Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

EUREKA SPRINGS — If you’re stopped for a moving traffic violation, does the officer have the right to search your vehicle without a warrant? Ask to look at your cell phone? Detain you for longer than 15 minutes?

Judge Kent Crow addressed those and other questions last week at a program on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, given to the local chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. What he finds fascinating about the amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure:

“It’s an absolute mess,” he said. “It has created more litigation than any other amendment.”

Crow, whose ancestors fought in the American Revolution, said the Fourth Amendment was a response to English writs of assistance, which gave the king’s men the right to enter a home and search it any time they wanted.

“We are a nation of thieves,” Crow said. “We were smugglers. We didn’t want to pay the king’s tax.”

What the Fourth Amendment prevents: officers from crossing the threshold of your home without a search warrant specifying what (or who) they are looking for, and where it is likely to be found. If they have a warrant to search your computer, for example, they cannot go through your bedroom drawers or open the refrigerator, he said.

If, however, officers knock on your door and ask to come in and you admit them, then they are free to search the house, he said, something people may not be aware of. There is also a “knock and announce” law, meaning that with a search warrant, they can enter the house after waiting a reasonable time for someone to answer the door. They can also enter your home if there are exigent circumstances, meaning immediate concerns of an emergency nature, for example, for the safety of a person inside.

Once you are served with a search warrant, officers will proceed to the area specified and search while you peruse the warrant, Crow said. If the search is improperly conducted, you can challenge the evidence in court.

Fourth Amendment rulings have had a hard time keeping up with changing technology, Crow said, which have opened up more ways “the king’s men” can cross your threshold. The general rule: If you are in a place where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, for example, in a fenced backyard surrounded by shrubs, the Fourth Amendment protects you from government entry or surveillance.

“The right of privacy keeps expanding,” he said.

Continue reading here:
Judge expounds on privacy rights

With his First Amendment challenge pending before the Florida Supreme Court, GOP political consultant Pat Bainter issued a rare statement calling out the court after oral arguments today in which he urged the court to keep secret his emails related to redistricting.

Bainter is now suggesting that the “institutional integrity of the court is at stake” in how they rule.

Here’s the statement:

Statement on behalf of Pat Bainter, president and owner of Data Targeting, Inc.

Todays Supreme Court hearing is the culmination of a legal assault and press sensationalism as to whether or not I, a private citizen, have the right to petition my government without fear of a political inquisition into my private matters. After today’s hearing, it is clear to me that, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, Amendments 5 & 6 are unconstitutional because they criminalize political speech based upon its content.One only need to read theAmendments to see that even its authors knewthey could not stifle a citizen’s free speech when they applied the Amendments only to the Legislature, the Amendment title reading Standards for the Legislature in redistricting.

The very institutional integrity of the Florida Supreme Court is at stake in this matter.

The Democratic Party has poured tens of millions of dollars into this legal assault. The Democrats have manipulated a more than willing legal system to coerce me by legal threat to reveal my private internal political opinions, analysis, expertise and even trade secrets, even though I am neither elected to office nor employed by the Legislature.

Continued here:
GOP consultant threatens court that its 'intrigity is at stake' over his case



Ben Shapiro/Piers Morgan Second Amendment Discussion
Piers Morgan and Ben Shapiro discuss the Second Amendment.

By: The Second Amendment

Read this article:
Ben Shapiro/Piers Morgan Second Amendment Discussion – Video



Fourth Amendment Project Mr.Alba Period 2
4th amendment project.

By: Ohdangjohn

Here is the original post:
Fourth Amendment Project Mr.Alba Period 2 – Video

You probably already knew this, but we have a pretty good idea of what our users are searching for. Sure, it’s a little creepy when Google knows your question before you even type it into the box. We don’t get that personal, but we do pay attention to frequently searched terms in order to better understand — and serve — your needs.

Since today is Constitution Day, we thought we’d share the Top 5 FindLaw.com search terms related to the U.S. Constitution. You’ll also find valuable resources for each topic listed below, but feel free to search for more:

1. “Gun Laws” (2nd Amendment) — Regardless of your personal beliefs, we can all agree that an epidemic of gun-related tragedies has kept this issue on the front burner of our collective conscience. Although the right to bear arms is a federal guarantee, many state laws provide varying restrictions on gun ownership and use. You can learn more about these laws here:

2. “Miranda Rights” (5th Amendment and 6th Amendment) — Nearly every crime show on TV will have an utterance of the words, “You have the right to remain silent…” Those are referred to as our Miranda rights, named for the U.S. Supreme Court case (Miranda v. Arizona) that requires police to inform arrestees of their constitutional rights. Check out these resources to learn more:

3. “Supreme Court Cases” — The U.S. Supreme Court is where the constitutionality of laws is tested. Quite a few of our users simply typed “Supreme Court cases” into the search box, but there’s a much easier way to find High Court opinions, news, and analysis of both recent and historical cases:

4. “Search and Seizure” (4th Amendment) — Few constitutional provisions have been challenged and clarified as often as the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure by the police. Searches and seizures have a broad impact on criminal rights and procedures, such as the admissibility of evidence and the legality of arrests.

5. “Due Process” (5th Amendment and 14th Amendment) — To honor “due process” is to follow the proper course of formal legal proceedings, carried out consistently, fairly, and in line with current laws and regulations. While the Fifth Amendment prohibits the arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections to all U.S. citizens under all jurisdictions within the country.

It’s hard to believe that a document signed exactly 227 years ago today is not only still valid, but continues to serve as the cornerstone of this great experiment we call the United States of America. FindLaw may not have been around as long as the U.S. Constitution, but we’re always here to serve you.

Read more here:
Top 5 Constitution-Related Searches at FindLaw.com

Topeka U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts last week voted against a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit campaign expenditures by corporations. But Greg Orman, his independent challenger in this year’s election, said he would support such an amendment.

Roberts was among 42 Republican senators who voted Thursday against closing debate on Senate Joint Resolution 19, a constitutional amendment that would reverse the U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as “Citizens United.”

The court said in that case that limits on independent expenditures by corporations and other groups violate their First Amendment rights to free speech.

Our founding fathers knew that those in power would be inclined to retain it and, unless constrained, would use their power to punish those who would seek to challenge them or remove them from office, Roberts said in a speech to the Senate Sept. 8. The First Amendment denies us that power. It explicitly prohibits this Congress from passing laws that restrict the speech of the American people. With this amendment, the majority wants to try to remove that prohibition. They want to grant themselves the power to control speech to silence their opposition.

Orman, however, said he would support such an amendment as part of a broader package of campaign finance reform measures, including stricter limits on contributions from political action committees.

Current campaign finance laws are a perfect example of how both parties are focused on their personal or partisan benefit instead of the American public, Orman said in a statement released Monday. The lack of transparency allowed under Citizens United benefits Washingtons broken system at the expense of an informed electorate, and even more alarming is that the decision opens up the door for significant foreign influence in U.S. elections because donations can be made through any U.S. corporation.

The Citizens United case involved a conservative political group that wanted to air a film during the 2008 election cycle that was critical of Hillary Clinton, who was then a U.S. senator from New York seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. The group also sought to buy advertising time to promote the movie, and to distribute it through video-on-demand cable services.

But the Federal Election Commission said that would have violated the campaign finance law in place at the time, a law known as the McCain-Feingold Act which prohibited corporations and labor unions from making direct or independent expenditures in support or opposition to identifiable candidates.

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the FEC, in favor of Citizens United, saying among other things that corporations are protected by the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

The vote to end debate on the amendment failed on a straight party-line vote: 54 Democrats voted yes, while 42 Republicans, including both senators from Kansas, voted no. Three Republicans and one Democrat did not vote.

See original here:
Senate candidates differ on overturning Citizens United ruling

Sep 152014



Fifth Amendment
Goss vs Lopez.

By: Dulcebee101

See more here:
Fifth Amendment – Video



Jane Dueker Rants About Inability to Limit Second Amendment “after this G-d damn bill.” (Audio)
Democrat Jane Dueker loses control of her vocabulary on live radio in St. Louis during a rant about her inability to limit Missourian's Second Amendment righ…

By: Duane Lester

See original here:
Jane Dueker Rants About Inability to Limit Second Amendment "after this G-d damn bill." (Audio) – Video

Since Barry Goldwater, in accepting the Republicans 1964 presidential nomination, said, Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Democrats have been decrying Republican extremism. Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in U.S. politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitutions architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done: Amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political classs convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment, as the First Congress passed it and the states ratified it more than 200 years ago, says: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as people seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats amendment says: Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections, and may prohibit corporations including nonprofit issue-advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money to influence elections, which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed reasonable will surely serve incumbents interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this improvement of James Madisons First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendments most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That, by aiming to equalize the political influence of people and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision, joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a dangerous intrusion on free speech. And that no Fortune 100 corporation appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles.

There are not the 67 Democratic senators and 290 Democratic representatives necessary to send this amendment to the states for ratification. The mere proposing of it, however, has usefully revealed the senators who are eager to regulate speech about themselves:

Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (Md.), Thomas Carper (Del.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Christopher Coons (Del.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Al Franken (Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Angus King (Maine), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernard Sanders (Vt.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Udall (Colo.), John Walsh (Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Ron Wyden (Ore.).

The italicized names are of senators on the ballot this November. But all 48 Senate co-sponsors are American rarities real extremists.

The rest is here:
Will: George Will: Senate Democrats extremism on display

SINCE Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans 1964 presidential nomination, said extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Democrats have been decrying Republican extremism. Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitutions architecture of ordered liberty is rare. Last week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment as the First Congress passed it, and the states ratified it 223 years ago, says: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as persons seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats amendment says: Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections, and may prohibit corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money to influence elections, which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed reasonable will surely serve incumbents interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this improvement of James Madisons First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendments most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a dangerous intrusion on free speech. And that no Fortune 100 corporation appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles.

There are not the 67 Democratic senators and 290 Democratic representatives necessary to send this amendment to the states for ratification. The mere proposing of it, however, has usefully revealed the senators who are eager to regulate speech about themselves:

Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (Md.), Thomas Carper (Del.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Christopher Coons (Del.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Al Franken (Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Angus King (Maine), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernard Sanders (Vt.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Udall (Colo.), John Walsh (Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Ron Wyden (Ore.).

The italicized names are of senators on the ballot this November. But all 48 Senate co-sponsors are American rarities real extremists.

Read more from the original source:
George Will Eviscerating the 1st Amendment is extremism



First Amendment and Patriot Act

By: PATRIOT_Act

View post:
First Amendment and Patriot Act – Video



Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday This Weekend in Mississippi
Outdoors enthusiasts can see a sales tax break on hunting items this weekend, Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said while visiting Van's Sporting Goods today. The state'…

By: Tate Reeves

Originally posted here:
Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday This Weekend in Mississippi – Video

Sep 062014



First Amendment Quiz
Kent State students are tested on their knowledge of the First Amendment and The Simpsons. Which do they know better?

By: Housten Hale

Link:
First Amendment Quiz – Video



US History First Amendment Project:Tanner Bassett

By: OffiCial Tba5t

Original post:
US History First Amendment Project:Tanner Bassett – Video

In the upcoming general election, voters will have many important decisions to make, one of which might make it easier to prosecute sex offenders.

The action, Missouri Evidence in Sexual Crimes Against Minors or Amendment 2, would allow prosecutors who are trying a case against an alleged child sex offender to use relevant past criminal activity as evidence against the defendants.

This means that if an alleged sex offender had been accused, but not found guilty, of a past crime, a prosecutor could still introduce the record of that accusation to the court as evidence against the defendant under Amendment 2.

The amendment has been seen as controversial, as it might make it easier to reach a guilty verdict in those types of cases.

Due to some Supreme Court decisions, prosecuting attorneys were unable to try many cases of child sexual abuse in our state, Rep. John McCaherty, R-Mo., said. As a member of the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee, I see the amendment as a positive step to give prosecutors the tools they need to protect our children, and to see those that prey on them prosecuted. There has been no opposition to this legislation, and I was proud to sponsor it.

McCaherty is the primary sponsor of the amendment, which recently received approval from the Missouri House of Representatives to be placed on the ballot in November.

McCaherty said he felt the bill would address an important gap in Missouris justice system, giving prosecutors a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders.

He said there should be no violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which forbids double jeopardy, secures the right to a grand jury and protects against self-incrimination, or the Sixth Amendment, which includes the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the rights to a lawyer and an impartial jury and the right to know who your accusers are.

Of course there have to be safeguards in place as well, so a defendant can receive a fair trial, McCaherty said. Not all evidence is relevant to every trial. This is the responsibility of the judge to determine the relevance in each case.

The amendment has gained local attention and a Protect Missouri Children Committee formed to support the measure. The group believes that the amendment will protect children and aid in putting dangerous criminals behind bars.

Read the rest here:
New bill a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders



Blue Dot Safes Second Amendment FireResistant Handgun Safe 30x20x20Inch
For more revws please chck amzo.om http://is.gd/h62y0b Blue Dot Safes Second Amendment FireResistant Handgun Safe 30x20x20Inch The Second Amendment GS3…

By: cyril lawton

Read more:
Blue Dot Safes Second Amendment FireResistant Handgun Safe 30x20x20Inch – Video



Blue Dot Safes Second Amendment FireResistant Gun Safe 72x40x27Inch
For more revws please chck amzo.om http://is.gd/emKkJk Blue Dot Safes Second Amendment FireResistant Gun Safe 72x40x27Inch The Second Amendment Gun Saf…

By: porter fischer

See more here:
Blue Dot Safes Second Amendment FireResistant Gun Safe 72x40x27Inch – Video



D.C. Asks Federal Court to Erase Second Amendment Opinion Recognizing Right to Carry
D.C. Asks Federal Court to Erase Second Amendment Opinion Recognizing Right to Carry.

By: Jinal10121

Read this article:
D.C. Asks Federal Court to Erase Second Amendment Opinion Recognizing Right to Carry – Video



First Amendment: Speech and Press
via YouTube Capture.

By: lavan gray

Original post:
First Amendment: Speech and Press – Video



First Amendment Win SCOTUS 'Liars' Can Sue States Banning Speech Judge Andrew Napolitano F F
First Amendment Win SCOTUS 'Liars' Can Sue States Banning Speech Judge Andrew Napolitano F F First Amendment Win SCOTUS 'Liars' Can Sue States Banning Speech…

By: Breaking News

Read this article:
First Amendment Win SCOTUS ‘Liars’ Can Sue States Banning Speech Judge Andrew Napolitano F&F – Video



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com