Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[Into the Night]

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

They didn't.

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.

See? A budget item. Congress allows a certain amount of money to move around, effectively creating a general purpose budget the President can use as he sees fit by invoking this act. In addition, stopping invasions is military budgeting. Perhaps you should read Article II of the Constitution of the United States while you are not reading Articles I and III.

 

[Flash]

They didn't.

See? A budget item. Congress allows a certain amount of money to move around, effectively creating a general purpose budget the President can use as he sees fit by invoking this act. In addition, stopping invasions is military budgeting. Perhaps you should read Article II of the Constitution of the United States while you are not reading Articles I and III.

The president had no power to move money around in this situation. As you say, it was a budgetary item and the courts Article III power to interpret laws concluded the president had no authority to do so. As many predicted when Trump made this decision, it would not stand the test of the separation of powers.

 

[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 not reading correctly. Nowhere did I suggest the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to pass laws.

There is no strawman regarding the 4th Amendment--it clearly allows reasonable searches without a warrant and the courts have used their power to interpret the Constitution to determine what situations allow that. They did not interpret laws of Congress allowing warrantless searches but their interpretation of the Constitution when those were covered by legislation.

They regularly strike down federal and state searches if they are not reasonable. That is because the 4th was made applicable to the states in 1961 although you claim it does not apply to the states. Most of these cases are state since that is 99% of criminal cases.

Do you just completely ignore the incorporation process that made most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states?

 

[RB 60]

You are not reading correctly. Nowhere did I suggest the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to pass laws.

There is no strawman regarding the 4th Amendment--it clearly allows reasonable searches without a warrant and the courts have used their power to interpret the Constitution to determine what situations allow that. They did not interpret laws of Congress allowing warrantless searches but their interpretation of the Constitution when those were covered by legislation.

They regularly strike down federal and state searches if they are not reasonable. That is because the 4th was made applicable to the states in 1961 although you claim it does not apply to the states. Most of these cases are state since that is 99% of criminal cases.

Do you just completely ignore the incorporation process that made most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states?

All a cop has to do is say he thought he smelled Marijuana, then you kiss your rights goodbye.

 

[Flash]

All a cop has to do is say he thought he smelled Marijuana, then you kiss your rights goodbye.

Those cops often end up in trouble and have the evidence thrown out. If they claim they smell marijuana and don't find any they have some 'splaining to do.

A lot of the drug arrests that happen on interstates is simple consent. Officers suspect a car might be carrying drugs but you cannot conduct a search on suspicion. They stop the car for some traffic violation and ask the person if they can search the car. The idiot says "yes" and they find the drugs. The guy thinks if he says the officer cannot search that will create enough suspicion to search, but it does not. A dog might. Consent is an example of a search that does not require a warrant.

 

[RB 60]

Those cops often end up in trouble and have the evidence thrown out. If they claim they smell marijuana and don't find any they have some 'splaining to do.

A lot of the drug arrests that happen on interstates is simple consent. Officers suspect a car might be carrying drugs but you cannot conduct a search on suspicion. They stop the car for some traffic violation and ask the person if they can search the car. The idiot says "yes" and they find the drugs. The guy thinks if he says the officer cannot search that will create enough suspicion to search, but it does not. A dog might. Consent is an example of a search that does not require a warrant.

True, but most don't pursue it if nothing's found. Otherwise, I agree.

 

[Flash]

True, but most don't pursue it if nothing's found. Otherwise, I agree.

Sometimes they will offer young adults a simple fine or probated sentence and the person quickly accepts it. If they plead not guilty the case could be thrown out because of a questionable search, but the person thinks he got off easy and pleads guilty (like 90% of other convictions).

 

[RB 60]

Sometimes they will offer young adults a simple fine or probated sentence and the person quickly accepts it. If they plead not guilty the case could be thrown out because of a questionable search, but the person thinks he got off easy and pleads guilty (like 90% of other convictions).

That's often true when the fine or sentence is minimal. But many also plead guilty or no contest, even if innocent, because retaining a lawyer and fighting it in court is way too costly.

 

[Flash]

That's often true when the fine or sentence is minimal. But many also plead guilty or no contest, even if innocent, beHcause retaining a lawyer and fighting it in court is way too costly.

Yes, or even if they stand trial and are found not guilty they spent longer in jail waiting for the trial than their sentence would be. Many places have a pre-trial release program for non-violent offenders that lets them out while waiting trial without having to pay bail.

 

[Into the Night]

The president had no power to move money around in this situation.

Yes he does.

As you say, it was a budgetary item and the courts Article III power to interpret laws concluded the president had no authority to do so.

The judge that did this does not have the authority to change the Constitution of the United States. The judge that did this will be overruled.

As many predicted when Trump made this decision, it would not stand the test of the separation of powers.

[/QUOTE]
It does. Congress gave him that budget in that form. It is not relinquishing any authority by them to the presidency.

 

[Flash]

Yes he does.

They do not have the authority to change the Constitution of the United States.

Congress gave him that budget in that form. It is not relinquishing any authority by them to the presidency.

The courts, which make the decisions, obviously disagree with you. According to you, they were not changing the Constitution but interpreting the law (presidential acts) and decided it was unconstitutional.

If you believe in the rule of law you accept their decision as legitimate even if you disagree. Their ruling goes against all your premises.

You never said why you completely ignore the incorporation process.

 

[Into the Night]

You are not reading correctly. Nowhere did I suggest the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to pass laws.

Lie. Most of your arguments are exactly that.

There is no strawman regarding the 4th Amendment

Lie. You keep editing the 4th amendment to something it isn't and trying to show it's different. That's a strawman fallacy.

--it clearly allows reasonable searches without a warrant

No, it doesn't.

and the courts have used their power to interpret the Constitution to determine what situations allow that.

No court has the authority to interpret the Constitution.

They did not interpret laws of Congress allowing warrantless searches but their interpretation of the Constitution when those were covered by legislation.

You are locked in another paradox. Which argument are making, dude?

They regularly strike down federal and state searches if they are not reasonable.

They are required to. They are also required to strike down searches if they are conducted without a warrant.

That is because the 4th was made applicable to the states in 1961 although you claim it does not apply to the states.

I never claimed the 4th amendment wasn't applicable to the States, liar. It IS applicable to the States. You can't seem to maintain context, probably because of your constant redirection fallacies.

Most of these cases are state since that is 99% of criminal cases.

Irrelevance fallacy.

Do you just completely ignore the incorporation process that made most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states?

There is no 'incorporation process'. The 4th amendment has always applied to both federal and State governments.

 

[Into the Night]

All a cop has to do is say he thought he smelled Marijuana, then you kiss your rights goodbye.

Unfortunately true too many times.

 

[Into the Night]

Those cops often end up in trouble

As they should.

and have the evidence thrown out.

As it should.

If they claim they smell marijuana and don't find any they have some 'splaining to do.

Even if they DO 'find' it they have some 'splaining to do.

A lot of the drug arrests that happen on interstates is simple consent. Officers suspect a car might be carrying drugs but you cannot conduct a search on suspicion. They stop the car for some traffic violation and ask the person if they can search the car. The idiot says "yes" and they find the drugs. The guy thinks if he says the officer cannot search that will create enough suspicion to search, but it does not. A dog might. Consent is an example of a search that does not require a warrant.

It is also not a violation of the Constitution, since the search was consensual.

 

[Into the Night]

The courts, which make the decisions, obviously disagree with you.

Too bad. No court has the authority to change the Constitution. No has to accept the ruling that attempts to do so.

According to you, they were not changing the Constitution but interpreting the law (presidential acts) and decided it was unconstitutional.

Lie. I never said any such thing. Get yer facts straight.
I said they were attempting to change the Constitution. An idiot judge in California cannot take the authority away from Congress that is described in the Constitution.

If you believe in the rule of law you accept their decision as legitimate even if you disagree.

Any court that is attempting to change the Constitution is NOT the rule of law. No court is above the Constitution.

Their ruling goes against all your premises.

Their ruling doesn't have any authority.

You never said why you completely ignore the incorporation process.

Strawman fallacy. There is no 'incorporation process'.

 

[Flash]

Lie. Most of your arguments are exactly that.

Lie. You keep editing the 4th amendment to something it isn't and trying to show it's different. That's a strawman fallacy.

The exact words of the 4th say "..."[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...."

It is not a strawman when the words clearly say we are protected against unreasonable searches. It is easily verifiable to show there are situations clarified by the courts that allow warrantless searches. Most people know without even researching that certain searches without a warrant are legal.

That clearly shows you are wrong on that point.

I never claimed the 4th amendment wasn't applicable to the States, liar. It IS applicable to the States. You can't seem to maintain context, probably because of your constant redirection fallacies.

There is no 'incorporation process'. The 4th amendment has always applied to both federal and State governments.

Again, easily verifiable facts proving you are wrong. Some basic history knows the Bill of Rights were added to restrict the powers of the federal government and they only applied to federal action. Between 1925-2019 individual rights in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to the states so that today most of those rights limit the states as well as the federal government. The 4th Amendment search and seizure provision did not limit the states until 1961.

Anybody can easily look up "incorporation process" to see that it does exist and that the 4th Amendment only restricted the federal government until 1961 (see silver platter doctrine).

Again, easily checked facts to show your constitutional law is very confused.

Labeling something a fallacy does not a debate make.

 

[Flash]

Even if they DO 'find' it they have some 'splaining to do.

It is also not a violation of the Constitution, since the search was consensual.

Yes, the search was consensual. You are agreeing that all searches do not require a warrant. That is what I have been saying.

But you are wrong about the cop smelling marijuana. If he stops a car and smells marijuana he can search that car (for marijuana) without a warrant and anything he finds is admissible in court. The cop had probable cause to search. Probable cause is an exception to the requirement to get a warrant if it is mobile.

We now have two of the exceptions to requiring a warrant--consent and probable cause.

 

[Into the Night]

The exact words of the 4th say "..."[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...."

No, they don't. You are editing the 4th amendment again. Strawman fallacy.

It is not a strawman

Yes it is.

when the words clearly say we are protected against unreasonable searches.

You are not quoting the 4th amendment.

It is easily verifiable to show there are situations clarified by the courts that allow warrantless searches.

None, unless a person has already been arrested.

Most people know without even researching that certain searches without a warrant are legal.

No, they aren't.

That clearly shows you are wrong on that point.

No, I'm not. You are STILL trying to put the courts ABOVE the Constitution of the United States.

Again, easily verifiable facts proving you are wrong. Some basic history knows the Bill of Rights were added to restrict the powers of the federal government and they only applied to federal action.

The 1st amendment only applied to the federal government. The 2nd through 9th apply to the federal and State governments, and all local governments. The 10th designates States retaining all authorities not granted by the Constitution to the federal government.

Between 1925-2019 individual rights in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to the states so that today most of those rights limit the states as well as the federal government.

WRONG. These amendments have always applied this way. They still do.

The 4th Amendment search and seizure provision did not limit the states until 1961.

Yes it did. It always has.

Anybody can easily look up "incorporation process" to see that it does exist and that the 4th Amendment only restricted the federal government until 1961 (see silver platter doctrine).

Meaningless. A court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

Again, easily checked facts to show your constitutional law is very confused.

The Constitution is the ONLY law of the Constitution.

Labeling something a fallacy does not a debate make.

Then stop making fallacious arguments. Fallacies render an argument invalid. No valid argument means no debate.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, the search was consensual. You are agreeing that all searches do not require a warrant. That is what I have been saying.

Irrelevant. Inviting anyone to search you is not an involuntary search, which is what is being discussed by the 4th amendment. False equivalence fallacy.

But you are wrong about the cop smelling marijuana. If he stops a car and smells marijuana he can search that car (for marijuana) without a warrant and anything he finds is admissible in court.

No, it isn't. A court does not have the authority to change the Constitution.

The cop had probable cause to search.

Irrelevant. He has no authority to search.

Probable cause is an exception to the requirement to get a warrant if it is mobile.

No, it isn't, legally.

We now have two of the exceptions to requiring a warrant--consent and probable cause.

No, you don't. Not legally.

 

[Flash]

You are not quoting the 4th amendment.

None, unless a person has already been arrested.

No, I'm not. You are STILL trying to put the courts ABOVE the Constitution of the United States.

The 1st amendment only applied to the federal government. The 2nd through 9th apply to the federal and State governments, and all local governments. The 10th designates States retaining all authorities not granted by the Constitution to the federal government.

WRONG. These amendments have always applied this way. They still do.

Yes it did. It always has.

Meaningless. A court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

The Constitution is the ONLY law of the Constitution.

Then stop making fallacious arguments. Fallacies render an argument invalid. No valid argument means no debate.

This is not edited: "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."

Everything I said can be verified but nothing you said can be verified.

Searches don't require a warrant in cases other than a person who is already arrested--consent, probably cause, admission, plain sight, etc.

The 1st Amendment only restricted the federal government until the incorporation process when it was made applicable to the states

I do not put the courts above the Constitution but the courts determine how it is interpreted as proven by the recent case ruling Trump did not have the power to move funds that had been appropriated by Congress.

You obviously have not checked any of these facts but instead use some weird interpretation of the Constitution to justify your clearly false statements.