Says you. Nobody worries about the 3td Amendment, until the Army comes knocking at their door, demanding free bed and breakfast.
I very much agree with you the 4th Amendment is very important too. I would guess Musk does as well. The federal government should not be allowed to seize assets during a drug raid like they are doing today. Unfortunately, the only states who have any protection at all from federal asset forfeiture are New Mexico, North Carolina, Nebraska, and Maine, as they have completely abolished civil forfeiture, meaning any seizures must be done through a criminal conviction in court, providing the strongest protection for property owners. Liberal California has practically no protection from this at all. Asset forfeiture laws in California are often used by law enforcement to seize all types of property and even money. Asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property acquired through criminal activity or used to commit a crime.
It isn't important, it is THE most important. It is the basis, the backbone our judicial system that protects the people from Government hearsay.
Musk is an immigrant. He came here to replace another billionaire who could have run Tesla (with a bit more compassion) to greatness.
You are going to notice that a drug raid requires a warrant, right? Property seizure, a warrant. Government can't just do it.
Cite?
You talking about the one that says
Well, duh! All it says is:
Why would I worry about a drawing of a soldier being hung in my home?
If you hung a soldier in your home, wouldn't somebody having a drawing of it worry you?
Did I have a stroke? Are my posts that hard to follow?
Would someone please identify the two people in that tweet and shy anyone should take what they allegedly said seriously?
No, just wrong.
Oh thank goodness. Because Rvonse seemed to have no idea what I was talking about and you seemed to have no idea what I was talking about, which made me think maybe it was me, and not other people's ignorance.
It has become that; But really, it's just an outdated idea, that made sense only in the context of the time it was written - just like the 3rd.
You said "No one is against voter ID laws, as long as people can have reasonable access to ID.", and I challenged your assertion. Why you would think I challenged it because I had no idea what you were talking about, rather than because you offered no evidence, is a mystery. The claim is implausible on its face, and even if it's against all odds true, it's not clear how you could possibly know it's true.
You seem to be distinguishing between "the Government" and "a court". When a judge issues a warrant, that is the Government's say-so being enough to take property or liberty from a person.
The thing to keep in mind is that where the Constitution prohibited the government from doing something, it's rarely because of some stupid ignorant theory of good government; it's generally because Madison et al. were quite familiar with the British government doing that thing. In this case they knew all about James II and his "select militias" -- he tried to arm the segments of the population he thought were politically reliable and disarm the segments that weren't, and Madison et al. wanted to make sure nothing like that happened again. Such concerns are antiquated now, but it was probably a good idea in the 1700s.
