Welcome to HVAC-Talk.com, a non-DIY site and the ultimate Source for HVAC Information & Knowledge Sharing for the industry professional! Here you can join over 150,000 HVAC Professionals & enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to HVAC/R. You are currently viewing as a NON-REGISTERED guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register; for a free account. As a registered Guest you will be able to:

Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from nearly 3 million posts.

The key word in the constitution is 'unreasonable'. To me, even the active pursuit of a drug user, using in his own home, outside the purview of public safety, is never reasonable. It goes beyond the role of peace officers. At the same time, i feel all drug use laws are on their face unconstitutional. The tenth amendment restricts federal power to those explicitly given in the constitution. All other powers are to be at the state level. If a state want's to make pot illegal, they can.. but it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do so.

Completely agree. As long as we are not directly harming someone else, what we do in the privacy of our own homes should not be allowed to attacked by government agents.

Victimless crimes is an oxymoron. These are laws that take away our freedoms, create criminals out of otherwise decent citizens and make it so that crime pays very well for those on the top of the criminal food chain. Prohibition proved what victimless laws do to enhance major crime elements. Remove the crime and you remove the criminal element and everyone except organized crime is better off.

...seek, and ye shall find;..

So always seek the Truth, not just what you want to believe to be true…

I think the Costitution was developed to protect the masses from intrusive AND abusive government. While it may appear to be a small thing to break in and stop drug dealers from destroying evidence, the bigger picture would be more like what ATF did in Waco Texas or at Ruby ridge. We have these protections for a reason. When we start to let the g-men slowly tighten their grubby hands around our neck when and where will it stop?

I think the Costitution was developed to protect the masses from intrusive AND abusive government. While it may appear to be a small thing to break in and stop drug dealers from destroying evidence, the bigger picture would be more like what ATF did in Waco Texas or at Ruby ridge. We have these protections for a reason. When we start to let the g-men slowly tighten their grubby hands around our neck when and where will it stop?

What I am getting from others as well as wrapping my own mind around on this specific incident is that the Supreme Court is wrong in sanctioning this intrusion on a private residence. With the possible exception that Beatle's music may have been playing, the police should not have had the right to enter that home without a warrant.

...seek, and ye shall find;..

So always seek the Truth, not just what you want to believe to be true…

The Constitution does not distinguish what illegal activity can be used to enter one's home based on "reasonable" evidence that a law is being broken. That is left to the states.

If GA says you can do it based on evidence marijuana being smoked and California says it is not then that is OK. States have the right to govern themselves within the limits of the Constitution. That is my opinion. Thank you, thank you very much.

Thanks glennac, i can see where my example was flawed i mixed state and federal law.

Another example of a gross violation of the 4th amenmendment is the Patriot act. It is set to expire Friday at midnight. The Senate is debating if it should be extended. Harry Reed insulted Rand Paul by accusing him of wanting terrorist to kill Americans because he opposed renewing the act.

I am no Rand Paul fan but I agree 100% with him on this issue. If you can find it Pauls response to Reed is a very consice outline of what the 4th amendment is all about. Sad to say Paul has been accused of "showboating" by both sides of the aisle.

The KY case is a prime example of the corrosion of the 4th. The framers of the Constitution made the 4th very clear for a reason and I don't think there is any wiggle room when interpreting the 4th. I guess the SCOTUS feels like there is a lot of room to wiggle.

The KY ruling is an expansion on other rulings that involve the failed "war on drugs". One that comes to mind is the ruling that it is OK to bust down a persons door if the police smell pot smoke. That's a handy excuse isn't it.

As long as we allow this with no protest it will get worse. The FISA court, the Patriot act, and all the SCOTUS rulings that undermine the 4th are turning the people of this country into trained complacent sheeple happy to accept any law that violates their Constitutional rights.

In times of specific dangers, such as the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, we need to be able to temporarily give up certain rights. I believe we are still in a time of specific danger just as we have been since the attacks.

I am not happy about the Patriot Act, but I cannot say that I oppose it. As long as no additions are being made to the Patriot Act, I am not against it being extended. From what I understand, Obummer has already authorized his electronic signature to be put on the extensiont.

One thing is bothering me about the extension of the Patriot Act, and this aggrivation is due to the attitude on both sides of this issue. Those liberals who were crying about conservatives taking away American freedoms are now decrying how much we need the very same act that they so strongly opposed under President W Bush's administration. Just as bad are the conservatives who so strongly supported President W Bush for the Patriot Act are now acting like it is some sort of leftist conspiracy. WTF!?

...seek, and ye shall find;..

So always seek the Truth, not just what you want to believe to be true…

Who was it that said "it is easy to go to war but very hard to get out of a war". It's simple, no one in Congress wants to be perceived to be weak on terrorism. It is easier to go with the flow than it is to buck the system like Rand Paul did. The other new Tea party/Libertarians who voted to extend the Patriot Act are hypocrites.

Yes, Obama signed the stinker with a robo-pen. A lot of conservative pundits are whining about that. I guess they forgot that the Bush administrations lawyers deemed it Constitutional and Bush used the robo-pen for the first time. Don't remember what bill he signed with it though.

Who was it that said "it is easy to go to war but very hard to get out of a war". It's simple, no one in Congress wants to be perceived to be weak on terrorism. It is easier to go with the flow than it is to buck the system like Rand Paul did. The other new Tea party/Libertarians who voted to extend the Patriot Act are hypocrites.

Yes, Obama signed the stinker with a robo-pen. A lot of conservative pundits are whining about that. I guess they forgot that the Bush administrations lawyers deemed it Constitutional and Bush used the robo-pen for the first time. Don't remember what bill he signed with it though.

DISCLAIMER! VERY IMPORTANT!

The term "robo-pen" being used in this post has absolutely nothing to do with RoBoTeq

That said, I agree it is more difficult to make the neccesary moves to take what already is in a different direction. However, I feel we need to stay as vigilant as we possibly can with the way Islamic aggression is growing worldwide.

...seek, and ye shall find;..

So always seek the Truth, not just what you want to believe to be true…