1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Fighting the Last War

Elvin4 Wrote: Apr 11, 2012 10:51 PM
Well, it looks like you have already predetermined the fate of this trial without hearing all the facts put forth by both sides.
Again personal attacks aside, i was not pointing out to the economic v. non-economic distinction between the cited cases and the health care case, my point was that in those cases (Lopez and Morrison), there was an additional element that the Court had to grapple with, namely the existing state regulations and state laws in place dealing with gun safety near schools and domestic violence laws, and perhaps that's a strong independent reason on why the Court struck down the federal laws. Next time before misconstruing an argument, try to understand it!
Your argument that the Constitution "has been bastardized since its origin" assumes that the document is a source of perfect clarity. On many issues, the Constitution remains silent and looking back to the texts of conventions, the history of enactments, or debates among the Founding Fathers, it is hard to decipher their intent. For instance, the Constitution states that the President has the power to negotiate and make a treaty but with the advice and ratification by the 2/3 of the Senate votes. However, it is not clear whether to terminate a treaty, if the President has unilateral powers to do so or whether it requires again the 2/3 of the Senate votes. Even the Founding Fathers debated this same issue, and reasonable minds can differ.
One thing needs to be pointed out though. Its not only the economic vs. non-economic distinction that separates those cases from the health care case. In Lopez and Morrison, states were already regulating those activities and most of them had laws in place dealing with the same issues, and the exercise of the federal commerce powers seemed at least redundant or supplementary. In the health care case, the argument goes as follows: in addition to the economic v. non-economic distinction, the States cannot effectively regulate the provision of the means to health care services.
In response to:

Muslim Brotherhood Meets in the White House

Elvin4 Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 11:45 AM
"needs to reassess"
In response to:

Muslim Brotherhood Meets in the White House

Elvin4 Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 11:44 AM
The Obama Administration's position towards Israel in the recent months has been shaky and fluid. First, some of the senior military officials allegedly leak damaging information about Israel's agreement with its ally Azerbaijan to utilize their airbase to attack Iran's nuclear facilities from the north. Now, they are in "talks" with the Muslim Brotherhood that wants to review the peace treaty with Israel. The administration to reassess its position and show unwavering support in these crucial times.
Since you are adding new elements to this hypo/case, here is my response. Assuming that the building is big enough that i have no idea about the presence of the cops (however questionable it may be, especially in the hot pursuit), it is the reasonable belief of the cops of what i do inside of my apartment matters. Even if they erroneously in the hindsight but reasonably believed i was getting rid of the contraband, then the exigent circumstances apply. But if their subjective belief is not reasonably, they must obtain a warrant.
Ok, lets play your game of mental gymnastics. First off, he is not my dude and i have not read his administration's brief. However, i will analyze your hypo or real case under my understanding of the 4th Amendment jurisprudence. The police are in the "hot pursuit" of a drug dealer. As part of their lawful operations, they smell the "pot" - a clear example of the "plain view" doctrine or "plain smell" as long as they have lawful grounds for chasing the guy. At that point, they need to get a warrant to break into my apartment, unless "exigent circumstances" exist, i.e. destruction of the contraband and infeasibility of obtaining a warrant in a timely fashion. Voila!
Your personal attacks aside, i am curious to find out the results of your empirical study measuring the suicide rates as a result of feeling ashamed for minor offenses. Practically speaking and from my "extensive experience as a jailer", you don't wake up and hide things in your rear cavities expecting to be arrested later for a minor offense.
In the case I mentioned, he didn't misbehave but was mistakenly arrested on an outstanding warrant, which was supposed to had been quashed.
1 - 10 Next