The assault of the Constitution continues

Status
Not open for further replies.

RobW

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
564
Location
Henderson, NV
Las Vegas Review Journal, Wednesday, January 14, 2004 Page 6B:

"Having significantly eroded the First Amendment just weeks ago in its unfortunate ruling upholding efforts by Congress to limit political speech under the guise of "campaign finance reform", the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned its sights toward gutting the Fourth Amendment.

Ruling 6-3, the justices gave law enforcement officials carte blanche to conduct random police roadblocks."

The same people that take the oath "...to protect and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic..." are the destroyers of the Constitution.

There is not such thing as an "assault weapon" but "assault judges". Assault is NOT a device, but a BEHAVIOUR!

Looks like all that Clinton judical appointees will have some revenge against the unwashed, mud stained masses refusing to welcome A. Gore as president.

As said, there's no threat against the Constitution from foreign enemies. The threat comes from the same people appointed to protect and defend it.

Enemies inside abundant.

Disgusting :barf:
 
Yes, our biggest threat is from within...as usual.

Same happened in Germany, in a shorter period of time...soon, no arms at all.

Never again...I hope.
 
Can you describe exactly what kind of roadblocks this SC decision will allow? My understanding was that if a crime has just occured nearby they can cordon off a certain area and stop cars leaving.
 
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police may set up roadblocks to collect tips about crimes, rejecting concerns that authorities might use the checkpoints to fish for unrelated suspicious activity.

The 6-3 decision allows officers to block traffic and ask motorists for help in solving crimes. Critics have complained that authorities might misuse the power, disguising dragnets as "informational checkpoints."
They just want to ask if you happen to know anything about a crime. SCOTUS says that's ok. Of course, if you don't stop or smell of alcohol or aren't wearing a seatbelt or act suspicious or have an expired inspection sticker or look like someone in particular or ... they can act on that, just coincidence ya know. It's a priviledge to drive, ya see...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top