Wait until you guys find out that 4th amendment rights are partially suspended within 100 miles of the Mexican border.  It's been that way for decades.

With context. https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/13/w...ment-zone/

There’s a difference between partially suspending a constitutional right in a zone rife with illegalities for enforcement by federal organizations as opposed to capriciously violating those rights purely for political posturing by a state official.

---

Wait until you guys find out that 4th amendment rights are partially suspended within 100 miles of the Mexican border.  It's been that way for decades.

With context. https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/13/w...ment-zone/

There’s a difference between partially suspending a constitutional right in a zone rife with illegalities for enforcement by federal organizations as opposed to capriciously violating those rights purely for political posturing by a state official.

And as I've already stated in this thread two times, I agree with you that the governor of NM is way out of line in this particular case.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's nice but irrelevant to the question of suspending the Constitution.

---

It's completely relevant.
Actions should be judged by their motives (or virtues) and by their results (utility, consequence) as well as the rules they broke (deontology, rights).

Nah fam, then whoever gets to judge is your lord.

---

Wait until you guys find out that 4th amendment rights are partially suspended within 100 miles of the Mexican border.  It's been that way for decades.

With context. https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/13/w...ment-zone/

There’s a difference between partially suspending a constitutional right in a zone rife with illegalities for enforcement by federal organizations as opposed to capriciously violating those rights purely for political posturing by a state official.

No, there really isn't. Hey, there's been a lot of robberies in your neighborhood lately, we're just going to search every house on the block to see who is doing it. That doesn't fly anymore than the CBP violations do.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's completely relevant.
Actions should be judged by their motives (or virtues) and by their results (utility, consequence) as well as the rules they broke (deontology, rights).

Nah fam, then whoever gets to judge is your lord.

---

With context. https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/13/w...ment-zone/

There’s a difference between partially suspending a constitutional right in a zone rife with illegalities for enforcement by federal organizations as opposed to capriciously violating those rights purely for political posturing by a state official.

No, there really isn't. Hey, there's been a lot of robberies in your neighborhood lately, we're just going to search every house on the block to see who is doing it. That doesn't fly anymore than the CBP violations do.

The Gestapo, led by Mikesez's, coming to a neighborhood near you and yours soon!

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

It's completely relevant.
Actions should be judged by their motives (or virtues) and by their results (utility, consequence) as well as the rules they broke (deontology, rights).

Nah fam, then whoever gets to judge is your lord.

You're stuck with judges regardless.  Regardless of how you interpret the constitution, and how strictly you want people to adhere to it, you're counting on judges to agree with you, and you're counting on Presidents and generals to abide by those rulings.  So we both end up in the same place.  Except Black people are free on my end, and enslaved on yours.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Nah fam, then whoever gets to judge is your lord.

You're stuck with judges regardless.  Regardless of how you interpret the constitution, and how strictly you want people to adhere to it, you're counting on judges to agree with you, and you're counting on Presidents and generals to abide by those rulings.  So we both end up in the same place.  Except Black people are free on my end, and enslaved on yours.

Not if we do away with the constitution. We wouldn't need them nor any systems really. We would just have a utopia of the Gestapo running around everywhere operating completely with carte blanche. 

When you start trying to bend the rules or outright remove them? You're dangerously close to turning into that police state. While the founding fathers were not perfect, and, the double standard of all men being created equal during a time where slavery was still a thing.

You have to understand, slaves were not considered men, they were considered property. Was it brutal? Yes. Was it harsh? Yes. Was it hypocritical? Of course. Does that mean we should completely [BLEEP] on the constitution? No.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

You're stuck with judges regardless.  Regardless of how you interpret the constitution, and how strictly you want people to adhere to it, you're counting on judges to agree with you, and you're counting on Presidents and generals to abide by those rulings.  So we both end up in the same place.  Except Black people are free on my end, and enslaved on yours.

Not if we do away with the constitution. We wouldn't need them nor any systems really. We would just have a utopia of the Gestapo running around everywhere operating completely with carte blanche. 

When you start trying to bend the rules or outright remove them? You're dangerously close to turning into that police state. While the founding fathers were not perfect, and, the double standard of all men being created equal during a time where slavery was still a thing.

You have to understand, slaves were not considering men, they were considered property. Was it brutal? Yes. Was it harsh? Yes. Was it hypocritical? Of course. Does that mean we should completely [BLEEP] on the constitution? No.

You're describing two extremes.  On one end, (A), a dictator with secret police operating without rules.  On the other, (B) judges making rulings on a pure rules-based, deontological, written rules only system. America has never been A.  But it has also never been B. Introducing more human judgement and subjectivity doesn't immediately take you from B to A.  Especially when you were never at B in the first place.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Not if we do away with the constitution. We wouldn't need them nor any systems really. We would just have a utopia of the Gestapo running around everywhere operating completely with carte blanche. 

When you start trying to bend the rules or outright remove them? You're dangerously close to turning into that police state. While the founding fathers were not perfect, and, the double standard of all men being created equal during a time where slavery was still a thing.

You have to understand, slaves were not considering men, they were considered property. Was it brutal? Yes. Was it harsh? Yes. Was it hypocritical? Of course. Does that mean we should completely [BLEEP] on the constitution? No.

You're describing two extremes.  On one end, (A), a dictator with secret police operating without rules.  On the other, (B) judges making rulings on a pure rules-based, deontological, written rules only system. America has never been A.  But it has also never been B. Introducing more human judgement and subjectivity doesn't immediately take you from B to A.  Especially when you were never at B in the first place.

Is it an extreme or an eventual reality? The United States has been a scale of trying to delicately and politically balance all of that out. As, in reality, most countries have had to endure one of those two extremes in most cases. Ours is a little bit more flexible, a little bit more civil, far from perfect, of course, but still a bit better than most.

I think, again, you have to look at it with these extremes because we're dangerously close to falling apart and into these said extremes. As we continue to see these looney tune characters positioning themselves and buying themselves into the political arena, into the law making sectors of our democracy. They increase their power and influence. 

We're in a lot of trouble now as it stands today. Again, how far do we need to go down this road before we see where it ultimately leads? How long do we need to keep letting these little fires build up before it's Rome burning all over again?

This was quietly kept under wraps as well. There's always been wolves in sheep's clothing looking to overturn what we've at least tried to build and establish here. It's tainted, of course, it's been somewhat corrupted. We have to have these checks and balances in place though. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pSOekHA8OQ

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

You're describing two extremes.  On one end, (A), a dictator with secret police operating without rules.  On the other, (B) judges making rulings on a pure rules-based, deontological, written rules only system. America has never been A.  But it has also never been B. Introducing more human judgement and subjectivity doesn't immediately take you from B to A.  Especially when you were never at B in the first place.

Is it an extreme or an eventual reality? The United States has been a scale of trying to delicately and politically balance all of that out. As, in reality, most countries have had to endure one of those two extremes in most cases. Ours is a little bit more flexible, a little bit more civil, far from perfect, of course, but still a bit better than most.

I think, again, you have to look at it with these extremes because we're dangerously close to falling apart and into these said extremes. As we continue to see these looney tune characters positioning themselves and buying themselves into the political arena, into the law making sectors of our democracy. They increase their power and influence. 

We're in a lot of trouble now as it stands today. Again, how far do we need to go down this road before we see where it ultimately leads? How long do we need to keep letting these little fires build up before it's Rome burning all over again?

A exists in this world.  North Korea is at A.  Everything is done at the whim of the party, no fixed rules, no social advancement.  Then you have China and Russia, which are almost at A, but ordinary citizens can exist in a rules based system as long as they don't cross the interests of the unaccountable high government officials.  But B doesn't exist in this world.  We are closer to B than to A. It's good for you, and for me to be concerned about us devolving into A.  Because A is possible.  We should fight against it, fight for unpopular people to be treated fairly.  But we're not going to turn into China or Russia anytime soon, regardless.  Power in the US is just too decentralized.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Wait until you guys find out that 4th amendment rights are partially suspended within 100 miles of the Mexican border.  It's been that way for decades.

The US-Mexican border is 1,954 miles long, so you're talking about an area that probably encompasses 150,000 square miles.  Can you be a little more specific and tell us exactly where these rights are suspended?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Wait until you guys find out that 4th amendment rights are partially suspended within 100 miles of the Mexican border.  It's been that way for decades.

The US-Mexican border is 1,954 miles long, so you're talking about an area that probably encompasses 150,000 square miles.  Can you be a little more specific and tell us exactly where these rights are suspended?

 When the condition has existed for like 70 years, it's really not on me to explain it to you.  Google, Wikipedia, Scotusblog, et cetera there have been multiple Supreme Court decisions about this. 
 Also please remember this interaction the next time you come at me. I say things because I know things. You quibble with what I say because you do not know things.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The US-Mexican border is 1,954 miles long, so you're talking about an area that probably encompasses 150,000 square miles.  Can you be a little more specific and tell us exactly where these rights are suspended?

 When the condition has existed for like 70 years, it's really not on me to explain it to you.  Google, Wikipedia, Scotusblog, et cetera there have been multiple Supreme Court decisions about this. 
 Also please remember this interaction the next time you come at me. I say things because I know things.  You quibble with what I say because you do not know things.

I'm sorry, I presumed you understood the difference between past and present tenses.  A Supreme Court finding that an individual's civil rights were violated decades ago, is not proof that such transgressions are routinely occurring today.  

If you "know things" you should have no difficulty identifying the locations where the 4th is currently suspended.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

 When the condition has existed for like 70 years, it's really not on me to explain it to you.  Google, Wikipedia, Scotusblog, et cetera there have been multiple Supreme Court decisions about this. 
 Also please remember this interaction the next time you come at me. I say things because I know things.  You quibble with what I say because you do not know things.

I'm sorry, I presumed you understood the difference between past and present tenses.  A Supreme Court finding that an individual's civil rights were violated decades ago, is not proof that such transgressions are routinely occurring today.  

If you "know things" you should have no difficulty identifying the locations where the 4th is currently suspended.

Dig UP, man! UP!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The US-Mexican border is 1,954 miles long, so you're talking about an area that probably encompasses 150,000 square miles.  Can you be a little more specific and tell us exactly where these rights are suspended?

 When the condition has existed for like 70 years, it's really not on me to explain it to you.  Google, Wikipedia, Scotusblog, et cetera there have been multiple Supreme Court decisions about this. 
 Also please remember this interaction the next time you come at me. I say things because I know things.  You quibble with what I say because you do not know things.

Did you know this?

Illegal border crossers so far this year outnumber the population of 8 states | National | thecentersquare.com

Pretty soon we should consider maybe making New Mexico legitimately NEW Mexico at this rate.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

 When the condition has existed for like 70 years, it's really not on me to explain it to you.  Google, Wikipedia, Scotusblog, et cetera there have been multiple Supreme Court decisions about this. 
 Also please remember this interaction the next time you come at me. I say things because I know things.  You quibble with what I say because you do not know things.

Did you know this?

Illegal border crossers so far this year outnumber the population of 8 states | National | thecentersquare.com

Pretty soon we should consider maybe making New Mexico legitimately NEW Mexico at this rate.

Yes.  A similar number of legal immigrants are entering.
What's your point?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol.

---

Of course not, I believe the Sovreign States each have the right to secession. Any other position in this matter is to deny the right to free association.

At least my position denies the right to own other people.

Actually, on second thought, your position actually does advocate owning people. If they aren't free to leave then they are either imprisoned or enslaved.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

At least my position denies the right to own other people.

Actually, on second thought, your position actually does advocate owning people. If they aren't free to leave then they are either imprisoned or enslaved.

Lots of places to go.  Many places accept US expats.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Actually, on second thought, your position actually does advocate owning people. If they aren't free to leave then they are either imprisoned or enslaved.

Lots of places to go.  Many places accept US expats.

And when a State votes to leave?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Lots of places to go.  Many places accept US expats.

And when a State votes to leave?

States are social constructs.  People are people.
Should Duval County be allowed the leave Florida without Florida's permission?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.