine men to significantly alter how we apply the Constitution a good thing.
 
As for your other examples, they are nonsense. The statement that written words are also protected speech is not some wild off the cuff concept that needs another amendment. Free speech is covered. But there will be those in government who will try to whittle away our rights (Such as making the ridiculous claim that written words - no matter how presented - are NOT part of free speech.) SCOTUS is there to make sure they do not. Each time a liberty is encroached on by government does not mean a new amendment is needed. In most cases the current ones can be applied. That is not the same as adding to, or subtracting from them.
 
Southern Man said:
I think that you meant to say "hasn't been".

White southerners and Christians are allowed to be publicly denigrated by libs. That's how they define tolerance and open-mindedness.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how any one has denigrated the two groups who are the greatest threats to liberty and freedom in this nation? By being critical of their asinine behavior?
 
Solitary said:
And we have made changes to the US Constitution. The methods for making changes are there.

They are not easy, but they exist.

I do not think making changes to the US Constitution SHOULD be easy.
Click to expand...

It certainly isn't and sometimes it doesn't when it should and the courts make interpretations that are morally right. Brown vs The Board of Education, Topeka, KS comes to mind.
 
Southern Man said:
Yeah the teaching of sex education to first graders and the pornography on television, movies and the supermarket check out aisle are certainly good examples of this new enlightenment. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There you go again. A right wing nut living in right wing never, never land. Show me, whole scale, were their teaching sex education in the first grade? Show me where they sell porn at a supermarket (cause I'd like to shop there) never minding the question, what the hell is wrong with porn.
 
Watermark said:
But juries may not have any respect for the constitution at all.
Click to expand...
That's true but Juries are designed to represent the conscience of our communities and they may vote "guilty" or "not guilty" "For" or "Against" for any reason or no reason. There is no requirement that Jury's adhere to the constitution or any law for that matter in their deliberations. Of course, no Judge is going to volunteer that information to them and they do have a moral and ethical responsibility to respect the rule of law.
 
Mottleydude said:
There you go again. A right wing nut living in right wing never, never land. Show me, whole scale, were their teaching sex education in the first grade? Show me where they sell porn at a supermarket (cause I'd like to shop there) never minding the question, what the hell is wrong with porn.
Click to expand...
Whole scale? It's all incremental. Obama voted for 1st grade sex ed in Illinois. There's more tits and ass in the supermarket checkout than there used to be in pin-ups. Get yourself a real woman and stop looking at pictures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top