R.I.P. – Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution
~~ How Liberals Dismantle the Constitution Piece by Piece ~~
There is a war going on. And the war is between WE THE PEOPLE – WE THE CONSTITUTION LOVING AMERICANS versus the constitution dismantling liberals.
We’re already used to seeing hits against the constitution by President Obama and his radical thugs of the Democrat party.
Every single day we witness, among many others, hits against traditional marriage, the constant attacks on the second Amendment rights to bear arm, freedom of person liberty through TSA pet downs at Airports, and the unconstitutional force of Obama Care.
Those attacks are perpetrated by lawmakers who actually took an oath to “Defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic” and yet the very same democrat lawmakers, and their appointed czars and radical pundits work very hard every single day to dismantle the Constitution piece by piece.
The latest and most brutal attack on the constitution took place on May 11, 2011 by Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David when he ruled against the 4th Amendment of the “Right of Privacy”.
**********************************************************
4th Amendment (Search and Seizure)
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 be issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.
(Dated back to the English Magna Charta of 1215)
**********************************************************
What wonderful words, now worthless.
What happened: The court’s decision is based on a case inVanderburgh County,Indiana. Cops were called to a domestic argument between a couple, husband and wife, outside their apartment.
The couple went back inside their apartment and the husband told police officers that their service was no longer needed. He blocked the doorway to refuse the Police officers entry to the apartment.
The police forcefully made their way into the apartment and the homeowner shoved the Police officer against the wall and then was hit by a second officer with a stun gun, and then arrested.
The entry of the Police officers into the apartment was never asked for by the wife or the husband so the cops, in my opinion, had no legal authorization to go inside.
Sure one can say that this was Mr. Barnes’ own fault by pushing the officer against the wall; however he has every right to defend his home and once he refused entry to the police any further attempt by the same is a violation of his privacy rights.
In a 3-2 decision Justice David writing for the court says if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, homeowners cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.
As a matter of fact Justice David says that a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail which allows plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.
Or in other words up until now the burden of proof rested clearly on the Prosecution (the state), but in this case it appears that it rests on the defendant. Once again if we, the citizens, feel our privacy rights have been violated due to unlawful search and seizure we have to hire a Lawyer and file charges.
Since not everybody can afford high priced Lawyers, this is nothing but a free pass for the police to act as they please.
Just imagine this: As of now any cop if he does not like your face, your car or if he is jealous because you dare to work hard and drive a fancy vehicle can now, according to this law, stop you and search and seize your car whenever he pleases; In front of your family, your kids, and all your friends embarrassing you just as he/she likes.
And there is nothing you can do about it.
I don’t remember when the United States became a Police State with Gestapo Methods.
Justice Steven David, born 1957 was a Chief Defense Counsel for the “Office of Military Commission” the body that was authorized to conduct the military commission to try Guantanamo captives.
He was highly critical of the way the commission had relied on hearsay evidence, secret testimony, and that evidence of abusive interrogation had been suppressed. In fact according to “The Times” he called for the entire military commission system to be scrapped.
In October of 2010 he was appointed by President Obama as Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court.
Since the United States Justice System is based on a “Creative Precedence” system, meaning that, unless the United States High Supreme Court makes a final ruling, many court decisions are based on previous Supreme Court rulings.
We will soon see what this ruling actually means, when illegal or unconstitutional search and seizures become common practice throughout theUnited Statesciting the Indiana Supreme Court Ruling as the precedence case and prototype.
This is the first direct hit against the United States Constitution taking away our most fundamental indefeasible liberty rights.
May God have Mercy on America
Rest in Peace Constitution
Sources:
- NWI Times
- Find Law for legal professionals
- Supremecourt Ruling Barnes vs. State
- Wikipedia on Justice Steven David
Elena Kagan – A dangerous Experiment?
“[J]udges … should always be men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men.”
John Adams
A Day in Court – the Justices Enter
On days when the Court is in session the Justices enter the burgundy draped, gold-trimmed courtroom promptly at 10:00 am. As the Justices enter, all persons in attendance stand. The Justices also stand as the Marshal of the Court chants, “The Honorable Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!”
Section 2 of Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
When B.H. Obama appointed Elena Kagan, Solicitor General of the United States as the new U.S. Supreme Court nominee he sure launched a controversial nomination. It did not take long until the worst Blogs, accusations, and rumors spread through the Internet, media, and other broadcasts. A CBS blogger immediately felt compelled to out Elana Kagan as a Lesbian without getting any conformation, exclusively based on rumors. CBS did well on removing this Blog right away (From Mediaite.com:
http://is.gd/c6fJG
).There is a difference between hatred spread rumors and actual facts. So let us stick to the facts.
Reading the above shown excerpt of the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States and knowing that in the very near future many controversial issues will be brought before the honorable and most powerful Court in the World I can only think that appointing a radical leftist and absolutely inexperienced Professor such as Elena Kagan is one of the most dangerous experiments Obama could possible launch.
The High Court or also called SCOTUS has produced many rather questionable rulings throughout the past centuries getting more and more involved in the daily lives and rights of the American people interpreting the Constitution their own way. I do remember a few years back one very controversial Issue where some of the Liberal Judges interpreted the “thoughts of the founding fathers”.
I cannot even read the thoughts and mind of my living secretary so how can they read the minds of dead people.
Basically, they are suppose to be the defender and preserver of the United States, The American Citizens, and the U.S. Constitution, but they have produced many controversial rulings. Those rulings have become more and more a judicial wrap of their own personal and political ideology.
Just consider the last rulings on terrorists and how they are supposed to be treated and trialed – This shows that the Liberal Justices are weakening America’s Safety and giving terrorists the same rights as U.S. Citizens.
Ann Coulter calls it in her Colum from 5/12/2010 “Supreme Court to face Mecca”. (From HumanEvents.com:
http://is.gd/c7cyF
).
So why is Elena Kagan such a dangerous experiment?
Because her record, or should I say non existing record, but latest actions speak for itself.
And while many Liberals reject her because in their Radical leftist minds Elena Kagan is not Liberal enough they will support her because their socialist “Messiah” Obama has told them to.
From CBS Early Show (
http://is.gd/c7fno
): In an interview with Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith lamented President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court: “Liberals feel let down because she would be filling a seat left by John Paul Stevens, they don’t feel like she’s enough – has enough gravitas to fill his shoes.”
Even the current U.S. Supreme Court rejects Elena Kagan according to AmeriPac.org (
http://is.gd/c7anY
).
The same liberals defend her stating that Conservatives cannot really reject Ms. Kagan because they widely supported her as Solicitor General.
Come on, give me a break, like there is no difference between being an argumentative, non pleading Law theoretic (in Elena Kagan’s case even here unsuccessful) than an actual Judge who has gone through all the procedures.
So what are Elena Kagan’s credentials?
- She has a bright and sharp theoretical legal mind. I do give her that because she has been the Dean of one of the most prestigious Law schools in the World. However, in holding that position she was basically a teacher, interpreting the law and all surroundings such as precedential cases based on her own Ideology.
Other than being a personal friend of B.H. Obama and her strong ties to the inner circle of the Democrat Party – dating back to before the Clintons – that ends her positive credentials. But her limited actions and appearances speak volumes.
Elena Kagan's Political Network
- She was deeply involved shielding Saudis from 9/11 Lawsuits (From RawStory.com:
http://is.gd/c6jZn
).
That basically means, every Terrorist that feels he has not been treated well, considers his Interrogation Torture (which might be a matter of opinion), or complains about not being treated like a celebrity during capture by the brave U.S. Military, can now file a Lawsuit against the United States, the U.S. Military, or against American Citizens, but we cannot file the same against the perpetrators and terrorists who attack and murder our citizens.
This is thanks to Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Elena Kagan, and several other Federal Judges following Obama’s radical Agenda.
- At first opportunity she banned military recruiters from the college campus, officially in protest over the Pentagons policy on gays. But an appeals court in 2004 struck it down, tying federal funding to it, in turn allowing military recruiters on campus. She acted despite the court’s order that the ruling not take effect until The Supreme Court reviewed the case (from Washington Times:
http://is.gd/c5PDs
).
That shows clearly her opportunistic mind and how she plans on pushing through her own agenda. I don’t toot the same horn of slandering her as a Lesbian, but it sure is interesting with how much compassion she defends the homosexual issues, even if it’s at the expense of our Military and safety. The issue is that as an inexperienced Supreme Court Judge she could very easily manipulate any hearing in favor of minorities and at the expense of the Majority, meaning downsizing the constitutional rights of the Majorities to support her ideology.
- Kagan passionately stood in front of the U.S. Supreme Court arguing in favor of Obama’s attempt to abrogate the 1. Amendment of the United States (Right of free Speech) and for more Censorship (From Townhall.com:
http://is.gd/c5QKv
).
Though she lost on that matter in a 9-0 vote this issue of “arguing in defense of censorship” clearly shows her position on upholding the U.S. Constitution – This is not a position of “Freedom and Liberty”, but one that paves the way to a Socialist Totalitarian Progressive Agenda.
Kagan is, as of now, supposed to defend the Constitution. And since there are a lot of Issues yet to come, such as Healthcare, Second Amendment Rights, etc., I doubt that it’s a good Idea to have a Supreme Court Judge who so obviously has issues with our existing Constitution.
Elena Kagan pleading at the Supreme Court for Censorship
- And last but not least one of my personal issues – her family values and status. How can a woman, with no family of her own (I am not talking about her parents and siblings but own family) understand the needs and rightful place of the traditional family as a basis for a functioning society if her leftist immoral Ideology is so publicly endowed for Homosexuals?
Those issues will be brought before her as a U.S. Supreme Court judge and in this position she should be fair and impartial, and listen to both sides, but her previous actions and political statements prove otherwise showing directly her partiality for Gay’s.
She has proven in the past that she is willing to jeopardize all American Values and even the Constitution when it comes to pushing her Left wing radical Agenda.
So, this is the person that Obama has nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace one of the most aggressive liberal member’s of today’s court, John Paul Stevens… Interesting.
I am not sure what is worse, a left wing radical like Justice Stevens, open and honest about his ideology, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing like Elena Kagan who would love to be recognized as a centrist, but in realty has a far left Radical Agenda and disrespect for the U.S. Constitution.
You tell me please. You comments are welcomed and gladly appreciated.
My God have Mercy on America and
tclehner
