On Sep 5, 12:11*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 5, 6:34*am, dave wrote:



bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:12 pm, John *wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:

We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. *Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. *But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

But this is not what the Constitution says.

What was an "unreasonable" search in 1787? *If a police officer hears
you do a drug deal on a scanner is that admissible in court?

- Only if he can prove that a material exchange occurred.
-*Otherwise, it is pure hearsay and rumor.

There are more Laws than that . . .

-and- the Material Facts are what they are

This Drug Deal 'On-the-Radio' would have to
have at least two parties to the conversation.
-if- the Second Party Admits to the Drug Deal
at least you have One-Witness to the Elements
of a Criminal Enterprise and a Criminal Conspiracy
[RICO Act] to Plan and Commit a Crime.
http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp

sound like 'book-em dan-o' ~ RHF