Why "Terry" Frisk CCW Permit Holders?

[The Real Hawkeye]

Hawkeye's statements sure make sense to me.

-twency

Thanks, twency. By that statement alone, I can tell that you are wise indeed.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Oh so you have replaced your "orthodox understanding" of the Constitution, and plain reading of the text with lens and focus of other concepts, and ideas, not plainly written into the text?

The inherited system was largely retained? BS, they used traditionals systems when forming the Constitution, but they included what they wanted and could get ratified. Everything else is open to interpretation, but you have been clear that you object to any interpretation by the courts, except of course when it fits your view of how things should be.

DMF, the Constitution is made up of words. Many of those words are legal terms. Each legal term has a history and a meaning. Since they are not defined in the text of the Constitution, how do you suppose that we know what they mean? It's because we have adopted a preexisting legal tradition. This tradition, however, doesn't stand alone. It is focused through the lens of the Constitution. That's the relationship between our inherited legal tradition and the Constitution.

 

[DMF]

DMF, that doesn't prove YOUR point, which was that the Constitution granted the sole power of interpreting the Constitution to the Federal Courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular. The sentence you quote refers to original jurisdiction, but then I guess you don't know the difference between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction, because these terms are not defined as such in the text of the Constitution. As for appellate jurisdiction, the extent of it belonging to the Federal Courts is entirely at the pleasure of Congress. The Congress can even declare all Federal Courts (except the Supreme Court) dissolved, and so limit the Supreme Court as to deny ALL appellate jurisdiction. (See Art III, sections 1 and 2)

Hawkeye, the jurisdiction distinctions of paragraph 2 in Section 2 does not change the fact that spartacus2002 was completely incorrect about the powers of the Judicial branch and the decision of Marbury v. Madison. Also, the cases we have been debating including Terry v. Ohio are appellate. So while your point about the difference between appellate and original jurisdiciton still doesn't change the powers of the court as defined in paragraph 1 of Section 2, nor does it limit their power in any of the cases we have discussed.

 

[DMF]

DMF, the Constitution is made up of words. Many of those words are legal terms. Each legal term has a history and a meaning. Since they are not defined in the text of the Constitution, how do you suppose that we know what they mean? It's because we have adopted a preexisting legal tradition. This tradition, however, doesn't stand alone. It is focused through the lens of the Constitution. That's the relationship between our inherited legal tradition and the Constitution.

Again, Hawkeye I have only been pointing out your hypocrisy on this issue. You only subscribe to that philosophy when it suits your. Reference our discussion of the exclusionary rule. Again, when the courts rulings, and use of legal traditions suit you, then your are all for that philosophy, when it doesn't you start ranting about "orthodox understandings" and "creating law out of whole cloth."

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Hawkeye, the jurisdiction distinctions of paragraph 2 in Section 2 does not change the fact that spartacus2002 was completely incorrect about the powers of the Judicial branch and the decision of Marbury v. Madison. Also, the cases we have been debating including Terry v. Ohio are appellate. So while your point about the difference between appellate and original jurisdiciton still doesn't change the powers of the court as defined in paragraph 1 of Section 2, nor does it limit their power in any of the cases we have discussed.

Marbury v. Madison established the precedent that the Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution. It does not need to spell this out. By what they did, they established the precedent. They assumed a power not granted by the Constitution, and nobody challenged them on it. That was his point

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Again, Hawkeye I have only been pointing out your hypocrisy on this issue. You only subscribe to that philosophy when it suits your. Reference our discussion of the exclusionary rule. Again, when the courts rulings, and use of legal traditions suit you, then your are all for that philosophy, when it doesn't you start ranting about "orthodox understandings" and "creating law out of whole cloth."

And again, you are mistaken. I need not "utter," as it were, another word. My words already in this thread stand as the best possible testament to my logical consistency. I would ask you to post, side by side, quotes from my posts which you believe demonstrate logical inconsistency or hypocrisy.

 

[DMF]

Hawkeye I don't like to repeat myself. Go back to my post about the exclusionary rule, and your objection to the Court creating law "out of whole cloth." You showed your hypocrisy plain as day, and I see no need to repeat that post.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Hawkeye I don't like to repeat myself. Go back to my post about the exclusionary rule, and your objection to the Court creating law "out of whole cloth." You showed your hypocrisy plain as day, and I see no need to repeat that post.

DMF, you just proved my point. How long did you sweat over this one before you took the easy way out? I didn't ask you to repost anything. Just provide two quotes of mine, side by side, which demonstrate my logical inconsistancy and/or hypocrisy.

 

[DMF]

I already did that in that post about the exclusionary rule. You contradicted yourself in the very same post and I already pointed it out.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1058569#post1058569

Originally posted by The Real Hawkeye (June 13th, 2004 07:24 AM):

. . . The power to manufacture new law "out of whole cloth," however, divorced from the democratic process, is the very definition of tyranny. . .

. . . I am a believer in the notion that police work and convicting people of crimes ought to be very difficult, requiring government agents to abide by the letter of the Constitution. I am, therefore, a believer in the "fruit of the poisonous vine" doctrine. If government can benefit from violating rights, they are going to do it regardless of penalties. The evidence must be thrown out, along with all evidence that the discovery of that evidence led to. . .

(SIC) emphasis added

Here again is the flaw in your approach to these matters. The "exclusionary rule" or "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which you love violates your so called "orthodox understanding" of the Constitution. No where in the Constitution will you find the exclusionary rule, in no part of the US Code will you find it either. It was a concept completely created by the courts. . .

See the link provided for the proof of my response to your quotes. You want government agents (which includes legislature, and the judiciary) to abide by the letter of the Constitution in this post, and you say you don't want the Court creating new law, allegedly divorced from the democratic process. However, you also say you're a fan of the exclusionary rule, which was entirely created by the Court.

After saying this, and it was pointed out, you then start talking about "focusing the lens" on the Constitution rather than abiding by the letter of the Constitution. HYPOCRISY both in that that quote, and your attempts at rebutting my response.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Originally posted by The Real Hawkeye (June 13th, 2004 07:24 AM):

. . . The power to manufacture new law "out of whole cloth," however, divorced from the democratic process, is the very definition of tyranny. . .

. . . I am a believer in the notion that police work and convicting people of crimes ought to be very difficult, requiring government agents to abide by the letter of the Constitution. I am, therefore, a believer in the "fruit of the poisonous vine" doctrine. If government can benefit from violating rights, they are going to do it regardless of penalties. The evidence must be thrown out, along with all evidence that the discovery of that evidence led to. . .

In the first quote, I assert that I oppose the abuse of judicial power to manufacture new law out of whole cloth, and in the second, I state that I believe the courts, using their injunctive powers, should prevent government agents who violate our Constitutional rights from benefiting from said violation, as to cause illegally obtained evidence to be thrown out. The exclusionary rule is an exercise of this injunctive power. This power is not new, or manufactured out of whole cloth. It is as old as the hills, dating back many centuries before our own Constitution. It is a power always recognized as properly belonging to judges in our legal tradition. When the word "judge" is used in the Constitution, the founders were referring to the folks who hold said power to "make whole" those who have had their legal rights violated.

Please specify precisely what the nature of the contradiction is that you believe you are detecting. Otherwise, as a gentleman, you ought not go around calling people hypocrites.

 

[DMF]

I have made my case, made it well and this is redundant. I am a gentleman, and whether or not that is your opinion of me I do not care. You are a hypocrite, as this thread clearly shows, and until you present something new rather than repeating the same worn out arguments, I am done.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I have made my case, made it well and this is redundant. I am a gentleman, and whether or not that is your opinion of me I do not care. You are a hypocrite, as this thread clearly shows, and until you present something new rather than repeating the same worn out arguments, I am done.

Whether or not someone is a gentleman is self-evident by their words and actions. It is not a simple matter of declaring it to be the case.