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?

dave wrote:
[...]
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?



Since the Constitution gives no power whatever to the central
government to legislate on or control drugs, no federal drug "laws"
can possibly be constitutional, and every DEA arrest and conviction
is itself illegal. (Actually, I see no warrant in the Constitution
for the federal government even _knowing_ what you possess, much
less making it a crime.)

As for state and local governments, they naturally have a wider
scope -- but at least one can choose to live in a locality where the
prevailing standards are congenial to you.


With every good wish,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
dave wrote:
[...]
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?



Since the Constitution gives no power whatever to the central government
to legislate on or control drugs, no federal drug "laws" can possibly be
constitutional, and every DEA arrest and conviction is itself illegal.
(Actually, I see no warrant in the Constitution for the federal
government even _knowing_ what you possess, much less making it a crime.)

As for state and local governments, they naturally have a wider scope --
but at least one can choose to live in a locality where the prevailing
standards are congenial to you.


With every good wish,


Kevin Alfred Strom.

The point sailed right past you. The point being the Founders were
neither clairvoyant nor divinely inspired. They were major hypocrites
and therefore mere imperfect slobs like the rest of us.

dave wrote:
[...]

The point sailed right past you. The point being the Founders were
neither clairvoyant nor divinely inspired. They were major hypocrites
and therefore mere imperfect slobs like the rest of us.



Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. They created a truly
_limited_ government, a unique and highly beneficial accomplishment.
It is a tragedy beyond words that their system has been overthrown.


With every good wish,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:


Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. They created a truly
_limited_ government, a unique and highly beneficial accomplishment. It
is a tragedy beyond words that their system has been overthrown.


When Reagan deregulated the media and defunded education he sealed our
fate. There's nothing left to save.

On Sep 5, 10:33*am, dave wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
dave wrote:
[...]
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?

Since the Constitution gives no power whatever to the central government
to legislate on or control drugs, no federal drug "laws" can possibly be
constitutional, and every DEA arrest and conviction is itself illegal.
(Actually, I see no warrant in the Constitution for the federal
government even _knowing_ what you possess, much less making it a crime..)

As for state and local governments, they naturally have a wider scope --
but at least one can choose to live in a locality where the prevailing
standards are congenial to you.

With every good wish,

Kevin Alfred Strom.

The point sailed right past you. The point being the Founders were
neither clairvoyant nor divinely inspired.

-*They were major hypocrites and therefore
- mere imperfect slobs like the rest of us.

Speak for Yourself Dave
I say : SPEAK FOR YOURSELF DAVE !

dave - you are so 'special' - pal ~ RHF

RHF wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:33 am, wrote:

The point sailed right past you. The point being the Founders were
neither clairvoyant nor divinely inspired.

- They were major hypocrites and therefore
- mere imperfect slobs like the rest of us.

Speak for Yourself Dave
I say : SPEAK FOR YOURSELF DAVE !



You are correct. YOU have nothing in common with our brave ancestors.

On Sep 5, 9:26*am, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote:
dave wrote:

[...]

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?

- Since the Constitution gives no power
- whatever to the central government to
- legislate on or control drugs, no federal
- drug "laws" can possibly be constitutional,

The US Constitution gives the US Congress
the Power To Legislate and Make "Laws"
-and- Everything else follows from that . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution

The US Constitution Is NOT Intentionally Vague :
The US Constitution "IS" A Broad Brush Frame-Work

the us constitution just read it ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_us_constitution

and every DEA arrest and conviction
is itself illegal. (Actually, I see no warrant in the Constitution
for the federal government even _knowing_ what you possess, much
less making it a crime.)

As for state and local governments, they naturally have a wider
scope -- but at least one can choose to live in a locality where the
prevailing standards are congenial to you.

With every good wish,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

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.

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