View Poll Results: Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    0 0%
  • No

    33 100.00%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    This is the kind of garbage you get out of the courts when you nominate "strict constructionists" that don't believe you have a constitutional right to privacy.
    Oh, give us a break. The defects in the courts have existed since the beginning. I've got no idea what the leaning of this court was, but let's put it this way...it's no where near as bad as the court decision that made babies objects to be killed at their mothers whim.

    Strict constructionist judges read the friggin' constitution and apply what it says. What's your problem with that? You prefer the opposite, where the judges merely use the Constitution, and international law, and their feelings, to interpret the law to follow the political currents of the times?

  2. #22
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    13,939

    Re: Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Oh, give us a break. The defects in the courts have existed since the beginning. I've got no idea what the leaning of this court was, but let's put it this way...it's no where near as bad as the court decision that made babies objects to be killed at their mothers whim.

    Strict constructionist judges read the friggin' constitution and apply what it says. What's your problem with that? You prefer the opposite, where the judges merely use the Constitution, and international law, and their feelings, to interpret the law to follow the political currents of the times?
    My point is that "strict constructionists" has become a catch all term for social conservatives where if a right is not very explicitly stated in the constitution, you don't have it. Many of these "strict constructionists" have said as much. Well this is what you get, judges that don't recognize the right to privacy of an individual because its not absolutely, positively, explicitly stated in the constitution.

    Personally, I prefer judges that see the constitution as a document that limits the powers of government, not a document that grants rights to individuals on U.S. soil.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  3. #23
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    I don't know about that. A lot of them think that the only rights you have are those that are explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights.
    No they don't. That is almost the exact opposite of strict constructionists. They believe whatever is not granted to the feds in the constitution is granted to the states and individuals.

    What you might be talking about is they don't think the feds should restrain the states in some cases when the rights are granted to the feds but the state is doing something dodgy. You'd be right there but that is hardly worth granted the feds more powers than the constitution specifically grants and is really a matter between the state and its people.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    My point is that "strict constructionists" has become a catch all term for social conservatives where if a right is not very explicitly stated in the constitution, you don't have it.
    Whatever. No one cares.

    The fact of the matter, and I just checked, is that for every single presidential election since 1988 the voters of Wisconsin have voted for the WRONG MAN. They've gone solidly Democrat.

    So what if they elected Tommy Thompson? They're weird and diseased people who can't make up their minds, so they naturally have a court system that produces weird and diseased rulings, and you've done nothing to establish that the court in question was a "strict constructionist" court.

  5. #25
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    13,939

    Re: Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    No they don't. That is almost the exact opposite of strict constructionists. They believe whatever is not granted to the feds in the constitution is granted to the states and individuals.

    What you might be talking about is they don't think the feds should restrain the states in some cases when the rights are granted to the feds but the state is doing something dodgy. You'd be right there but that is hardly worth granted the feds more powers than the constitution specifically grants and is really a matter between the state and its people.
    Scalia, Thomas, and the ill fated Bork nominee, believe that you do not have a right to privacy because its not explicitly stated in the constitution. In fact, Scalia believes the whole notion of a right to privacy has been "cooked up".

    Basically, these supposed "strict constructionists" believe the government more or less gives you rights. If you want a right to privacy, amend the constitution in their view.

    Its why these litmus tests for "originalists" by the hard core right is a joke in terms of protecting liberty.
    Last edited by SouthernDemocrat; 05-11-09 at 09:16 PM.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  6. #26
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    My point is that "strict constructionists" has become a catch all term for social conservatives where if a right is not very explicitly stated in the constitution, you don't have it. Many of these "strict constructionists" have said as much. Well this is what you get, judges that don't recognize the right to privacy of an individual because its not absolutely, positively, explicitly stated in the constitution.

    Personally, I prefer judges that see the constitution as a document that limits the powers of government, not a document that grants rights to individuals on U.S. soil.
    It does limit the powers of the federal gov't very strictly, that is what strict constructionism is about. It then does though allow the states quite a broad scope but that is a matter for the states and their people and court systems, it is not to be solved by allowing the feds to loosely define and reinterpret the constitution and law and gain a lot of power at the expense of the states.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 05-11-09 at 09:22 PM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  7. #27
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    04-04-14 @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,233

    Re: Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Scalia, Thomas, and the ill fated Bork nominee, believe that you do not have a right to privacy because its not explicitly stated in the constitution. In fact, Scalia believes the whole notion of a right to privacy has been "cooked up".

    Basically, these supposed "strict constructionists" believe the government more or less gives you rights. If you want a right to privacy, amend the constitution in their view.

    Its why these litmus tests for "originalists" by the hard core right is a joke in terms of protecting liberty.
    This has little to do with strict constructionism then or originalism.

    Strict constructionism reserves all none directly granted powers to the states or individuals. The only way it would be strict constructionism is if the the power to invade privacy was directly granted by the federal constitution and nothing was set up to guard against this in the document.

    That is not strict constructionism's fault however, it is the documents, and not helped by allowing the judiciary to redefine the constitution willy-nilly and turn it into mere guidelines.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Scalia, no Thomas, no the ill fated Bork nominee, believe that you have a right to privacy because its not explicitly stated in the constitution. In fact, Scalia believes the whole notion of a right to privacy has been "cooked up".

    Basically, these supposed "strict constructionists" believe the government more or less gives you rights. If you want a right to privacy, amend the constitution in their view.
    You mean, (gasp!) those judges don't make things up and claim they found it in the Constitution? Amazing! Can we get more of those wonderful people appointed to the courts?


    Here's some issues that have to be discussed on this thread:

    What is the difference between tailing a person, and sticking a gadget on his car to do the same? As was pointed out, how is this different than sticking a bug on his coat?

    Is it legal for the police to trail a person constantly, day and night, tracking his every move on the public thoroughfares?

    Since no warrants were issued, how does the police stalking of this individual differ from the presumed stalking he was doing of his alleged object of attention?

    Alternately, a court order is required to tap a person's telephone. (We're going to ignore terrorist related activity for this one, people) How is "tapping" his car different?

    I"m going to take the slippery slope argument and say that if the cops feel it's a good thing to track one person without a warrant, they'll have orgasms at the thought of tracking everyone, and yes, it is possible to get enough computer power to do it, too. This is related to all the goon states that want to tax car mileage, since some have proposed using GPS to that effect.

    I'm also going to argue that a man has every expectation that his movements should be as free of intrusive surveillance as his telephone and computer use.

    No, it's not legal for the police to personal tail a citizen without probable cause, it's called harassment. Thus arguing that since the cops could tail him directly, therefore they can stick a bug on his car to do it remotely, doesn't fly.

  9. #29
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    13,779

    Re: Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    I don't know about that. A lot of them think that the only rights you have are those that are explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights.
    no such strict constructionist actually exists.

  10. #30
    Professor Lita456's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Joisey
    Last Seen
    03-20-10 @ 02:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,273

    Re: Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Yea you can buy police radio scanners.

    You will often find old people listening to them, why I have no clue.
    Its a requirement for some old people.

    I didn't know you could buy them? A friend of mine has one and he acts like it's a sacred piece of equipment only the men in blue have....sheesh.....
    Justice for Caylee
    I am a Tiki Bar Tarte, you want some of my Panties AKA Pro Peesha Whispering Spotted Horn

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •