Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tweetr" data-source="post: 3958954" data-attributes="member: 5183">Then necessarily when case law alters or inverts the language of the Constitution itself, it is the case law that must fail, not the Constitution. As in Dobbs reversing Roe and Casey. Whatever you may believe about the morality or even the legality of abortion, Roe and Casey were abominably poorly reasoned and must fall. So also Carroll, which decided that if the PLACE is moveable, then the PERSON has no right to be secure. That obviously and demonstrably inverts the reason for having a Fourth Amendment in the first place. This is easily proven. Were there no moveable places to search when the Bill of Rights was ratified? Of course there were. Rowboats, ships, horse carts, oxcarts. For that matter the person himself is moveable, yet the person has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, irrespective of the place. Carroll is speciously reasoned. And case law has no power to alter or erase statute law, let alone the Constitution itself.</blockquote>