Sunday, May 15, 2011

The End Results of a Constitution Seen as a "Living Document" not as a "Contract"

Ok, folks, this is the kind of Supreme court rulings you can expect to get handed down when you interpret the Constitution in the manner of it being a “living document” instead of it being interpreted in the manner of a “contract”. It is just this type of flexibility that needs to be prevented. It was just this type of government abuse of power that is the reason for constitutional law.

It is just this type of rulings that justifies the accusation that government is abusing the power given to them by the people. So, all of you who thinks that our way of life as given to us by the founding fathers has failed to live up to its promises take a good clear look at the future you are promising the people. Take a good look and see a future that has already failed before you have implemented it completely.

Take a good look at what your government expects of you, the people. It expects that you submit unto its power without the right to protect the privacy of your home now. This is your change you promised. This what we have to hope for in the future. Justify it if you can.

The future you promised is nothing but taking us back to the past prior to the founding fathers when the government had the right to invade your home and do whatever it wanted. This is what you get when you no longer adhere to the principles of individual rights but promote the idea of class rights. Do rulings like this declare that the government is a servant of the people or is it declaring that government is the Master?

And if you look into my past articles you will see many warnings about what can result from the way you interpret life, government, and the constitution. And know this, if we the people submit to rulings such as this I will predict that it will only go downhill from here in regards to individual rights if they are not already been denied to the people.

As for their excuse of the idea that to submit unto the government's power in order to avoid violence is just that, it is just an excuse to grab even greater power. Violence would have been avoided if the agents of the government had acted in accordance to the law. All this ruling did was to deny an individual the right of self-defense. If a man no longer has the right to protect the security of his home then what does he have the right to protect?

Now, what am I speaking of? Of what am I ranting about? It is this.  Read and weep, my friends.  I can't think of anything more shameful than what I have read here.  Liberty has just been lost as it never existed for the people.  I hope you can enjoy your victory my liberal friends.
Court: No right to resist an illegal act of a government agent

a h/t to the Libertarian Patriot


Chris W said...

Well put.

This decision does nothing more than afford the lawbreaker protection while authorizing the state to use violence against the property owner.

It's just another example of the courts sanctioning state sponsored terror.

Thanks for the H/T

BB-Idaho said...

The ruling was by the Indiana supreme court.
As a strong states rights
fellow, I'd have thought you would be OK with that?

The Griper said...

yes i am a strong States Rights advocate but why would you think I'd be ok with that ruling as it was reported? Are you ok with it?

Bobby said...

This is not good. It should be overturned at the federal level. At least two of the justices had it right.

Not my idea of America.

The Griper said...

the concept of flexibility has been stretched way beyond the breaking point on this issue. this should have been a slam dunk case. this should have been an unanymous decision in favor of the homeowner.

from what i read there was no probable cause for the police to enter that home without a warrant.

BB-Idaho said...

It would seem the 4th Amendment 'unreasonable'
wording might lead to
'flexible' interpetation.
If you like to study SCOTUS
findings in that regard, here is an excellent summary of cases.
In the case under discussion, I personally would not shove a police officer against a wall,
being a gentle temperate
type (and knowing what these guys are up against
in domestic violence cases)
Just a personal opinion-
not legally binding!

The Griper said...

the explicit wording of "unreasonable also declares an implicit declaration that it must be reasonable, doesn't it?

and in this case the Supreme court acknowledged that in this case that the police acted illegally. wouldn't you acknowledge that an illegal entry is unreasonable?

by acknowledging the act as illegal the Supreme court is declaring that there was no probable cause for the police to enter the house without a warrant.

and isn't the whole idea behind self-defense, the acknowledgement that a person has the right to resist an attempted illegal act of another?

BB-Idaho said...

Yes, it appears that if the
Indiana SCOTUS says that resisting illegal entry is
illegal, the wording is
logically inconsistant. say the least.

The Griper said...

he smiles, thank you, BB.

now if you go over to the libertarian Patriot you'll see in one post that he tries to use another case to show confirmation of what we were alleging but i argue against it.

i guess what i'm trying to say is that in regards to the laws and constitution and that my beliefs are consistent, so far that is. :)

BB-Idaho said...

Guess I may have mentioned once or twice before, I'm not a big states-rights guy. Had to show photo ID
when I voted for school board today. Idaho is one of nine states requiring such. Idaho constantly complains about the Feds
poking their nose in, yet the state is far more arrogant. 30 years of
total GOP control is damn miserable. least for us die
hard dems! :)

The Griper said...

and i'm not a big government fan and that includes States as well as federal. being too big, in my opinion, is why the governments are in such trouble as they are. and it hurts the people in an area that it shouldn't, the pocketbook.

and my big "gripe" is that both, federal and State are sticking their noses in where they do not belong.

heck, right now over 52% of the people who file pay no income taxes leaving you and me among the minority. then you have a whole bunch who do not have to file along with those who just plain do not file, like those working under the table or the criminal element of society.

radar said...

Collectivism = the favorite way elites try to reestablish the royals/serfs style of government.

Obama might as well be a terrorist for what he has done to us. He tried to make the Gulf oil spill into the biggest mess he could and has used it as an excuse to throw us into a recession that could become a depression. We'd be better off if he'd just flown Air Force One into the Sears Tower. There would have been a few thousands dead and families in mourning but then America would pick herself back up and get to work. What he is doing is like taking the economy and binding one hand and one foot behind it's back!

Did you know gasoline was $1.84 a gallon on the day Obama was sworn in and it is more than four bucks per gallon now? That increase is reflected in everything we purchase and produce.

The Griper said...

"Collectivism = the favorite way elites try to reestablish the royals/serfs style of government."

that it be, radar, that it be. they may use different words to define the relationship but you are correct.


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster