Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[gfm7175]

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.

It seems to me like he hasn't read ANY of it...

 

[Flash]

Irrelevant. He has no authority to search.

A cop who smells marijuana coming of a car window has probable cause to search without a warrant. It happens all the time and there are many cases testing such searches.
Again, all this is common knowledge to most people and can be easily checked.

No matter how many times you say it or what kind of fallacy you come up with, it is not true. Your debates are based less on knowledge of the Constitution than relying on your knowledge of logical fallacies and use them even when they do not apply.

Claiming incorporation did not happen is incomprehensible.

 

[domer76]

A cop who smells marijuana coming of a car window has probable cause to search without a warrant. It happens all the time and there are many cases testing such searches.
Again, all this is common knowledge to most people and can be easily checked.

No matter how many times you say it or what kind of fallacy you come up with, it is not true. Your debates are based less on knowledge of the Constitution than relying on your knowledge of logical fallacies and use them even when they do not apply.

Claiming incorporation did not happen is incomprehensible.

Not to mention the “in plain site” requiring no warrant.

 

[Into the Night]

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."

Other than the weird font you used, you finally have it quoted correctly. Warrants are required for searches.

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

Nonsense statement. The ONLY authoritative reference is the amendment you just quoted.

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

Consent is not a search. Probable cause is illegal. Admission is not a search. Plain sight is not a search. Being arrested requires a court case. Any evidence obtained through any search cannot be admitted legally into that court case unless a warrant supports it.

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

The 1st amendment does not apply to the States. It clearly applies ONLY to Congress (the federal government).

I do not put the courts above the Constitution

Lie.

but the courts determine how it is interpreted

They cannot. They have no authority to do so legally.

as proven by the recent case ruling Trump did not have the power to move funds that had been appropriated by Congress.

An idiot Kalifornia judge is not a proof. He will be overturned.

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

Inversion fallacy. You are not interpreting the Constitution though, you are changing it. Strawman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

It seems to me like he hasn't read ANY of it...

I think it's obvious. He continually tries to change the Constitution to something else and then argue that. He fixates on one or two amendments that he changes also, making a strawman fallacy. Primarily, he continues to try to place the courts above the law and keeps misquoting certain court cases that did not do what he claims they did, and keeps assuming that a court decision overrules the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Not to mention the “in plain site” requiring no warrant.

That is also not a search.

 

[domer76]

Ignore list

 

[Into the Night]

A cop who smells marijuana coming of a car window has probable cause to search without a warrant.

No, he doesn't.

It happens all the time and there are many cases testing such searches.

That does not change the requirements of conducting a search. No court can change the Constitution.

Again, all this is common knowledge to most people and can be easily checked.

Courts have certainly violated the Constitution before, and they will continue to do so, yes.

No matter how many times you say it or what kind of fallacy you come up with, it is not true.

Bulverism fallacy.

Your debates are based less on knowledge of the Constitution

I actually read the thing. I know the history behind it. You know neither.

than relying on your knowledge of logical fallacies

Redefinition fallacy (logic->fallacy->void). I actually do know logic. I know what it is, how it works, and the proofs within it. Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics. A fallacy is an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in math. It is YOU that does not know logic. You keep denying it. Inversion fallacy.

and use them even when they do not apply.

They do. You can't change that. Bulverism fallacy.

Claiming incorporation did not happen is incomprehensible.

To you anyway. Too bad. I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend. Neither will I support your attempt to turn the court system into an oligarchy.

 

[gfm7175]

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

There was no "incorporation process"; it was never made applicable to the states. I will quote the 1st Amendment here for your convenience...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice the first word of that Amendment, of which I put into bolded font...

I do not put the courts above the Constitution

Yes, you do. That's what you've been asserting as truth this whole time, that the courts are supposedly above the Constitution.

but the courts determine how it is interpreted

No, they do not. The US Constitution is not interpreted by any court.

as proven by the recent case ruling

A Kaliphornia judge is not a proof. Kaliphornia is effectively an Oligarchy at this point... They don't give a damn about their OWN Constitution, let alone the US Constitution...

Trump did not have the power to move funds that had been appropriated by Congress.

Yes, he does.

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

Inversion. YOU are the one with those issues...

 

[Flash]

Other than the weird font you used, you finally have it quoted correctly. Warrants are required for searches.

Nonsense statement. The ONLY authoritative reference is the amendment you just quoted.

Consent is not a search. Probable cause is illegal. Admission is not a search. Plain sight is not a search. Being arrested requires a court case. Any evidence obtained through any search cannot be admitted legally into that court case unless a warrant supports it.

The 1st amendment does not apply to the States. It clearly applies ONLY to Congress (the federal government).

Lie.

They cannot. They have no authority to do so legally.

An idiot Kalifornia judge is not a proof. He will be overturned.

Inversion fallacy. You are not interpreting the Constitution though, you are changing it. Strawman fallacy.

You waste your time to continue to make false claims none of which has any support.

If you do not think the 1st Amendment does not apply to the states you are unaware of hundreds of cases striking down state laws for violating free speech, press, religion, establishment of religion, and assembly.

If you think you cannot search without a warrant you are unaware of hundreds of cases establishing the exact conditions for such a search. Probable cause is definitely not illegal--the issue becomes whether something establishes probable cause. Consent is definitely a search and court cases dealing with what constitutes consent is extensive.

Verifiable facts are much more convincing than trying to label everything a fallacy.

 

[Flash]

Not to mention the “in plain site” requiring no warrant.

Agreed. There are several circumstance that do not require a warrant; in fact, most searches do not involve warrants. Plain sight and consent are clearly considered searches. To understand these requires actually reading court cases rather than just giving some interpretation from some source with no knowledge of constitutional law.

Even consent cases are not always clear. For example, can your spouse give police consent to search a bedroom you share together?

 

[gfm7175]

Ignore list

I can't see you!!!

I can't hear you!!!

Gomers just never learn, do they?

 

[Flash]

There was no "incorporation process"; it was never made applicable to the states.

This shows your complete lack of knowledge of the Constitution. You are right, it originally only restricted the states. You can't stop there--you have to look at history.

Check out Gitlow v. NY (1925) and you will learn that the court made free speech applicable to the states. If you don't know this case you know nothing about the Bill of Rights.

How do you think the Supreme Court was able to strike down state laws requiring a pledge of allegiance even for those with religious objections or required school prayer or many other state laws? It is because freedom of religion and establishment of religion were made applicable to the states through the incorporation process.

You are unwilling to educate yourself.

 

[gfm7175]

You waste your time to continue to make false claims

You waste your time throwing stones instead of addressing counterarguments presented to you...

none of which has any support.

His claims are supported by the text within the US Constitution.

If you do not think the 1st Amendment does not apply to the states

It doesn't. It clearly makes reference to Congress. See Amendment 1 of the US Constitution.

you are unaware of hundreds of cases striking down state laws for violating free speech, press, religion, establishment of religion, and assembly.

Doesn't change what the US Constitution says... Judges are not oligarchical rulers of this country... See Article III of the US Constitution.

If you think you cannot search without a warrant

You can't. See Amendment 4 of the US Constitution.

you are unaware of hundreds of cases establishing the exact conditions for such a search.

Doesn't change what the US Constitution says... Judges are not oligarchical rulers of this country... See Article III of the US Constitution.

Probable cause is definitely not illegal--

Yes, it is.

the issue becomes whether something establishes probable cause. Consent is definitely a search

No, it isn't.

and court cases dealing with what constitutes consent is extensive.

Irrelevant.

Verifiable facts

You seem to not know what a fact is either...

are much more convincing than trying to label everything a fallacy.

Don't like being called out for your logical fallacies? Then don't commit them in your argumentation... Problem solved!

 

[Flash]

You waste your time throwing stones instead of addressing counterarguments presented to you...

You do not present any counter arguments. You just continue to make the same false claims about the Constitution that everyone knows are untrue.

--claiming there is no incorporation process, that all searches require warrants, that courts do not interpret the Constitution.

If you do not even know basic history and law it doesn't matter what kind of logical fallacy you label something, you are still wrong.

 

[domer76]

This shows your complete lack of knowledge of the Constitution. You are right, it originally only restricted the states. You can't stop there--you have to look at history.

Check out Gitlow v. NY (1925) and you will learn that the court made free speech applicable to the states. If you don't know this case you know nothing about the Bill of Rights.

How do you think the Supreme Court was able to strike down state laws requiring a pledge of allegiance even for those with religious objections or required school prayer or many other state laws? It is because freedom of religion and establishment of religion were made applicable to the states through the incorporation process.

You are unwilling to educate yourself.

gfm7175 and Into the Night are the same person

 

[Flash]

gfm7175 and Into the Night are the same person

I thought so-all their answers were the same. I think he may be the guy who claimed "jury nullification" is the method to overturn unconstitutional laws.

Why do people pretend to be two people?

 

[domer76]

I thought so-all their answers were the same. I think he may be the guy who claimed "jury nullification" is the method to overturn unconstitutional laws.

Why do people pretend to be two people?

I realized it when both personas answered my posts in exactly the same way. They would break down each sentence and respond to it individually. With identical language.

I think they do it because they make it appear that more than one person is attacking one’s premise. They can also give themselves a “thanks”.

 

[Into the Night]

You waste your time to continue to make false claims none of which has any support.

Argument of the stone fallacy. I have supported it. The Constitution of the United States is my supporting reference. It's there for all to read. You might actually try reading it.

If you do not think the 1st Amendment does not apply to the states you are unaware of hundreds of cases striking down state laws for violating free speech, press, religion, establishment of religion, and assembly.

It does not apply to the States. No court has the authority to change the Constitution. Applying these cases to State laws is unconstitutional. False authority fallacy.

If you think you cannot search without a warrant you are unaware of hundreds of cases establishing the exact conditions for such a search. Probable cause is definitely not illegal--the issue becomes whether something establishes probable cause. Consent is definitely a search and court cases dealing with what constitutes consent is extensive.

Probable cause is illegal. Consent is not a search. No court has the authority to change the Constitution. False authority fallacy.

Verifiable facts

Not a fact. An argument. Learn what the word 'fact' means. A 'fact' does not mean Universal Truth.

are much more convincing than trying to label everything a fallacy.

Argument of the stone fallacy. Compositional error fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (logic->void).

The Constitution is the ONLY authoritative reference of Constitutional law. No court is a reference on Constitutional law. No court has the authority to interpret or change the Constitution of the United States. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed.

It is also not a search.

There are several circumstance that do not require a warrant; in fact, most searches do not involve warrants. Plain sight and consent are clearly considered searches. To understand these requires actually reading court cases rather than just giving some interpretation from some source with no knowledge of constitutional law.

Plain sight is not a search.
The ONLY Constitutional law is the Constitution. No court can interpret or change the Constitution.

Even consent cases are not always clear. For example, can your spouse give police consent to search a bedroom you share together?

Yes. That is not a search at that point. Of course, they can be held liable in a civil case for it.