Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[USFREEDOM911]

OK. Then you answer the hypothetical. The 4th says there shall be no unreasonable searches without a warrant. What is a reasonable search that does not require a warrant. And where do we find those "clear" examples.

I think conservatives also give it a broad interpretation to give government the power they want it to have. For example, "naturalization" has always meant process of becoming a citizen. But now it is being interpreted to include immigration control which clearly was not contained in that provision or early naturalization laws. I think that is because the right wants to make sure government has control over immigration and are willing to accept a liberal interpretation of governments power to achieve that control.

I am not arguing against immigration laws, just pointing out the Constitution does not give Congress that power (unless we stretch the meaning of naturalization).

Hypothetical questions are subject to the same kind of answers and neither of them have any substance to support them.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course it can. The plain English words of the Constitution say it cannot conduct an unreasonable search without a warrant meaning if it is reasonable no warrant is necessary.

It says no such thing. Not even close.

See why the plain language of the Constitution can mean different things to different people?

It doesn't. You are making shit up.

You completely ignore the reasonable exception in the plain language of the Constitution although you claim it is not subject to interpretation.

'Reasonable' IS subject to interpretation in the form of a warrant being required. That is not interpreting the constitution.

The TSA is a completely different animal.

No, it isn't. It conducts searches without a warrant. It is also ineffective.

Based on your definition the border patrol must have a warrant to search vehicles coming into the U. S. that might be carrying contraband.

Customs agents work at ports of entry. You are not in the United States yet. You have no constitutional protections there.

 

[Into the Night]

The people and the Courts; because that's why the US has a system set in place, to challenge such.

Exactly. Searches cannot be conducted without a warrant. The Constitution specifically mentions that, and specifically gives the courts power to determine what is a reasonable search or seizure. That is not interpreting the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Because; unlike liberals, the majority of the US are able to think for themselves.

Also, liberals don't speak English.

 

[Into the Night]

Exactly, and those able to think for themselves and read the Constitution know much of it is vague and subject to interpretation. Even those men writing the document had different interpretations of its meaning.

It is not vague. It is clearly written.

 

[Into the Night]

OK. Then you answer the hypothetical. The 4th says there shall be no unreasonable searches without a warrant.

WRONG. That is NOT what the 4th amendment says.
Again, since you apparently have no memory:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What is a reasonable search that does not require a warrant. And where do we find those "clear" examples.

All searches requires a warrant.

I think conservatives also give it a broad interpretation to give government the power they want it to have.

Occasionally, but nothing like the liberals do.

For example, "naturalization" has always meant process of becoming a citizen. But now it is being interpreted to include immigration control which clearly was not contained in that provision or early naturalization laws.

It has always meant both.

I think that is because the right wants to make sure government has control over immigration and are willing to accept a liberal interpretation of governments power to achieve that control.

No, it has always meant both.

I am not arguing against immigration laws,

Yes you are.

just pointing out the Constitution does not give Congress that power (unless we stretch the meaning of naturalization).

It has always meant both.

 

[Into the Night]

Hypothetical questions are subject to the same kind of answers and neither of them have any substance to support them.

It actually wasn't a hypothetical question. It was a real question, pertaining to a real constitution. The question, however, assumed the text of a '4th amendment' that doesn't exist. He made it up. That's why I requoted the 4th amendment so he can try reading it again.

 

[CFM]

You asked "where did he say that......" I gave you the answer but you forgot you asked the question.

That's not the question I asked.

 

[Flash]

Hypothetical questions are subject to the same kind of answers and neither of them have any substance to support them.

It is not really hypothetical since it happens many times every day in police searches. These people that claim the Constitution is clear and needs no interpretation cannot translate that to specific events that are not so clear.

 

[Flash]

It says no such thing. Not even close.

It doesn't. You are making shit up.

'Reasonable' IS subject to interpretation in the form of a warrant being required. That is not interpreting the constitution.

The 4th says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,.."

Unreasonable searches are prohibited, but that does not apply to reasonable searches. Are you claiming that all searches require a warrant? That is far removed from reality of daily police work.

Yes, reasonable is subject to interpretation whether a search is unreasonable or reasonable. It is interpreting the Constitution since that is the document clearly prohibiting unreasonable searches. Courts interpret the Constitution all the time when deciding whether evidence is permitted as evidence.

What do you think they are interpreting? If police conduct an unreasonable search it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to use that evidence in a criminal proceeding. That is interpreting the Constitution.

What the Constitution does not say is that illegally seized evidence cannot be used in court, but that was seen as the only way to deter such searches.

 

[Flash]

It is not vague. It is clearly written.

Please, who decides whether a law is "necessary and proper" for carrying out delegated powers? Jefferson certainly did not think a national bank was "necessary" but Hamilton did. It was obviously not that clear at the time. What was clear is that Federalists supported it and Anti-Federalists opposed it.

Where does it say Congress can give the president emergency powers, send troops without a declaration of war, or multiple other things the courts rule on regularly?

 

[Into the Night]

It is not really hypothetical since it happens many times every day in police searches. These people that claim the Constitution is clear and needs no interpretation cannot translate that to specific events that are not so clear.

The police cannot search without a warrant unless you have already been arrested, and even then can only search your person. Anything found during an illegal search is not admissible evidence.

 

[Flash]

All searches requires a warrant.

In your opinion which obviously does not agree with any court decision or accepted interpretation.

 

[Into the Night]

The 4th says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,.."

That is NOT what the 4th amendment says. You keep editing the content of the 4th amendment. You keep trying to change it.

Unreasonable searches are prohibited, but that does not apply to reasonable searches. Are you claiming that all searches require a warrant? That is far removed from reality of daily police work.

All searches require a warrant, except for searching your person AFTER you have been arrested, and even THAT requires a warrant after the fact be admissible in court.

Yes, reasonable is subject to interpretation whether a search is unreasonable or reasonable. It is interpreting the Constitution since that is the document clearly prohibiting unreasonable searches. Courts interpret the Constitution all the time when deciding whether evidence is permitted as evidence.

That is not interpreting the Constitution.

What do you think they are interpreting? If police conduct an unreasonable search it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to use that evidence in a criminal proceeding. That is interpreting the Constitution.

They are interpreting police action. They are NOT interpreting the Constitution.

What the Constitution does not say is that illegally seized evidence cannot be used in court, but that was seen as the only way to deter such searches.

WRONG. Illegal searches CAN result in a felony charge in and of itself

 

[Flash]

The police cannot search without a warrant unless you have already been arrested, and even then can only search your person. Anything found during an illegal search is not admissible evidence.

Completely untrue and contrary to numerous searches conducted everyday.

Where does the Constitution say evidence found in an illegal search is not admissible? You are right, but that was based on court interpretation. It is not in the 4th. Where is that so clear in the document.

 

[Into the Night]

Please, who decides whether a law is "necessary and proper" for carrying out delegated powers?

Congress. See Article I of the Constitution of the United States. It must also be approved in most cases by the President. See Article II of the Constitution of the United States.

Jefferson certainly did not think a national bank was "necessary" but Hamilton did.

...so?

It was obviously not that clear at the time.

It is not unconstitutional either.

What was clear is that Federalists supported it and Anti-Federalists opposed it.

...so?

Where does it say Congress can give the president emergency powers,

Article I, $8 clearly gives Congress the power of the budget. This is a budget item.

send troops without a declaration of war,

Apparently you don't believe that the federal government has the power to raise armies and navies.

or multiple other things the courts rule on regularly?

Courts do not rule on where Congress sends the military. They don't rule on what Congress decides to spend money on. They don't rule on whether Congress decides to create a national bank.

Apparently you have never read the Constitution.

* You don't understand the purpose of Congress and what powers they are given.
* You don't understand the purpose of the President and what powers he is given.
* You don't understand why there are two houses in government, and what each house has the power to do.
* You don't understand the powers given to the judicial system. You place the courts ABOVE the Constitution.
* You continually refer to a court as authoritative OVER the Constitution. The Constitution is the authoritative reference, not a court case.
* You keep treating the courts as if they were infallible. They are not. Courts have exceeded their authority quite often. So has Congress. So have several Presidents.
* You keep editing the Constitution to support your arguments. You keep trying to change it.
* You leap from one extreme argument fallacy to another. Redirection after redirection. You have lost the context of this thread completely.
* You leap from one redefinition fallacy to another, mostly due to fixation on one word of the Constitution taken out of context.

The Constitution is clearly written. It is written in English. You need to go back to using English. Redefining words and taking wording out of context is not a valid argument.

It is time to remember that Congress does NOT have the power to designate what light bulb you can buy, what toilet you can buy, what the value of money shall be, whether you can use TEL in gasoline, whether you can emit a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere into the atmosphere, which substances you can fuck yourself up on, which guns you can buy, where you can carry them (except on their own property), steal your wealth to give to another person, tell you who you can hire, tell you who you are allowed or required to sell to, designate what your kid can learn in school, designate what encryption system you can use, require a State to give money and welfare services to any individual or group, or any of many other laws they have passed by exceeding their authority.

 

[Into the Night]

Completely untrue and contrary to numerous searches conducted everyday.

Where does the Constitution say evidence found in an illegal search is not admissible? You are right, but that was based on court interpretation. It is not in the 4th. Where is that so clear in the document.

You continue to insist that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to pass laws. You continue to insist on changing the 4th amendment and arguing a strawman.

 

[Flash]

You continue to insist that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to pass laws. You continue to insist on changing the 4th amendment and arguing a strawman.

You are the one claiming all searches require a warrant. That destroys your credibility since everyone knows that is not true.

 

[Flash]

Article I, $8 clearly gives Congress the power of the budget. This is a budget item.

Yes, it is a budget item and Congress cannot give away its legislative authority to the president.

This is illustrated by the recent court decision striking down Trump's attempt to take money appropriated to the military to spend on the wall.

 

[Into the Night]

You are the one claiming all searches require a warrant. That destroys your credibility since everyone knows that is not true.

You continue to insist that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to pass laws. You continue to insist on changing the 4th amendment and arguing a strawman.