“Supreme Court hires the pre-crime psychics from the movie Minority Report” - probably Babylon Bee.

This really pisses me off.

@AGFrontYT

17 күн бұрын

Then you are ready to start using your 1A to defend your 2A, 4A and 5A I reckon!

Justice Thomas is the best and only judge here a late that I've heard actually adhering to his oath of office, should NOT be any official that takes an oath, in office, that thinks or feels differently than justice Thomas and how he precisely proved how and why In his dissent.

@on2wheels378

18 күн бұрын

Of course he is. He's in a wealthy man's pocket. That's how our politics work since WWII

@chipsramek3868

18 күн бұрын

@@on2wheels378 Close ... since 1913 ...

@AGFrontYT

17 күн бұрын

SNBI is not enough.

SCOTUS Roberts does not uphold red flag laws! Read it carefully.

How is anyone shocked by this? The government never gives up power once they have it. Period. And you can’t vote it away either. Especially when the people ruling this way aren’t voted in at all. This is what happens when you give all the power in the world to a branch of government with no oversight.

So much for this being a conservative court

@MaximusWolfe

18 күн бұрын

So much for Trump being a reactionary.

What kind of dirt do they have on roberts?

@Uberragen21

18 күн бұрын

Epstein Island...b

@UkrainianPaulie

18 күн бұрын

Hiring Illegal housekeepers also.

@Zonly1-ye4sl

18 күн бұрын

Lolita Express his name is in the sign-in flight log

@leskobrandon4666

18 күн бұрын

You name it!

@ef2967

14 күн бұрын

Pay stubs😂

None of this matters. The lower courts will just do what they want.

@deaddays6883

18 күн бұрын

SCOTUS' ruling affirms their "scrutiny".

@aquariumdude7829

18 күн бұрын

True.

@Zonly1-ye4sl

18 күн бұрын

Especially the 9th circus, the most overturned court.

@JohnAvillaHerpetocultural

17 күн бұрын

Then so should We The People.

@aquariumdude7829

17 күн бұрын

@@JohnAvillaHerpetocultural Dude, at least half of the people are voting for this and even want more.

The fact that it’s not clear could be good for us. leaves room for future challenges.

Roberts and others Need to decide to uphold the Constitution and Our Rights, or Support Socialist B.S. ideals. So far....I'm not impressed with Roberts or Barrett

@AGFrontYT

17 күн бұрын

Then we need to STOP focusing on fighting this in the courts. Stemming the tide of legislation should be our battleground and the KEY to that is Public Opinion. John Q does NOT care about SNBI or Constitution this and Constitution that. But take heart! There is a plethora of other words that DO work and have impact.

The problem issue with red flag laws is due process, not the Second Amendment, which wasn't addressed by the court here. Also questionable is whether the federal government has any constitutional authority in this area to begin with. Rahimi didn't raise those issues.

@mb9662

18 күн бұрын

But interstate commerce

@matthewbecker6553

18 күн бұрын

Rahimi impliedly DOES deal with due process re: red flag laws. The Rahimi Court Opinion (Roberts) indicated that a huge part of why this is Constitutional is because like the old surety statutes, the DV is not a "qualifying disqualification" unless there was both notice and an opportunity to be heard in which EVIDENCE is presented. The use of the word "evidence" is huge because it inherently implies that not only must there be a hearing but the rules of evidence apply which means that speculation or rumor or innuendo or hearsay are not admissible.

@Talon19

16 күн бұрын

Court orders are due process.

@matthewbecker6553

16 күн бұрын

@@Talon19 - the foundation of due process is (1) notice of the hearing and (2) an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. The legitimacy of a judge issuing an order where the order isn't after and based on what was presented at a contested evidentiary hearing would be quite questionable at best under the current rules about due process.

@Talon19

16 күн бұрын

@@matthewbecker6553 Not sure where you got that myth. If it ever existed, that was dumped before the 1700s because people understood the need to restrict dangerous people BEFORE someone was harmed. By your rationale, someone wouldn’t get arrested or imprisoned until AFTER a trial. Good luck enforcing laws with that logic.

It doesn't uphold red flag laws because the ruling did not address due process.

Red flag laws violate several constitutional rights and these judges are supposed to uphold the constitution. WTF?

@BanjoZZZ

18 күн бұрын

The ruling does not address red flag laws

@Mitch_Conner75926

18 күн бұрын

Yeah that’s actually the problem, the case wasn’t trying red flag laws, it was pushed based on the Bruen decision and the second amendment. If they wanted a better ruling they should have moved it up using the violation of the fourth amendment

@projectjfk972

18 күн бұрын

Oh, you thought being a republican meant something? Wait until you realize your government as a whole is taking all your freedoms.

@billdickerson5109

17 күн бұрын

God forbid that woman judge in New York who says the 2A doesn't exist in her court room makes it to the Supreme Court. She is the one who sent that man to prison for ten years because he had a box of ammo ( 50 rds ) what is this country coming to?

@projectjfk972

17 күн бұрын

@billdickerson5109 the exconvict and felon in San Diego who was dealing drugs and had guns, ammo, methamphetamine, heroin and drug paraphernalia that was arrested by police with a warrant?

Scotus just screwed us

@kenjidodson8911

18 күн бұрын

AGAIN! Love to Judge Thomas! A Real Constitutionalist!

@backfromthedead553

18 күн бұрын

And we're taking it without lube.

@Mitch_Conner75926

18 күн бұрын

Not really, nothing really changes for now. However that case was a horrible one. There will most certainly be more cause red flag laws violate so many rights. The case wasn’t tried on the right grounds, it should have been tried on the right to due process not the second amendment.

@ij2750

18 күн бұрын

Yes they did, and I was not expecting anything different because I have known for some time that SCOTUS is not pro 2A.

@aquariumdude7829

18 күн бұрын

​@@backfromthedead553Lol! Good one! 😆

Great lets circumvent due process cuz someone found a way to manipulate. What could possibly go wrong…

Sickos

The only way they learn is if you RED FLAG them. Say you thought you saw them acting irrationally and you thought they had a weapon which caused the cops to come to their house and disrupt their lives until everything was figured out and settled. Then you apologize and say, "well you didn't want to be held accountable just in case the threat was real and people could have died". Then they will rethink the red flag laws, and how it can be used out of spite.

@jessesimmons4503

18 күн бұрын

One problem the police work for the government got the people.

@chipsramek3868

18 күн бұрын

Nice Try ... The USA Police Force was created by Wells Fargo Banking to protect their gold and real estate.

@lil_kozy7773

18 күн бұрын

Yeah, its up to the police to go through with it, where as a warrant has to be followed through hence why we should stick to due process

@glcart-cs5sc

17 күн бұрын

nah the only way theyll stop is us fighting back physically like the second amendment intends for us to be as shown by the past pver a century now that we've been trying peaceful means and get nowhere but more and more "laws" enforced on us as if theyre real anyway they wont allow their own system to be used against them .

@glcart-cs5sc

17 күн бұрын

and they dont play by logic and all that or arguments with reasoning etc like that they abuse power until forced to stop by us fighting back physically like the second amendment intends as shown by the past pver a century now that we've been trying peaceful means and get nowhere but more and more "laws" enforced on us as if theyre real anyway

I disagree with the premise this universally upholds red flag laws. Key words: "...when found by a court..." So, not just because of an allegation and "temporarily" so, the person doesn't lose their 2A right forever.

@stephenkolostyak4087

16 күн бұрын

The one concern in context are courts which treat civil claims as criminal convcitions in order to justify flagrant constraint - Maryland is pervaded by them as example.

@pauld6967

16 күн бұрын

@@stephenkolostyak4087 Well Maryland has long been poisoned by democrat lunacy, much like New Jersey.

We should not be going back further in time before the constitution.

May Yahweh help us.

Wrong, they did not deal with due process. That's coming down the road.

@fishingolf

18 күн бұрын

exactly..Im surprised that part of the constitution didnt already nullify this case..

@D6EH

17 күн бұрын

I’m thinking the same thing. I don’t think that yesterday’s decision addresses red flag at all, but that will fail based on the lack of due process.

@aquariumdude7829

16 күн бұрын

@fishingolf You place way too much faith in a piece of paper the Dems don't care about.

@xeoh85

13 күн бұрын

@@fishingolfThat’s because in this case Rahimi had a hearing, didn’t dispute the alleged facts, and consented to the restraining order being entered against him. Rahimi very clearly received due process, so only the 2A question was at issue here.

I wouldn't say it completely upholds red flag laws. First it states that one has to have appropriate due process and there must be a finding that a person is a credible physical threat to others. It says nothing about a threat to themselves. The asurity laws require, and constitutional red flag laws must still follow appropriate due process. Else one could make a due process or as applied unconstitutional claim. Even Bruen stated that an analog need not be a twin, but must be similar and address the how and why in order to be considered. The other thing it does is require courts to only consider Bruen, and not other things like interst balanceing. While stated in Bruen, many courts have still been using some degrees of interest balancing.

Guys go to 4 Boxes Diner, this ruling was far better for 2A than it looks.

@KorbinDallasRocks

17 күн бұрын

Or Freedom’s Steel. He’s a good dude.

Surprise to all of you that kept saying , but Bruen will stop this . I have always said Bruen was a paper tiger and SCOTUS just showed they don't have to adhere to their own damn ruling .

@aquariumdude7829

16 күн бұрын

Bruen was meaningless mumbo-jumbo!

this is a win for bitter exwives and exgirlfriends everywhere.....

Criminal defense / Civil rights attorney here... I have thus far only read in detail the "Opinion of the Court" written by Roberts. 1) Red flag laws are NOT supported by the main opinion. I will have to see about whether there is a majority that uses red-flag-favorable views when I get around to reading all the concurring opinions, but the main opinion clearly indicates that the ban on possession is constitutional in no small part because it is imposed AFTER a hearing with the target of the restraining order having the due process of notice and an opportunity to be heard with presentation of evidence. This is counter to the great fear of red flag laws where rumor and innuendo can lead to a loss of rights prior to a contested hearing on the matter. And "Evidence" is a legal concept that EXCLUDES rumor, innuendo, hearsay, and speculation. This is NOT a friendly opinion vis-a-vis red flag laws. 2) There is also an emphasis on the limited duration and Mr. Rahimi in particular was only subject to the qualifying restraining order for a duration of 2 years. The lifetime bans for a DV conviction or for a felony do not fall within the reasoning applied here. I am not certain how the court will rule with regards to lifetime bans for felons and for convictions of (even misdemeanor) domestic violence, but the language in this rationale of this case would not support the use of this case as precedent for lifetime bans. I suspect that (misdemeanor) DV and felons would, by the logic of this case, be permitted to re-arm once probation or parole are completed. If they want to say that felons are subject to lifetime ban, the logic of such would go outside the logic used in this case.

I'm sorry folks. As a 2A advocate, unfortunately, this Rahimi was NOT a model case. Dude had a history...

Red flags have harmed me. I’ve only got half my firearms back from the police. If they want red flag, laws, and you found not guilty in the trial. You should get your firearms back immediately ordered by the judge.

@aquariumdude7829

16 күн бұрын

What did you do?

@davidalan9251

16 күн бұрын

@@aquariumdude7829 I am stuck in Bosley need a lawyer to get them back

@aquariumdude7829

16 күн бұрын

@@davidalan9251 But what happened? How did you get a red flag applied to you?

Although the outcome was a foregone conclusion, the case is a disaster. Given the Fifth Circuit's holding that there was no strict historical analog for the dispossesion order, SCOTUS could only have taken the case in order to reverse; and that could only mean that "strict" or "analog" doesn't really mean that strict or that analogous. Sure enough the concurrences says as much. Whenever a judge uses the word "principles" or "purposes" or "reasonable" that tells you that they are departing from the text and looking for wiggle room. Judges hate defined rules. They always want to leave open the option of wiggling. That precisely what they did in the Rahimi case. Jackson and Sotomayor were foregone conclusion. Jackson called Bruen "mad" and Sotomayor emoted over gunviolence. or better said over the fake statistic concerning so-called "gun violence." More troubling was Justice Barret who, talking about "principle," admitted that "principle" was a hard line to draw and one had to be cautious about throwing the baby out with the bath.... Jackson will be a ridiculous barnacle on the court for a long time to come. But Alito and Thomas are getting close to retirement age. Y'all know what to do come November.

In all audits, like FDA, FAA, any audit, the word 'shall' means it's done. There's nothing you can argue when the word 'shall' is used. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Yet they continue to infringe upon our rights.

I COMPLETELY AGREE

there fighting semantics hahaha

In 'Surety Laws' the person was called before the Court. Not just 'TAKE THE GUNS', but the accused had an opportunity the confront their accuser.🤦‍♀

Another whole lot of nothing 🍔 😂

@Sportsman-4570

18 күн бұрын

That’s not necessarily true, while they did add a lot of confusion, he did specifically state that 2nd amendment also covers modern arms, meaning it might be a hint to what their opinion will be on an assault weapons ban case.

Nothing is gonna change politics courts unbelievable 🚜

Sad 😔

Eoney jernst is to blame as well!!! They All work for the chicoms!!

Dam

ACB has been whining about “text and tradition”. I don’t trust her at all.

The KBG can still come around.

SCOTUS ruled that if you are FOUND by a COURT to be a credible threat to another person, then your gun rights can be temporarily taken away. What is MORE important here is that they followed the Bruen methodology. Merrick Garland wanted SCOTUS to use some "interest balancing" methodology that anti-gunners could use to justify all sorts of new or existing gun regulations. SCOTUS didn't do that. ALSO - plaintiffs should be able to argue AGAINST red flag laws if a Court finds them to be a credible threat without following "DUE PROCESS". (Rahimi had due process in his case) Honestly - this isn't that bad given the facts of the case and this isn't a HUGE loss for the 2nd Amendment community. It could have been MUCH MUCH worse.

The public go after it's even harder now especially with the red flag laws

Listen to Mark Smith at the Four Boxes Diner for a very different analysis on the decision.

Historical Analogs. The new Chevron Deference....

2:40 reads preventive justice, not presumptive. Those two are different things. Though still scary to think we have something on the books that basically opens up the ideology of the movie Minority Report to becoming reality.

Did it actually uphold red flag or just leave the door open for another battle? Either way it didn’t help.

@Uberragen21

18 күн бұрын

Did NOT uphold red flag laws. But it did leave the door open for red flag law challenge.

We the people need to red flag the Government !!

@aquariumdude7829

18 күн бұрын

Whatever that means.

As much as I hate the decision and disagree, considering it is 8 to 1, I will have to respect it. It sucks for the 2A but its hard to argue an 8 to 1 ruling....of course, I am surprised that the 4th amendment addressing due process wasn't enough to nullify this case. I guess Thomas is the only one who truly upholds the Constitution in its truest form.

@KorbinDallasRocks

17 күн бұрын

Rahimi didn’t bring a due process violation to the court. Due process on red flags is being contested in other cases and will soon see SCOTUS.

@xeoh85

13 күн бұрын

Due process was not at issue here. Rahimi received a court hearing, did not dispute the facts, and consented to entry of the restraining order against him. He very clearly received due process.

I wonder what the founding fathers would say???

@helidude3502

18 күн бұрын

*bang*bang*bang*

@thinkingimpaired5663

18 күн бұрын

FJB of course

@servicewerx6768

18 күн бұрын

They would be stacking body's

@aquariumdude7829

18 күн бұрын

Most of them would have probably just ran to the nearest tavern and gotten drunk. 😊

All guns when misused inappropriately can become dangerous and unusual

@andrewhopkins2634

18 күн бұрын

So can Hands...

Dig that Obama ad for Biden… Do you think I’m going to donate😂😂😂.

So how about those “great legal minds” that said the Rahimi case would have an effect on the AWB cases awaiting cert? 😂😂

2:40 reads "preventive" (not presumptive) justice. The lack of attention to detail undermines your opinion.

Is there ever a good day for the 2A?

@aquariumdude7829

17 күн бұрын

Depends what state you are in! 😊

@MrPdccru

17 күн бұрын

@aquariumdude7829 Hopefully, the state you're in never turns blue. CA was once Red before it became the garbage state it is now. Unfortunately, there's no hope for CA and the 2A. Enjoy your freedoms wherever you are and keep the greasy Liberals out, or you too will be singing the blues. Long live the Republic!

@aquariumdude7829

16 күн бұрын

​@@MrPdccruYep. It is a real shame what happened to California. Back in the eighties, everyone wanted to live there. Now, forget it.

Check out Washington gun laws initial analysis of the decision. A lot of it makes sense. I don't like all of it, but it is how the laws were written.

SNBI is clearly not enough. Hasn't been enough since the 1930's. But take heart, there are plenty of other words, a plethora, one might say, that are quite effective and impactful in the arena we should be putting all of our efforts: the legislative. Because, like the shortfall of SNBI, the courts are an AWFUL place to be fighting this fight. See, stemming the tide of legislation is the KEY and to do THAT you need to control Public Opinion, and to do THAT you need a plethora of words other than SNBI because John Q voter is unconvinced by it. But, that plethora I keep referring to... fwew!

The court is not going to save us, and we are not voting our way out of this.

@aquariumdude7829

17 күн бұрын

Agreed! We must bribe, buy, and grovel our way out! 😊

Video keeps stopping

Thanks William. Pa2060 et al has been law since October 2018.

Hey copper any updates on California body armor red flag laws?

"They" are trying to shred "our" constitution and Bill of rights! Let's roll!!!

@aquariumdude7829

17 күн бұрын

Dude, at least half of the people are voting for this and even want more.

Incorrect.

SCOTUS got Rahimi right, sorry fellahs. Rahimi had exhibited violence according to the case text. Also, it is 100% congruent with Bruen in my reading of both cases. It is "sort of like" the historically accepted practice of checking in your .45 revolver before admission to the saloon was granted - a known and historically accepted practice. Also, Rahimi implicitly accepts the reasoning of the recent 9th circuit case of Duarte that allowed a "non-violent" felon a pass on charges of gun ownership precisely because Duarte's felony convictions were all non-violent. So the trend appears to clarify: no if you are violent and maybe if you are not. Before you jump on this reasoning, you should at least read and compare both Duarte AND Rahimi.

@Kevin_P_H

18 күн бұрын

Very well said sir!!

@matthewbecker6553

18 күн бұрын

It also focuses on the limited duration even for a person who is violent. I suspect that SCOTUS will say that even violent felons regain rights after their period of probation or parole are ended - and in states that have lifetime probation or parole... or DVRO that last longer than a couple of years (as Rahimi DVRO was limited to 2 years), that rights will get restored.

@Kevin_P_H

17 күн бұрын

@@matthewbecker6553 I think we are years down the road with this court for violent felons with Robert’s barret and the 3 liberals ( That’s firearm rights ) other civil rights then yes.

@CharlesBenninghoff

17 күн бұрын

Matt, I forgot the time issue which is an important factor. Thanks for reminding me

The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

@aquariumdude7829

17 күн бұрын

Oh, Geez! Not that homicidal, maniacal bush again! 😂

@aquariumdude7829

17 күн бұрын

Give it some Agent Orange already! That'll shut it up! 😂

People who legally enter into the US are genuinely vested into the country. They want to be Americans and respect our laws. We can't be the safe haven for Billions of people who live at or below the poverty line. At what point do the countrymen and women must fight for a better life within their country. Yes blood will be spilled.

@chipsramek3868

18 күн бұрын

Try to buy a "REBEL" flag in this "Land Of The Fee".

Thomas missed Pa state law pa2060 et al, it does what he says they cannot do, an accusation confiscation.

Why does your video keep stopping?

I believe you are mistaken. It requires a finding, full trial, that a person is proven to be dangerous. As far as the Heller methodology, it doesn't change it at all. Mark Smith's review on Four Boxes Diner is a very different take.

@j.p.8248

18 күн бұрын

"What it takes" was not addressed by the court at all.

@bertgregory6664

18 күн бұрын

@j.p.8248 The decision said specifically that the person had to be dangerous. This will be used in the fight regarding non-violent felons and limits on "responsible" citizens getting permits. In general, it has no negative impact on Heller or Bruen.

@mb9662

18 күн бұрын

@@bertgregory6664 firearms are dangerous. Therefore keeping and baring a firearm makes one dangerous. Turn in your guns at the re-education camp entrance

@Kevin_P_H

18 күн бұрын

@@bertgregory6664 you are correct sir

@bertgregory6664

17 күн бұрын

@mb9662 Having a firearm does not make you dangerous. It makes you prepared. Misusing a firearm may demonstrate that a person is dangerous.

That's what you will always get from the Supreme LEFT Court.

Back pedaling after Bruen, they are concerned about their livelihood . Heaven forbid they get impeached.

@aquariumdude7829

18 күн бұрын

Dude, they cannot realistically be impeached. That's a pipe dream.

The court was wrong

The NRA must be celebrating along with Giffords and Brady.

this was a big win for the 2nd they did not uphold redflag laws

@Uberragen21

18 күн бұрын

Not a big win, but not a big loss either.

@matthewbecker6553

18 күн бұрын

The emphasis the Court put on Rahimi having a hearing in which he could have contested the allegations and could have presented evidence is a huge hit against red flag laws. The historical analogue of surety statutes, like the DVRO disarmament statute both required there to have been notice and a proper opportunity to be heard (using rules of evidence - NOTE: Rules of evidence prohibit admissibility of rumor, innuendo, hearsay, or speculation) BEFORE disarmament could take place.

@KorbinDallasRocks

17 күн бұрын

@@matthewbecker6553Lots of people missing that point.

One step forward, two steps back.....with this case/ruling

Ping pong is proud.

I believe the scotus is compromised

Not only Red Flags to be upheld, but made sure that AWB will be never taken

the ruling stated only the courts can decide who is dangerous not your neighbor

This country is doomed

@aquariumdude7829

18 күн бұрын

Yeah, pretty much.

👍

It sounds lke there is a feertile garden of weeds and flowers for lawyers on every side to use, for an against ..................

Wonder, 🤔what's in his closet

@thinkingimpaired5663

18 күн бұрын

Epstein

They arent as gun friendly as you all think they are

I suddenly got really scared of all my Xs. I'm about to have a lot of fun throwing the Constitution out of the window.

I will promptly disobey red flag orders, and I live in Fl

@aquariumdude7829

18 күн бұрын

Great. For whatever that's worth.

What ever happened to the presumption of innocence? That was a pretty big thing in the reality I was just living in. This kind of thinking reminds me of the reason for the Chevron Doctrine in that it puts a thumb on the scales of justice in favor of one side that is "presumed" to be correct. The adjudication process is perfunctory if it exists at all. A person will be presumed a danger simply on the word of another without any evidence or due process of law. I'm not surprised at Justice Stevens though, turning a blind eye to the greater injustice. He's a natural born compromiser.

Kind of messed up with the highest court in the land can't deliver something concise.

in the surety laws the accused had the chance to defend themselves before the government acted against their rights

I told you. You guys have way too much faith in these so called Conservative SCROTUS Judges.

@aquariumdude7829

18 күн бұрын

I tried to tell them that for the longest time.

Disagree. I don’t think this does anything good or bad for red flag laws. Totally predicated ho hum milk toast opinion on a bad 2A case that should have never even been heard. I initially called this decision a draw, but actually after thinking about it, it’s a win for DEMS because taking this case prevented SCOTUS from hearing an important 2A case. So bad decision making by Roberts has lead to a big delay in this court doing something actually useful. That’s how this case hurts us. Not the decision which is a nothing burger, but played directly into DEMS new tactics which is to delay, delay, delay.

@KorbinDallasRocks

17 күн бұрын

Well maybe it’ll shut up some of the leftists cries of rogue court.

How does this affect, Caniglia vs. Strom decision 6 June 2021?

@aquariumdude7829

16 күн бұрын

Never heard of it.

😂😂😂😂 let's hear the keyboard warriors so-called patriots

@aquariumdude7829

18 күн бұрын

Oh, they will all make hollow, empty threats on the internet, parrot meaningless slogans, make endlessly-rehashed Thomas Jefferson quotes, and then do nothing in the real world as usual.

@aquariumdude7829

18 күн бұрын

I know. They are all such internet blowhards! 😂

Due process was NOT at issue at all in Rahimi, and thus the case absolutely did NOT address red flag laws. Rahimi had a court hearing, did not dispute the alleged facts, and consented to the restraining order being entered against him, so due process very clearly was not at issue in this case. Your lack of legal training is really showing here, and you should be more careful not to put out clearly incorrect legal analysis.

Maybe re-read the decision. It does NOT uphold Ref Flag Laws. Maybe check out Mark Smith, Constitutional Attorney, at The Four Boxes Diner.

So, the gestapo can confiscate weapons without due process and solely based on some arbitrary complaint. Constitutional rights eroded again.

Constuion is what go by

That is a due process violation and a fourth amendment violation of unlawful, searching and seizing.

If any ambiguity exists about interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, it shall-must always be construed most favorably towards the individual. The Fourth Amendment is not subject to legislative, executive or judicial revocation, amendment or dilution.

@aquariumdude7829

18 күн бұрын

Well, they are diluting it anyway. Just ask Donald Trump.

These judges are looking to get arrested

@aquariumdude7829

18 күн бұрын

Dude, who is going to arrest them? YOU??? Please come back to reality!

Any Law repugnant to the Constitution is void. Marbury vs. Madison 5US137 (1803)

@aquariumdude7829

17 күн бұрын

Dude, that bull---t statute is over 220 years old and is so legally vague that it can be interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean. That's probably why it has never been used in any court anywhere ever since! 😂

@aquariumdude7829

17 күн бұрын

Sure, man. You can tell the prison guard that as he slams your cell door shut and walks away. 😂