BREAKING: Supreme Court rules DNA Can be Taken upon Arrest

[Anti Federalist]

I am not sure what to think on whether it is a religious prophecy coming to bear or simply the manifestation of greed and wickedry.

From a certain point of view, the two are one in the same.

 

[Spoa]

Rep. Justin Amash blasted their decision saying:

Thanks to Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan for dissenting from the Court's opinion and upholding the Fourth Amendment and our Constitution.

Scalia: "I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection."

Here are some more excerpts from Justice Scalia's dissent:

"The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment."

"Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must prevail."

"Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason."

"The only arrestees to whom the outcome here will ever make a difference are those who *have been acquitted* of the crime of arrest (so that their DNA could not have been taken upon conviction). In other words, this Act manages to burden uniquely the sole group for whom the Fourth Amendment’s protections ought to be most jealously guarded: people who are innocent of the State’s accusations."

"Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the 'identity' of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school."

 

[phill4paul]

I've never understood why so much power can be trusted to the hands of nine un-elected 'officials' that have lifetime appointments. Jurisdiction over STATE courts. Per the Constitution they serve unless impeached and convicted by Congress. Christ, that would be like saying " The president has a lifetime appointment without impeachment or conviction and we know how that works out.

 

[Spoa]

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) also blasted the decision:

Today’s unfortunate U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. King, by a vote of 5-4, expands government power, invades our liberty, and undermines our constitutional rights. The Court held that the police can forcibly take DNA samples from people who have been arrested—but have not been tried or convicted—of a serious offense. So now the government can capture, without a search warrant, the most personal information about an individual, and use it to search vast databases for unrelated offenses.

All 50 States already collect DNA from convicted felons. So this intrusion of liberty will matter only for those not convicted: the innocent and wrongly accused or those for whom there is insufficient evidence to convict.

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=342973

 

[kcchiefs6465]

From a certain point of view, the two are one in the same.

Very true.

 

[phill4paul]

Rep. Justin Amash blasted their decision saying:

"Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must prevail."

 

[Anti Federalist]

I've never understood why so much power can be trusted to the hands of nine un-elected 'officials' that have lifetime appointments. Jurisdiction over STATE courts. Per the Constitution they serve unless impeached and convicted by Congress. Christ, that would be like saying " The president has a lifetime appointment without impeachment or conviction and we know how that works out.

They gave the power to themselves, Marbury v. Madison.

They claimed in 1803 that the man who wrote the fucking thing, didn't know what he was talking about.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

― Lysander Spooner

 

[Anti Federalist]

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Our judges (cops, soldiers, politicians, regulators...) are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps....

Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[DamianTV]

This ruling does nothing but further prove that Govt believes that People get their Rights *ahem* Priviledges from the Government, and they are revoking our Priviledges at an alarming rate. Guilty until proven innocent, even if your only crime is being accused. Actual innocence is completely immaterial.

 

[Anti Federalist]

This ruling does nothing but further prove that Govt believes that People get their Rights *ahem* Priviledges from the Government, and they are revoking our Priviledges at an alarming rate. Guilty until proven innocent, even if your only crime is being accused. Actual innocence is completely immaterial.

That sounds like terrorist talk.

Taze him!

Swab him!

 

[bolil]

I just came from a coffee shop where I had the most frustrating conversation Ive had in a long time about this very ruling.
Some long time friends think this is acceptable and fine, their reasoning is that its just like taking fingerprints.

Im at a total loss, I just didn't even know what to say to them.

Because it is. New technology, that is the only difference.

Precedence is a bitch.

 

[osan]

This is outrageous..

"Make no mistake about it: because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...olice-can-take-dna-swabs-from-those-arrested/

Yet another new reason to avoid cops like the plague - as if there had not already been reason enough. Our right just took one in the neck... or perhaps it's the butt?

Keep your poweder dry because at this rate we will all be faced with an unavoidably immediate decision to fight or capitulate. Fighting may not mean open warfare as so many seem to envision, but may be similar to the French Resistance during WWII. You know the cops and other lapdogs of the masters are not going to stop. They will keep going until they are stopped with unequivocal force, likely in a piecemeal fashion picking them off one by one.

That or just crack a beer, get some good net.porn on the tube and say to hell with everything.

 

[DamianTV]

This ruling violates both the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Next stop is to have your DNA databased at birth. Oh wait, that is already happening.