state v redmon wis supreme court There may be autocracy of the sovereign, whether the term is used in a personal sense or as representing the people in the aggre- gate acting through their representatives. One might be quite as dangerous as the other without the restraints of a written Consti- tution and an independent and courageous judiciary to stand guard at the boundaries thereof. With our system the danger of destruction or impairment of inherent rights by well- meant but improvident legislation is too re- mote to be disturbing as to the future, for, as said in effect in Marbury v. Madison, supra, no enactment is controlling if the tri- bunal created by the Constitution to pass up- on its character cannot reasonably escape the conclusion that the paramount law con- demns it. With the foregoing general observations as to the character and limitations upon the police power we shall proceed to consider, respecting the law in question, these propo' sitions: Is it a police regulation, laying aside for the purposes of the inquiry the question of whether it is within the constitu- tional field? Second, if it be such a regulation, is It outside the field of reasonable in- terfereiice with private rights? The ostensible purpose of the law, as indi- cated by its title is to promote the health and comfort of occupants of sleeping car berths. Words were used in such title ex induetria, seemingly, to give to the enact- ment, unmistakably, the character of a police regulation, but a law is not necessarily one to promote the public health and comfort of people generally, or of a legitimate class there- of, merely because such is its declared pur- pose. As it is a judicial function to define the proper subjects for the exercise of police pow- er (Town of Lake View v. Rose Hill Cem- etery Company, 70 111. 191, 22 Am. Rep. 71), it must be to decide, as to any enactment, whether it really relates to a legitimate sub- ject, or under the guise of doing so violates rights of persons or property. The idea that all legislation is within the police power which the law-making authority determines people presume that their fearless (cough) leaders(cough) can enact anything they want, well they cant. If it creates substantial interference with the rights of individuals at large in person or property it is adjudged unconstitutional and in pretense of power, hence not sanctioned by the constitution. the courts are no longer protecting rights, any more than the media is the public watch dog.
You told me absolutely nothing I didn't know. There wasn't 2-3 leads coming in about attacks to the US intelligence agencies. There were thousands coming in about multiple attacks, some that were completely wrong. How do you select which ones to follow up on? How do you know which is correct and which isn't. Yes, you would have to know exactly when it was happening. You can't defend thousands of flights a day with generic information. Can you please cite where they drug their feet on the warrant, I tried researching it but didn't come up with anything. You just had 3 different ideas, on the same topic in 1 post. Multiply that by thousands of tips, hundreds of leads, and dozens of agents coming up with ideas on what to do. Opinion stated as fact. You do need to know the specifics of an attack when it involves airplanes hitting towers. You can't just sit at the WTC to stop it when it happens, you have to be on that specific plane. You are wrong, and you are not being honest. Apples to oranges, these two scenarios are not comparible. Even if you knew who did it you have to come up with a reason to arrest them. If you read the material the 2 crews worked on not being noticed. Moussaiu was caught because he was asking blatant questions that gave him away. You just said you couldn't speculate. Of course, if things were done differently before 9/11 it could have been prevented. Which was up to the FAA, and had not been a problem in the US recently. Please bring it to my attention if I am wrong. Cite the stories that state there have been several issues during '95-'01 where people have been aggressive with boxcutters and mace. Those were the items that were on board, no guns. Fake bombs, yes, but no guns. The bombs were fake, meaning they made it "look" like a bomb. When I am wrong, I will correct what I said, I will not now. I have nothing to correct, you said something that gave the impression that the terrorists were given special privelages. The common person would have made that mistake. This is a truther tactic, I stand by what I said. It's on you to state what you mean clearly, not mine to try and decipher what it is you're talking about, or meaning. Any evidence to back this up or just bare assertion again? Any cite will work. I don't believe anyone has stated anything related to this. They used fake bombs to confuse the passengers, box cutters, and mace. There is NOT A SHRED of evidence that states there were guns, anywhere, at all. Confusion was the largest weapon in this situation. Confusion and fear. Fake bombs, yes. Guns, no. Please cite any reliable source stating to the contrary. Once again, any source for this? Are you just stating things expecting them to be believed? Find me actual evidence please. There is no myths about boxcutters, they are fact. I don't think you have a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue what the real issue with 9/11 is, I don't believe you do at all. I think you're lost and expect people to believe you incredulity and bull(*)(*)(*)(*) as fact. Find evidence, or move along.
Well, that's very easy to monday morning quarterback. It must be nice to sit in your position and state that all they need is "a common sense approach." Please, elaborate. Explain to me how you would use the common sense approach? There are now Americans that are born and raised in America that are Islam Extremists. They recruit kids around the age of 10, they have older people. I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. Really? So the recent courthouse shooting in Texas, Brian Nichols, etc? You aren't referring to those people, right? Do you do any research before you say (*)(*)(*)(*) or is it all just made up and pulled out of your ass?
I CLEARLY told you I was NOT insisting 9/11 could have been prevented via investigation, and I don't feel like arguing it. You can try to twist that into forcing me to argue it all you want. I was referring to investigations in general simply to refute the implication that a "where when and how" must specifically be known before any plot can be disrupted or prevented. You can stop people from bringing weapons onto planes for EVERY SINGLE FLIGHT. That way it doesn't matter which particular flight it is, they won't get to have the weapons. Maybe you should hone your research skills. Check the people who actually investigated him to start including Colleen Rowley and others from the Minneapolis FBI office. Moussaiu was captured on 8/16/01 with knives, Boeing flight manuals, crop dusting information, flight simulations etc. The FBI agents thought he might be up to some no good intentions regarding airplanes. They sent ridiculous amounts of requests and practically begged to get a warrant to search his laptop. They never got it. Nice straw man... If you can manage to catch the hijackers before they board the planes, you would no longer need to know what flights they intended. They wouldn't be boarding them. Whether this was possible in this case, again, I don't profess to know. Well then why on Earth are you sitting here arguing the toss acting like it couldn't have been! THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I never suggested the way they did things as it happened could have prevented it. Yes well a gun was mentioned on one of the distress calls. You got any proof no guns were on any of the flights? I acknowledged the bombs were fake, why you repeat me thinking it refutes anything is beyond me. You got any proof the knives were ONLY mere boxcutters? How much evidence are you going to show for the boxcutters now? Yeah so long as YOU get to choose which definition for words I have to mean. allow: 3. to permit by neglect, oversight, or the like: (to allow a door to remain open.) dictionary.com 5 b : to forbear or neglect to restrain or prevent <allow the dog to roam> merriamwebster Sorry if you can't suss out the meaning I meant, but since I have now made it crystal clear for you exactly what I meant, there's no need for you to continue to quibble this pointless tangent. I'm going off the only things we have to go off of, and that is the distress calls. As I stated, the information is SCANT. But going off these, it looks like beyond boxcutters. I agree about confusion and fear being the primary weapon, absolutely. The gun comes from one of the 9/11 distress calls. The ONLY indication of what was on those planes came from these calls. There is LESS indication of box cutters. In fact I believe it's only one or two flights we even have these calls for. Anything else about the weaponry is pure speculation. Now also there's only one distress call about the box-cutter, from Barbara Olson, however, this call she mentions knives and boxcutters. Like two separate things, like boxcutters, and then actual, proper knives. Multiple other calls mention knives, and stabbings, but no mention of "box cutters".. A preponderance of these calls indicates that the blades used were NOT mere box cutters. Again, fact checking shouldn't be this hard for you. Bogdan Dzakovic led a team for the FAA to test airline security. His team were even given congressional mandate to do exactly this. He claimed they managed to get bombs and submachine guns past the screeners 90% of the time, and that he told this to his leaders at the FAA but got no attention to the matter, and merely lip service and the run around.. Ultimately the FAA didn't act on this. He testified all this to the 9/11 commission. I'm not "expecting" people to believe things without evidence. I'm expecting people to have a basic working knowledge on the topic before they delve in head first. If you're skeptical about a claim, try researching it first. I'm not going to post a link every time I say the sky is blue on a clear day. Fact?!?!??! I've shown you evidence. Now you do likewise. Show factual evidence about the boxcutters. And as for your silly skepticism about you don't believe anybody said anything about the box cutter myth? You can't be serious. That was the official government line from day one. Even before investigation, as soon as 9/15, John Ashcroft said: "investigators believed that each of the commandeered planes had been hijacked by groups of three to six men armed with box cutters and plastic knives." and Donald Rumsfeld: "plastic knives and the use of a U.S. airliner filled with American people as a missile [were used] to destroy a World Trade Center." and "One of our planes is used as a missile to fly into our building and into the World Trade Center. It was beyond one's imagination that plastic knives and our own commercial aircraft filled with our own people would be used as the implement of war." This of course in addition to God only knows how many journalists and pundits that repeated the line about how were they able to hijack planes using plastic knives and boxcutters. But go on and share with us all YOUR evidence that there weren't any real knives or guns or anything else beyond what you claim.
I already explained it for you.. It's bad enough you demand evidence for every real life fact which is spawned from your ignorance to the topic, but now I must repeat myself. I said just like at the courthouse. Brian Nichols didn't smuggle a weapon into court. He was already a prisoner and he acquired a deputy's gun when he managed to overpower her after she released one of his handcuffs. The Texas shootings occurred OUTSIDE of a courthouse, on the street. Neither of these are a failure in courthouse screening procedures. The one who needs to learn how to do research is you it appears.
I was driving towards the breakdown in security with the courthouses. It was something that was allowed to be in the courtroom and was still used to kill. Same circumstance? Moving on. Yes, I do ask you to cite stuff. I even stated that I HAD researched one of your claims and came up with NOTHING. That was a great attempt to handwave with the "I'm not sourcing the sky is blue" remark. Although, I'm not asking you to do that at all am I? You are making SPECIFIC claims to things that aren't common knowledge. So yes, you should cite things, that's how it works. Doing multiple searches under several different search phrases for "guns 9/11; terrorist guns 9/11; guns used in 9/11; guns mentioned call 9/11" all yield nothing for me. Outside of a few people commenting on how they did it. However, what does seem to be constant is all the mentions about box cutters. Are you saying that the only way to piece together 9/11 is by using the calls made by people in high stress situations, where you admitted they were very confused, and very afraid? What kind of reasoning is that? What kind of sense does that possibly make? There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence out there that supports the official story. Do I believe everything the government tells me? Nope. I think there was plenty of ass covering going on during the whole fiasco. Lastly, I'm not your editor. If truthers didn't lie all the time it wouldn't be asked of you to prove what you're saying is true. If you can't back up what you say than don't say it. No one just believes what you say. I commonly find that people that complain about having to site their work generally are full of it. So I am going to end this by giving you what you requested. This is just days after 9/11. By CNN, I am not sure what evidence to use really, mostly because Truthers generally disregard everything that's MSM. So..tell me what you will accept and I'll find it.
It's NOT the same circumstance. We were discussing gate screening. The only shooting which occurred inside a courthouse you could name was NOT a result of a failure in gate screening. It was a failure in properly securing a prisoner there and a deputy's personal weapon. It would be a better indictment about possible problems involved in air marshalls having a gun on flights, where a similar thing could occur. So I'm a liar by generalization. That's very nice of you. That's not evidence of hijacker using boxcutters as their main weapons on the four doomed flights though, is it? If you stopped to actually READ the article first, it said boxcutters were found on OTHER flights. I'm sure boxcutters have been on many a flight on and before 9/11. Did those OTHER flights have ANYTHING to do with the 9/11 plot? No evidence of that. Proving that Joe the warehouse guy kept his box cutter on him while on a flight doesn't prove that some Muslim terrorist had to rely on boxcutters on the flight he was hijacking. So they aren't an example of evidence of the actual hijackers relying on box cutters. Maybe try again?
Nope, no need to try again. It's in the exact article that I linked, and read, and presented to you. Maybe another shot at reading comprehension? "The hijackers who seized the airliners on September 11 had used box cutters to attack some of the crew and passengers, according to government officials and accounts from passengers in-flight who phoned relatives before their planes crashed" I apologize, again, for your inability to read. It was the same evidence YOU used to state there could have been guns. The phone calls to the relatives. I am saying that I have attempted to track down your claims and have found nothing substantiating it. Instead of providing sources stating that you are correct, you whined about having to source the blueness of the sky. You did nothing to back up your claims, something I did within minutes of being asked. Here, as men do, I will admit I was wrong. I was viewing this from a different angle than you were, and saw similarities that you didn't.
That's not a "similarity" that I missed. There was no "similarity" as this had nothing to do with courthouse gate screening. Real men say I was wrong and leave it at that. They don't use this admission in order to make a concealed personal attack. I've admitted to being wrong many times on this forum, even the 9/11 section. For you to lie and pretend I'm incapable of admitting being wrong, simply because I've not done so in my conversation with you, is not being a "real man" and as it happens I've not been wrong, nor demonstrated to be wrong by you in this case, no such confession is warranted. YOU stated as definitive fact that it was boxcutters and mace only. You went on to incorporate fake bombs later. NOTHING beyond that could have possibly been on the planes. That's a definitive claim and nearly impossible to prove. What I said was there were REPORTS of weapons besides those, and that is a FACT. Reports from distressed callers. I then went on to say that it LOOKS LIKE heavier weapons were used. Again, at the very least, REAL knives have a LOT MORE reports from distress callers than the single report of a boxcutter, so this can be all but assumed. This is ENOUGH to mean your unsubstantiated claim about your alleged weaponry limitations should be taken with more than a grain of salt, which is what prompted the discussion in the first place.
That's what prompted the whole discussion. You misinterpreting the obvious definition for the word "allow" in order to claim I'm trying to imply something I'm not, and insodoing they were only giving them special pass to bring onboard their boxcutters and mace. As THIS is the implication like just boxcutters... Anyone who knew anything about the topic would have at least said KNIVES due to the very STRONG indication for actual, proper knives. Now you try to twist this around and think you'll get some debate win out of it... Saying boxcutters which we all know to be small and flimsy, to pretend like no more serious hardware was allowed on board. Well you know now.
I apologize for my delayed response, I was on vacation for awhile enjoying some baseball. Back to the matter at hand, I read through my previous posts and saw nothing where I stated that box cutters and only box cutters\mace were used. I know that both of them WERE used, but I know that there were fake bombs and blades up to 4 inches allowed at that time as well. It's common knowledge, and something stated several times. I was never under the impression of anything else, nor did I say that those items were the only items used. I have requested it multiple times, and you continue to dance. So let me spell it out simply, I just wanted a link to any article stating that someone had said there were guns. I have said before that I have done research and come up with nothing. I have requested a simple link from you on at least 3 separate occassions. All you've done is whine, cry, and state it's not your job to do so. You have said you can cite multiple calls where blades and boxcutters, etc were all used. However, I haven't seen you produce a single one stating that guns were used. Instead you move the goal posts, dance around the topic, and ignore the actual meat of the argument. It's been said before, "truthers do not seek to come to a resolution in an argument, they wish to bog the argument down so no progress can be made." So enough of all the other crap, provide a link or don't. I can't find it. If you don't provide a link stating specifically that there was a shot, shots, gun, or guns involved than don't bother replying. Everything else out of your mouth is just garbage attempting to bog down the conversation, not progress it.
What? I've never seen this before. Can you source this? I work in the aviation industry in assembly, and could change a lot of people at work's minds about this, based simply on their knowledge of mechanics and material strengths in assembly. I mean you bump any part of an AP against a solid object, and the AP loses, any AP mechanic can tell you this!
Truthers don't know (*)(*)(*)(*). Bump lead up against a solid object and the lead loses. Shoot that lead at high speed and the story changes, doesn't it. And you claim to be college educated? Wow. Just wow. That school should be closed for incompetence.
Again son, talking about engineers and technicians with knowledge in mechanics and material strengths. Do you even know what mechanics and material strengths covers in a classroom? Can you define the word static without looking it up? Have you ever taken a dynamics class son? Could you explain to me the laws of thermal dynamics? Just to really debunk your ignorant statement though, this would be true if the object in question was aerodynamic, once the cone separated from from the fuselage, it should have been ripped into shreds!
I thought you were being facetious at first but now I see you are serious. Do you understand mass and inertia? The fact that landing gear punch out a panel on the opposite side of the impact can attest to the force that was applied.
The landing gear ways tonnes, and is designed to take the impact of the weight of the entire AP smashing into the ground. The nose cone is a piece that two people can lift off the ground manually, designed to be aerodynamic when attached to the AP. Here is your sign! BTW, are you really trying to argue with a subject matter expert here? I am going to destroy you son!
Sorry, but a fuzzy picture of mass coming out the other side of the building that someone "thinks" is a nose cone isn't good enough for even the dumbest physics major.
