While You Were Sleeping, They Abolished the Fourth Amendment

[Lumi]

While You Were Sleeping, They Abolished the Fourth Amendment
<!-- | http://madjacksports.com/forum/#comments_controls
-->Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 17, 2011

Two recent Supreme Court cases have served to virtually abolish the Fourth Amendment in the United States of America, with citizens no longer being ?secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.?

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jZ3j7s84znw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


In a precedent described by dissenting justices as ?breathtaking? and ?unnecessarily broad,? the Indiana Supreme Court ruled last week in a 3-2 vote that doing anything to resist police busting down your door and conducting an illegal search is now a criminal act.

?[We] hold that the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law,? the court ruled in the case of Richard L. Barnes v. Indiana.

Dissenting Justices Brent E. Dickson and Robert D. Rucker made it clear that the ruling represented a total rejection of rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.

?In my view, the wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad,? Dickson wrote.

?In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations,? added Rucker. ?There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.?

status bestowed upon police officers now trumps both the 220-year-old Fourth Amendment and the 796-year-old Magna Carta on which it is based.

In a separate case, on Monday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the police can now also bust down a door and enter your property without a warrant if they smell marijuana or hear sounds that are suggestive of destruction of evidence. The case revolved around the warrantless search of an apartment in Kentucky, Lexington.

?Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed,? Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority.

Of course, the fact that police officers have been known to habitually lie in order to justify illegally entering a property and violating the Fourth Amendment (which is apparently now null and void anyway), was not considered.

These two cases merely scratch the surface of America?s descent into an authoritarian tyranny, which has noticeably deepened over the last few weeks. Describing the United States as a ?police state? is no longer a glib or alarmist use of rhetoric, because by every measurable tenet and in every context, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are now being completely ignored by government or simply abolished altogether.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

The fact that Supreme Courts are now attacking the very Constitution they are supposed to uphold is proof that America has been hijacked by rogue criminal elements who are busy dismantling everything that once made the country a beacon of liberty for the world.

The debate is officially over. America has now entered the annuls of history as an authoritarian police state on a par with Soviet Russia, and as that virus spreads throughout all levels of society it will ultimately lead the United States to the same fate ? the only question remaining is how messy the collapse will be, how many people will be incarcerated, and how many people the government will murder in the process.


All together now, lets bash the source while not paying attention to the content. It's much easier that way, isn't it?

 

[Lumi]

Farewell, Fourth Amendment

Farewell, Fourth Amendment

Farewell, Fourth Amendment
Posted by William Grigg on May 16, 2011 02:52 PM
Where consent isn?t freely given, forcible rape is lawful. Such is the logic ? if that word can be tortured into applying here ? behind the Supreme Court?s ruling in the case of Kentucky v. King, in which the Regime?s judicial branch destroys whatever remained of the illusive Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches.

As with most rulings of this kind, the case was a byproduct of the Regime?s ongoing Narcotics Price Support Program. Narcotics officers in Lexington, Kentucky went trolling for patsies in a poor neighborhood that is most likely a preferred fishing hole for such activities. Using an undercover informant, the narcs set up a ?controlled buy? of crack cocaine. Once the transaction was through, the merchant headed back to his apartment, which was one of two that were found at the end of a breezeway. The suspect was seen entering the apartment on the right, but the uniformed officers who arrived at the scene weren?t aware of this fact.

After discerning the aroma of marijuana emanating from the door on the left, the officers banged on it insistently and demanded to be let in. They later said that they ?could hear people inside moving,? and what were taken to be the sounds of ?things being moved inside the apartment.? Fearful that evidence would be destroyed, the officers kicked in the door, finding three terrified people inside. A ?protective sweep? ? ?officer safety? ?ber alles, you know ? revealed a small amount of crack cocaine and marijuana.


A Kentucky Circuit Court ruled that the evidence seized in this warrantless search was admissible because it ?consensual entry? was denied, and waiting to obtain a warrant would permit the destruction of evidence. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed that ruling, pointing out that audible noises behind a closed door did not constitute reliable evidence ?that evidence was being destroyed.? The state Court noted as well that it is impermissible for police deliberately to create ?the exigent circumstances with the bad faith intent to avoid the warrant requirement? found in the Fourth Amendment.

Writing on behalf of the Supreme Court?s dominant Authoritarian Right faction, Justice Samuel Alito insisted that the fault resided entirely with defendant Hollis King, who supposedly could have refused to respond to the police (presumably by remaining perfectly silent), or could have come to the door and demanded that the police return with a warrant. ?Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame,? sniffed Alito.

?How `secure? do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?? replied Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. ?The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment?s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.?

For several years, Punitive Populists have insisted that the Regime should be permitted to torture people identified as ?terrorists,? since such people aren?t entitled to the protection of legal guarantees such as those found in the Eighth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions. After all, we already know that they?re terrorists, and so they shouldn?t be permitted to withhold evidence. After all, the Constitution ?isn?t a suicide pact.? Obviously, the same reasoning (once again, assuming that this is the appropriate word) applies to the Fourth Amendment?s purported guarantees against warrantless searches.

There is a sense, I suppose, in which the Constitution is a suicide pact: It has been used to seduce people into thinking that parchment can serve as an effective impediment to power.

 

[Lumi]

Indiana Supreme Court Dispenses With Magna Carta, Constitution

Indiana Supreme Court Dispenses With Magna Carta, Constitution

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Indiana Supreme Court Dispenses With Magna Carta, Constitution[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Simon Black[/FONT][/FONT]​

On June 10, 1215 AD, after prolonged rebellion and frustrating negotiation, a group of England?s most influential barons entered London to force the disastrous King John Softsword into accepting a revolutionary charter of individual freedoms.

Five days later in the Runnymede meadow of Surrey County, John affixed his royal seal onto what became known as the Magna Carta. It still exists on the books today in England and Wales.

This document was one of the more important antecedents to the US Constitution; its proclamations ended the absolutism of England?s monarchy and spelled out very clear rights and freedoms, including, among others, the right of a man to enjoy his private property without trespass from government officials.

Over 550 years later, the framers of the Constitution codified this right in the 4th Amendment to be secure in one?s private property. Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court effectively rejected both documents in two separate cases.

In the first case of Lacey v. State of Indiana, the Court ruled that police officers serving a warrant on a private home may simply walk right in without knocking.

The second case of Barnes v. State of Indiana is far more startling. The case deals with one Richard Barnes, a regular Joe citizen of Indiana, who was in the midst of marital problems with his wife one evening in 2007. The couple was arguing when police arrived to the scene and attempted to enter the home.

Barnes made it very clear to the officers that they were not to enter his home. The officers did not have a warrant, and they did not have probably cause to believe that anything illegal was happening. But they entered regardless.

Barnes tried to block the door, and as the police officers muscled their way past him, he shoved one of them against the wall in defense of his property. Barnes was choked and tasered in his own home, subsequently hospitalized, then charged with misdemeanor battery on a police officer.

The case went to court, and the Barnes defense team cited a private citizen?s right to resist unlawful entry into one?s home. They lost. The case was appealed, all the way up to the Indiana Supreme Court. Here?s where it gets interesting.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Read the rest of the article[/FONT][/FONT]​