Our liberty is being eroded continously. No, they need to have a warrant.
Should The Police Be Able To Search Without A Warrant?
by minimus 71 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
-
Think About It
No! Do not freely give away freedoms. Would be no different that the elders pulling you over or barging into your house to check up on you for no reason. In extreme cases just use "probable cause".
Think About It
-
leec
only if your'e stopped for driving under the influence of a cult religion maybe
-
FreudianSlip
"Can anyone seriously argue that the 4th and 5th Amendments were written and enacted for the sole purpose of protecting only criminals? I'd like to see someone argue THAT one."
Not that I disagree with you, but our Constitution needs to be reworked. Simply adding Amendments isn't the answer. As hard as the authors tried to think progressively, they weren't able to think of everything and too many things have multiple interpretations.
-
Farkel
:Not that I disagree with you, but our Constitution needs to be reworked.
Where exactly, would you have it reworked?
:Simply adding Amendments isn't the answer.
It's not simple to add Amendments. It's damn near impossible to add them. That was done on purpose by our Founding Fathers.
:As hard as the authors tried to think progressively, they weren't able to think of everything and too many things have multiple interpretations.
Rubbish. They authors weren't trying to think "Progressively", PROGRESSIVES today are thinking progressively. Human nature hasn't changed one whit since the Constitution was written. The Constitution was written mostly to protect the people from Governmental tyranny, not to solve day-to-day problems. Do you even know your history?
Now back to your first statement:
Where exactly, would YOU "rework" the United States Constitution? Be prepared for challenges, because as Jefferson is my witness, you will get them.
Farkel
-
FreudianSlip
"Where exactly, would you have it reworked?"
Are you asking for the specific Longitudinal/Latitudinal location?
"It's not simple to add Amendments. It's damn near impossible to add them. That was done on purpose by our Founding Fathers."
I never said, nor implied, that amending the U.S. Constitution is simple. The Amendments are pretty few and far between in the big scheme of things. Still, we shouldn't limit ourselves to only doing simple things, especially for the country's sake, should we?
"Rubbish. They authors weren't trying to think "Progressively""
Progressive is defined as: favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp.in political matters.
Of course they were being progressive. They didn't simply say, the King has all the power. Part of the reason the Constitution has withstood the test of time was because it's authors were trying to create a document that would take the future into account. They learned from the past and tried to anticipate the future. It's why they put in checks and balances, it's why they laid out a way to amend it. This is progressive thinking at its best. Still, after hundreds of years a document can become antiquated and should be revisited.
"The Constitution was written mostly to protect the people from Governmental tyranny, not to solve day-to-day problems. Do you even know your history?"
I didn't say otherwise. You don't even know what my specific issues are with the Constitution. I never said anything about it attempting to address day-to-day problems. You are guilty of a straw man argument. You have ignored my actual position and substituted it was a misrepresntation or assumption.
-
garyneal
I didn't say otherwise. You don't even know what my specific issues are with the Constitution.
So what are your specific issues with the Constitution?
-
Farkel
: I didn't say otherwise. You don't even know what my specific issues are with the Constitution
I already asked you that and in your 9 paragraphs of rebuttal, all you did was answer my question with this inane nonsensical question:
"Are you asking for the specific Longitudinal/Latitudinal location?"
Be sure when you give your answer you make certain that your ideas for changes do NOT address "day-to-day" human problems. You accused me of a strawman for merely mentioning that, so if any of your changes involve that, your accusation of me creating that strawman falls.
The Constitution is a STATIC document and was meant to be that way, except for the possibility to add amendments. Progressivism was never in the minds of its authors and "progressives" like you are very dangerous to that idea, UNLESS you have a better United States Constitution in mind.
If so, what is it?
Farkel
-
FreudianSlip
So what are your specific issues with the Constitution?
That can't be answered simply, but I'll give you one. Article Five makes it impossible to amend certain parts of Article One. That doesn't sit well with me since Article One lays out the checks and balances of the three branches of government. If the system fails to work, then what do we do?
I make no claims to be a Constitutional scholar. I know as much as the next person. I have opinions.