Government Approval of Everybody . . .

[Mcordell]

Red,

I have no desire to be a member of an organization.  Shouldn't my focus be on serving the county residents and not following the dictum of some organization?  You seem to be quite contradictory, favoring certain principals when you want to and denouncing those same principals when you choose.

You seem to want me to join an organization that requires me, as a member, to pay an annual membership fee.  What do you suppose happens to those fees?  Well, those fees are collected and used for the advancement of the organization, not for the individual.  Isn't that communism?  You seem to be under the impression that use of public funds for the betterment of the community is communism so what's the difference? 

Look at the bylaws of the oathkeepers.  It's right in their bylaws that the founder has a permanent place on the board of trustees for the rest of his life while all other trustees have term limits, effectively granting him supreme power over the organization.  Guess what happens when the terms of the board members expire.  The BOARD elects new trustees, not the membership at large.  The membership gets no say in who is leading the organization and making decisions on their behalf.  Could you imagine if congress got together and elected new congressmen to replace those that left office?  Isn't that tyranny red?  Shouldn't they open up these elections to the membership?

So just to be clear, you want me to join an organization where I give them money that they can use for the betterment of the group, and swear an oath to follow the organization's rules when that organization is lead by an elite group who elected themselves?  That's quite interesting.  It seems your values only matter when you are pushing them onto other people.

I do not need to be a member of any organization to tell me what is best for the citizens of Elk County.

[Wake-up!]

Mike Cordell, earlier you stated, "The constitution requires probable cause for arrest.  Nowhere does it say you cannot be stopped and questioned temporarily, nor does it set the standard upon which to base those actions.  That was left up to the courts who followed English common law upon which the majority of our legal system, including the constitution was based."

I took Civics probably a generation before you did. I learned two tenets of English Law; 1) 'Everything which is not forbidden is allowed' as a constitutional principle that was and is an essential freedom of the ordinary citizen (or English subject); and 2) the converse principle, 'Everything which is not allowed is forbidden' as a constitutional principle applied to public authorities, whose actions were, and still are, limited to the powers explicitly granted to them by constitutions.

Your reference that the Constitution 'does not say you cannot be stopped  . . . . ' is contrary to English Law. The absence of explicit granting of authority (i.e., the Constitution must say you can stop and question without probable cause), means government, and therefore police, are denied the ability to stop and question temporarily. It does not give government, including the Court system, an open hand to do dang well as they please. That is what I learned in school. That is the contemporary argument posed by many Constitutionalists, including attorneys. Of course it is not what the government wants the people to believe, government wants ever expanding power, not limitations to power. I have little doubt you learned differently in school and in enforcement classes.

You also made a statement in your last blog entry answering me, that 'walking into someone's yard is not trespassing'. I take exception to that. I own the home and property I live on. It's perimeter is fenced and gated. As a private property owner, I say whom I give the privilege of entry to. No one besides myself has a right to enter. To say otherwise is to deny the rights of private ownership. The only way what you have stated can possibly be true is that private property rights no longer exist in this country, that no one owns their property, that I/we are merely serfs, leasing it from the government. Is that your inference? Is that your training? If it is, it is a sad day for our country.

See a new blog entry that I hope generates more views than this one has, and one more pertinent to the election.

[Mcordell]

This is the problem with hypothetical scenarios. In my mind I was referring to a city lot with no physical boundary like a fence surrounding ones front yard. This is of course a very complex legal issue but an unfenced front yard is still, of course, entirely owned by the homeowner, however it's inclusion in the curtilage surrounding the home is a legal complexity which would fall to the tests prescribed by the Supreme Court in making that determination. That being said, a fenced yard is more likely to meet the legal definition of trespassing as spelled out in statute. Also, I referred to a scenario in which potential criminal activity was in plain view of an officer which, again, carries legal implications in regards to the 4th amendment.

Nothing in any scenario is going to be a simple answer when it comes to applying constitutional law. It is more complex than most realize.

Now, I'm going to clarify the underlying point.  My basic scenario involved an instance where an officer on patrol observes potential criminal activity in plain view on someone's private property.  The criminal activity I described is such that immediate intervention would be required to prevent possible death or great bodily harm to someone.  While the officer doesn't necessarily have probable cause to arrest the individual, in this instance, based solely on the information I laid out in the description of the scenario, the officer should most definitely stop the activity to investigate.  If you are asking if I would go onto someone's private property without their permission in order to protect them from death or great bodily harm, the answer is yes.  While I respect private property rights, the protection of individuals is paramount.  If you wouldn't want me to enter your private property to protect you and your family from harm, well then I apologize and understand that we are just going to see things from a different perspective.  I would not trespass onto someone's private property for non-emergency situations as I believe that to be contrary to the 4th amendment.

[redcliffsw]

I'm not a proponent of joining any organizations however the two (2) mentioned by Wake Up make much more sense than the usual organizations. 

Then you are saying that you will not be joining the KS Sheriffs Association?

Hope so - and it's bad enough that anyone must be government approved to be County Sheriff.