CPB sets up check point on jetway of SFO-JFK
#51
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 375
For those you who may not be familiar with NMuir, he is a troll with just enough knowledge of aviation to push our buttons.
He throws out inflammatory statements and refuses to support them with any relevant facts. When you supply any contradictory evidence, he responds with this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
He never is able to engage past basic talking points and lacks any real world experience to support his posts. He is the uninformed yet opinionated facebook "friend," the 17-year-old kid who just discovered Che Guevara, nothing more than a mere fart in the wind.
He throws out inflammatory statements and refuses to support them with any relevant facts. When you supply any contradictory evidence, he responds with this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
He never is able to engage past basic talking points and lacks any real world experience to support his posts. He is the uninformed yet opinionated facebook "friend," the 17-year-old kid who just discovered Che Guevara, nothing more than a mere fart in the wind.
Uh no, you couldn't be more wrong. And Che was a murderer who should have been executed many years before he was killed.
Oh, and this:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
#52
You lost your fourth amendment right to privacy and unreasonable search when the SCOTUS (split decision) allowed an exception for public safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
Try that at a DUI checkpoint.
You lost your fourth amendment right to privacy and unreasonable search when the SCOTUS (split decision) allowed an exception for public safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint
You lost your fourth amendment right to privacy and unreasonable search when the SCOTUS (split decision) allowed an exception for public safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint
I hate to split hairs-but there is not a "right to privacy." Never has been one.
It is a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The whole "right to privacy" is a modern invention-and an attempt to make the constitution to appear to contain something it doesn't.
#54
Banned
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 201
The Constitution provides only one entity to interpret the Constitution and that is the SCOTUS. While you may feel your opinion is valid, unless you happen to be one of the 9 justices it isn't.
#56
Try that at a DUI checkpoint.
You lost your fourth amendment right to privacy and unreasonable search when the SCOTUS (split decision) allowed an exception for public safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint
You lost your fourth amendment right to privacy and unreasonable search when the SCOTUS (split decision) allowed an exception for public safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,673
I don't always seek legal counsel/constitutional scholars. But when I do, I go to Facebook or APC.
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,666
The SCOTUS gets to interpret the Constitution. Since the 4th amendment does not define the word "unreasonable", they have come up with various interpretations to try to define what is reasonable vs unreasonable. Since the US operates on the English-style common law system of precedent-setting case law and since there is no higher legal authority in the US that can overturn their rulings, then their interpretations carry the same weight as the text does, whether you or I like it or not.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post