An Argument For Why We Should Do Away With The Constitution & Bill of Rights
The Fourth Amendment
This is possibly the absolute worst part of the Bill of Rights. It prevents law enforcement from entering any property for any reason whatsoever and searching for illegal activity. Can you imagine just how much illegal activity escapes the eyes of the government due to this outdated drivel we call the Fourth Amendment?
Can you imagine how many murdered corpses lay undiscovered, children that continue to be molested, drugs that continue to be around, terrorists plotting, and how many soon to be illegal guns are just laying around purely because Americans continue to cling to such outdated quaint ideas about "privacy" and "unreasonable intrusion by police?"
Ideally every residence and business should be searched on a regular basis, at least once a year without notice. That way police are more likely to discover any illegal activity. All this hooey about "warrants" and "reasonable search and seizure" must go!!!!
The Fifth Amendment
A lot of roadblocks to utopia right here. Due process is as outdated as the countless Latin terms that describe it. Hell the language doesn't even exist anymore. There should be as few barriers between arrest and imprisonment (or better yet execution) as possible.
The "right" against self incrimination? It would be so much easier if we could just force people to confess to crimes. A prohibition on double jeopardy? What if a clearly guilty person is acquitted? (We'll be dealing with that pesky loophole soon though.)
It would be so much easier if we could just keep trying people for the same offense over and over until we get the desired result...GUILTY!!!!
Now don't even get me started on the whole "just compensations" when the government takes your land via eminent domain. Common now, that costs money!!!
The Sixth Amendment
Do you know how many guilty people get off because they were allowed legal consul? TOO MANY!!! Does the name OJ ring any bells?
You have these lawyers telling them stuff about how the cops can't do this and you don't have to say that and you have the right to this and right to that.
It's inefficient in regards to enforcing the law. Civilized countries like Saudi Arabia do away with that whole "fair representation" and "open trial" nonsense and it is one of the safest countries in the world. The murder rates over there are a tenth of the American murder rate.
Nobody thinks of doing anything wrong because of the barbaric black hole that is the Saudi legal system. In Saudi Arabia if you are arrested you might not even get to see the judge who sentenced you to death, but it's easier on the judge that way so just go along with it. Their way works and Americans are clinging to some useless piece of paper. Btw, that's the Bill of Rights. What rights?
The Eighth Amendment
I mentioned Saudi Arabia in passing earlier right? I would like to mention another country that does away with "proportionate punishment." The lovely land of Singapore.
Singapore uses capital punishment for a number of offenses including drug trafficking, armed robbery, and kidnapping. Much like the beautiful and free country of Saudi Arabia , Singapore regularly ranks among the safest countries in the world. Safer than any of those gun banning Euro nations. The real measure of a safe and stable nation is not just gun control but frequent use of corporal and capital punishment; even for non-violent offenses.
America needs amputations, branding, flogging, caning, and the occasional public beheading or even better public castration to make the streets safe again.
European nations are "sorta safe" and don't have guns, but Singapore and Saudi Arabia are among the safest and they rule with draconian punishment and legal systems that are built to get convictions and not to actually discover if the accused is guilty.
SO THERE!!! I have laid out the basic justification for the removal of these silly amendments to the Constitution. It's just some outdated ideas on an old piece of paper written by a bunch of crusty old white guys in wigs who are long dead and gone.
So that's a coherent and logical argument against the rationale for the constitutions existence.
THE ABOVE IS OBVIOUSLY SARCASM
Your Home Is No Longer Your Castle
We'll start by briefly explaining the two cases in question. A few years back police officers chasing a crack dealer in a Lexington, Kentucky apartment complex lost sight of him. Assuming he ducked into an apartment they continued looking but came upon an apartment where they smelled "a very strong odor of burnt marijuana". They figured that must be the apartment.
Why they figured that is beyond me. So they decided this guy ducked into the apartment to spark a joint? Anyhow, they banged on the door of this apartment and shouted "Police." Supposedly they heard "the sounds of persons moving," the officers fearing evidence was being destroyed kicked in the door.
Turned out the Police kicked in the door of the wrong apartment, something that happens MUCH more often than you might think. Inside this apartment however police discovered someone smoking pot, and during an unlawful search of the apartment they had unlawfully broken into saw marijuana and cocaine in plain view.
Apparently a man's home is no longer his castle. Apparently now the government and the police can enter a private residence on "a hunch."
In the past there were circumstances in which officers could enter a private residence without a warrant. This is called exigent circumstances. If the Police think they hear someone being murdered in a house they can enter said house.
With this recent court ruling "exigent circumstances" now exist when someone "might" be flushing drugs down the toilet. I wonder when these circumstances might arise? Maybe any time an officer doesn't feel like getting a search warrant?
Though I'm generally not a fan of her Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the one dissenting justice in this case. She said this ruling "arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases."
Now instead of going to a judge who is a neutral party the police can after the fact validate their reason for breaking into someones home by claiming they smelled something funny or heard something that arose their suspicions.
In an even less noted case recently in Indiana something else scary was ruled upon. In Indiana it was ruled that Police can force their way into a home for any reason or no reason whatsoever. The victim of the illegal break in also has no right to try to stop it. The courts say the victims of these illegal break ins can challenge it in court after the fact. The court ruled "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers."
This ruling goes against a principal of common law that is centuries upon centuries old, dating back arguably as far as the Magna Carta.
This case were talking about involved a man by the name of Richard Barnes. Mr. Barnes wife called 911 back in 2007 to report that he was throwing items in their apartment. Police arrived and ran into Barnes outside. He told the police they were not needed because he was in the process of moving out.
His wife then exited the apartment and threw a duffel bag in his direction and told him to take the rest of his stuff.
Two officers then tried to follow the couple back into their apartment. Mr. Barnes blocked the entrance to the apartment. Mr. Barnes then pushed one officer who continued to try to enter his home illegally.
Mr. Barnes was convicted of battery on a police officer, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. Mr. Barnes appealed arguing the jury should have been instructed about "the right of a citizen to reasonably resist unlawful entry into the citizen's home."
The Indiana Supreme Court could have just ruled the police feared for the safety of the wife and entered for that reason which would have been okay in terms of previous decisions of law.
Instead they did something pretty scary and much broader. Here's what they said...
"Because we Delcine to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry," "we need not decide the legality of the officers entry into Barne's apartment."
This is a backward ass approach and suggests something very troubling. The justices were eager to repute a straightforward extension of self defense that they thought was outdated and an impediment to law enforcement.
Your Fourth Amendment rights have been taken away from you. Why you ask? Because they present challenges to law enforcement.
Both of these recent rulings show an erosion of security. Why? Wait for it...Wait for it...in the name of security. Yes even in a setting, ie. your home, where your right to be left alone is the supposedly the strongest.
No comments:
Post a Comment