Constitutional extremism?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, Sep 5, 2010.

  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I got called extreme right wing the other day because I cited something in the Constitution. Someone was commenting on how police can search your car's at checkpoints. I said they can't constitutionally and then cited the Constitution and your 4th Amendment right.

    I was called "one of those extreme right wing tea partiers".

    Since when has abiding by and interpreting the Constitution literally been considered "right wing extremism"? If anything I am neither left nor right, I'm more up then down. As in less government.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2010

  2. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    I and Im sure most people would consider reciting a 200+ year old document to determine modern day society as right wing. If anything you've given a prime example of what is right-wing conservatism.
     
  3. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I think it's silly to consider believing in the rights that are meant to be protected by the Constitution extreme conservatism. Like I said in the name calling thread, labels such as those are made by those who lack any substance to their arguments.

    That being said, what do you mean by police and what do you mean by checkpoints? In Texas, on highways about 60-80 miles as you go north, you will come to a Border Patrol Checkpoint, these of course are federal officers. Because of the high volume of illegal immigration they will ask you questions and have more authority to inspect your vehicle for illegals and/or drugs. They can even have you pull your vehicle over into secondary and do a total search of your car. They don't need probable cause and they have just about the same authority to seach your vehicle as if you were entering the country from Mexico.

    If you are talking about a state/city police who have a checkpoint setup for whatever reason then you'd be correct, they have limited authority to search your vehicle, sans of course the plain view doctrine.
     
  4. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Why would that be silly? ....I dont want to patronise anyone by referencing a dictionary or encyclopaedia, people can look it up themselves, but surely it is by definition right-wing/conservatism. Maybe not necessarily extreme but certainly fundamental(easily the same thing).
     
  5. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Number one, you were obviously not talking with anyone of moderate intelligence of knowledge of any political realm. Number two, those who meticulously interpret and cite the constitution are commonly right wingers but I do see a bit of a problem in how all of a sudden you're a tea partier and an extremist. I'm not sure how those labels got tossed around.
     
  6. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I don't see how believing the police don't generally have the right to search your vehicle, a right protected by the Constitution, is extreme. It's been recognized by the Supreme Court for over 200 years, I fail to see the extremism of it.

    By definition something extreme would be outside of the political center. Holding the opinion that the 4th amendment prohibits a police officer from searching your vehicle certainly isn't outside of the political center, that has been the generally accepted protection for many years. Certainly it's fundamental but I disagree that is easily the same thing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2010
  7. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    I don't think Bananas is referencing that exact scenario CO. I think he's referring more to the constant and perfect reciting and varied interpretation of the constitution as a form of right wing extremism.
     
  8. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    You're probably right, in my posts I've gone back to that specific scenario regarding the 4th amendment as opposed to what he quoted.

    This is what he quoted:

    This is what I said:

    His response:

    Now, speaking generally as I did in that post I still don't think recognizing those rights that are protected by the Constitution as extreme, or extreme conservatism. I would agree with him to some extent when it comes to interpreting say the equal protection clause as not protecting gay marriage, although going by most polls I've seen I wouldn't consider that view too outside the political center.

    Believing in things such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a speedy trial, the right not to have your life, liberty or property taken away without due process, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to petition the government for grievances, etc..I wouldn't consider extreme in the least. I think the vast majority of Americans, liberal and conservative, would all agree these are things worth protecting. I agree they are fundamental, I don't agree they are extreme. I do however see that SOME of the interpretations of the Constitution may be somewhat extreme, I was speaking about protecting rights however, specifically the Bill of Rights or the 4th amendment. I don't believe the scenario Pro gave is extreme in the least, I consider it very mainstream.

    EDIT: Let me say looking back at Bananas' post he makes the argument that believing in the protections of the Constitution are conservative and I agree with that. I think where we may disagree is while they are fundamental they are not extreme in my opinion. I see what you were getting at though, Bananas. My objection was that the opinion is considered extreme, not conservative. I took extreme to mean way out of the mainstream, not that it was on the right side of the political spectrum, regarding the latter I agree with you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2010
  9. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    As I wrote in the "call'em names" thread: Here's their new campaign strategy: belief in constitution=extremist, belief in limited government=radical.

    It would seem they got the talking points memo!
     
  10. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    I think you're missing the blatant and clear distinction being made here SS. We're not talking belief in the constitution, we're talking about stone cold dedication, meticulous interpretation and constant adherence to every last comma and period. So basically, the opposite of the everyday Christian and the bible. I also think it's cute how you think this is a new strategy for anyone. Did you just start following politics this week? :lol:
     

Share This Page