http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Politics/Privacy/Roadblocks Not sure what to make of it, just passing the URL along...
Was searching for Ithaca 37 info and found this article about roadblocks
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
- Status
Don't these people care? I know we are only hearing one side of the story but if the writer is correct, we will be reading about police road blocks like discribed being taken out.
I am not urging that such an event take place but the under current I feel from talking to people that many are getting fed up with Big Bother and don't feel that the ballot box is working.
------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
I am not urging that such an event take place but the under current I feel from talking to people that many are getting fed up with Big Bother and don't feel that the ballot box is working.
------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
I've read this somewhere before. And people are going to start getting tired of it? Hey- LEO got blown out of his skivvies here in Tx a few weeks ago. Right near where I work. Aint no 'start' to it-they're tired of it.
I aint sayin go around shooting LEO's but the guys doing this illegal roadblocks and taxes and laws better get a clue. I'm seeing more anger and rumble in the crowds lately.
I aint sayin go around shooting LEO's but the guys doing this illegal roadblocks and taxes and laws better get a clue. I'm seeing more anger and rumble in the crowds lately.
Very interesting article. How can it possibly be constitutional to stop EVERYONE on an arbitrarily determined stretch of road with no probable cause? I just don't understand, but call me logical-- how did the court decision go anyway-- if you violate everyones rights equally, it cancels out and no ones' rights are violated??
I've been stopped at "ID Roadblocks" at least four times in the last thirty years, in New York, Ohio, Virginia and South Carolina. In all cases, the police asked for drivers license and automotive registration, were very courteous, promptly thanked me and then sent me on my way.
The legal authority for this is simple: law enforcement has the right to stop drivers and request documentation, check for obvious drunkenness, etc. -- without probable cause -- as long as it does so "fairly". Thus, 100 percent checks are legal as are random checks (for example, every tenth car). Some of you may remember random gate checks at military installations to uncover contraband and stolen property.
Within the last couple years I've witnessed the North Carolina State Police stopping cars randomly at an exit on I-85 to check for drugs and the Fairfax County (Virginia) Police having 100 percent check for drunk drivers around the holidays.
Driving on public roads is a privilege. No one is required to do so. If you opt to drive, you give up some rights you have in your home (for one example).
The legal authority for this is simple: law enforcement has the right to stop drivers and request documentation, check for obvious drunkenness, etc. -- without probable cause -- as long as it does so "fairly". Thus, 100 percent checks are legal as are random checks (for example, every tenth car). Some of you may remember random gate checks at military installations to uncover contraband and stolen property.
Within the last couple years I've witnessed the North Carolina State Police stopping cars randomly at an exit on I-85 to check for drugs and the Fairfax County (Virginia) Police having 100 percent check for drunk drivers around the holidays.
Driving on public roads is a privilege. No one is required to do so. If you opt to drive, you give up some rights you have in your home (for one example).
Interesting write-up. Sad thing is that it is going on all over. Sadder is that it isn't even necessarily in the name of the WoDs or for the "chirrun" or DUIs - not necessarily.
I think it is for conditioning the sheep so they'll just get used to it.
A sadder aspect is the "I own you"/"I will control the situation" approach soley because they are in authority and can. High-handed indeed.
Any stop w/o PC is a violation of rights, IMHO. Any extras thrown in just because you were (perhaps) a bit late on that yellow light, is equally a violation.
I've mentioned it in a counter to a local LEO who was upset that we had the "dear officer" letter (& I agree, not that good a letter) on our website, but nonetheless - my counter was that you guys (LEOs) are being placed into a situation that you do not want to be in. Your bosses & the politicos are setting you up.
It won't be them that takes it on the chin - it'll be you & us. Saddest thing is that there even is a "you & us" mentality. Quite personally - I didn't start it. Your bosses did & you're buying into it.
As pointed out by the URL's author, any scene such as this is absolutely ripe for any pickings any bad guy wants to cash in on.
From my own past anti-terrorist/hostage rescue experience/training, I can't help but wonder, from a "how could it be defended" perspective re on a roadblock, etc. ... answer is is that it cannot be without massive support akin to a full-blown military operation.
Ripe for the picking indeed.
& I'm not even one who's even considering anything along these lines, it's just the way my mind works as I used to do it & quite frankly bailed because I couldn't any longer stomach violating peoples' rights in the name of some "higher good" (read that "conditioning").
Many out there have no such scrupples as do I and most in here.
Can't help but wonder how long before this type stuff just starts to blow up.
I think it is for conditioning the sheep so they'll just get used to it.
A sadder aspect is the "I own you"/"I will control the situation" approach soley because they are in authority and can. High-handed indeed.
Any stop w/o PC is a violation of rights, IMHO. Any extras thrown in just because you were (perhaps) a bit late on that yellow light, is equally a violation.
I've mentioned it in a counter to a local LEO who was upset that we had the "dear officer" letter (& I agree, not that good a letter) on our website, but nonetheless - my counter was that you guys (LEOs) are being placed into a situation that you do not want to be in. Your bosses & the politicos are setting you up.
It won't be them that takes it on the chin - it'll be you & us. Saddest thing is that there even is a "you & us" mentality. Quite personally - I didn't start it. Your bosses did & you're buying into it.
As pointed out by the URL's author, any scene such as this is absolutely ripe for any pickings any bad guy wants to cash in on.
From my own past anti-terrorist/hostage rescue experience/training, I can't help but wonder, from a "how could it be defended" perspective re on a roadblock, etc. ... answer is is that it cannot be without massive support akin to a full-blown military operation.
Ripe for the picking indeed.
& I'm not even one who's even considering anything along these lines, it's just the way my mind works as I used to do it & quite frankly bailed because I couldn't any longer stomach violating peoples' rights in the name of some "higher good" (read that "conditioning").
Many out there have no such scrupples as do I and most in here.
Can't help but wonder how long before this type stuff just starts to blow up.
The US Supreme Court has upheld so-called sobriety checkpoints, but with language which suggests that anything beyond a cursory stop of a vehicle must be based on some individualized showing of probable cause. I've quoted a 1990 opinion of CJ Rehnquist which upholds checkpoints generally. The whole idea of using checkpoints grew out of a totally gratuitous suggestion by Rehnquist in an earlier case involving an alleged racial profiling stop, based on absolutely no showing of probable cause. The harm of such arbitrary stops would be avoided -- Rehnquist opined -- if everybody was stopped without discrimination. So much for strict construction.
Anyway, here's the damn quote:
"Petitioners concede, correctly in our view, that a Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. Tr. of Oral Arg. 11; see Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 556, 96 S.Ct., at 3082 ("It is agreed that checkpoint stops are 'seizures' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment"); Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 597, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 1381, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989) (Fourth Amendment seizure occurs "when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied " (emphasis in original)). The question thus becomes whether such seizures are "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment.
It is important to recognize what our inquiry is not about. No allegations are before us of unreasonable treatment of any person after an actual detention at a particular checkpoint. See Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S., at 559, 96 S.Ct., at 3083 ("[C]laim that a particular exercise of discretion in locating or operating a checkpoint is unreasonable is subject to post-stop judicial review"). As pursued in the lower courts, the instant action challenges only the use of sobriety checkpoints generally. We address only the initial stop of each motorist passing through a checkpoint and the associated preliminary questioning and observation *451 by checkpoint officers. Detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard. Id., at 567, 96 S.Ct., at 3087.
110 S.Ct. 2481
------------ Excerpt from MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, et al., Petitioners v. Rick SITZ 496 U.S. 444, *450, 110 S.Ct. 2481, **2485-
Anyway, here's the damn quote:
"Petitioners concede, correctly in our view, that a Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. Tr. of Oral Arg. 11; see Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 556, 96 S.Ct., at 3082 ("It is agreed that checkpoint stops are 'seizures' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment"); Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 597, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 1381, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989) (Fourth Amendment seizure occurs "when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied " (emphasis in original)). The question thus becomes whether such seizures are "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment.
It is important to recognize what our inquiry is not about. No allegations are before us of unreasonable treatment of any person after an actual detention at a particular checkpoint. See Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S., at 559, 96 S.Ct., at 3083 ("[C]laim that a particular exercise of discretion in locating or operating a checkpoint is unreasonable is subject to post-stop judicial review"). As pursued in the lower courts, the instant action challenges only the use of sobriety checkpoints generally. We address only the initial stop of each motorist passing through a checkpoint and the associated preliminary questioning and observation *451 by checkpoint officers. Detention of particular motorists for more extensive field sobriety testing may require satisfaction of an individualized suspicion standard. Id., at 567, 96 S.Ct., at 3087.
110 S.Ct. 2481
------------ Excerpt from MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, et al., Petitioners v. Rick SITZ 496 U.S. 444, *450, 110 S.Ct. 2481, **2485-
"...Interesting write-up. Sad thing is that it is going on all over. Sadder is that it isn't even necessarily in the name of the WoDs or for the "chirrun" or DUIs - not necessarily.
I think it is for conditioning the sheep so they'll just get used to it..."
Labgrade, I very much fear that you are right- we're being "set up" to accept more & more losses of our rights.
And, yes, I too sense more & more anger and resistance to this kind of tinpot totalitarianism growing out in "flyover country..."
I think it is for conditioning the sheep so they'll just get used to it..."
Labgrade, I very much fear that you are right- we're being "set up" to accept more & more losses of our rights.
And, yes, I too sense more & more anger and resistance to this kind of tinpot totalitarianism growing out in "flyover country..."
Yes, we're being set up as citizens but, I was referring moreso to the LEOs getting set up - by their own leadership & politicians - none of which are out there taking the brunt of the citizenry's frustrations.
Cops start getting whacked & the Chiefs & politicos will only have another photo op, look sad & call for even more draconian tactics.
That own their initial draconian tactics started the whole mess in the first place will never cross their mind.
How we would howl if those in blue helmets were pulling this crap, but we put up with it when it's done by our own ... ?
Cops start getting whacked & the Chiefs & politicos will only have another photo op, look sad & call for even more draconian tactics.
That own their initial draconian tactics started the whole mess in the first place will never cross their mind.
How we would howl if those in blue helmets were pulling this crap, but we put up with it when it's done by our own ... ?
Abruzzi,
Very interesting. I've always wondered if they think that general checkpoints aren't unreasonable why the same doesn't apply to pedestrians? For instance, why not block a major sidewalk in NYC and stop and question everyone on general purposes?
I guess we're already pretty close to such a situation. The Terry frisk amounts to an unlimited power of a limited search because how would the court ever prove that the officer wasn't concerned about his safety?
Very interesting. I've always wondered if they think that general checkpoints aren't unreasonable why the same doesn't apply to pedestrians? For instance, why not block a major sidewalk in NYC and stop and question everyone on general purposes?
I guess we're already pretty close to such a situation. The Terry frisk amounts to an unlimited power of a limited search because how would the court ever prove that the officer wasn't concerned about his safety?
NO! NO!! NO!!!
Driving on the public roadways is not a privilege, it's a RIGHT!
I'm sorry about shouting, I don't usually do that in threads, but this is really starting to piss me off.
The courts have ruled (many times) that driving is a right. See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html
Just one example:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.[/quote]
------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
[This message has been edited by deanf (edited August 31, 2000).]
Driving on the public roadways is not a privilege, it's a RIGHT!
I'm sorry about shouting, I don't usually do that in threads, but this is really starting to piss me off.
The courts have ruled (many times) that driving is a right. See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver/driver.html
Just one example:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.[/quote]
------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
[This message has been edited by deanf (edited August 31, 2000).]
Jeff Thomas
New member
Responses like RWK's do concern me.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Driving on public roads is a privilege. No one is required to do so. If you opt to drive, you give up some rights you have in your home (for one example).[/quote]
Do you really believe this? In the early years of this country we had private, toll roads, among others. The country has grown in such a way that private roads, with rare exception, became obsolete. I assume through taxation, zoning and other governmental restrictions. To now say we're not 'required' to drive on public roads is a bit more than misleading.
Is your position that we could walk on the public roads? I assume not, as that would seem to logically (per your logic) lead to a conclusion that some courteous arm of the law could frisk all of us (already mentioned above).
So, let me ask about the range of protest responses.
LEO approaches my car, and asks, in RWK's courteous tone,
LEO: 'Sir, may I please see your drivers license and proof of insurance?'.
Lowly citizen: 'Good evening officer, why are you stopping me?'
LEO: 'Sir, we're stopping all cars on Liberty Road. May I please see your drivers license and proof of insurance?'
Lowly citizen: 'Officer, I don't believe you have probable cause to stop me, and I want to continue on my way.'
LEO: 'Sir, please pull the car over to the right shoulder.'
Lowly citizen: 'Officer, with all due respect, unless I've committed a crime or you have probable cause, I would like to proceed on my way.'
LEO: 'Sir, please get out of your vehicle.'
Of course, I'm sure it goes downhill from there. So, what's the bottom line? Car towed? Night in jail? Charges? What's the probability that a corrupt LEO will plant some contraband in my car? When they discover my CCW and carry pistol do we have histrionics?
I agree with the author of that piece ... I've been rarely stopped like this, but I hate that feeling. I feel the harsh hand of my 'master' (backed by lots of firepower, I'll note), and I have to wonder if that day will be the day that some LEO decides to hassle me. I'm almost guilty at knowing that I'm less of a target because of my age, family car and kids in the back seat.
This is wrong. The justification that we are all safer because of these roadblocks could be used to monitor all uf us 24 hours each day, and strip us of almost all freedom.
Franklin's words are certainly appropos to this travesty ... 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' 1759
But, of course, Franklin, and liberty, are anachronisms. After all .... these are just privileges, right?
Regards from AZ
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Driving on public roads is a privilege. No one is required to do so. If you opt to drive, you give up some rights you have in your home (for one example).[/quote]
Do you really believe this? In the early years of this country we had private, toll roads, among others. The country has grown in such a way that private roads, with rare exception, became obsolete. I assume through taxation, zoning and other governmental restrictions. To now say we're not 'required' to drive on public roads is a bit more than misleading.
Is your position that we could walk on the public roads? I assume not, as that would seem to logically (per your logic) lead to a conclusion that some courteous arm of the law could frisk all of us (already mentioned above).
So, let me ask about the range of protest responses.
LEO approaches my car, and asks, in RWK's courteous tone,
LEO: 'Sir, may I please see your drivers license and proof of insurance?'.
Lowly citizen: 'Good evening officer, why are you stopping me?'
LEO: 'Sir, we're stopping all cars on Liberty Road. May I please see your drivers license and proof of insurance?'
Lowly citizen: 'Officer, I don't believe you have probable cause to stop me, and I want to continue on my way.'
LEO: 'Sir, please pull the car over to the right shoulder.'
Lowly citizen: 'Officer, with all due respect, unless I've committed a crime or you have probable cause, I would like to proceed on my way.'
LEO: 'Sir, please get out of your vehicle.'
Of course, I'm sure it goes downhill from there. So, what's the bottom line? Car towed? Night in jail? Charges? What's the probability that a corrupt LEO will plant some contraband in my car? When they discover my CCW and carry pistol do we have histrionics?
I agree with the author of that piece ... I've been rarely stopped like this, but I hate that feeling. I feel the harsh hand of my 'master' (backed by lots of firepower, I'll note), and I have to wonder if that day will be the day that some LEO decides to hassle me. I'm almost guilty at knowing that I'm less of a target because of my age, family car and kids in the back seat.
This is wrong. The justification that we are all safer because of these roadblocks could be used to monitor all uf us 24 hours each day, and strip us of almost all freedom.
Franklin's words are certainly appropos to this travesty ... 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' 1759
But, of course, Franklin, and liberty, are anachronisms. After all .... these are just privileges, right?
Regards from AZ
I have considered ways to respond to the several members who disagree with the fundamental philosophy expressed in my earlier posting. There are many legal arguments and precedents that sustain my viewpoint -- the BRIEFS provided by Deanf are NOT binding court decisions -- but citing legal standards fails to address to the real essence of the issue. Accordingly, I thought I'd succinctly try this simple thought.
I support individual freedom -- the libertarian philosophy -- and I certainly believe governmental power has become too immense. This said, however, every society -- with or without formal government -- must have some rules to operate successfully. For example, we need traffic conventions to safely navigate the highway system (drive on the right side of the road in the US, stop at red lights, and so forth). Some group must establish the necessary regulations, whether simple or complex. In a democracy, that organization is the legislature and, as a check to governmental excess, the judicial branch ensures Constitutionally guaranteed rights are not abrogated.
Our legislatures have empowered -- by specific law and by annual appropriation -- police actions such as document-check and sobriety roadblocks. Some individuals believe these exceed the Constitutional authority of the state, but the courts -- the final arbiter in a democracy -- have upheld their validity.
If individuals conclude such police measures are unacceptably onerous, they have redress. Specifically, they can use the legislative process to prohibit these -- or any other -- actions by the executive branch that they believe are improper or intolerable. All it takes is 51 percent of the votes in your state's legislative chambers. The problem, of course, is the majority does not agree that such police actions are incorrect.
This "tyranny of the democracy" is an old and well-discussed issue. The crux is straightforward, however. We all give up some freedom to enjoy the benefits of a democracy. Some people may not like this, but it is the heart of our democratic political approach, dating from the ancient Greeks and the Magna Charta.
I support individual freedom -- the libertarian philosophy -- and I certainly believe governmental power has become too immense. This said, however, every society -- with or without formal government -- must have some rules to operate successfully. For example, we need traffic conventions to safely navigate the highway system (drive on the right side of the road in the US, stop at red lights, and so forth). Some group must establish the necessary regulations, whether simple or complex. In a democracy, that organization is the legislature and, as a check to governmental excess, the judicial branch ensures Constitutionally guaranteed rights are not abrogated.
Our legislatures have empowered -- by specific law and by annual appropriation -- police actions such as document-check and sobriety roadblocks. Some individuals believe these exceed the Constitutional authority of the state, but the courts -- the final arbiter in a democracy -- have upheld their validity.
If individuals conclude such police measures are unacceptably onerous, they have redress. Specifically, they can use the legislative process to prohibit these -- or any other -- actions by the executive branch that they believe are improper or intolerable. All it takes is 51 percent of the votes in your state's legislative chambers. The problem, of course, is the majority does not agree that such police actions are incorrect.
This "tyranny of the democracy" is an old and well-discussed issue. The crux is straightforward, however. We all give up some freedom to enjoy the benefits of a democracy. Some people may not like this, but it is the heart of our democratic political approach, dating from the ancient Greeks and the Magna Charta.
RWK,
I'd agree that we must have common sense RULES so that we may co-habit. Your analogy re "driving on the right side of the road" is a good one.
However, I do believe that from then on it falls short.
In specific, we do not have a democracy. Absolutely not, no, nada, never ... zip. We don't live there & that's where you fall short in the discussion.
Not a flame vented here, but ...
I have said it many more than once & I will again.
My rights are totally inviolate. Absolutely & forever.
IF, by my own actions, I caused harm to another (and never beforehand), only then may the government step in and take action.
By my actions (by abusing my rights) I alone give the government the reason to instigate itself into my life. Through my own inability to live up to the responsibilities of my rights, I have, myself, given them up.
Anything else is prior restraint & leads to so many abuses - such as we now have - that we have become "them," those who we have fought to the death to prevent their own spread throughout the world.
I do not see "driving on the right side of
the road" as an infringement of my rights - it's simply a common sense rule ....
... random roadside checks are not. They are tyranny disguised as a public safety measure.
Those acts & all their ilk, I hate.
Certainly a fine line which we may argue to internity ... but, I'm willing
& know exactly where I stand.
I'd agree that we must have common sense RULES so that we may co-habit. Your analogy re "driving on the right side of the road" is a good one.
However, I do believe that from then on it falls short.
In specific, we do not have a democracy. Absolutely not, no, nada, never ... zip. We don't live there & that's where you fall short in the discussion.
Not a flame vented here, but ...
I have said it many more than once & I will again.
My rights are totally inviolate. Absolutely & forever.
IF, by my own actions, I caused harm to another (and never beforehand), only then may the government step in and take action.
By my actions (by abusing my rights) I alone give the government the reason to instigate itself into my life. Through my own inability to live up to the responsibilities of my rights, I have, myself, given them up.
Anything else is prior restraint & leads to so many abuses - such as we now have - that we have become "them," those who we have fought to the death to prevent their own spread throughout the world.
I do not see "driving on the right side of
the road" as an infringement of my rights - it's simply a common sense rule ....
... random roadside checks are not. They are tyranny disguised as a public safety measure.
Those acts & all their ilk, I hate.
Certainly a fine line which we may argue to internity ... but, I'm willing
& know exactly where I stand."I support individual freedom -- the libertarian philosophy -- and I certainly
believe governmental power has become too immense."
You, Sir, are no libertarian in this respect.
"This said, however, every society -- with or without formal government -- must have some rules to operate successfully."
I wish the government would operate under the original intent of the 4th and 5th amendments. The Courts have corrupted its meaning.
"but the courts -- the final arbiter in a democracy -- have upheld their validity."
Let's look into that...
Here are some snippets concerning the Supreme Court being the arbiter of the meaning of the
Constitution. The last two are from Jefferson.
"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it."
- State vs. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are
as honest as other men, and not more so and their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confied, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."
-- Thomas Jefferson, September 28, 1820
believe governmental power has become too immense."
You, Sir, are no libertarian in this respect.
"This said, however, every society -- with or without formal government -- must have some rules to operate successfully."
I wish the government would operate under the original intent of the 4th and 5th amendments. The Courts have corrupted its meaning.
"but the courts -- the final arbiter in a democracy -- have upheld their validity."
Let's look into that...
Here are some snippets concerning the Supreme Court being the arbiter of the meaning of the
Constitution. The last two are from Jefferson.
"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it."
- State vs. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are
as honest as other men, and not more so and their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confied, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."
-- Thomas Jefferson, September 28, 1820
- Status