1 vote

Vid-The nullification of the 4th ammendment in Indiana...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'd like you to think about something.

Many times I take a more abrasive approach to getting my message across. However, this isn't going to be one of those times.

I'd really like those of you reading this who still believe in government to consider something very important. The people in control, politicians and judges, have ALWAYS claimed for themselves the exclusive so called right to declare what 'law' is and what those laws mean. Why would any of you expect a politican or judge, let alone some number of politicans and judges, to declare that anyone has any 'right' to defend themself against the aggression of the state? Furthermore, from a legal standpoint, the judges in Indiana ruled exactly as the law allows for. After all, ANY search by the police is reasonable, isn't it? And while you might think that YOU have some right to interpret what is or is not reasonable, that simply isn't the case. What is 'reasonable' is for the court, in this case the judges, to decide.

Besides, this ruling only makes official and 'legal' in Indiana the situation that has existed for quite some time anyway. Besides, do you really think that you have any legally recognized 'right' to defend yourself, your family, and your property with force against any entry by some costumed, armed agent of the state, no matter where you live in the USA?

If you want to be free, you must let others be free.

State Citizens have the right to protect their property...

"citizens of the United States" dont!
I understand your frustration, but courts WILL respond correctly when presented with the CORRECT information...for example, file a complaint as a "resident" or "citizen of the United States"...seek relief under the 14th Amendment...or seek "civil liberties" and you will learn the hard way. Use a Social Security number or zip code or Drivers license with your court action, and once again, you will lose your rights.

The courts have dealt with this issue many times, this Indiana court ruling is nothing more than one (actually 3 concurring) judges opinion. I think it will be quickly overturned, if for nothing else, to prevent blowback. Having said that, the ruling is technically correct because Federal citizens are inferior to their governmental leaders such as police. Furthermore, the properties are given to state when the title is registered and recorded, which is why you also need permission to repair your roof.

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

A few questions for you

Prompted by the last line of your post above.

How long do you believe a mere citizen would have to live should that citizen take the life of an arresting officer in resisting an illegal arrest? Should that citizen actually live to be arrested by other officers, which they most certainly would be, do you honestly believe that any court, any judge, any jury, would actually acquit that citizen of the charges which would most certainly be leveled against them?

less than 5 minutes

less than 5 minutes probably...these are words from courts, my point was to show that court precedent CAN be correct. This was in response to the theory that no court would ever rule in favor of the Citizen, as you are again suggesting here...these are the courts words, not mine.

I recommend peaceful actions with police, or anyone for that matter, but when confronted with a situation one should act to protect their home and family first, and to please the courts second. A burglar dressed like an officer should be concerned for his safety, not secure in the idea that he can just come right in. Police should also be fearful. They have rules that are easy enough to follow, if an over zealous cop breaks in illegally, he may be perceived as a burglar or rapist and dealt with accordingly.

I couldn't agree more that peaceful interactions are always best

I think that everyone ought to strive to keep all their interactions with others peaceful. And I certainly agree that using force to defend one's self and property against any illegal police aggression would most certainly end poorly, and not for the police.

The problem with the Indiana ruling is that people who live there can no longer defend themselves against anyone even CLAIMING to be the police. For if a person did, and that aggressor actually turns out to be an officer, well, the cout has made it's position clear on where it stands. Which means that unfortunately your last statement can not, and will not, be tolerated by the court there and most likely not anywhere else in the US either.

Contrary to belief Caselaw is

Contrary to belief Caselaw is NOT law, it is not precedent, it is merely to be cited to lend weight to a case.

This could get a lot worse though!

If this gets appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and they uphold the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling, then the rest of the Union will be subjected to this heinous ruling too. Given the US Supreme Courts's recent 8-1 decision regarding search warrants, I have little hope.

Anybody know if it's being appealed?

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

The best thing I heard was

The best thing I heard was Mike Church yesterday amd today explaining the 4th amendment doesn't apply here. It was not a federal situation at all.

The problem is the Indiana Supreme Court does not even site it's own constitution in the ruling.

They completely disregarded their own constitution and sited the 4th amendment which does no apply to the states on state matters.

So this is not an attack on t he 4th amendment, it is an attack on the states constitution which prohibits searches and seizures without warrants.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Partially correct. The 4th

Partially correct.

The 4th Amendment applies to the States of the union, but does NOT protect "federal citizens", it only applies to State Citizens, known as "we the People", and more commonly known as Article 2 Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizens".

The 14th Amendment was a bit of a trick. It created a new and lesser class of citizen for the newly freed slaves. Sadly, the Administration at the time was racist, so they did NOT make the 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States" equal to the "Citizen" in the Constitution.

Look through the Constitution, and you will see that "citizen" has a lower case "c" in the 14th Amendment for the first time.

The courts are WELL AWARE of this fact:

    "It is claimed that the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and of this State. Undoubtedly she is. It is argued that she became such by force of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, already recited. This, however, is a mistake. It could as well be claimed that she became free by the effect of the Thirteenth Amendment, by which slavery was abolished; for she was no less a citizen than she was free before the adoption of either of these amendments. No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. “The history and aim of the Fourteenth Amendment is well known, and the purpose had in view in its adoption well understood. That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States, who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship. These persons were not white persons, but were, in the main, persons of African descent, who had been held in slavery in this country, or, if having themselves never been held in slavery, were the native-born descendents of slaves. Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment it was settled that neither slaves, nor those who had been such, nor the descendants of these, though native and free born, were capable of becoming citizens of the United States. (Dread Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393). The Thirteenth Amendment, though conferring the boon of freedom upon native-born persons of African blood, had yet left them under an insuperable bar as to citizenship; and it was mainly to remedy this condition that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” VAN VALKENBURG V. BROWN, 43 CAL. 43 (1872)
    "[W]e find nothing…which requires that a citizen of a state must also be a citizen of the United States, if no question of federal rights or jurisdiction is involved."
    [Crosse v. Bd. of Supvrs of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966) ]

    "United States citizenship does not entitle citizens to rights and privileges of state citizenship."
    [K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236, 256 P. 545 (1927), 48 Supreme Court. 527.]

    "We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell."
    [The United States v. Susan B. Anthony (11 2nd. Jud. Cir.] 200, 1873)

    "The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment."
    [Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99]



The 4th Amendment dictates

The 4th Amendment dictates what congress can't do. The bill of rights starts out "CONGRESS can write no law..." The bill of rights what just another way to restrain the federal government.

The states have the ultimate say regarding state law. Which is why every state has it's own constitution. Only federal laws can violate the 4th amendment. State laws violate their own constitution. Until it is uphelp by a federal court it is a state issue only.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

True, BUT

The Federal Constitution is "the Law of the land".

A State therefore cannot deny someone due process, neither can a state allow searches and seizures without probable cause and warrants. This is a HUGE misconception today. The Federal Constitution is not only a limit on Federal government, it also provides federal government with an enumerated list of acceptable actions.

Notice that the Federal Constitution Amendment 10 states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This CLEARLY shows that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is limiting State action. Many people have erroneously tried to declare that the Federal Constitution limits ONLY congress, not true.

Therefore, a State cannot assess and collect an un-apportioned direct tax, nor can they infringe on the right to bear arms.

States CAN however, limit and regulate "aliens"!!

    An alien has no right to raise the question whether a statute is violative of Const. U.S. art. 4. Sec 2. declaring that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states.
    In re Johnson's Estate, 73 P 424 (1903).

Of course, most Americans think that an "alien" is someone from another country...not true. A "federal citizen", which is a "citizen of the United States" is an "alien" while in a State of the union:

See California Government code 242 for example:

    Persons in the State not its citizens are either:

    (a) Citizens of other States; or
    (b) Aliens.

    Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.
    United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 549 (1875); quoted in Crosse v. Board of Supervisors, 221 A2d 433 (1966).

The term "resident" means "occupying a position or place for a limited time"

    Legal Dictionary

    Main Entry: res·i·dent
    Pronunciation: 're-z&-d&nt
    Function: noun
    : one who has a residence in a particular place but does not necessarily have the status of a citizen —compare CITIZEN 1, DOMICILIARY — resident adjective

    “Residence and Citizenship are wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States; and a mere averment of residence in a particular State is not an averment of Citizenship in that state for the purposes of jurisdiction." Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U.S. 143

    “Of course the terms 'resident' and 'citizen' are not synonymous, and in some cases the distinction is important” [252 U.S. 60, 79] (La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465, 470 , 39 S. Sup. Ct. 160)...TRAVIS v. YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO. , 252 U.S. 60 (1920)

A "resident" at a Hospital is the correct usage of the word.

Conclusion, a State Citizen cannot be a "resident" of their own state, therefore, if they are a "resident" they are an "alien", and the State Constitution does not apply. If they are an "alien" AND a "citizen of the United States", then they are COMPLETELY under control of Congress as a "federal person".


Your assumption that the 10th

Your assumption that the 10th amendment limits the states right is incorrect.

The 10th Amendment means the powers that congress does not have are retained by the states themselves and the people. Which means the states and people retain the powers not delegated to the federal government. Which is just a reiteration of the enumerated powers.

If the people of a state wishes to impose socialism in a state they have the right to do so. The people have the ultimate say, those laws cannot be over-ruled by the federal government. Granted the constitutiom has not been followed but this is clearl ywhat the framers intended. Local government over central planning

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

The 10th Amendment doesnt

The 10th Amendment doesnt limit the States, the Federal Constitution limits the States.

A State can not make a law that violates the Constitution of the United States of America. Michigan, for example, cannot lay an unapportioned direct tax on its people...nor can they deny Citizens due process (even before the 14th Amendment), nor can the States write laws that deny State Citizens their right to assemble, and so on.

The 14th Amendment was NOT WRITTEN FOR STATE Citizens...it created a "new class of citizen" on that belongs to the Federal government.

    It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36](1873) emphasis added]

    The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States and the other of the state.
    [Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327]

    We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own ....[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]

    One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507;
    In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.[McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]

The 14th amendment directly

The 14th amendment directly enforces amendments 2 through 8 on the states via the due process clause. The writers of the 14th amendment specifically stated this in their proposal.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

The 14th Amendment ONLY

The 14th Amendment ONLY applies to FEDERAL citizens. NOT State Citizens...State Citizens ALREADY had all of those rights, the 14th is for the newly freed slaves.

This is GREAT news...

for burglars and home invaders.

Simply dress up like an officer before you break in, and the People of the State will be required to let you do and take what you want. BE CAREFUL though burglars, because the homeowners are allowed to sue you after wards!!


Localities should nullify

Localities should nullify this!

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

The Indiana government might

The Indiana government might as well declare war on Indianans.

These acts,unfortunately will be more common in the foreseeable future.The course at which all levels of government are going will be of aggression and more force.

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16