Comments on: Constitutional law roundup

By: Gospace

Gospace — Thu, 27 Dec 2018 23:01:48 +0000

Section 8 – Powers of Congress
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

Section 9 – Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall
think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one
thousand eight hundred and eight

Ilya Somin consistently says there is no general power to restrict immigration.

Section 9 is recognized as dealing primarily with slaves and slavery, however- it doesn’t say slaves. It refers to both migration and importation. Slaves were imported. Migrants were not. They migrate. That is, they’re immigrants. So post 1808, Congress has the power to restrict and regulate immigration in any way it wants. And it goes hand-in-hand with Section 8. If you’re going to bring in immigrants, and allow them to naturalize, they should be immigrants who can be naturalized. I think coming into the country lawfully should be a first requirement.

By: SPO

SPO — Wed, 26 Dec 2018 20:50:08 +0000

Sullum’s piece shows, to be blunt, that the law is an ass. Actually, it isn’t the law. It is a court decree, and there is a different. Law has a component of rationality and legitimacy. Relying on the superhuman snout of a cop isn’t the same as the “fertile octagenarian” or other legal fiction, it is an affront to a free society.

I have been criticized in this forum for being somewhat over the top in criticisms—but what is the proper response when an obviously bogus search gets the stamp of approval from the highest court in the state–a snide reference to “the learned judges?” A call to civility, in my view, often mitigates the force of justified criticism. And I get that it is important that the judiciary be respected, but it’s not a categorical imperative, and where a lack of respect results from decisions such as these, we should be careful not to mistake a symptom for a cause.

The upshot, in my view, is that the legal system is supposed to be the guardian of our rights under a constitutional republic and when it obviously fails at that duty, it should be ruthlessly criticized.

By: MattS

MattS — Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:31:01 +0000

In reply to Ed.

I would suppose that depends on the nature of the container itself.

In this case it was in two sealed containers; a Tupperware container which was insider a closed and locked safe.

On top of that, it was at least 30 feet from where the officer claimed to have first smelled it.

Count me skeptical that any human could have smelled it under those conditions, no matter how strong the odor is from the raw product.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 25 Dec 2018 22:45:48 +0000

In reply to Hugo S. Cunningham. You can still smell raw marijuana in a sealed container. It's just that strong.

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Mon, 24 Dec 2018 18:09:09 +0000

The Kansas marijuana case is confusing. Marijuana smoke has a pungent smell, distinctive enough to establish probable cause (though I have been told that burnt tea is sometimes similar). Why couldn’t the cops say they smelled marijuana smoke, rather than blatantly lying about their ability to smell “raw” marijuana in a sealed container?

By: SPO

SPO — Mon, 24 Dec 2018 16:09:19 +0000

RE: Kansas

Wasn’t Kansas the state in which cops mistook tea for marijuana?

By: SPO

SPO — Mon, 24 Dec 2018 15:15:17 +0000

“Notwithstanding Justice Gorsuch and Kavanaugh’s interjections, there is and has been no uniform incorporation of the entire Bill of Rights against the states [”

That doesn’t seem to be a fair shot at the justices—the Eighth Amendment has, and their point was more along that lines that the “ship has sailed.”