The problem of evil

[Loudmouth]

If you have to ask that, then you have clearly forgotten the entire discussion we've been having already.

In which post do you list the ways in which liberal politicians are trying to get around the constitution?

 

[Aldebaran]

In which post do you list the ways in which liberal politicians are trying to get around the constitution?

I guess not everyone can remember past this morning. It's ok.

Remember when I was telling you about cops breaking into homes with no warrant and no permission; nothing more than the words "I'm suspicious" to justify going into a person's home and violating a persons right to be secure in the home against unreasonable search and seizure and how a warrant is needed? Remember that? Think! Think real hard! It was very recent! Better yet, just go back into the past postings and you'll find it all.

 

[bhsmte]

If you have to ask that, then you have clearly forgotten the entire discussion we've been having already.

If you cant explain it, it tells us much more.

 

[Loudmouth]

Remember when I was telling you about cops breaking into homes with no warrant and no permission;

You said liberals, not cops:

"But as long as you and so many liberal others look for ways of getting around the constitution . . ."

Liberals refers to politicians, not cops.

So again, how are liberals trying to get around the constitution?

 

[Aldebaran]

You said liberals, not cops:

"But as long as you and so many liberal others look for ways of getting around the constitution . . ."

Liberals refers to politicians, not cops.

So again, how are liberals trying to get around the constitution?

If the cops are just following the loosened laws and regulations voted into law by the liberal politicians, then the liberals' handiwork is manifested in the actions of the cops (who seem to have no problem at all employing their new powers given to them by these regulations).

 

[Loudmouth]

If the cops are just following the loosened laws and regulations voted into law by the liberal politicians, then the liberals' handiwork is manifested in the actions of the cops (who seem to have no problem at all employing their new powers given to them by these regulations).

What are these loosened laws, and how have they been found to be unconstitutional? Just because you don't like the laws does not make them unconstitutional.

 

[bhsmte]

If the cops are just following the loosened laws and regulations voted into law by the liberal politicians, then the liberals' handiwork is manifested in the actions of the cops (who seem to have no problem at all employing their new powers given to them by these regulations).

I hate to break it to you, but when the supreme court ruled police could enter your house (under some circumstances) without a warrant, it was the liberal judges that dissented.

 

[Aldebaran]

What are these loosened laws, and how have they been found to be unconstitutional? Just because you don't like the laws does not make them unconstitutional.

Ever heard of Civil Asset Forfeiture? https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse

 

[Loudmouth]

Ever heard of Civil Asset Forfeiture? https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse

Abusing a law does not make the law unconstitutional. Do you know what "abuse" means?

 

[Aldebaran]

Abusing a law does not make the law unconstitutional. Do you know what "abuse" means?

Of course! It means stretching the meaning of it beyond what it was intended for, and there are many, many examples of it being done--yes, by the cops.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course! It means stretching the meaning of it beyond what it was intended for, and there are many, many examples of it being done--yes, by the cops.

You are saying that the laws are unconstitutional. Citing examples of cops not following the law is not an example of unconstitutional laws.

 

[Aldebaran]

You are saying that the laws are unconstitutional. Citing examples of cops not following the law is not an example of unconstitutional laws.

But they get away with it and it's mentioned (as unconstitutional) to someone who thinks the law is the final word on everything, the response is always "The law disagrees with you". Sound familiar?

Here's more examples for you: http://ij.org/action-post/seize-fir...r-6-million-a-year-in-civil-asset-forfeiture/

 

[Loudmouth]

But they get away with it and it's mentioned (as unconstitutional) to someone who thinks the law is the final word on everything, the response is always "The law disagrees with you". Sound familiar?

Websites don't determine what is an isn't constitutional. If someone doesn't appeal to the courts and get a ruling, then they can't claim that it is unconstitutional.

 

[Aldebaran]

Websites don't determine what is an isn't constitutional. If someone doesn't appeal to the courts and get a ruling, then they can't claim that it is unconstitutional.

I notice you like to dismiss so much. If I say something, you dismiss what I tell you as just a random person on the internet. If I show you where it's being said by others or where cases have been reported or documented, you dismiss it as a website trying to determine what is constitutional. I don't know, but maybe a cop would have to break into LOUDMOUTH'S home and take his money and do whatever he wants to you in order for you to believe those things can happen. Maybe then you won't see yourself as just "some random person", and you won't just get up, dust yourself off and say, "Oh well, that's the law". But keep it up if you want. The 9 (currently 8) individuals on the SCOTUS probably wouldn't mind that you and so many others give them so much power to determine that the constitution actually doesn't mean what it clearly says.....

 

[Loudmouth]

I notice you like to dismiss so much.

I notice that you like to dismiss the US Constitution which gives the courts the power to determine if actions taken by the government are unconstitutional.

If I say something, you dismiss what I tell you as just a random person on the internet.

Where in the US Constitution does it say that Aldebaran of christianforums.com has the constitutional power to determine what is constitutional?

Your opinions are just that, your opinions.

If I show you where it's being said by others or where cases have been reported or documented, you dismiss it as a website trying to determine what is constitutional. I don't know, but maybe a cop would have to break into LOUDMOUTH'S home and take his money and do whatever he wants to you in order for you to believe those things can happen. Maybe then you won't see yourself as just "some random person", and you won't just get up, dust yourself off and say, "Oh well, that's the law".

If my rights were violated, I would sue. I wouldn't whinge about it on an internet forum.

 

[Aldebaran]

If my rights were violated, I would sue. I wouldn't whinge about it on an internet forum.

Ever heard of having a discussion? How would you even know your rights were violated? Don't you let the cops determine what a violation is? Who are you to determine that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ever heard of having a discussion? How would you even know your rights were violated?

By consulting with a group like the ACLU, and getting a ruling in court. You know, the exact process spelled out in the US Consitution.

 

[Aldebaran]

By consulting with a group like the ACLU, and getting a ruling in court. You know, the exact process spelled out in the US Consitution.

Riiiiiiiiight! Because the courts side with the person abused by the cops so much of the time, huh?

 

[bhsmte]

Riiiiiiiiight! Because the courts side with the person abused by the cops so much of the time, huh?

Likely depends on the evidence.

 

[Aldebaran]

Likely depends on the evidence.

Or a judge who presumes innocence on the part of the cop while presuming an agenda by the person who was abused. You'll see that when a person describes what the cop did to them and then the judge asks the person why the cop did that--as if it was up to the abused person to give justification for the abuser's actions.