Las Vegas, NV police violate 3rd 4th & 14th amendments

[EMNofSeattle]

As this Juris Doctor professor of law has said, the Third Amendment has not been "incorporated against state governments."

He's incorrect, the highest court to rule on this matter has incorporated the 3rd against state governments.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Natural rights and human rights are universal, and of Nature's God entitled.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

No, they're not. the very fact that the majority of people in the world today do not enjoy the same rights as us should be a clue that rights are not universal nor are people entitled to them. there is no group of people who have had rights just given to them. ever. rights are something people TOOK and then worked to maintain.

John Locke is one guy, so he wrote a few books and was well known in the "age of reason". what does that count for? I can find writers of the era who wrote books contradicting him. the declaration of independence is not a governing document, it was meant to be inciteful, inflammatory, almost entertaining. the founders needed the words to stick, when you get to the constitution, none of that is there.

you can believe in natural rights in you so wish, just as much as I can believe in a 10 foot tall invisible purple unicorn in my garage. that doesn't change reality.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Citation?

I've already cited the case twice in this thread.

 

[mikeyb]

Citation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/677_F.2d_957

Rendered on May 3, 1982, the decision, written for the court by Judge Walter R. Mansfield, established that the National Guardsmen legally qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment, that the amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, and that the protection of this amendment extends beyond home owners.[1] The majority stated that the officers' occupancy in the rooms was covered under the legal rules of "tenancy" and was protected under the Third amendment.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/engblom.html Even in dissenting it's incorporated...

On a motion for summary judgment the district court dismissed appellants' Third Amendment and due process claims. The district court found, as an initial matter, that the National Guardsmen were "Soldiers" within the meaning of the Third Amendment, and that the Third Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment since it is one of the "fundamental" rights "rooted in the tradition and conscience of our people" and thus "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." However, the court held that appellants were not entitled to Third Amendment protection since their occupancy was analogous to possession incident to employment, which, said the court, "carries with it a somewhat lesser bundle of rights than does a tenancy....."

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Big font makes a big argument.

Engblom v. Carey has not made it to SCOTUS. The Second CA speaks only to New England.

McDonald v. Chicago was the landmark 2010 case that incorporated the Second Amendment against the states, would you hold the Third Amendment to such a lower standard?

but without SCOTUS precedent the Carey case is the most persuasive authority to which to cite. true Engblom won't matter better because no court is going to rule that civilian law enforcement are "soldiers" but until SCOTUS rules on the matter the circuit case is the only substantial precedent there is. therefore it is fair to consider the matter incorporated since both the ruling and dissent stated the 3rd was incorporated and there is no official ruling to contradict it.

 

[eye95]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/677_F.2d_957

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/engblom.html Even in dissenting it's incorporated...

We can see now why no citation yet has quoted from the ruling. Clearly, they are talking about national guard, not police.

When such a case makes it to SCOTUS and police are considered to be restrained by the 3A, let me know. Until then, who cares? This was an egregious violation under the 4A. The cops and the department need to be raked over the coals for inexcusable unwarranted searches and seizures.

 

[georg jetson]

No, they're not. the very fact that the majority of people in the world today do not enjoy the same rights as us should be a clue that rights are not universal nor are people entitled to them. there is no group of people who have had rights just given to them. ever. rights are something people TOOK and then worked to maintain.

Incorrect. Natural rights are those things considered self-evident. They're referred to as "unalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence.

Using the argument that people across the world don't enjoy the same rights doesn't refute the existence of those rights. It testifies to the ability of some to violate or take rights from people. The natural rights are those things that exist simply from being alive and the only "taking" going on are of those "taking" natural rights from others.

John Locke is one guy, so he wrote a few books and was well known in the "age of reason". what does that count for? I can find writers of the era who wrote books contradicting him. the declaration of independence is not a governing document, it was meant to be inciteful, inflammatory, almost entertaining. the founders needed the words to stick, when you get to the constitution, none of that is there.

you can believe in natural rights in you so wish, just as much as I can believe in a 10 foot tall invisible purple unicorn in my garage. that doesn't change reality.

The D of I in not only a governing document, it is our original governing document. It is the declaration of our independence that legally broke us from English law and originated the authority for the Articles of Confederation and then through a convention, the Articles were replaced by the Constitution.

 

[mikeyb]

We can see now why no citation yet has quoted from the ruling. Clearly, they are talking about national guard, not police.

When such a case makes it to SCOTUS and police are considered to be restrained by the 3A, let me know. Until then, who cares? This was an egregious violation under the 4A. The cops and the department need to be raked over the coals for inexcusable unwarranted searches and seizures.

True, but the original point of the matter was the denial that the 3rd Amendment has been incorporated to the states, not that police officers can be considered soldiers for the 3A to be applicable.

Now, if someone were to compare the pictures from the Boston bombings and manhunt to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, is there really a difference? Outside of green vs. camo? The equipment is virtually the same to an average person.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Incorrect. Natural rights are those things considered self-evident . They're referred to as "unalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence.

Using the argument that people across the world don't enjoy the same rights doesn't refute the existence of those rights. It testifies to the ability of some to violate or take rights from people. The natural rights are those things that exist simply from being alive and the only "taking" going on are of those "taking" natural rights from others.

No, it testifies that natural rights are an artificial concept, point to me one group of people who had rights by the very nature of existing, just one...

I can say god endowed me with the ice cream in my freezer and not that it was made as the result of churning milk and separating the cream. that doesn't mean god actually made the ice cream in my freezer. If a right is unalienable then by very nature no one could ever take it away. for all intents and purposes, those rights DO NOT exist for people living in other parts of the world, but I'm sure they'll appreciate the fact they really do have rights, that they can't exercise.

again, there is no such thing as natural rights. period. they don't exist anywhere except in people's imagination. all rights are artificial, your rights can (and are) be taken away from you, and rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. we have temporary privilages, and if you don't fight to maintain them they'll be revoked in due time. there is nothing divine or natural that protects the 10 amendments.

The D of I in not only a governing document, it is our original governing document. It is the declaration of our independence that legally broke us from English law and originated the authority for the Articles of Confederation and then through a convention, the Articles were replaced by the Constitution

No, it is not a governing document, it is a grandstanding editorial.

the D o I does not establish any government bodies, it enumerates no powers of said body, it provides no insight as to inner workings of government, it does not choose or reject any system of government or any economic model. it is purely a document meant to rile up the colonists to support the political ends of the founders, it does not establish or create any government or system of government.

the Government was the Articles of Confederation, which was drafted in late 1776 and was used as the source of legitimacy for the US government, when the Continental Congress requested help or taxes or funding they pointed the the Articles to show they were the legitimate government even though the A o C was not ratified until the end of the war.

 

[Gil223]

He's incorrect, the highest court to rule on this matter has incorporated the 3rd against state governments.

You are correct as stated, "...the highest court to rule on this case...", but, as tattedupboy said,

Interestingly enough, a Third Amendment case has never gone before the Supreme Court.

The highest court to rule was the appellate court. Appellate rulings have been overturned by SCOTUS before, and that would be an interesting case to be heard at SCOTUS. Pax...

 

[OC for ME]

No, it testifies that natural rights are an artificial concept, point to me one group of people who had rights by the very nature of existing, just one...
<snip>

I point to myself as a member of a group of people commonly referred to as the human race.

Our rights are waiting for us before we are born. The problem with exercising our rights is that just about everyone is scared of the consequences when the state has unlawfully infringed upon those rights.

It is a sad state of affairs when we infringe upon our own rights out of a reasonable fear of retribution by the state and their agents.

 

[georg jetson]

No, it testifies that natural rights are an artificial concept, point to me one group of people who had rights by the very nature of existing, just one...

Ummmm... everyone.

I can say god endowed me with the ice cream in my freezer and not that it was made as the result of churning milk and separating the cream. that doesn't mean god actually made the ice cream in my freezer. If a right is unalienable then by very nature no one could ever take it away. for all intents and purposes, those rights DO NOT exist for people living in other parts of the world, but I'm sure they'll appreciate the fact they really do have rights, that they can't exercise.

Hmmm... You appear confused. Let me attempt to clarify.

Natural rights are those that exist becasue the person exists. That person even has the right to the belief of the origin of those rights. However, regardless of the belief of the origin of the rights, the rights themselves are self evident.

You are correct that no one can ever take away an unalienable right. I misspoke. An unalienable right is one that always exists. What I should have said was "violated". An unalienable right can be violated. They are most certainly violated more than they are protected.

again, there is no such thing as natural rights. period. they don't exist anywhere except in people's imagination. all rights are artificial, your rights can (and are) be taken away from you, and rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. we have temporary privilages, and if you don't fight to maintain them they'll be revoked in due time. there is nothing divine or natural that protects the 10 amendments.

Natural rights are self evident. Perhaps you should review the meaning of a "right". Just because it can be violated doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'll defer to my explanation above that rights are not taken, but violated.

As far as the divine protection "of" the 10 amendments, that's not something you would know. They may or may not be. Speaking to things we may discover, the 10 amendments were an attempt by the anti federalists to afford some protection of rights from the fed government. An attempt to keep the fed gov from violating rights.

No, it is not a governing document, it is a grandstanding editorial.

the D o I does not establish any government bodies, it enumerates no powers of said body, it provides no insight as to inner workings of government, it does not choose or reject any system of government or any economic model. it is purely a document meant to rile up the colonists to support the political ends of the founders, it does not establish or create any government or system of government.

Not true. It does the most important thing a governing document can do. It acknowledges the existence of natural rights and prioritizes their importance for the subsequent governing documents. It also establishes the body for which a government was needed. I could go on, but it would be easier if you just spent a bit of time re-reading it.

the Government was the Articles of Confederation, which was drafted in late 1776 and was used as the source of legitimacy for the US government, when the Continental Congress requested help or taxes or funding they pointed the the Articles to show they were the legitimate government even though the A o C was not ratified until the end of the war.

This also in not necessarily true. The governments of the post D of I were colonial. The legitimacy of which was possible from the D of I and the enforcement of the D of I. The Article were ratified and then replaced. The D of I was not replaced. It stands as our original self governing document.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

We can see now why no citation yet has quoted from the ruling. Clearly, they are talking about national guard, not police.

When such a case makes it to SCOTUS and police are considered to be restrained by the 3A, let me know. Until then, who cares? This was an egregious violation under the 4A. The cops and the department need to be raked over the coals for inexcusable unwarranted searches and seizures.

Question....Do you still believe the police are not civilians if so then how can you say the 3rd doesn't apply.

At the time of the colonist there were no police force, the Brits used the redcoats as their police and for policing actions/subjagation.........yes there is a big correlation to what we see now in the modern unconstitutional proactive policing.

And we throw in that right down to our local small municipalities police are getting founded and are considered "first responders" for the federal government.

 

[eye95]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilian

ci·vil·ian (s-vlyn)
n.
1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
2. A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity.
3. A specialist in Roman or civil law.

Please stop playing word games. Non-military is one way to use the word. In that use, police are civilians. When speaking of police and non-police, non-police are civilians. Get over that reality. Moving on from that particular silly diversion.

The Third Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The Third Amendment was written because King George was forcing colonists to house, feed, and otherwise care for the soldiers he was using to make war upon them. It is specifically referring to soldiers and to their being quartered in people's homes. It does not address police commandeering homes for operations.

Make no mistake, I do not condone such a taking as the titular incident. It is just not necessary that we use the 3A to argue against it. That makes us look fringe. It is a violation of the 4A, and that is all that matters.

Again, if someone comes up with a court case that held that police commandeering a house for an operation was covered by the 3A, post it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilian



Please stop playing word games. Non-military is one way to use the word. In that use, police are civilians. When speaking of police and non-police, non-police are civilians. Get over that reality. Moving on from that particular silly diversion.

The Third Amendment:



The Third Amendment was written because King George was forcing colonists to house, feed, and otherwise care for the soldiers he was using to make war upon them. It is specifically referring to soldiers and to their being quartered in people's homes. It does not address police commandeering homes for operations.

Make no mistake, I do not condone such a taking as the titular incident. It is just not necessary that we use the 3A to argue against it. That makes us look fringe. It is a violation of the 4A, and that is all that matters.

Again, if someone comes up with a court case that held that police commandeering a house for an operation was covered by the 3A, post it.

I wasn't "playing word games", I was simply asking you a question, you in the past insisted police were not civilians..

It matters not where it violates it is a violation. I find it interesting you post not to play word games but then go into semantics of the wording of the 3rd while sidestepping my points.

So yes the government may not be violating the exact wording of the 3rd, but they are violating the principle, this case may not rise to that level but the mere fact they are stealing money from the "civilians" to fund both a standing military, they also are doing so in stealing the money for the army of law enFORCEment that are the ones who are used to violate our fundamental rights even the ones spelled out explicitly in the BOR.

How about instead of just relying on what politically connected lawyers who work for and are paid for by the government they rarely protect us from, we start reading the constitution and discussing the principles amongst ourselves and then demand the government live up to the principles they were founded upon, natural law and common law.

 

[eye95]

No. They are clearly violating the 4th and not the 3rd. The 4th is a general protection of one's privacy and property from governmental intrusion and, of course, applies in this case. The 3rd is a specific protection against a specific governmental intrusion that did not occur in this case. The 3rd does not apply.

Again, arguing that it does makes us look fringe. Arguing that the action was a violation of the 4th is the only one that is necessary. So why argue something that does not apply, thereby weakening the argument???

 

[sudden valley gunner]

No. They are clearly violating the 4th and not the 3rd. The 4th is a general protection of one's privacy and property from governmental intrusion and, of course, applies in this case. The 3rd is a specific protection against a specific governmental intrusion that did not occur in this case. The 3rd does not apply.

Again, arguing that it does makes us look fringe. Arguing that the action was a violation of the 4th is the only one that is necessary. So why argue something that does not apply, thereby weakening the argument???

Did I argue it did? Matter of fact I said in referring to the 3rd...." this case may not rise to that level"...

I am discussing the principles of the 3rd and not talking about this specific incident.

I don't shy from extreme or fringe thinking or expressions those are highly subjective terms often thrust upon those who are not conforming to the current status quo....Like Samuel Adams being called a traitor for dare suggesting they owed no allegiance to a king, how fringe!

 

[Grapeshot]

Think that eye95 and SVG are saying the same thing when it comes down to brass tacks = the 3rd does not apply.

The rest would seem to be semantics with a touch of personal.

 

[eye95]

I was specifically asked, "[H]ow can you say the 3rd doesn't apply?" That is a clear request for support for my position that it does not apply and an implication of disagreement with that position.

If I have gotten personal at all in that particular back-and-forth, do your job and deal with it officially. Otherwise all you are doing is trying to stir up trouble, the antithesis of what you are supposed to be doing here.

Moving on from your distraction and back to the topic at hand.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Think that eye95 and SVG are saying the same thing when it comes down to brass tacks = the 3rd does not apply.

The rest would seem to be semantics with a touch of personal.

I don't think so. I think that SVG is pointing out that EYE95 has said that the police are not civilians and do to that fact they must be a soldier of a type. Part of a standing military even if it is a local military hired and ran by the city/county/state.

Now I will point out that the police are often now issued military weapons, many police departments have at least one APC (I've even seen on at the Federal Way police department), they can use "tear gas," and other 'toys' that are denied to the common citizen. If the police are being issued special equipment that is being denied to the average citizen then I would say that they would classify as a military force.

Soldiers/militaryes are used for policing action on a global scale. Why would it not be natural to view the local police as the local standing military?

The police refer to regular citizens as civilians anyways.