Police Stops: Constitutional

[CatherineM]

Even the water used to rinse the purified vessels used at the mass must be disposed of in a proper sacrarium.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1284686904' post='2173967']
Proof?
[/quote]

"Now it is evident that the body and blood of Christ abide in this sacrament so long as the species remain numerically the same, as stated above (4; 76, 6, ad 3); because it is this bread and this wine which is consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any kind whatsoever added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the consecrated wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result would be something numerically distinct, and the blood of Christ will remain there no longer. But if the quantity of the liquid added be so slight as not to permeate throughout, but to reach only a part of the species, Christ's blood will cease to be under that part of the consecrated wine, yet will remain under the rest."

ST III, Q. 77 Article 8.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 17, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1284688019' post='2173972']
Even the water used to rinse the purified vessels used at the mass must be disposed of in a proper sacrarium.
[/quote]


Not because it is the blood of Christ, which is the core point of my example.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 17, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284686288' post='2173965']
The Constitution means what powerful people want it to mean. Which means in and of itself, it has no meaning.


~Sternhauser
[/quote]


I guess this is how eminent domain gets to be a law in a country which originally valued property owners rights.

ed

[Axias]

It's interesting you let the Constitution fog the true nature of the question. If we accept the nature of the Constitution: an attempt at the formal establishment of the rights of men, especially concerning governance, the question is far easier to answer, and you don't need a law degree to manage it.

The law of course is flawed, but has some practical application. The greatest danger I see in it is establishing the precedent for diminishing our natural rights in the name of expediency or sense of security.

Freedom has mostly been paid for in blood, we can't be casual in squandering ANY of it. I would make the argument that there are better methods for the police to accomplish their tasks, and I find it unwise to educate them in the manner for setting up any form of mass screenings.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1284498202' post='2173166']
there was a local police check-stop the other morning here. [b]got me to wondering: are they constitutional?[/b]
[/quote]


[quote name='Axias' timestamp='1286467289' post='2178359']
[b]It's interesting you let the Constitution fog the true nature of the question. [/b][/quote]

What? Did I miss something?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286474903' post='2178379']What? Did I miss something? [/quote]If you did... I did too...

It felt a bit like "Morpheus" and "there is no spoon" sort of thing...

I feel a great disturbance in the force.

[Winchester]

The Constitution is capable of fogging the weak of mind.

[Axias]

[font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]
"Are check stops constitutional?"[/size][/font]

Trying to answer the question specifically we get tangled in perspective: a strict Constitutionalist will say it is illegal, the living document people will likely split along some point of liberty, the police unions will support it, ACLU people will oppose it, etc., etc. ... I don't think you can definitively answer the question this way. The other manner you might apply this question to the Constitution is to decide that it is not a specifically granted right and that it becomes an issue for the states to decide. But at the state level, any usage of law which falls into the grey area of the right to be reasonably free from illegal search and seizure should be subject to the will of the voters and not just elected officials. (But this is just as bad way to answer, as this is too big of an issue NOT to be addressed at the federal level).



I was trying to suggest that in deciding the 'right or wrong' of the question that the constitution would merely serve to complicate the decision. We have more rights than what are enumerated, and recognizing this makes it easier to decide the real point of law. (The issue should not be about what is law, but what should be law).

Of course you can be sure if police are engaged in the activity of roadside stops in your area, then they have become chummy enough with city hall, the mayor and the D.A. and have at least their tacit approval.. So if they're doing it, they decided it was legal.. But I take the opposite opinion, we fight for our liberties, 'they are dearly won', so I reject the argument it should be legal. I do not like empowering police to engage in such an activity, and it sets a dangerous precedent for sacrificing liberty for safety.

Sorry for the terrible post last night, 2 hours past my bed time and caught up in thought, I got far more out of my conclusion than I was able to effectively express last night.. Throw me a mulligan. (or I'll just blame your lack of ESP). [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/crazy.gif[/img]

[rkwright]

[quote name='Axias' timestamp='1286498183' post='2178441']
[font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]
"Are check stops constitutional?"[/size][/font]

Trying to answer the question specifically we get tangled in perspective: a strict Constitutionalist will say it is illegal, the living document people will likely split along some point of liberty, the police unions will support it, ACLU people will oppose it, etc., etc. ... I don't think you can definitively answer the question this way. The other manner you might apply this question to the Constitution is to decide that it is not a specifically granted right and that it becomes an issue for the states to decide. But at the state level, any usage of law which falls into the grey area of the right to be reasonably free from illegal search and seizure should be subject to the will of the voters and not just elected officials. (But this is just as bad way to answer, as this is too big of an issue NOT to be addressed at the federal level).



I was trying to suggest that in deciding the 'right or wrong' of the question that the constitution would merely serve to complicate the decision. We have more rights than what are enumerated, and recognizing this makes it easier to decide the real point of law. (The issue should not be about what is law, but what should be law).

Of course you can be sure if police are engaged in the activity of roadside stops in your area, then they have become chummy enough with city hall, the mayor and the D.A. and have at least their tacit approval.. So if they're doing it, they decided it was legal.. But I take the opposite opinion, we fight for our liberties, 'they are dearly won', so I reject the argument it should be legal. I do not like empowering police to engage in such an activity, and it sets a dangerous precedent for sacrificing liberty for safety.

Sorry for the terrible post last night, 2 hours past my bed time and caught up in thought, I got far more out of my conclusion than I was able to effectively express last night.. Throw me a mulligan. (or I'll just blame your lack of ESP). [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/crazy.gif[/img]
[/quote]

I see what you're saying, but the simple answer it doesn't matter. The Supreme Court, the only body that has authority when interpreting the Constitution, has ruled they are constitutional. Like you said, we can go back and forth all day on arguments - but the truth is that they are constitutional because the SC has said they are and they are the only body that has authority to decide that.

Anticipating some people don't like that and will say "well what about Plessy??? Or Roe v. Wade?? Just because the SC says its constitutional it is??" To which I say Yes. The Constitution is not some objective truth - its just a document. Its a contract that we've all agreed to, including the parts that say the SC gets to say what is constitutional and what is not.

[Axias]

RKWright, you have the short, sweet and specific answer.(No fun cutting to the point like that!). It's just a much more interesting question without the Constitution in the picture.. Rights of free men and intellectual stuff like where the point of law deviates from the innate rights of man and the corresponding schism it produces.

Your solution is elegantly legal, and I don't think anyone can refute it in terms of American law. But it can be refuted from the revolutionary and patriots viewpoint. We can state that above any law, the citizenry are the final check and balance. We can reject a supreme court who agree to expediencies at the cost of personal liberty. We can reject a police solution to a social problem.

Of course my rejection is just vocal, but if the situation was something extreme, I'd be obliged to escalate my opposition.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286498691' post='2178442']Its a contract that we've all agreed to, including the parts that say the SC gets to say what is constitutional and what is not.[/quote]Perhaps so if "[i]tacit consent[/i]" is true...

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286522819' post='2178511']
Perhaps so if "[i]tacit consent[/i]" is true...
[/quote]

Which it isn't.


If there [i]were[/i] such a mystical, aetherial contract written with invisible ink, binding upon future generations? The State has breached it, and it is already null and void.


But in Realityville, where we live, there is no such contract. And I signed no contract with anyone else. So let's skip the Rousseauian nonsense.

Read Spooner's "[url="http://jim.com/treason.htm"]No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority[/url]."

~Sternhauser

Edited October 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286569461' post='2178601']
Which it isn't.


If there were such an aetherial contract written with invisible ink, binding upon future generations, the State has breached it, and it is already null and void.


But in Realityville, where we live, there is no such contract. And I signed no contract with anyone else. So let's skip the Rousseauian nonsense.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

If you believe the state has breached it, sue the state. If you don't agree with the contract or how its been interpreted, why don't you revolt or leave?

Its hard to say you haven't ratified the "contract" by your continued presence and participation.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286569768' post='2178603']
If you believe the state has breached it, sue the state. If you don't agree with the contract or how its been interpreted, why don't you revolt or leave?

Its hard to say you haven't ratified the "contract" by your continued presence and participation.
[/quote]

If you believe the Mafia has wronged you, sue the Mafia. You have to use Mafia lawyers and it has to be arbitrated by Mafia judges, and Mafia prosecutors, but that's the way we do it here. Do you see logic in such a statement?

RKWright, there is no contract. I didn't sign any contract. You've predicated an invisible, intangible contract. You need to prove its existence before you do anything else. The burden of proof is upon you, not me. So far, your only "proof" is, "If you don't believe in our aetherial contract, we'll imprison you, and if you resist imprisonment, we'll kill you." And that's not a logical argument.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

"[i]Tacit consent[/i]" in political science simply proposes that if you voluntarily are cooperating with a state and voluntarily living in the territory of that respective state, you are giving your consent to that government and social contract.

Also the theories of consent in political science have been studied and practiced for several hundreds of years... And the idea of "[i]tacit consent[/i]" reached a form recognizable today chiefly by John Locke. Its not mystical or speculative. It's basically saying there is an unspoken consent, because with such a consent nothing directly to the contrary has been done.

Going back to an old splitting dichotomy and expression, "[i]If your not apart of the soultion, your apart of the problem.[/i]"

Edited October 8, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286571361' post='2178609']
"[i]Tacit consent[/i]" in political science simply proposes that if you voluntarily are cooperating with a state and voluntarily living in the territory of that respective state, you are giving your consent to that government and social contract.

Also the theories of consent in political science have been studied and practiced for several hundreds of years... And the idea of "[i]tacit consent[/i]" reached a form recognizable today chiefly by John Locke. Its not mystical or speculative. It's basically saying there is an unspoken consent, because nothing directly to the contrary has been done.


Going back to an old splitting dichotomy and expression, "[i]If your not apart of the soultion, your apart of the problem.[/i]"
[/quote]

Precisely what is "the problem?" I think you and I have disparate understandings of what "the problem" is.

I'm aware of the theory of "tacit consent" in relation to the State. It predates Locke, and it's a lie. My being born and raised in a jungle, coupled with an awareness of the tigers and poisonous reptiles that dwell therein, does not oblige me to suffer their depredations.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286570361' post='2178606']
If you believe the Mafia has wronged you, sue the Mafia. You have to use Mafia lawyers and it has to be arbitrated by Mafia judges, and Mafia prosecutors, but that's the way we do it here. Do you see logic in such a statement?

RKWright, there is no contract. I didn't sign any contract. You've predicated an invisible, intangible contract. You need to prove its existence before you do anything else. The burden of proof is upon you, not me. So far, your only "proof" is, "If you don't believe in our aetherial contract, we'll imprison you, and if you resist imprisonment, we'll kill you." And that's not a logical argument.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

You ratified the "contract" by taking part in and participating life in the United States. If you want to live here, you agree to our laws. Thats the "contract".

On the Mafia stuff... pluhez.. there are plenty of suit against the government every day. And plenty of lawyers that will take your money to litigate for you. For example... if you have a good case* perhaps I will represent you

*and can pay

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286571520' post='2178610']Precisely what is "the problem?" I think you and I have disparate understandings of what "the problem" is.

I'm aware of the theory of "tacit consent" in relation to the State. It predates Locke, and it's a lie. My being born and raised in a jungle, coupled with an awareness of the tigers and poisonous reptiles that dwell therein, does not oblige me to suffer their depredations. [/quote]If that is your description of "tacit consent", I suspect you don't understand. But I'm curious why you felt the need to reaffirm that it predated John Locke?

If you can voluntarily change and leave that jungle, but you voluntarily choose to live in that jungle, while voluntarily cooperating in that jungle system... You have given some kind of consent to it otherwise you would be doing something to change some circumstance previously mentioned, unless you think it's just complacency.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286572786' post='2178615']
If that is your description of "tacit consent", I suspect you don't understand. But I'm curious why you felt the need to reaffirm that it predated John Locke?

If you can voluntarily change and leave that jungle, but you voluntarily choose to live in that jungle, while voluntarily cooperating in that jungle system... You have given some kind of consent to it otherwise you would be doing something to change some circumstance previously mentioned, unless you think it's just complacency.
[/quote]

I live in an environment made up of relationships I have with other individuals. Not all relationships are voluntary. E.g., rapist and raped, robber and robbed. The environment acts upon me in ways I really am quite incapable of changing. If a Category 4 hurricane were to smash me into a palm tree, I guess we could say I was "participating" in being lifted up and smashed into the tree, and perhaps even "consenting" to the hurricane's act of picking me up and slamming me against a tree, because, clearly, if I didn't give my consent to the hurricane, I would be voting or speaking out against it or something.

~Sternhauser