Khross wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
1. The courts have the authority to decide these questions; they are not decided as a matter of science. Therefore it is not fllacious to point out that the law works the way thoe courts say it works.
Actually, I'd like for you to substantiate the provision in the Constitution that provides the Court this power. Whether or not Judicial Review exists as a matter of
stare decisis and earlier Courts is entirely different matter from the Constitution itself. You seem, as indicated by your responses to my post, to think that reading the document is inherently subjective. That said, I've asked you several questions which you've refused to answer. Instead, you've told me simply looking at the text of the Constitution is 1) subjective and 2) irrelevant because the Courts disagree. You have not, however, provided links to case law or rulings that substantiate your claims. Rather, you're assuming that the position of the Courts is common knowledge. This may or may not be the case. Consequently, you are once again dismissing arguments without substantiating your own. That's rather "summary".
No, this is just you playing word games to make it appear that way. You know perfectly well that the powers of the judiciary include "all cases in law and in equity". As the Constitution is Law, tht means all questions of interpretation of the Constitution and how it is applied fall under the purview of the Courts.
Marbury v. Madison merely affirmed this.
Furthermore, it is beyond hilarious that you would question my assertiont hat readings of the Constitution are subjective. You have, in the past, gone into near hysterics whenever anyone remotely suggests having objective knowledge. Now all of a sudden you have a problem with subjectivity too because it might impeach your claim to be the arbiter of what the Constitution means.
You have not asked me any questions that I;ve refused to answer. That is patently false. All you're doing is recycling the lines you used to use against Monty. Evidently he had another bad effect around here; he got people into the habit of simply recycling the same lines because he could be counted on to do the same thing every time.
Diamondeye wrote:
You have not provided the "accepted legal definition" at any point in this thread. Rather, you have asserted your definition and the "accepted legal definition" are synonymous.
No, I have adopted the accepted legal definition as my own. You are making this up, and furthermore, that still does not change the fact that you have a double standard whereby it's ok for Stathol to make up his own, but not for me to. Evidently you do not know what the accepted definition is, becasue if you did you would not be making this claim since you would already know I am using the legal definition. However, jsut to put this absurdity to rest, I'll educate you:
Reasonable suspisionQuote:
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".
The underlined portion is the definition I have been using he entire time, and you have my apologies if I have deviated from the exact wording.
Quote:
When your actions have your credibility on the subject suspect, the burden lies on you to source such claims.
My actions have not made my credibility suspect. "Disagreeing with Khross" is not suspect, nor do you get to decide what is or is not, especially when you demand a source on a commonly-known principle that you really should have acquainted yourself with before questioning me on it.
Quote:
Failure to do so is, once again, summarily dismissing arguments or positions that challenge yours.
Since I've done no such thing, this is pure horseshit.
Quote:
More to the point, the Constitutional requirement for issuing a warrant is "probable cause".
Irrelevant since the Constitutional reason to have one is a search or an arrest and GPS trackers are neither. Your assertiont they they are based on the 4th Ammendment is bare assertion, since you have not shown any way that this compromises the security of one's person, home or effects. Knowledge of a vehicle's location does not in any way make you less secure.
Diamondeye wrote:
Responding to the posts does not mean your responses are substantive or valid. People respond to things all the time, even if they're dismissive of what's being said.
And I've done no such thing. Now you're just appointing yourself moderator, claiming to determien what responses are valid or substantive. Since at least one person feels otherwise, again, maybe you ought to stop trying to simply recylce anti-Monty tactics.
Diamondeye wrote:
Quote:
Maybe you should stop inventing fake arguments. I never said the 4th amendment doesn't say anything; I said what it says doesn't mean what you claim.
I've claimed nothing about the Fourth Amendment except what is patently obvious from reading the article itself.
Yes you have. Your opinions about what it should mean are not what is "patently obvious".
Quote:
So, we'll try this again:
The Fourth Amendment wrote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Where does the Fourth Amendment say you can conduct a search without a warrant?
[/quote]
Doesn't matter. This is not about anything that constitutes a search.
Quote:
Where does the Fourth Amendment exempt vehicles, offices, and your person from the exclusions you (that is Diamondeye) reserve for home?
It doesn't need to. Each of these things is of an inherently different nature.
1) It technically doesn't protect "vehicles" at all
2) The courts have so ruled and
3) Vehicles move about in public, and by doing so the person operating or riding in it is electing to forego their protections to a large degree simply by exposing themselves to public view and
4) By this absurd logic it is just as bad to cash into your car as it is to punch you in the face because everything enjoys the same protections. This is simply silly, and it comes from you trying to claim that there needs to be a specifically enumerated difference in protections when only an imbicile would claim that home = person = vehicle.
Quote:
Where does the Fourth Amendment privilege the "home" over the other three explicit categories of property: "persons", "papers", and "effects?"
Irrelevant. I haven't argued that it's ok to actually intrude into (i.e. search) the vehicle in order to place a tracker so...
Diamondeye wrote:
1. It DOES NOT MATTER what a "basic textual examination" says because A) the courts decide, and B) that textual examination is utterly subjective.
Really? My reading is subjective? How so? Because I question where you derive your position in regard to it?[/quote]
You never again get to call anyone's assertion that something is objectively true into question.
Quote:
Again, how does the Fourth Amendment provide for varying levels of "security" against "search and seizure"? Where is this grand, obvious distinction on which your argument fundamentally relies?
On the fact that a person out in public is intentionally foregoing some protections by exposing themself. It does not need to be written specifically in the ammendment.
Quote:
More to the point, wherein do the Courts derive an authority greater than the Constitution itself?
They aren't, so this is irrelevant. It's also hilarious in light of the fact that you're doign the same thing and haven't even been nominated or confirmed.
Diamondeye wrote:
Quote:
2. You DO have to give certain types of information, such as your identity, which is not incriminating in any way. Your continued assertion that the Constitution means whatever you want it to mean based on nothing more than yourt personal desire for an absurd level of privacy and rights you have should not and do not have above and beyond what it grants is 90% of the problem in every thread of this kind.
Hmmms, let me see ...
There exists no Federal Law requiring me to identify myself to a police officer. There are only a handful of states which such laws on the books.
So? The fact remains that if there is such a law it is Constitutional.
Quote:
Indeed, Terry v. Ohio, ironically enough, indicates that the Federal Standard is that you MUST have "reasonable and articulable suspicion" to stop me for questioning at all.
Gee, there's that same definition of "reasonable suspicion" you claimed was mine, and not the legal one earlier (even though it is the legal one) and it's what I've been arguing all along! Way to pwn yourself, Khross. No one has said that the police can just stop and question anyone they please, and I haven't argued that the police should be able to just put GPS trackers whereever. I've argued the right standard is "reasonable suspicion", just as
Terry v. Ohio articulates.
So: Are you intentionally pretending I'm arguing something else, or are you just not paying any attention?
Quote:
And, even in Ohio, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, and Kansas, you may only "demand" their identity in the course of an arrest.
Cite the applicable statue. One state will do, preferably Ohio.
Quote:
So, I'm curious as to how or why you think you can demand my identity when the law clearly indicates otherwise.
Is there some reason I should have reasonable suspicion you've committed or are going to commit a crime? If not, then that's not what I've claimed, and your question merely illustrates (again) that you have no intention of dealing with my actual position.
Diamondeye wrote:
Quote:
Because information gathering DOES NOT in any way compromise your security in your self, home, effects, etc. More to the point, if no information can be gathered without probable cause, then probable cause can never be established, and you have created a catch-22 whereby no one can ever be prosecuted.
And how does a GPS device limit itself to "information gathering"? Since you cannot reasonably exercise that "information gathering" yourself?
What is this supposed to mean? It limits itself by virtue of being a GPS device; it doesn't suddenly evolve new capabilities. It gathers information; specifically it reports what its own location is in relation to certain satellites which in turn measure that location against a sphereoid model.
Diamondeye wrote:
Case source? Because, as it stands, your position is a bare assertion. More to the point, you're shifting the goalposts and making an obvious reductio absurdum. How is placing a digital tracking device on my property NOT an intrusion? Likewise, where is your source that searches and arrests are the only things covered by "due process" and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
I don't need to demonstrate ho it's not an intrusion; you need to demonstrate that it is, beyond your own personal feeling of being intruded upon.
Second, you have no standing to demand any source. You need to show where in the Constitution it demands a warrant for anything OTHER than a search or arrest.
Or to put it another way, you need to quit hiding behind the bare assertion claim (you started off your own presence in this thread with one about supposedly rising polcie abuse which you have yet to substantiate) for every argument you run across and start supporting your own bare assertions.
Quote:
The text of those amendments provide for none of the interpretive positions you take. So, please, kindly start documenting the sources of your position.
Yes they do. It is your personal subjective opinion that they don't.
Diamondeye wrote:
I haven't invented any standards. I asked you to legitimate yours, because looking at the "Supreme Law of the Land" indicates a glaring contradiction. And, since Terry v. Ohio requires an arrest to force identification, I'm trying to figure out how you place that under "information gathering".
Terry v. Ohio does not require an arrest to force identification; in light of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) it means only that a person is not required to respond
if there is no other law requiring him to. However, regardless, your identity is not a matter of privacy and it does not constitute self-incrimination to reveal it.
Quote:
That said, as to issues of my authority on anything, I think you're glaringly mistaken. I have an opinion on these subjects. I have questions about other opinions on these subjects. As to what I am authority on, that's an entirely different matter. I have, that said, challenged your authority on this subject because it is at odds with everything I have read and know about the subject.
[/quote]
Then perhaps you are not reading the right things. You've evidently not taken much time to acquaint yourself with the concept of reasonable suspicion, and aren't familiar with other pertinent cases that affect
Terry. I'm also not seeing a lot of evidence of effort on your part to provide sources or establish your own points, and that goes well back to the beginning of this thread.
Furthermore, I'm not claiming to be "an authority" except insofar as I know how to obtain the information I need. My opinions on what various legal standards are, I get from the established legal meaning, and I'm not buying that they're suddenly wrong because of what some guy on the internet claims to have read or how his philosophy claims it ought to be.
You must think me seriously lacking in self-confidence if you think I'm just going to abjectly agree with you.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Go Browns! (If anyone wishes to surveil me I can be located there).
