beala said:
You contradict yourself. If a ruling of the courts made something either undeniably constitutional or unconstitutional, then nothing could ever be overturned. How can something that is incontestable be ever changing? A court could always dismiss a case on the grounds that: Law B was ruled unconstitutional, and that ruling is incontestable.
Im sorry, but you really dont seem to be grasping the concept of case law or the constitution. Since the very onset, Ive never said that the rulings of the court werent uncontestable. Ive, from the start, said that as the law stands now, that properly conducted sobriety checkpoints arent in violation of the 4th Amendment, nor any other individual rights. Again, a statement in fact is that as the law stands now, sobriety checkpoints arent unconstitutional nor in violation of the 4th Amendment. Perhaps, in the future it may be overturned by a different court and at that point it will be unconstitutional. But this is exactly what Ive always said with my first post (#95). I havent contradicted any of my posts, perhaps youve read more into them than what was actually there.
beala said:
This also leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that segregation was in fact constitutional at one point (Plessy v. Ferguson). That is to say, at one point in time, the segregation laws were just, and it wasn't until recently they became unjust.
It is a statement of fact that until a later court struck down the
Plessy v. Ferguson it WAS constitutional. Right or Wrong, it was at that time constitutional and until it was reversed by the courts in 1954 it was constitutional
not necessarily right though. That is a statement of fact. Again, I think youre confusing what is just and what is constitutional, and somewhere in there intermixing a notion of a universal truth. What is constitutional and what is just sometimes arent the same, such as
Dred Scott,
Plessy case, etc.
beala said:
What's more likely the case is that there is an objective truth to the interpretation of the constitution, but the courts aren't as infallible an authority as you'd like to think. The upshot of this is that we can say segregation laws were never constitutional, the court was simply wrong at one point. This is my argument concerning checkpoint laws.
I,
to some degree, reject the notion of a completely objective truth to the interpretation of the constitution. Rather, I believe that rather the interpretation of the constitution is largely subjective (subjected to current norms). As those norms change, so does the interpretation. Again, I said to some degree.
beala said:
Let's settle this once and for all.
Wiki:
"There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious."
First, wikipedia shouldnt be your expert opinion. Secondly, I find the bolded statement to be the most telling. Please thoroughly reread everything Ive written. Ive never once said that because the Supreme Court said its constitutional its just (I do however believe it to be just). Ive simply stated that the Supreme Court ruled it to be constitutional, and until its overturned it is, in fact constitutional. Again, I dont think it will be overturned any time soon and has survived several tests.
beala said:
What's perhaps more devastating to your argument, is the fact that you're begging the question. You're using the court case that instated certain laws, as evidence that those laws are just. That is, we ask the question "Is the ruling of the courts concerning checkpoint laws just?" And you answer with "Yes, it is just, because the court says so.
Ive actually never said that. I do however believe that the ruling is just based off of several parts of the ruling. First, the sniff test or that the checkpoint is properly conducted. They arent unwarranted because they are conducted in areas of high dd instances (accidents and arrests) and at time/events where those instances spike even further this is the most important because it shows cause and provides warrant. They are either completely random (vehicles are stopped at set intervals) or every vehicle is checked.
beala said:
"It's a slippery slope because the justification for checkpoints could also be used to justify other obviously unjust actions. Just because a certain reason could be used for justification, doesn't mean it will, but the fact that it could is enough to show its folly. Perhaps the better way of putting this (since you're so fond of quibbling over terms) would be a reductio ad absurdum. I've shown that following your reasoning to it's logical end results in unacceptable (absurd) conclusion.
Again, you show no data that this law has been used to justify the expansion police powers to search cars. In fact, Ive actually stated that in the Ohio case it was over turned. There is no empirical data nor ANY data to show that its a slippery slope to expanded police powers of search. Therefore, you stating that:
following your reasoning to it's logical end results in unacceptable (absurd) conclusion.
isnt logical because there is absolutely nothing to show that that unacceptable conclusion would be reached. Again, that expansion of police powers was tested and it failed, therefore the only conclusion that could logically be reached would be that your slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
