Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

ch-scene - Re: Off topic talk of..How'd my man do?

ch-scene AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: RTP-area local music and culture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rcu AT duke.edu
  • To: ch-scene AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: Off topic talk of..How'd my man do?
  • Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:37:01 -0400

>> "General warrants, whereby an officer or other person may be commanded
>> to search suspected places WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF THE ACT COMMITTED, or
>> to seize any person or persons NOT NAMED, whose offense is not
>> PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED and SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, are DANGEROUS TO
>> LIBERTY and SHALL NOT BE GRANTED." (N.C. Const. I.20)

Jason writes:

> Yes, that's what the constitution says.

And it is the supreme law, any thing in the statutes notwithstanding.
Therefore when I was stopped and searched at a random roadblock it was
an illegal stop.

> Then, you need a "test case" to go before the court in order to get
> it repealed

You seem to be thinking I was out to get something repealed. I was
just trying to get down the street. I don't have time or resources to try
to get illegal statutes overturned; the regime can always pass new
ones faster.

Or they can simply ignore the ruling, like they do now with the write-in ban.
A 1913 ruling (Spruill v. Bateman) already explicitly said the
legislature cannot create additional, extra-constitutional
qualifications (like petititioning) for elective office. But ever since
1987 the G.A.'s attitude has been that of Lincoln when he said, "The court
has made their ruling, now let them enforce it."

Enforcing the Constitution is our the people's job more than it is the
courts' job. We can have all the freedom we can seize. It is not my job
to repeal statutes that violate your rights. It is your job to keep
your rights exercised regardless of the content of statutes. (Presuming
you do care about retaining your rights.)

>> Maybe next time I should try to kill my kidnappers instead of trusting
>> them to give me an impartial hearing.
>
> Now you're just being silly.

Like Patrick Henry?

>> They were perfectly incorrect to be stopping or searching me in the
>> first place. If I'd done the same to them they'd've correctly charged
>> me with multiple felonies. Where did equality of rights go?
>
> Let's go over this one more time.

Where did equality of rights go?

> They're cops.

Why do I have fewer rights than they do? Why don't they have to obey
the Constitution's requirement that search/seizure be based on at least
some evidence that an offense has occurred?

> They're there to protect you.

By kidnapping me. Like the Vietnam village that had to be destroyed in
order to save it.

> PS: Private cops (remember the whole private cop thing, that's where
> this started)

I remember this starting when Christa said there was a third name on
the ballot. You said she was opening a can of worms. I took you to mean
that you think it's much preferable for people to be left in the dark
about some of their available choices for office.

> still don't solve any of your particular problems.

There are more private than public cops, but only public cops ever seize
me without having some evidence to go on.

> And _nobody_ is taking your guns away.

Harry Bennett and Brian Bishop certainly did. They said they were working
for you.

> Certain types of property require registration with the government. By
> law.

I thought the law said no person shall have his property rights
infringed without a court order.


Ray Ubinger
http://governyourself.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page