|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 1, 2016 17:49:55 GMT
So, the whole idea behind Trump's "Stop and Frisk" is a blatant contradiction to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Why do many Trump supporters, who want no legislation put in action that remotely comes close to the Second Amendment, think it is hunky dory to enact laws/policies that violate the Fourth?
If the Constitution, as was originally written, is untouchable in one case, why is it okay to completely disregard it in another?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 18:07:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2016 17:52:18 GMT
I've wondered the same thing with respect to the 1st, freedom of the press. Certain media have been excluded from attending Trump events.
|
|
|
|
Post by scrapsotime on Oct 1, 2016 18:01:34 GMT
Stop and frisk is not unconstitutional if it is done correctly. To be done correctly there has to be a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 1, 2016 18:18:20 GMT
It's an interesting question. I do think the fact that the actual text of the fourth amendment contains "unreasonable" makes it easier for one to argue what constitutes justification for searching. I think the arguments around the second amendment would be very different if it said: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be UNREASONABLY infringed. But it doesn't. Although I'll say there's a reason the Libetarian party disagrees with both the Democrats and the Republicans and a lot has to do with both sides being squishier Constitution interpretation depending on the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Oct 1, 2016 18:21:22 GMT
Stop and frisk is not unconstitutional if it is done correctly. To be done correctly there has to be a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. do you really believe it would be done correctly? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 18:07:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2016 18:32:47 GMT
The 2nd amendment is more important because it impacts white males the most.
The 4th amendment would impact people of color the most. Therefore it isn't as important to the white male power (aka $$$$) voices.
|
|
|
|
Post by scrapsotime on Oct 1, 2016 18:35:14 GMT
Stop and frisk is not unconstitutional if it is done correctly. To be done correctly there has to be a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. do you really believe it would be done correctly? I never said they would or wouldn't. I was just giving information I learned when I had to study Terry v. Ohio. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 18:07:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2016 18:35:39 GMT
Stop and frisk is not unconstitutional if it is done correctly. To be done correctly there has to be a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. So, a crime is allegedly committed by a black male and all black males are then under reasonable suspicion and can be stopped/frisked? That is what is going on now and it is WRONG. |
|
sueg
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,060
Location: Munich
Apr 12, 2016 12:51:01 GMT
|
Post by sueg on Oct 1, 2016 18:46:21 GMT
If the Constitution, as was originally written, is untouchable in one case, why is it okay to completely disregard it in another? Technically, it's not as originally written, as it is the second AMENDMENT - so an addition to the original. And, as happened with prohibition, amendments can be repealed, if the proper procedure is followed. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 1, 2016 18:49:22 GMT
Stop and frisk is not unconstitutional if it is done correctly. To be done correctly there has to be a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Yes, and that is not the Stop and Frisk that Trump is putting forth. Given that he claims it will save thousands of Black and Hispanic lives, those are the populations he is targeting. As put forth, it has more to do with the color of one's skin than reasonable suspicion that one has committed a crime. Stop and Frisk was already ruled Unconstitutional in New York by a Federal Judge (which Trump wrongly claimed didn't rule that way - yet one more lie) because it did result in a disproportionate number of minorities being stopped and frisked. |
|
|
|
Post by scrapsotime on Oct 1, 2016 18:56:28 GMT
Stop and frisk is not unconstitutional if it is done correctly. To be done correctly there has to be a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. So, a crime is allegedly committed by a black male and all black males are then under reasonable suspicion and can be stopped/frisked? That is what is going on now and it is WRONG. Then you will be happy to learn that in 2013 a New York judge ruled that the profiling by police was unconstitutional, not stop and frisk. She also place court remedies to make sure the police made constitutional stops. I have no clue how well that is working out. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 1, 2016 19:02:06 GMT
Probably for the same reason so-called small government conservatives are wasting taxpayer money filing a lawsuit to keep government in charge of the workings of the internet.
They're only purists when it suits them.
|
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 1, 2016 19:02:09 GMT
If the Constitution, as was originally written, is untouchable in one case, why is it okay to completely disregard it in another? Technically, it's not as originally written, as it is the second AMENDMENT - so an addition to the original. And, as happened with prohibition, amendments can be repealed, if the proper procedure is followed. Yes, technically you are correct. So, let me rephrase: If one Constitutional Amendment (the 2nd), as it was originally written, is viewed as untouchable by a group of people, simply because it is part of the Constitution, why is it okay to completely disregard another amendment (the 4th)? The whole argument against any gun control legislation always rests on "because of the 2nd Amendment." Yet, protecting rights granted individuals in the 4th, or the press in the 1st, is unimportant and those constitutional rights are viewed as undesirable. Given the infatuation many unrestricted gun rights people have with the term "slippery slope," you would think they would apply it to actions that ignore or go against various constitutional rights that they don't like. The minute one proposes that the constitution doesn't need to be adhered to in some cases, then it blows the whole sanctity of the 2nd amendment argument. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 1, 2016 19:07:36 GMT
So, a crime is allegedly committed by a black male and all black males are then under reasonable suspicion and can be stopped/frisked? That is what is going on now and it is WRONG. Then you will be happy to learn that in 2013 a New York judge ruled that the profiling by police was unconstitutional, not stop and frisk. She also place court remedies to make sure the police made constitutional stops. I have no clue how well that is working out. Technically, a federal judge, not a NY state judge. From CNN: |
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Oct 1, 2016 19:10:24 GMT
"Don't take my guns" is easier for rednecks to understand.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Oct 1, 2016 22:57:19 GMT
If the Constitution, as was originally written, is untouchable in one case, why is it okay to completely disregard it in another? Well, if there's anything I've learned hanging out here, it's that 1. The second amendment is sacrosanct. 2. The first amendment is widely misunderstood. (There're people claiming its protection here all the time for work situations or even forum postings.) 3. Strict constructionism has more fans than I would have ever imagined. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 1, 2016 23:52:22 GMT
Stop and frisk is not unconstitutional if it is done correctly. To be done correctly there has to be a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Just like Freddy Gray? |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 1, 2016 23:53:18 GMT
The 2nd amendment is more important because it impacts white males the most. The 4th amendment would impact people of color the most. Therefore it isn't as important to the white male power (aka $$$$) voices. Ooohhh! Good point! |
|
|
|
Post by Eddie-n-Harley on Oct 2, 2016 0:02:41 GMT
Stop and frisk is not unconstitutional if it is done correctly. To be done correctly there has to be a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Then it's not stop and frisk. It's a Terry stop. All stops with reasonable suspicion passs constitutional muster. |
|
