FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
What do you think?
The US constitution
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
None of the above. Having once been a libertarian yourself, I'm sure you know what I believe. (Granted, I am not a libertarian per se, but I do adhere to a literal interpretation of the Constitution).
There are a few gray areas, but for the most part, I think the framework is pretty clear.
There are a few gray areas, but for the most part, I think the framework is pretty clear.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you forgot to add the choice of 'interpreted to fit the piece of shit ideals that are watermarxists'.
C
Cancel3
Guest
I think your choices suck.
But this "living document" argument is bullshit.
There are ways of changing the constitution. It isn't easy. But it shouldn't be easy.
The same people who want it to be a "living document" are the first ones to want parts of it to be written in stone and unchangeable.
Those who want it to be a "living document" are the ones who know they cannot achieve the changes they want thru the methods allowed.
But this "living document" argument is bullshit.
There are ways of changing the constitution. It isn't easy. But it shouldn't be easy.
The same people who want it to be a "living document" are the first ones to want parts of it to be written in stone and unchangeable.
Those who want it to be a "living document" are the ones who know they cannot achieve the changes they want thru the methods allowed.
Socrtease
Verified User
So you think that if the police search your home without a warrant and find something to prosecute you with they should be able to use that evidence to prosecute you?
C
Cancel3
Guest
I am confused on why you think I would support that. The 4th amendment protects us from unreasonable search & seizure. I do not support warrantless police searches, except in some very limited exceptions. Like if the person gives consent or they are in connection with a legal arrest.
Good Luck
New member
Socrates is operating under the theory that the exclusionary rule somehow "interprets" the constitution. It basically says that the state may not gain from violating the Constitution, even if that gain is supposedly for the public good. In a way this can be thought of as "adding" to the meaning of the BOR because the constitution did not provide for any consequences should the state ignore it's limits.
none of the above