Sidebar

Sotomayor: 'We Can't Keep Bending the 4th Amend. to the Resources of Law Enforcement'

crimsonaudio

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,472
67,463
462
crimsonaudio.net
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/22/sotomayor-to-justice-department-lawyer-w

This is awesome.

I have a real fundamental question, because this line drawing is only here because we've now created a Fourth Amendment entitlement to search for drugs using dogs, whenever anybody's stopped. Because that's what you're proposing. And is that really what the Fourth Amendment should permit?

...we can't keep bending the Fourth Amendment to the resources of law enforcement. Particularly when this stop is not—is not incidental to the purpose of the stop. It's purely to help the police get more criminals, yes. But then the Fourth Amendment becomes a useless piece of paper.
Click to expand...
I've never liked Sotomayor - I think her interpretation of the USC is far too liberal - but I think she's spot-on here.
 
PacadermaTideUs

PacadermaTideUs

All-American
Dec 10, 2009
4,072
289
107
Navarre, FL
92tide said:
first holder, now sotomayor ;)
Click to expand...
The whole issue of privacy is something that almost everyone of "the people" can agree on. Whether it be privacy concerning unreasonable S&S or privacy concerning government eavesdropping. Doesn't matter what side of the aisle they're on, people don't like feeling like they live in a police state. These are not wedge issues - just the opposite, really. Good to see that the people still have something at least resembling a spine.
 
Last edited:
crimsonaudio

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,472
67,463
462
crimsonaudio.net
Sotomayor has been a strong 4A supporter for some time, it just hasn't garnered much attention, but thankfully, it seems to be picking up some steam...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...vacy-opinion-remember-i-was-only-one-of-nine/

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/22/sotomayor-is-right-scotus-gave-too-much

http://rt.com/usa/187956-scotus-sotomayor-drone-orwellian/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-sotomayor-undermined-obamas-nsa

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...agan-sotomayor-ginsburg-and-the-4th-amendment
 
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
crimsonaudio said:
Sotomayor has been a strong 4A supporter for some time, it just hasn't garnered much attention, but thankfully, it seems to be picking up some steam...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...vacy-opinion-remember-i-was-only-one-of-nine/

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/22/sotomayor-is-right-scotus-gave-too-much

http://rt.com/usa/187956-scotus-sotomayor-drone-orwellian/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-sotomayor-undermined-obamas-nsa

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...agan-sotomayor-ginsburg-and-the-4th-amendment
Click to expand...
I wonder if she supports the 2nd and 10th Amendments as fervently.
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,482
13,331
287
Hooterville, Vir.
crimsonaudio said:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/22/sotomayor-to-justice-department-lawyer-w

This is awesome.

I've never liked Sotomayor - I think her interpretation of the USC is far too liberal - but I think she's spot-on here.
Click to expand...
My first reaction was "Good."
Then, I thought, "Why is she bending the Constitution at all when she swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
My third reaction was, like Tide1986, why does she ruthlessly and with malice aforethought violate the 10th in her efforts to protect the 4th? Are some provisions of the Constitution more honored than others? Is she worried about some Federal police forces searching cars for drugs during stops or is she arguing that she has the authority to stop the police of the states (and their agents, counties and cities) from doing so? The 10th Amendment would indicate that she is not allowed to have an opinion about the actions of the state at all unless they clearly and inevitably violate some provision of the Constitution.

So, a polite golf course clap for Justice Sotomayor and a stern admonition that she go back to her studies and look at the Constitution in its totality, and enforce that. Check it out, Sonia, there are other really cool provisions of the Constitution. "Come on in. the water's fine."
 
NationalTitles18

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,905
35,280
362
Mountainous Northern California
Tidewater said:
My first reaction was "Good."
Then, I thought, "Why is she bending the Constitution at all when she swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
My third reaction was, like Tide1986, why does she ruthlessly and with malice aforethought violate the 10th in her efforts to protect the 4th? Are some provisions of the Constitution more honored than others? Is she worried about some Federal police forces searching cars for drugs during stops or is she arguing that she has the authority to stop the police of the states (and their agents, counties and cities) from doing so? The 10th Amendment would indicate that she is not allowed to have an opinion about the actions of the state at all unless they clearly and inevitably violate some provision of the Constitution.

So, a polite golf course clap for Justice Sotomayor and a stern admonition that she go back to her studies and look at the Constitution in its totality, and enforce that. Check it out, Sonia, there are other really cool provisions of the Constitution. "Come on in. the water's fine."
Click to expand...

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



My guess would be that the Underlined (Note: did say bolded)part answers your question adequately.



 
Last edited:
crimsonaudio

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,472
67,463
462
crimsonaudio.net
Tidewater said:
My first reaction was "Good."
Then, I thought, "Why is she bending the Constitution at all when she swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Click to expand...
Sadly, she appears to be the only one on the court who has a problem with the 4th Amendment going away, so if that's our only current hope, I'll support it. Obviously I wish all SCOTUS justices were conservative regarding changing the meaning of the constitution, but that's pie-in-the-sky thinking at this point - this collection of justices seems quite happy twisting the USC to fit their agenda.
 
M

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Tidewater said:
My first reaction was "Good."
Then, I thought, "Why is she bending the Constitution at all when she swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
My third reaction was, like Tide1986, why does she ruthlessly and with malice aforethought violate the 10th in her efforts to protect the 4th? Are some provisions of the Constitution more honored than others? Is she worried about some Federal police forces searching cars for drugs during stops or is she arguing that she has the authority to stop the police of the states (and their agents, counties and cities) from doing so? The 10th Amendment would indicate that she is not allowed to have an opinion about the actions of the state at all unless they clearly and inevitably violate some provision of the Constitution.

So, a polite golf course clap for Justice Sotomayor and a stern admonition that she go back to her studies and look at the Constitution in its totality, and enforce that. Check it out, Sonia, there are other really cool provisions of the Constitution. "Come on in. the water's fine."
Click to expand...
We need a "really like" button :) I agree totally.
 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,482
13,331
287
Hooterville, Vir.
NationalTitles15 said:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


My guess would be that the bolded part answers your question adequately.
Click to expand...
Defining what exactly are the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" would seem to be the critical issue.
It obviously did not include voting, since virtually the same Congress passed the XV Amendment. If voting had been included within the "privileges and immunities" clause of the XIV, when the XV Amendment was proposed, they would have just said "We already did that with the XIV." What did the advocates of ratification say they intended the XIV Amendment to do?

Fairman - Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?
General Robert C. Schenck, prominent Republican Congressman, (read Section 1 of the XIV Amendment), and asked,
Is there any Democrat here who will dare to stand up and say that this is not right and just? It is putting into the organic law of the land a declaration of those principles of liberty and equality which were understood to be in the Constitution without any such amendment, by those who framed it. It is the removal of doubt upon that question, as we sought also to remove it by the corresponding Civil Rights Bill .... But they [the Democrats] are afraid that it may have some concealed purpose of elevating negroes; that if you make them . . . . citizens of the United States, you necessarily make them voters. It goes to no such length. . . . . t simply puts all men throughout the land upon the footing of equality before the law, in order to prevent unequal legislation; and if the Democrats are afraid that if the negro has removed from him the weight of inequality in regard to the right of suing and being sued, making contracts, subsisting himself, which this law will secure to him in all the States, if that will enable the negro to go ahead of him [them], then in God's name let it be so. . . . . All that is sought is that all men shall be equal before the law.
Click to expand...



Pennsylvania Republican said:
We propose, first, to give power to the Government of the United States to protect its own citizens within the States, within its own jurisdiction. Who will deny the necessity of this? No one. The fact that all who will vote for the pending measure, or whose votes are asked for it, voted for this proposition in another shape, in the civil rights bill, shows that it will meet the favor of the House. It may be asked, why should we put a provision in the Constitution which is already contained in an act of Congress? The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] may answer this question. He says the act is unconstitutional. Now, I have the highest respect for his opinions as a lawyer, and for his integrity as a man, and while I differ from him upon the law, yet it is not with that certainty of being right that would justify me in refusing to place the power to enact the law unmistakably in the Constitution. On so vital a point I wish to make assurance doubly sure.
Click to expand...
Enacting the Civil Rights Bill (just passed over President Johnson's veto) into the Constitution to prevent Johnson (or any future President) from vetoing an act of Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

John Sherman (Willie T. brother), read the 1st section of the XIV in a speech at the time and then said it
was an embodiment of the Civil Rights Bill, namely: that every body–man, woman and child–without regard to color, should have equal rights before the law; that is all there is to it; that everybody born in this country or naturalized by our laws should stand equal before the laws–should have the right to go from county to county, and from State to State, to make contracts, to sue and be sued, to contract and be contracted with; that is the sum and substance of the first clause.
Click to expand...
The Civil Rights Act, which John Sherman referenced, establish freedmen's rights:
Civil Rights Act 1866 said:
to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.
Click to expand...
Incorporation was later invented out of whole cloth by lawyers and (especially) Federal judges who simply wanted to expand Federal power in new areas but could not win the debate to get 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to ratify. Incorporation is an attempt by those who wish to get around the limitations on Federal power. It is slightly clever, and may even have been done for ethical purposes, but we should never lose sight of the fact that incorporation is an attempt to violate and intended thwart the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a> <br /> <!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \--> <p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Top Bottom