SUPREME COURT 'GUTS' THE CONSTITUTION UNDER THE GUISE OF PROTECTING US FROM OURSELVES!!!!!
It is over. We have NO MORE protection from the Overbearing Rogue Gov't. The Police State has just been given the 'Blue Light Special' by the Supreme Court. Time to roll up the streets, take down the flag and move to another (country ?). 'Water World' is looking better every day!

It is becoming painfully obvious that the only way out of this mess is Consciousness Awakening Enmasse! The 'Loaded Gun of FULL, AWAKE CONSCIOUSNESS' is inside our Brains. But you have to RECOGNIZE it is there, your Self! Then you can 'cock it' and use it! The easiest way to begin if you haven't already? Stare into the very FEAR this article represents. Hold your Ego still while it just washes over you. What begins as 'terror' ends up a cool bath of refreshing Zero Point Energy! Try it! Sure it is scarey, but not near as scarey as physical war! And every piece of 'fear' that YOU absorb back into your Mind, THEY don't get to eat! Starve 'em out, I say!

Maybe this is what 'Remember the Holocaust' is REALLY all about: What they are planning for us is just another Inquisition; another Wounded Knee; another Auswitz(sp). It was never about the Powermongers not Re-introducing it. Everyone knew they would try again. They can't help themselves. It is their nature to be so terribly ill with the power fever. No...this time, it is about US NOT LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH IT! And on a world-wide scale!!!
E.
Thank you, Terra, for alerting us to this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60160-2001Apr24.html

Police Win Latitude on Minor Cases
High Court Upholds Arrest, Jailing for Seat Belt Offense

People can be handcuffed and arrested for minor traffic violations, no warrant need apply!

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 25, 2001; Page A01

Police may arrest people without a warrant and take them into custody for
minor offenses punishable only by a fine, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday
>in a decision that could reshape everyday interactions between law
>enforcement and ordinary citizens.
>
>By a 5 to 4 vote, the court held that a Texas police officer was not
>required by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution -- which bans
>unreasonable searches and seizures -- to get a warrant before he handcuffed
>a woman and took her to jail for letting her children ride in her pickup
>truck without seat belts. A warrant requirement in such cases would be too
>difficult to administer, the court said.
>
>Writing for the majority, Justice David H. Souter said the court did not
>want to turn "every discretionary judgment [by police] in the field . . .
>into an occasion for constitutional review."
>
>Though the motorist involved in the case was a white woman, the ruling came
>against the backdrop of a national debate over "racial profiling," the
>practice under which many minorities say police single them out for traffic
>stops because of their race, using minor offenses as a pretext.
>
>Dissenting justices strongly implied the court's decision could make it
>harder to stop such abuses.
>
>"Indeed, as the recent debate over racial profiling demonstrates all too
>clearly, a minor traffic infraction may often serve as an excuse for
>stopping and harassing an individual," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote.
>"After today, the arsenal available to any officer extends to a full arrest
>and the searches permissible concomitant to that arrest."
>
>O'Connor was joined in her opinion by three of the court's liberal justices,
>John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
>
>Souter acknowledged that the Texas motorist, Gail Atwater, had suffered
>"gratuitous humiliations imposed by a police officer who was (at best)
>exercising extremely poor judgment." However, Souter, in an unusual alliance
>with the court's conservatives, wrote that "the arrest and booking were
>inconvenient and embarrassing to Atwater, but not so extraordinary as to
>violate the Fourth Amendment."
>
>Souter was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justices
>Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
>
>Souter said there was no evidence that the police and local government were
>eager to round up large numbers of people for petty offenses. "The country
>is not confronting anything like an epidemic of minor-offense arrests,"
>Souter wrote.
>
>Legal analysts said the court's decision affects not only police power to
>conduct arrests but also the power to carry out searches. That is because
>past court decisions have permitted police to search people and their cars
>without a warrant once they are under arrest. Yesterday's ruling means that
>a motorist could be arrested for a minor offense and then subjected to a
>full search of his vehicle.
>
>"If you want to search someone, all you have to do is book them for
>littering or jaywalking," said Susan Herman of the Brooklyn Law School, who
>wrote a friend-of-the-court brief for the American Civil Liberties Union,
>urging the court to rule for Atwater.
>
>Atwater was driving her two children home from soccer practice in 1997 in
>Lago Vista, Tex., when a police officer noticed the three were not wearing
>seat belts and stopped her truck.
>
>Atwater was arrested, handcuffed as her children watched, booked and
>released after posting bond. She pleaded no contest to the seat-belt offense
>and paid a $50 fine, but she and her husband, Michael Haas, sued the city
>and the police officer, claiming her Fourth Amendment protection against
>unreasonable search and seizure had been violated.
>
>Despite yesterday's decision against her, Atwater told the Dallas Morning
>News, "Every inch of my being believes that we were right."
>
>Bill Krueger, who represented Lago Vista, told the paper that the city is
>"not in the business of arresting mothers. But when it comes to a point
>where the mother is endangering the life of a child, we think it raises to
>the level where we think an arrest would be appropriate."
>
>
>=A9 2001 The Washington Post Company