Police Stops: Constitutional

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284665484' post='2173860']
I don't consider the eviscerated corpse of the Constitution to be the Constitution.

It would be like calling the ashes of my father "my father." A vague link between the two distinct entities does exist, but the use of such words would be completely equivocal.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]



do what now

[Sternhauser]

RKWright,

Put in Catholic terms, if one has a chalice containing the Precious Blood, and then a group of heathens pour 20 gallons of water into it, the contents of the Chalice ceases to be what it once was, namely, the Precious Blood.

Consider the 14th Amendment to be 20 gallons of diluent. Consider the 17th Amendment to be 100 more gallons, simply for good measure.

When a soul is separated from the body, there is no longer a body. There is merely a corpse. The animating principle is what once caused that corpse to be a body.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 16, 2010 by Sternhauser

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284678921' post='2173932']
RKWright,

Put in Catholic terms, if one has a chalice containing the Precious Blood, and then a group of heathens pour 20 gallons of water into it, the contents of the Chalice ceases to be what it once was, namely, the Precious Blood.

Consider the 14th Amendment to be 20 gallons of diluent. Consider the 17th Amendment to be 100 more gallons, simply for good measure.

When a soul is separated from the body, there is no longer a body. There is merely a corpse. The animating principle is what once caused that corpse to be a body.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I understood you the first time. I just find it odd that that you would answer LilRed's question about the constitutionality of check-points with an answer that has no real basis in reality. The reality is that the 14th and 17th Amendments are truly and really Amendments to the constitution and are a part of it. Sorry you don't consider the "corpse of the Constitution" the actual Constitution, but the reality is that it is.

On another note, I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure your first example is accurate.

Edited September 16, 2010 by rkwright

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1284679859' post='2173938']
I understood you the first time. I just find it odd that that you would answer LilRed's question about the constitutionality of check-points with an answer that has no real basis in reality. The reality is that the 14th and 17th Amendments are truly and really Amendments to the constitution and are a part of it. Sorry you don't consider the "corpse of the Constitution" the actual Constitution, but the reality is that it is.[/quote]

The Constitution means what powerful people want it to mean. Which means in and of itself, it has no meaning.

[quote]On another note, I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure your first example is accurate.
[/quote]

It is.

~Sternhauser

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284686288' post='2173965']

It is.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Proof?

[CatherineM]

Even the water used to rinse the purified vessels used at the mass must be disposed of in a proper sacrarium.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1284686904' post='2173967']
Proof?
[/quote]

"Now it is evident that the body and blood of Christ abide in this sacrament so long as the species remain numerically the same, as stated above (4; 76, 6, ad 3); because it is this bread and this wine which is consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any kind whatsoever added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the consecrated wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result would be something numerically distinct, and the blood of Christ will remain there no longer. But if the quantity of the liquid added be so slight as not to permeate throughout, but to reach only a part of the species, Christ's blood will cease to be under that part of the consecrated wine, yet will remain under the rest."

ST III, Q. 77 Article 8.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 17, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1284688019' post='2173972']
Even the water used to rinse the purified vessels used at the mass must be disposed of in a proper sacrarium.
[/quote]


Not because it is the blood of Christ, which is the core point of my example.

~Sternhauser

Edited September 17, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284686288' post='2173965']
The Constitution means what powerful people want it to mean. Which means in and of itself, it has no meaning.


~Sternhauser
[/quote]


I guess this is how eminent domain gets to be a law in a country which originally valued property owners rights.

ed

[Axias]

It's interesting you let the Constitution fog the true nature of the question. If we accept the nature of the Constitution: an attempt at the formal establishment of the rights of men, especially concerning governance, the question is far easier to answer, and you don't need a law degree to manage it.

The law of course is flawed, but has some practical application. The greatest danger I see in it is establishing the precedent for diminishing our natural rights in the name of expediency or sense of security.

Freedom has mostly been paid for in blood, we can't be casual in squandering ANY of it. I would make the argument that there are better methods for the police to accomplish their tasks, and I find it unwise to educate them in the manner for setting up any form of mass screenings.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1284498202' post='2173166']
there was a local police check-stop the other morning here. [b]got me to wondering: are they constitutional?[/b]
[/quote]


[quote name='Axias' timestamp='1286467289' post='2178359']
[b]It's interesting you let the Constitution fog the true nature of the question. [/b][/quote]

What? Did I miss something?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286474903' post='2178379']What? Did I miss something? [/quote]If you did... I did too...

It felt a bit like "Morpheus" and "there is no spoon" sort of thing...

I feel a great disturbance in the force.

[Winchester]

The Constitution is capable of fogging the weak of mind.

[Axias]

[font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]
"Are check stops constitutional?"[/size][/font]

Trying to answer the question specifically we get tangled in perspective: a strict Constitutionalist will say it is illegal, the living document people will likely split along some point of liberty, the police unions will support it, ACLU people will oppose it, etc., etc. ... I don't think you can definitively answer the question this way. The other manner you might apply this question to the Constitution is to decide that it is not a specifically granted right and that it becomes an issue for the states to decide. But at the state level, any usage of law which falls into the grey area of the right to be reasonably free from illegal search and seizure should be subject to the will of the voters and not just elected officials. (But this is just as bad way to answer, as this is too big of an issue NOT to be addressed at the federal level).



I was trying to suggest that in deciding the 'right or wrong' of the question that the constitution would merely serve to complicate the decision. We have more rights than what are enumerated, and recognizing this makes it easier to decide the real point of law. (The issue should not be about what is law, but what should be law).

Of course you can be sure if police are engaged in the activity of roadside stops in your area, then they have become chummy enough with city hall, the mayor and the D.A. and have at least their tacit approval.. So if they're doing it, they decided it was legal.. But I take the opposite opinion, we fight for our liberties, 'they are dearly won', so I reject the argument it should be legal. I do not like empowering police to engage in such an activity, and it sets a dangerous precedent for sacrificing liberty for safety.

Sorry for the terrible post last night, 2 hours past my bed time and caught up in thought, I got far more out of my conclusion than I was able to effectively express last night.. Throw me a mulligan. (or I'll just blame your lack of ESP). [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/crazy.gif[/img]

[rkwright]

[quote name='Axias' timestamp='1286498183' post='2178441']
[font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]
"Are check stops constitutional?"[/size][/font]

Trying to answer the question specifically we get tangled in perspective: a strict Constitutionalist will say it is illegal, the living document people will likely split along some point of liberty, the police unions will support it, ACLU people will oppose it, etc., etc. ... I don't think you can definitively answer the question this way. The other manner you might apply this question to the Constitution is to decide that it is not a specifically granted right and that it becomes an issue for the states to decide. But at the state level, any usage of law which falls into the grey area of the right to be reasonably free from illegal search and seizure should be subject to the will of the voters and not just elected officials. (But this is just as bad way to answer, as this is too big of an issue NOT to be addressed at the federal level).



I was trying to suggest that in deciding the 'right or wrong' of the question that the constitution would merely serve to complicate the decision. We have more rights than what are enumerated, and recognizing this makes it easier to decide the real point of law. (The issue should not be about what is law, but what should be law).

Of course you can be sure if police are engaged in the activity of roadside stops in your area, then they have become chummy enough with city hall, the mayor and the D.A. and have at least their tacit approval.. So if they're doing it, they decided it was legal.. But I take the opposite opinion, we fight for our liberties, 'they are dearly won', so I reject the argument it should be legal. I do not like empowering police to engage in such an activity, and it sets a dangerous precedent for sacrificing liberty for safety.

Sorry for the terrible post last night, 2 hours past my bed time and caught up in thought, I got far more out of my conclusion than I was able to effectively express last night.. Throw me a mulligan. (or I'll just blame your lack of ESP). [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/crazy.gif[/img]
[/quote]

I see what you're saying, but the simple answer it doesn't matter. The Supreme Court, the only body that has authority when interpreting the Constitution, has ruled they are constitutional. Like you said, we can go back and forth all day on arguments - but the truth is that they are constitutional because the SC has said they are and they are the only body that has authority to decide that.

Anticipating some people don't like that and will say "well what about Plessy??? Or Roe v. Wade?? Just because the SC says its constitutional it is??" To which I say Yes. The Constitution is not some objective truth - its just a document. Its a contract that we've all agreed to, including the parts that say the SC gets to say what is constitutional and what is not.