Supreme Court vs. The Fourth Amendment: KO!

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

You probably freak out about airport body scanners too.

Ridiculous overpriced security theater that can be defeated with several common tactics.

The only change that should have occurred after 9/11 concerning airline security was a reinforced cockpit door that could not be opened from the outside. Another 9/11 will never happen because now people understand the stakes. Hell, they understood them that morning, which is why the one flight failed.



I agree with you on the strip searches though. If you're in jail/prison, a strip search is acceptable. The man should not have been in prison, both because his warrant should have been voided, and more importantly because jail should not even be considered an option for traffic violations, but all that is a different matter.

Simple fact is he sued the wrong people.

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

You can't even fight back against a fucking prisoner without being liable for a lawsuit if they attack you. Thank you liberal agenda for that one.

Of course you're liable for a lawsuit. Its your word against theirs until a court makes a judgement on it. Nobody gets to just dismiss things like that based on the claim of self defense. If you want someone to blame, blame past COs who did abuse their power and made this necessary. Some scandalous shit has gone down in prisons over the years, and not all of it is the fault of the prisoners.


And aren't there video cameras everywhere now, for precisely such a situation?

[Warborn]

Anyway, according to this I assume cavity searches would also be constitutional and done at the discretion of the prison for any type of person brought in? After all, the safety of prisoners trumps an individual's right to privacy/dignity, and if you can't be sure people weren't making turns without signaling with a weapon or drugs strapped to their nutsack, how can you be sure they weren't doing it with weapons or drugs up their ass? I can't imagine there being any legal obstacle to doing totally invasive searches on people brought even for even the most minor violations.

And like strip searches, you'd of course be able to rely on the incorruptible and totally humane prison system to ensure that this power isn't abused and used to punish, coerce, or otherwise needlessly degrade people placed in their care. So you'd totally be able to trust prisons systems with this kind of power.

[Chrispin]

Originally Posted by Warborn

And like strip searches, you'd of course be able to rely on the incorruptible and totally humane prison system to ensure that this power isn't abused and used to punish, coerce, or otherwise needlessly degrade people placed in their care. So you'd totally be able to trust prisons systems with this kind of power.

Seriously? You can't just assume a minor offender, or even a person innocent of the crime he is convicted of, is not going to bring in concealed contraband. I think it's only fair that prisoners and prison guards and, maybe but hopefully not, truly innocent people alike get basic protection against concealed weapons by body searching all prisoners.

[Red Beard]

When you applied for social security; you became an employee of the UNITES STATES corporation, and as such you agreed to abide by Public (corporate) policy, and relinquished all your constitutional rights in exchange for 'benefit privileges' which can be taken away. Your application for SS is also the lien on your person for paying income taxes.

Though this whole thing is a fraud, in their eyes the question of constitutionality is irrelevant, because it's like joining the marines; if you get thrown in the brig for disobeying orders and then complain about your constitutional rights, they won't do anything, except maybe laugh at you.

[Chrispin]

Who is they?

[Red Beard]

Take your pick...in the context of the thread; people benefiting from the status quo who understand trust law.

"Soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in anational system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancientsystem of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda,which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every Americanwill be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured bytheir pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed tomake us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could everfigure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call `Social Insurance.' Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless andwithout any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America."

This quote is attributed to Colonel Mandel House in a letter to Woodrow Wilson (the guy that sold out to let the Bank happen), around the time of the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. Although this quote's authorship is questioned, if you spend the time to learn about negotiable instruments and commerce, it becomes self evident that this is a description of how the system operates.

Wilson later lamented being a party to this:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Something for you to chew on...

[ItsTheSheppy]

Though I agree that convicts do give up a certain number of rights by virtue of being convicted criminals, it's worth not losing sight of the fact that the guy in questions wasn't technically guilty (or even suspected) of anything. He had, at the time of his arrest, a clean record. All the same, his rights were violated (is stomach-turning fashion) and the Supreme Court, whose one and only job is to protect the people's rights granted by the constitution, upheld the violation.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Though I agree that convicts do give up a certain number of rights by virtue of being convicted criminals, it's worth not losing sight of the fact that the guy in questions wasn't technically guilty (or even suspected) of anything. He had, at the time of his arrest, a clean record. All the same, his rights were violated (is stomach-turning fashion) and the Supreme Court, whose one and only job is to protect the people's rights granted by the constitution, upheld the violation.

He sued the prison and not the people who sent him there. AKA sued the wrong people.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Vash02

He sued the prison and not the people who sent him there. AKA sued the wrong people.

He couldn't sue the police for strip-searching him, because they didn't conduct the strip searches. Catch-22. How nice that the government has set itself up so that nobody is responsible. You'd think the highest court in the country would recognize that, because it took me thirty seconds of thought.

[Warborn]

Anyway, I look forward to the stories of coercion and abuse that are bound to follow this. Another tool to degrade and humiliate prisoners, hooray.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

He couldn't sue the police for strip-searching him, because they didn't conduct the strip searches. Catch-22. How nice that the government has set itself up so that nobody is responsible. You'd think the highest court in the country would recognize that, because it took me thirty seconds of thought.

Yes he can sue the police and the state for the strip search(or really just sending him to prison in the first place). I'm sure that the police knew that sending him to prison would mean a strip search. If they were ignorant of that I'd say thats criminal incompetence.

Anyway, I look forward to the stories of coercion and abuse that are bound to follow this. Another tool to degrade and humiliate prisoners, hooray.

The police already have enough tools to bully people into confessing crimes they did not commit.
All those tiny laws that everyone breaks? they add up to a long time in jail, but the police will cut you a deal if you just confess to this single crime...
And of course overworked public defence attorneys will just urge you to accept it.

[Ait'al]

Your are all forgetting that in the executive branch, let alone our entire government, wrong does not stop because it goes past the first person. It is all incompetency. Those systems are set up with checks to stop all of this. It was all wrong period. And they are legally responsible regardless of the formal checks put in or not. The whole thing is an atrocity. At least as the argument stood when I started posting.

Via the fact that he was wrongly put in prison they are guilty of the strip search. They are responsible to do it step by step and not get any step wrong. Any wrong by them is then compounded as they make mistakes. That is the law towards police and government. Police and any executive are responsible to know for certain what they are doing at all times. That is the measure of their responsibility. It's all about the harm done to others besides them and if they are following the law period(they are far more bound than we are that is the point of our government! They took their oaths and DECIDED to be in our government and there is absolutely no way out of that besides massive blackmail.). That is the standard of law to all things in this government in all cases. And ALL laws regarding government action. That is REQUIRED by the constitution whether anyone understands it or not. It is the meaning of justice!

And to answer Warborns statement. He is entitled to ALL compensation! (just to make the point in case anyone misses it) The concept of damages is the oldest in our law. Only the bill of rights can deny it! Outside of the reality of choosing to sue or not which is a moral choice the law is built around. That is one reason you don't want a lot of laws. You reap what you sow! Less laws more dealing with things and less supposed easy answers(aka asking someone else to deal with it for you aka the judge.) the greater morality which is a reality of ones ability to think which comes with dealing with things. It's somewhat self generating but only if YOU deal with things. Government is potentially, if not totally, morally degrading.

The problem here is that the supreme court is too stupid to understand and follow line of fault. Our law absolutely uses it. If you are guilty of something going up the chain in relevance it is a greater crime not non existent. It is basic law. And our law uses it and states it in many ways. It is the basis of how a judge determines severity in all criminal cases. It is the most fundamental law period, along with damages it is by necessity a part of the meaning of the word justice, again! The prison and the cops are all massively guilty and it should have been stated that. Outside of stupidity it cannot be avoided it was wrong under law. It was all wrong! Technically the man is an inch away from proving conspiracy or other high crimes for god sakes. This is not rocket science. This is a certainty and a surety in our law!

[Vash02]

So what exactly is your point? That was a whole bunch of waffle.