5 ms·

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

by AvAn12 11mo ago

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Ice can say what they want. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land here. Oh yeah, and facial recognition does not work to anything like this degree of accuracy, and probably never can. Nice try.

fragmede 11mo ago
The supreme court interprets the laws, including the constitution, and they've decided that being brown is sufficient reasonability.
- estearum 11mo ago
  Nope they didn't decide that. It's actually even worse! A lot of Americans have the impression that SCOTUS keeps deciding in the administration's favor, but this is not true. SCOTUS is saying: "We're not going to hear this case right now, but we likely will in the future. In the meantime, we are going to overturn the lower court who did actually hear the case and allow the administration to continue its actions. No, we will not explain we think the lower court got wrong." Increasingly these SCOTUS orders totally unexplained which is a blatant violation of their judicial obligations, and they are frequently unsigned by the majority (conservative) Justices. Presumably because they don't want their names written on papers that they know will be understood by future generations to be totally indefensible. SCOTUS has proven itself functionally incapable of fulfilling its Constitutional duties and has proven that we need a lot more Justices. If you don't have the time to hear the cases we need you to hear, then the court needs to be scaled up and we can pick random panels to hear different cases. Nothing to do with policy disagreements (how would any American even know if they had a policy disagreement with an unexplained, unsigned SCOTUS order?) – we just need courts that can decide on things that are important to our country.
- potato3732842 11mo ago
  Frankly it's a miracle it took this long to be a problem IMO. The supreme court over the years has watered down constitutional protections against government enforcement upon individuals massively because doing so was necessary to empower the government to enforce speeding tickets, financial regulation, environmental regulation, chase bootleggers, etc, etc, with it's power only constrained in practice by political optics. So now here we are, in a situation where the government is doing what it always does, levying what's essentially a criminal punishment (incarceration in this case, typically fines historically) in a case where allegedly no crime has been committed, and then give the accused only kangaroo court administrative process because it's not a crime, but now it's doing it at scale, flagrantly, loudly and against the political will of some of the locations it's doing it in. There are a lot of bricks in this road to hell and someone somewhere was issuing a warning as each one was laid. Should have listened.
  - estearum 11mo ago
    What are you talking about? This was a problem in 2012 and SCOTUS ruled unambiguously in Arizona vs United States that we cannot stop people based solely on their outward "apparent" immigration status. In SCOTUS's own words, "the usual predicate for an arrest is absent" and being merely "suspected of being removable... does not authorize an arrest." "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984). If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent. When an alien is suspected of being removable, a federal official issues an administrative document called a Notice to Appear. See 8 U. S. C. §1229(a); 8 CFR §239.1(a) (2012). The form does not authorize an arrest." This is a MAGA and Heritage Foundation-driven reversal of VERY recently settled law. Absolutely not business as usual. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/387/#tab-opinion-1970515 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/387/#tab-opi...
    - potato3732842 11mo ago
      I'm not even debating the legality of the stop. It doesn't matter. Whether or not the stop is legit the whole system from there on is a kangaroo court rife with rights violations as well. That's the real problem here. Hair splitting over the specific reason for a stop is a distraction. Even if you fix it it won't change much. Whether or not they can make the stop doesn't really matter. They'll find other ways to force people to produce their papers.
V__ 11mo ago
A constitution is a worthless piece of paper if it is not enforced. I'm about 50/50 right now if the midterms can safe the U.S., so far it doesn't look good.
- lisbbb 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Der_Einzige 11mo ago
    Never trust anything with a 3 letter acronym.
- sigwinch 11mo ago
  To be more specific, ICE will be scanning the lines to vote, and pulling people out. In some states, poll watchers will be there to say, “no, you don’t have to go with them”. In other states, poll watchers will also be scanning.
hiddencost 11mo ago
IDK if you missed the last 10 months but the constitution is dead and buried.
- AvAn12 11mo ago
  It is neither dead nor burned.
maleldil 11mo ago
Trump Claims He Can Overrule Constitution With Executive Order Because Of Little-Known ‘No One Will Stop Me’ Loophole https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constitution-with-executiv-1830106306/ https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constituti...
henry2023 11mo ago
Monarchy doesn’t need a constitution.
- AvAn12 11mo ago
  Manga Carta - king governs by the consent of the governed. King != tyrant or dictator.
anigbrowl 11mo ago
Gaming this out theoretically and actually being seized and put into a detention facility where you're not allowed to call anyone including a lawyer are two different things.
- SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
  It's not just gaming it out theoretically! It's important to keep in mind that it's not just a policy dispute - everyone involved in this is violating the law, and when constitutional government is restored they can and should go to prison for it. (If you find yourself working for ICE, even indirectly, I'd encourage you to keep that in mind!)
  - solid_fuel 11mo ago
    > when constitutional government is restored they can and should go to prison for it. I completely agree but fear the democrats will be too spineless to do anything like this. A radical change in the democrat party is needed - they should be promising to pack the supreme court and prosecute 3/4s of this administrations officials, at a minimum.
    - AvAn12 11mo ago
      Why only democrats? Why should American citizens who identify with the Republican Party tolerate destruction of constitutional order? If the constitution goes, it won’t matter what party you prefer - everyone is at risk.
      - SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
        The modern Republican Party stands for the destruction of the constitutional order. Liz Cheney was publicly purged for not being willing to go along with it. As a number of Bush-era constitutional conservatives have realized, an American citizen who won’t tolerate the destruction of the constitutional order cannot identify with the Republican Party.
    - 11mo ago
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
joquarky 11mo ago
> The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land here. The light turns green. You go blindly. Get maimed in an accident. "But the light was green!"
- AvAn12 11mo ago
  The only reason we have come this far is because we have a system of laws that rests on constitutional order. And policy, cultural, and commercial norms of respecting and preserving that order. We did not get here blindly - though we can lose it if people blindly forget that we are part of a bigger society.
crote 11mo ago
> Ice can say what they want. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land here. You roll a persuasion check: it's a 1 - it failed. Your argument of "you can't do this, the Constitution says nu-uh" failed. "Fuck the constitution", the masked ICE officer yells at you. "civil rights are for real American citizens, not for your kind." He spits in your face. The two masked goons holding you start to drag you towards their unmarked van. You struggle a bit. The officer stashes away his Scanning Smartphone and puts his hand on his sidearm. What is your next move?
- AvAn12 11mo ago
  You make a good argument that nobody needs to follow any laws any more. By your argument, it’s all about brute force. Ice has it now, but anyone can later. Is that the world you want? Or, would you prefer a society of laws after all?

by AvAn12 11mo ago

fragmede 11mo ago

The supreme court interprets the laws, including the constitution, and they've decided that being brown is sufficient reasonability.

estearum 11mo ago
Nope they didn't decide that. It's actually even worse! A lot of Americans have the impression that SCOTUS keeps deciding in the administration's favor, but this is not true. SCOTUS is saying: "We're not going to hear this case right now, but we likely will in the future. In the meantime, we are going to overturn the lower court who did actually hear the case and allow the administration to continue its actions. No, we will not explain we think the lower court got wrong." Increasingly these SCOTUS orders totally unexplained which is a blatant violation of their judicial obligations, and they are frequently unsigned by the majority (conservative) Justices. Presumably because they don't want their names written on papers that they know will be understood by future generations to be totally indefensible. SCOTUS has proven itself functionally incapable of fulfilling its Constitutional duties and has proven that we need a lot more Justices. If you don't have the time to hear the cases we need you to hear, then the court needs to be scaled up and we can pick random panels to hear different cases. Nothing to do with policy disagreements (how would any American even know if they had a policy disagreement with an unexplained, unsigned SCOTUS order?) – we just need courts that can decide on things that are important to our country.
potato3732842 11mo ago
Frankly it's a miracle it took this long to be a problem IMO. The supreme court over the years has watered down constitutional protections against government enforcement upon individuals massively because doing so was necessary to empower the government to enforce speeding tickets, financial regulation, environmental regulation, chase bootleggers, etc, etc, with it's power only constrained in practice by political optics. So now here we are, in a situation where the government is doing what it always does, levying what's essentially a criminal punishment (incarceration in this case, typically fines historically) in a case where allegedly no crime has been committed, and then give the accused only kangaroo court administrative process because it's not a crime, but now it's doing it at scale, flagrantly, loudly and against the political will of some of the locations it's doing it in. There are a lot of bricks in this road to hell and someone somewhere was issuing a warning as each one was laid. Should have listened.
- estearum 11mo ago
  What are you talking about? This was a problem in 2012 and SCOTUS ruled unambiguously in Arizona vs United States that we cannot stop people based solely on their outward "apparent" immigration status. In SCOTUS's own words, "the usual predicate for an arrest is absent" and being merely "suspected of being removable... does not authorize an arrest." "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984). If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent. When an alien is suspected of being removable, a federal official issues an administrative document called a Notice to Appear. See 8 U. S. C. §1229(a); 8 CFR §239.1(a) (2012). The form does not authorize an arrest." This is a MAGA and Heritage Foundation-driven reversal of VERY recently settled law. Absolutely not business as usual. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/387/#tab-opinion-1970515 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/387/#tab-opi...
  - potato3732842 11mo ago
    I'm not even debating the legality of the stop. It doesn't matter. Whether or not the stop is legit the whole system from there on is a kangaroo court rife with rights violations as well. That's the real problem here. Hair splitting over the specific reason for a stop is a distraction. Even if you fix it it won't change much. Whether or not they can make the stop doesn't really matter. They'll find other ways to force people to produce their papers.

V__ 11mo ago

A constitution is a worthless piece of paper if it is not enforced. I'm about 50/50 right now if the midterms can safe the U.S., so far it doesn't look good.

lisbbb 11mo ago
[flagged]
- Der_Einzige 11mo ago
  Never trust anything with a 3 letter acronym.
sigwinch 11mo ago
To be more specific, ICE will be scanning the lines to vote, and pulling people out. In some states, poll watchers will be there to say, “no, you don’t have to go with them”. In other states, poll watchers will also be scanning.

hiddencost 11mo ago

IDK if you missed the last 10 months but the constitution is dead and buried.

AvAn12 11mo ago
It is neither dead nor burned.

maleldil 11mo ago

Trump Claims He Can Overrule Constitution With Executive Order Because Of Little-Known ‘No One Will Stop Me’ Loophole https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constitution-with-executiv-1830106306/ https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constituti...

henry2023 11mo ago

Monarchy doesn’t need a constitution.

AvAn12 11mo ago
Manga Carta - king governs by the consent of the governed. King != tyrant or dictator.

anigbrowl 11mo ago

Gaming this out theoretically and actually being seized and put into a detention facility where you're not allowed to call anyone including a lawyer are two different things.

SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
It's not just gaming it out theoretically! It's important to keep in mind that it's not just a policy dispute - everyone involved in this is violating the law, and when constitutional government is restored they can and should go to prison for it. (If you find yourself working for ICE, even indirectly, I'd encourage you to keep that in mind!)
- solid_fuel 11mo ago
  > when constitutional government is restored they can and should go to prison for it. I completely agree but fear the democrats will be too spineless to do anything like this. A radical change in the democrat party is needed - they should be promising to pack the supreme court and prosecute 3/4s of this administrations officials, at a minimum.
  - AvAn12 11mo ago
    Why only democrats? Why should American citizens who identify with the Republican Party tolerate destruction of constitutional order? If the constitution goes, it won’t matter what party you prefer - everyone is at risk.
    - SpicyLemonZest 11mo ago
      The modern Republican Party stands for the destruction of the constitutional order. Liz Cheney was publicly purged for not being willing to go along with it. As a number of Bush-era constitutional conservatives have realized, an American citizen who won’t tolerate the destruction of the constitutional order cannot identify with the Republican Party.
  - 11mo ago

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

joquarky 11mo ago

> The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land here. The light turns green. You go blindly. Get maimed in an accident. "But the light was green!"

AvAn12 11mo ago
The only reason we have come this far is because we have a system of laws that rests on constitutional order. And policy, cultural, and commercial norms of respecting and preserving that order. We did not get here blindly - though we can lose it if people blindly forget that we are part of a bigger society.

crote 11mo ago

> Ice can say what they want. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land here. You roll a persuasion check: it's a 1 - it failed. Your argument of "you can't do this, the Constitution says nu-uh" failed. "Fuck the constitution", the masked ICE officer yells at you. "civil rights are for real American citizens, not for your kind." He spits in your face. The two masked goons holding you start to drag you towards their unmarked van. You struggle a bit. The officer stashes away his Scanning Smartphone and puts his hand on his sidearm. What is your next move?

AvAn12 11mo ago
You make a good argument that nobody needs to follow any laws any more. By your argument, it’s all about brute force. Ice has it now, but anyone can later. Is that the world you want? Or, would you prefer a society of laws after all?