Are "God Given" Rights the Pervue of the Government?

[JayC]

I don't disagree that there are exigent circumstances where the police may be required to enter a private property without a warrant...  I just think we should place some reasonable restrictions on the cases where they do.

 

First being that any and all evidence discovered during one of these exigent situations is fruit of the poisonous tree is ALL cases, period.  This would create a serious disincentive to use such exigent situations to advance an investigation while still preserving the ability of the police to rush in save people's lives.

 

Second, if the exigent circumstance turns out to be false...  For example claiming to hear somebody calling for help and it turns out there is nobody inside calling for help...  then the police and the department would lose all sovereign immunity for their actions.  

 

As for your points on the courts basically dismissing the 9th and 10th amendments...  you're right they ignore them with wild abandon, but I don't recognize their ability to rule what is or is not unconstitutional...  Where SCOTUS and I disagree on an unconstitutional infringement, I readily ignore their interpretation...  We are talking about the same body that said slavery and placing American citizens in concentration camps was constitutional.  

 

At the end of the day I can read and understand the Constitution (and the State Constitution) just fine, and I use that as my guide... even though I regularly question the ability of men born more than 225 years ago to bound me to a contract I had no say in.

 

That doesn't mean I don't stay out of trouble..  because I realize that the government is happy to use violence to enforce their interpretations of the Constitution, even if they use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper on a regular basis... :)

 

All of the amendments are important and are interconnected.  The logic was that all of the rights in the Bill of Rights were especially important to preserving a free society.  The key due process rights are discussed in amendments four, five, six, and eight.  

I think that some exigent circumstance are legitimate, ones like the ability of a LEO to enter a residence without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that someone's life is in immediate danger.  I'd sure hate to think that me or one of my family were being beaten, raped, or about to be murdered and the police could not enter the residence with out a warrant.  I also think that hot pursuit would be legitimate.  I certainly think that the police should be able to come on in to apprehend someone who was running from them and came into my house to hide.  It happened many times while I was a LEO, so it's not as uncommon as you might think.  

I also understand what you are saying, but the Constitutional protections we refer to in our daily lives did not apply at the state level originally.  That is why the 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments were passed.  There have been several Supreme Court decisions dealing with this as well, perhaps the most notable being the Gideon v. Wainwright case.  Even if your interpretation of the 10th Amendment is correct, it was never treated that way by courts or governments.  This is why states have their own constitutions in the first place.  

 

[Guest TNSovereignty]

The question:  "Are God-given rights the purview of the government."

 

The answer:  

Yes, if the government subordinates itself to the same God that grants the individual rights, and further subordinates itself to those same individuals.     In this case, the state has righteous jurisdiction over civil matters, because they are accountable to God & man.  The Constitution - as written - rightly addresses these stations of authority and accountability.  Romans 12 - the Christian text for submission to authority - assumes this position.  Man, in this instance, yields to state authority because it is moral, righteous, and aligned with natural (and/or theological) law.  

 

NO, if the government assumes the status of godhood, assumes 'law' to be mutable at the pleasure and convenience of human masters, and represents itself as Caesar - all knowing and all powerful.  In this case the state has jurisdiction based on power alone, and is insubordinate before God & man.  The Constitution - as misinterpreted & misconstrued - disassociates the state's responsibility before God.  Tyrants love to use Romans 12 in telling ignorant Christians of their duty to kneel before their godless masters.  Man, then, at least thinking man, has a duty to either passively resist or actively rebel - if not by arms, then by going underground & 'unplugging' from the profane and twisted system, their myriad of agencies and bureaucrats.  Inalienable rights are to be exercised irregardless of tyrants, as long as courageous men are willing to confront & abide by the consequences.  These were the men of America's founding.  

Edited November 26, 2013 by TNSovereignty

[East_TN_Patriot]

Oh...but he isn't calling people names; just making observations. ;)

 

Yeah... no kidding.   :huh: 

 

Your "up front disclaimer" was clear evidence that was what your intent was from the beginning.

But yea, my attitude is obviously the problem ...

 

Dude, you seriously need to step back for a couple of minutes and take a look in the mirror.  

Do you realize how incoherent your argument is here?  You say I have intentionally misinterpreted your post and criticize me for it while you intentionally misrepresent my post as evidence that I was intentionally misrepresenting your post?  Wow....  Pot, meet Kettle.

Still waiting on that evidence of my "regular" practice of this.  I'm holding my breath... :lol:

[RobertNashville]

...At the end of the day I can read and understand the Constitution (and the State Constitution) just fine, and I use that as my guide... even though I regularly question the ability of men born more than 225 years ago to bound me to a contract I had no say in....

And to rectify this situation for yourself, what exactly do you propose the country and each State do; draft a new Constitution once or twice a year to so that all those who have reached the age of accountability can have their input or otherwise, "they can't be bound to a contract they had no say in"?

 

I'm pretty happy with the constitution as it was written and with most, although perhaps not all of the amendments (even though I wasn't there for any of them to give my input)...seems to me a lot of the problems we have now in this country is precisely all those who don't want to be bound by the Constitution; especially those such as the current POTUS, half of SCOTUS, the DOJ, etc.

Edited November 26, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RichardR]

Yeah... no kidding. :huh:



Dude, you seriously need to step back for a couple of minutes and take a look in the mirror.

Do you realize how incoherent your argument is here? You say I have intentionally misinterpreted your post and criticize me for it while you intentionally misrepresent my post as evidence that I was intentionally misrepresenting your post? Wow.... Pot, meet Kettle.

Still waiting on that evidence of my "regular" practice of this. I'm holding my breath... :lol:

I did take a look in the mirror & I realize that I use extremely precise language, someone who quickly skims instead of reading them word for word might not pick up on the subtle nuances in my comments, which may confuse or cause a misunderstanding depending on a particular readers familiarity with my viewpoints.

This was my initial thought anyway, which is why I mentioned "reading comprehension" as the most likely cause & original root of our misunderstanding, however since you insisted that reading comprehension was not the cause of the problem then it had to have been purposeful.

Which of course you have also denied, so I'm going to leave this thread-drift with a we'll have to agree to disagree attitude & hopefully we both go enjoy the rest of the holiday weekend.