It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I've noticed a lot of misconceptions about the law on this board

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

The field of Constitutional law is very case law intensive. The constitution is a very brief document, and courts look to the case law to apply it to numerous situations. For example, the 4th amendment protects people against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Well what exactly is an unreasonable search and seizure? Can cops search your car bumper to bumper if they pull you over for a traffic violation? Can cops use infra-red cameras to look into your house without a warrant? You cannot answer these questions by looking to the text of the 4th amendment itself, but the case law provides answers to these questions.




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


Yes, case law and the ever abhorrent precedent that infuriates me.

Do you know why now a drunk driver can be forced to get a blood test if they refuse the breathalyzer? In California a murder case involved some dna evidence and the courts decided that the person cannot refuse a dna.

Boom, precedent set and now the gov can compel anyone for any type of bodily fluid for pretty much anything.

There went the Constitutional protection against self incrimination.

There are a lot of case law or precedent that has destroyed Constitutional protections.

And to those of you out there that may disagree with what some people state, when they say something is un Constitutional, yet it is the rule of the color of law so to speak, something can be un Constitutional and still be the rule of the day.

That just goes to prove to you that our country no longer operates as it was meant to. Maybe this class would open your eyes to why there is such a huge movement of sovereign citizens.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Not really. A drivers licence is a privilege not a right. By getting a drivers licence you agree to submit a drug and or alcohol test, in some states you can refuse the tests but there are other penalties for doing so.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

The field of Constitutional law is very case law intensive...


And therein lies the problem. "Case law" is merely the opinions of fallible human beings, with their own ideologies and, dare I say, agendas. What is deemed "case law" today, can be found in the waste basket tomorrow.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Okay, here are the cases for our first lesson. U2U me if you are interested and I will pick a meeting time sometime next week in the early evening pacific time. I am partial to Wednesdays.

US v. Darby

Briefly skim Katzenbach v. McLung

US v. Lopez

Gonzales v. Raich

Keep in mind reading a case can be dense. You are not going to really understand a case by a cursory reading. Law students (are supposed to at least) brief a case. Briefing in case is not just succinctly summarizing a case but involves an analytical process. To brief a case, you should (1) identify the relevant facts (2) determine what the legal questions presented are (3) determine the court's answers to the legal questions and (4) determine what the court's rationale for its answer is.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


You are correct in that courts reverse themselves all the time. Sometimes case law goes to the rubbish bin because the statutes or Constitutional provisions that form the basis of the case law change.

Our common law system follows case law (or follows stare decisis for your Latin buffs out there) for two reasons. First, it seems fair to treat similarly situated individuals similarly. Second, following legal precedents creates more certainty in the law.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by The Undertaker
 


I am not much of a criminal law expert, so I could not tell you much about the finer points of conspiracy law off the top of my head.

Generally, most crimes involve (1) a culpable mental state (what the law calls a mens rea or evil mind) and (2) some act. A culpable mental state can be one acting intentionally, recklessly, knowingly, or negligently. An act can involve taking something, hitting someone, killing someone, or agreeing to commit a crime.

Conspiracy crimes involve (1) an intent to enter a conspiracy and (2) an agreement with one other person to commit a crime. Let us say I really want to rob a bank with someone. I have not committed a conspiracy unless I go up to someone and make an agreement with them to rob a bank.

Let us say I jokingly say to someone "Let's rob a bank" and they jokingly say "okay let's do it." Even though we exchanged words stating we were agreeing to rob a bank, there is no conspiracy because we did not intend to rob a bank.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


Yes, I understand the contractual agreement on driver's licensing. But no contract would allow LEO's to force you to give blood. This has to do with aquiring evidence.

I had read the case law a few years back on it. The California case allowed any future seizure of evidence if there is a...............reasonable suspicion or some such thing. I am going by memory. If you do not believe my recollection I will do some research to prove it.

Also, most Driver's Licensing now states that if you refuse you have then automatically agreed to a worse charge of refusal to comply which is even worse then a DWI, and of course then you are found guilty of DWI plus the add on charge of refusal.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Oh goody! My favorite subject...law. I take my LSAT test next month. Thanks for the advise in U2U's hotpink (BTW I am getting 8 out of 10 questions right on the LSAT official practice tests...apparently that is a good score?).

Anyway, I would love to partake in discussions of this nature. I'll take a look at your cases. Right now I have to write a paper on forced drug testing and issues that are relevant to that topic. I'll be back though. I am not sure that I can participant on a set day but will check back throughout the week.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


You are referring to a "Terry Stop?"



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Conspiracy crimes involve (1) an intent to enter a conspiracy and (2) an agreement with one other person to commit a crime. Let us say I really want to rob a bank with someone. I have not committed a conspiracy unless I go up to someone and make an agreement with them to rob a bank.


The last, necessary element, for someone to be charged with "Conspiracy to Commit...." is an overt act.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Not really. A drivers licence is a privilege not a right. By getting a drivers licence you agree to submit a drug and or alcohol test, in some states you can refuse the tests but there are other penalties for doing so.


I absolutely love the specificity of language you used when posting this. I am one who is in absolute and vehement disagreement with the DMV's that assert that driving is a privilege and not a right. However, when reading your comment, there is nothing but truth to that. Yep. A drivers license is indeed a privilege and not a right. So very interesting.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
[off-topic, hope you don't mind]


I would like to hear your legal opinion on this:


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Would ATS consider a lawsuit against the ADL if they do not retract or fix the report to reflect the proper information in context, without slanderous remarks?

We have already discussed it, and the answer is yes.



From this thread by SkepticOverlord. Seems, to this layman, that there's no there there with respect to a lawsuit. But, ATS has a legal team that deals with these sort of issues and SkepticOverlord has been around the e-block a time or two himself so maybe I'm missing something.


Regards.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
So actually in your capacity as a lawyer you can actually cause laws to be reversed. Now the reason why I say that is because I've talked to a judge before and this judge pretty much said almost verbatim "it doesn't really matter what the law is, it's which ever side can convince me that they are right."

Which would go back to the points being made about how case law changes all the time.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Light of Night
So actually in your capacity as a lawyer you can actually cause laws to be reversed. Now the reason why I say that is because I've talked to a judge before and this judge pretty much said almost verbatim "it doesn't really matter what the law is, it's which ever side can convince me that they are right."

Which would go back to the points being made about how case law changes all the time.


There is a short document written by Frederic Bastiat called The Law that has profoundly influenced my life. I am paraphrasing him dramatically, as I often do, but he was the man who taught me that legislation is not law, but merely evidence of law. If it is law it is self evident and need no explanation.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Good luck on my LSAT. You are welcome to the class, just remember to forget everything you learn here because your Con Law professor will probably think it is rubbish!

Now, Alice, Bob, Charles, Diane, Edward, and Fred go out to dinner. Alice is a vegetarian. Edward orders a pasta dish. Fred orders Seafood. Charles and Diane share a dish. Who ordered the lobster?...You have 2 minutes to figure this one out.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I believe you are referring to the increase in LE utilizing the "Evidentiary Search Warrant", to obtain blood evidence, in DWI cases.

I'm glad I'm no longer in LE, as this would have been cause for me to be fired, for refusing to participate in this tactic.

While I recognize the problem of DWIs, I feel this is a complete bastardization of the intent of "Evidentiary Search Warrants". I, fully, expect this will become a Supreme Court issue, in the near future.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Light of Night
So actually in your capacity as a lawyer you can actually cause laws to be reversed. Now the reason why I say that is because I've talked to a judge before and this judge pretty much said almost verbatim "it doesn't really matter what the law is, it's which ever side can convince me that they are right."

Which would go back to the points being made about how case law changes all the time.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that is why there are courts of appeal



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 




Also, most Driver's Licensing now states that if you refuse you have then automatically agreed to a worse charge of refusal to comply which is even worse then a DWI, and of course then you are found guilty of DWI plus the add on charge of refusal.


And those are the facts, dont like it? take the bus. But it is really one of those things if you are not drunk there is no reason not to take the breathalizer, if you think the blow test is wrong you can request the blood test.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by manta78
 


You are correct, and that is also why sometimes precedents are over turned.

 


@hotpinkurinalmint

I have a question for you, how about the case that is now going to a higher court about banning violent video games for kids of a certain age. The lower court ruled that it violated kids constitutional rights.

What is your opinion on this?



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join