The Case of Illinos vs. Cabelles

[tinybear]

No? Books have been written on the topic. Many law schools include this in their curriculum. It has been the subject of intense academic debate.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tinybear No? Books have been written on the topic. Many law schools include this in their curriculum. It has been the subject of intense academic debate.

What the hell are you talking about??

[tinybear]

I'm just saying the fact that a law has to be obeyed has nothing to do with whether it is moral or not or whether it leads to a just or moral result. For instance what do you think of this law;" "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death."? Is it moral or not?

[Waychel]

tinybear is correct. We have many laws that could be construed as "immoral" to an individual's personal mindset, but it doesn't mean that they may break the law without penalty. As for the statement that any law which conflicts with another law is invalid, that is not the case in regards to the Automobile Exception of the Fourth Amendment, as it is not a law but an exception/clause that has been noted and is a part of the Fourth Amendment itself.

As taken from FindLaw:

The Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The noteworthy disputes over search and seizure in England and the colonies revolved about the character of warrants. There were, however, lawful warrantless searches, primarily searches incident to arrest, and these apparently gave rise to no disputes. Thus, the question arises whether the Fourth Amendment's two clauses must be read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are ''reasonable'' are those which meet the requirements of the second clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are ''reasonable'' searches under the first clause which need not comply with the second clause. This issue has divided the Court for some time, has seen several reversals of precedents, and is important for the resolution of many cases. It is a dispute which has run most consistently throughout the cases involving the scope of the right to search incident to arrest. While the right to search the person of the arrestee without a warrant is unquestioned, how far afield into areas within and without the control of the arrestee a search may range is an interesting and crucial matter.

Although the Fourth Amendment states that a warrent must be obtained prior to a search, the Supreme Court ruled in Carroll v. United States that a vehicle may be searched without a warrent if the officer has probable cause to believe that it contains contraband. The reason for this exception is that vehicles are mobile and could quickly flee from a scene in the time that it would take for an officer to go in front of a judge to obtain a warrant. As I said before, law is open to debate because it is an issue of circumstance. This is why cases involving amendment rights are so monumental, because they hold the potential to further mold the extent of the restrictions and freedoms placed upon our laws. Exceptions and clauses as amended to law are not contradictions of it, but considerations given by it to individual examples of circumstance.

[Lou Minotti]

tinybear is correct. We have many laws that could be construed as "immoral" to an individual's personal mindset, but it doesn't mean that they may break the law without penalty.

Tinybear is not correct. We aren't talking about moral relativism, here. The government isn't God. And just because Don Vito decides to break your legs or repo your car for not paying your "neighbor protection tax" doesn't make it right or moral or "legal".

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tinybear I'm just saying the fact that a law has to be obeyed has nothing to do with whether it is moral or not or whether it leads to a just or moral result.

"Has to be obeyed"? Like I said, whether I abide by an unjust law or depends on whether there's a gun pointed my way. If they aren't going to enforce it, then why do I care?

Case in point, the War on Drugs.
I and everyone else I know break the law routinely by smoking pot. We do this because we know the DEA doesn't have a wiretap on the house and there isn't a SWAT team circling the neighborhood in a helo ready to land in the backyard and bust us all.

Quote by: tinybear For instance what do you think of this law;" "Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death."? Is it moral or not?

It is moral to outlaw murder. Punishment is a seperate issue, there's no reason to lump them together like that.

Quote by: Waychel tinybear is correct. We have many laws that could be construed as "immoral" to an individual's personal mindset, but it doesn't mean that they may break the law without penalty.

You missed mine and tinybear's point. See above.

[tinybear]

So do you think it's moral to punish a murderer by death (assuming that he's really the murderer and he DID wilfully take the life of another human being)?

By the way, I think your "I would obey what I think is an unjust law only when a gun is pointed at my head" attitude is extremely dangerous.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tinybear So do you think it's moral to punish a murderer by death (assuming that he's really the murderer and he DID wilfully take the life of another human being)?

Haven't made up my mind on that.

Quote by: tinybear By the way, I think your "I would obey what I think is an unjust law only when a gun is pointed at my head" attitude is extremely dangerous.

It's not dangerous in the least. I and everyone else I know do exactly that. We act according to our values unless someone is forcing us to do otherwise.

What, is the law some kind of religion for you?

[tinybear]

No, I take a dim view of religion, but I respect and obey the law.

Your attitude is dangerous because you take it upon yourself to decide what is or is not unjust. If everybody has this attitude, what would our society be like?

[Waychel]

Quote by: tinybear Your attitude is dangerous because you take it upon yourself to decide what is or is not unjust. If everybody has this attitude, what would our society be like?

Exactly. I don't know what more to say.

[tinybear]

Thank you Waychel.

I'm still waiting for Morgan to make up his mind about the morality of the death penalty for murderers (assume it is absolutely certain that the guy's a murderer).

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: tinybear No? Books have been written on the topic. Many law schools include this in their curriculum. It has been the subject of intense academic debate.

There are also "books" about Bush being a shape-shifting lizard. What are you saying?

Your attitude is dangerous because you take it upon yourself to decide what is or is not unjust. If everybody has this attitude, what would our society be like?

You attitude is most dangerous because you support the subversion of our Constitution.

[tinybear]

I support the Constitution, but I think if it leads to asinine results it ought to be amended.

[Lou Minotti]

The "asinine results" (not sure what "results" you are looking for) are an extention of the subversion, not the Constitution itself.

[tinybear]

Do you think morality has anything to do with the validity of laws Lou?

[Lou Minotti]

Morality definitely "plays a part" in the rule of law but someone's idea of morality certainly doesn't dictate it.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tinybear No, I take a dim view of religion, but I respect and obey the law. Your attitude is dangerous because you take it upon yourself to decide what is or is not unjust. If everybody has this attitude, what would our society be like?

You're missing my point, tinybear.

Everyone does have this attitude.

Even you. Your values say "follow the law" and that's what you do. My values, on the other hand, say do what I think is right, regardless of what the law says. There's not a single case where I follow the law just because "it's the law". I respect and uphold the constitution because its near-perfect law that backs up the natural rights we already have.

[tinybear]

No law can ever be perfect or even near pefect, including the Constitution. Why do you think it had to be amended from time to time?

You haven't expressed a view on what you think about a law which provides that he who wilfully takes the life of another shall be punished by death, by the way. Still thinking about it?

[Lou Minotti]

The death penalty is barbaric. Besides, time is a much more effective punishment.

[tinybear]

OK, but you think anyone who wilfully takes the life of another should be punished? Nothing immoral about that, right? In fact it is moral, wouldn't you say?