The constitution is the guide which I will never abandon ~
George Washington
Two State Supreme Court Justices, Steven
David and Robert Rucker, are up for retention on Election Day. A “yes” vote
means you want them to remain on the court for 10 more years. They are not
running against each other. Each justice gets a 'yes' or 'no' vote.
Please vote 'no' for Justice David. He made an activist ruling, against 4th amendment protection.
In the majority decision in “Barnes vs. IN,” Justice David stated the following in his decision against Barnes, “We believe, however, that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.” ....In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”
Justice Robert Rucker disagreed with Justice David. In his dissenting opinion he wrote: “But the common law rule supporting a citizen's right to resist unlawful entry into his or her home rests on a very different ground, namely, the 4th amendment to the U.S. constitution. Indeed, the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the 4th amendment is directed.... In my view, it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations. There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful entry into his or her home.
Please vote 'no' for Justice David. He made an activist ruling, against 4th amendment protection.
In the majority decision in “Barnes vs. IN,” Justice David stated the following in his decision against Barnes, “We believe, however, that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.” ....In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law.”
Justice Robert Rucker disagreed with Justice David. In his dissenting opinion he wrote: “But the common law rule supporting a citizen's right to resist unlawful entry into his or her home rests on a very different ground, namely, the 4th amendment to the U.S. constitution. Indeed, the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the 4th amendment is directed.... In my view, it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations. There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful entry into his or her home.
·
www.nrapublications.org/index.php/12913/the-movement-to-torch-the-united-states-constitution - Info
about the movement to change the constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment