Very Good Sir … you are doing some exceptional work and I thank you for the wonderful pics;~)
Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1 (1948) (The document in controversy in the Boyd case was historically, and as a matter of fact, much more of a ‘required record’ than the books and records the petitioner here ‘cus- [335 U.S. 1 , 68] tomarily kept.’ If the Court’s position today is correct the Boyd case was erroneously decided.(19) [335 U.S. 1 , 69] In disregarding the spirit of that decision, the Court’s opinion disregards the clarion call of the Boyd case: obsta principiis. For, while it is easy enough to see this as a petty case and while some may not consider the rule of law today announced to be fraught with unexplored significance for the great problem of reconciling individual freedom with governmental strength, the Boyd opinion admonishes against being so lulled. ‘It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance.’ Id., 116 U.S. at page 635, 6 S.Ct. at page 535.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/335/1.html
Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927) (Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and “it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” P. 273 U.S. 32. … While it is true that the mere participation in a state search of one who is a federal officer does not render it a federal undertaking, the court must be vigilant to scrutinize the attendant facts with an eye to detect and a hand to prevent violations of the Constitution by circuitous and indirect methods. Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and “it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 116 U.S. 635; Gouled v. United States, supra, p. 255 U.S. 304, supra.); http://supreme.justia.com/us/273/28/case.html
Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 582, 12 S.Ct. 195 (1892) (It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis.’); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/142/547.html
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886) aff’d. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 582, 12 S.Ct. 195 (1892); Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 32 (1927) (It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/116/616.html
Maybe she feels like a Guy today … what do I care about one’s sex;~)))
And how was I to know … she does great work was my intention so put me up against the wall and ‘wack my pee pee’ for my continuing praise and appreciation!
Whoa, Amicus. I think #1 was just amused by this, and not being hostile at all. My name has the masculine spelling so it causes some confusion. Anyhow, thanks to you both. So much work before us, and likely scarier things ahead. I’m glad to know there are Trenchers about.
and that is why this site is essential to the awakening!
Very Good Sir … you are doing some exceptional work and I thank you for the wonderful pics;~)
Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1 (1948) (The document in controversy in the Boyd case was historically, and as a matter of fact, much more of a ‘required record’ than the books and records the petitioner here ‘cus- [335 U.S. 1 , 68] tomarily kept.’ If the Court’s position today is correct the Boyd case was erroneously decided.(19) [335 U.S. 1 , 69] In disregarding the spirit of that decision, the Court’s opinion disregards the clarion call of the Boyd case: obsta principiis. For, while it is easy enough to see this as a petty case and while some may not consider the rule of law today announced to be fraught with unexplored significance for the great problem of reconciling individual freedom with governmental strength, the Boyd opinion admonishes against being so lulled. ‘It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance.’ Id., 116 U.S. at page 635, 6 S.Ct. at page 535.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/335/1.html
Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927) (Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and “it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” P. 273 U.S. 32. … While it is true that the mere participation in a state search of one who is a federal officer does not render it a federal undertaking, the court must be vigilant to scrutinize the attendant facts with an eye to detect and a hand to prevent violations of the Constitution by circuitous and indirect methods. Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and “it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 116 U.S. 635; Gouled v. United States, supra, p. 255 U.S. 304, supra.); http://supreme.justia.com/us/273/28/case.html
Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 582, 12 S.Ct. 195 (1892) (It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis.’); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/142/547.html
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886) aff’d. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 582, 12 S.Ct. 195 (1892); Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 32 (1927) (It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/116/616.html
To sumarize: Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616, 635, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886) (It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/116/616.html aff’d. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 582, 12 S.Ct. 195 (1892) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/142/547.html In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 594 (1895) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/158/564.html Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, 68-69 (1948) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/335/1.html
“Very Good Sir…”
LOL… galen is a she.
And a sweet one at that. 🙂
Hey … I’m not a SEXIST PIG …
Maybe she feels like a Guy today … what do I care about one’s sex;~)))
And how was I to know … she does great work was my intention so put me up against the wall and ‘wack my pee pee’ for my continuing praise and appreciation!
Whoa, Amicus. I think #1 was just amused by this, and not being hostile at all. My name has the masculine spelling so it causes some confusion. Anyhow, thanks to you both. So much work before us, and likely scarier things ahead. I’m glad to know there are Trenchers about.
🙂
.