Legal Issues

PA Cops No Longer Need Warrant to Search Vehicles

Seal of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

A guest post from U.S. Law Shield U.S. Law Shield is concerned about a Pennsylvania state Supreme Court decision that says police officers no longer need a warrant to search a citizen’s vehicle. Seal_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Pennsylvania_sizedPreviously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.

That’s no longer the case, according to the 4-2 opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania V. Sheim Gary: “In this case, we again address the requirements in this Commonwealth for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle. After consideration of relevant federal and state law, we now hold that with respect to a warrantless search of a motor vehicle that is supported by probable cause, Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution affords no greater protection than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, we adopt the federal automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so and does not require any exigency beyond the inherent mobility of a motor vehicle.” Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if “exigent circumstances” existed, the opinion states.

Police said this case gives the police simpler guidelines to follow and renders state law consistent with established federal law. Defense attorneys said the decision expands government power.

Do you agree or disagree with the opinion? If an officer wants to search your vehicle without your consent, should they have to get approval from a judge? And what’s to stop this new police power from being expanded to searches of homes? One of U.S. Law Shield’s biggest worries is that other states may follow suit. Might that happen where you live?

Share your thoughts with us in the comment section.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (52)

  1. The United States of America is always trying to bring the people under it’s rule of thumb. We can no longer trust our Congressman or Senator to uphold our constitutional rights. Pray for this country before it’s to late. God Bless.

  2. I live in PA and didn’t know about this.
    Hopefully someone goes to the USA Supreme Court with this and win.

  3. That case would be Caroll vs U.S. Concerning the mobility of vehicles in committing crimes. He was running moonshine, the Probable Cause requirement has been around for a long time. The problem is we as a country are starting to look like France where an officer can arrest based on Reasonable Suspicion!

    1. Exactly, and it is that very precedent set back in 1925 that allows any vehicle in the U.S. to be searched without a warrant to this very day, as well as provides the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court the legal standing in which to enact this change, which falls in line with the Federal standard.

  4. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell them since page 1 in reply to the very first comment. Go back to page 1 and read my comments by G-Man.

    Better yet, here is a re-post:

    I believe there is some confusion here. Per the U.S. Constitution, vehicle searches without a warrant have been ruled legal since 1925 by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is known as the “motor vehicle exception”. Given the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, states have always had the option to legally fall in line with that 1925 Federal Constitutional ruling. Over the years some states adopted it and others did not. Pennsylvania is simply the most recent state to implement this Supreme Court ruling and is well within the U.S. Constitutionally protected standard to do so.

    I am not saying I agree with it, but I just wanted to clarify that currently states are within their right as a matter of law. Everyone here knows what must be done if we want this to change: Remove judges, vote out politicians, elect likeminded officials, and finally work towards court rulings and amendments that better protect our rights.

    A final word – I ask each of you to consider the following: The law is written with the intent to aid officers when making stops. It is meant as a tool that affords officers more success in catching and charging the proverbial “bad guy”. An officer will still always require probable cause in warrantless searches. So is our fear in the law itself, or the officers we entrust with the authority to execute the law? And if we have such little confidence in our officers, then I say that is where the problem lies, not in the law. So what do we do about that?

    1. Sorry, my comment above was in response to Coltdefender45. In which he wrote:

      “You make this sound like news. This is, and always was, permitted by law. The key phrase is “probable cause”. For instance, if the air coming from you car smells like a grass fire, or a brewery, expect your car to be invaded. The feds have been doing this since the horse and buggy. The Supreme Court codified it so individual courts didnt have to rule case by case. Do some research before you pick up your crayon.”

  5. Zeigen Sie mir Ihre Papiere. (Show me your papers.)

    Zeigen Sie mir die Papiere. (Show me the papers.)

    SHOW ME ZEE PAAPERS

  6. Nazi Germany starting all over again.
    Write every Senator, and Congressman out there and keep re-sending
    e-mails over and over. There is one main player behind all this
    the commie-crats filthy traitors, we need God fearing, God loving, constitution loving
    represenatives in Washington, which at this time in our nation is
    completely bankrupt of them. These judges are criminals violating
    the fourth ammendment of the constitution that they swore to uphold.

    we the people also need to demand a stop to absentee balots, and early voting fraud that is running rampant in this country, this is
    how these anti constitution commie-crats keep getting re-elected.
    I play by the rules am a law abiding citizen I vote once, you can not
    compete with lawless people voting multiple times this is why
    the commie-crats don’t want ID when coming to vote.

  7. You make this sound like news. This is, and always was, permitted by law. The key phrase is “probable cause”. For instance, if the air coming from you car smells like a grass fire, or a brewery, expect your car to be invaded. The feds have been doing this since the horse and buggy. The Supreme Court codified it so individual courts didnt have to rule case by case. Do some research before you pick up your crayon.

  8. It’s already a virtual police state out on the “public” highways. If a police officer stops you, and your papers are not in order, he’s going to have a problem with you, isn’t he? What ever happened to our God given right to travel upon the Common Ways?

  9. Although I am not surprised by this obvious circumvention of the Fourth Amendment, I am concerned that it is a trend. I would certainly hope that the people of Pennsylvania will rise up in protest, pressure the state legislature and have this decision overturned by law. If not, they get what they deserve. I just hope this does not set a precedent to allow other States to attempt the same infringement.

  10. Anything to treat the Tax payer Citizen like a criminal. This is the sole purpose of taking away every right given by the Constitution.

    A Cop in a gas station waiting to exit behind my vehicle, as the light changed & I started moving a car with some numbers written on a pizza box cut through cutting me off so I stopped. This made the cop have to stop short also, spilling some of his coffee on him.
    He stops me. I ask if he seen what just happened he said yes. But if his tag isn’t real what makes me think he would pay the ticket? But I was dressed for work & I had to pay to keep my license. What’s worse he said what makes you think a Judge would believe you if you tried to fight the Citation. ” Way to Go supreme court Dick heads! “

  11. Lame Bear, I’m with you 100%. I live in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, and our sheriff is too concerned about being Politically Correct. In fact, I’m not sure a constitutionally minded sheriff could be elected here. The majority of the voting populus are dolts, so my vote is diluted at least 100 to one. Could this be sheer coincidence?

  12. Gentlemen, you’ve all brought up excellent points. This forum has quite a few intelligent and perceptive individuals. I believe that there are many more people who are thinking the same things.

    There was a time when citizens wouldn’t tolerate certain government behaviors, and civil servants were fearful of the public. However, we had a more educated population then. Have you ever read a sixth grade primer from the 1880’s? The expectations for students were much higher then. It is definitely in the government’s best interest to have a docile, simple minded population.

  13. Again this is a case of insurrection by the judiciary in our nation and rebellion by law enforcement. We as a people need to eliminate these threats to our law and order by every legal means possible. Criminals like these need not be suffered by U.S. Citizens. Perhaps as time passes people will find examples of progress and crimes like these will be something for the history books.

  14. Most people fail to understand that the SUpreme Court is allowed to interpret what the amendments mean as far as rights, thus there is no need for an amendment to the Constitution through legislation. The Bill of Rights started out as protections for the people from the government,but the government uses the 14th Amendment.to carve out how the amendments can be e applied by the states. The use of the Interstate Commerce Act is a prime example of the government making crimes of acts when individuals cross state lines.

  15. Read the Declaration Of Independence, an action of the Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776. Then thank our forefathers for the 2nd Amendment and consider what action, we the people, need to take.

  16. Please – if you are suspected of involvement in a criminal enterprise, fine, be detained until the LAW has been observed. If there is “probable cause” a lawful warrant can be issued will little delay.

  17. “I will state one particular point of contention is when you continue to maintain the Court’s interpretation is somehow a “change” to the Constitution. Nowhere did (or does) the Judiciary ever actually re-write words and embed them into the Constitution as an amendment. They simply conclude matters with written opinions.”

    Of course they don’t “change the paper” – but they are changing the Constitution none the less. Any “legislation” in conflict with the Constitution is an attempt to “change” the Constitution. Period.

    ” Thereafter, rulings have no force or effect unless the Executive Branch chooses to follow through by enforcing them. There is nothing in the Constitution that states Executive elements must do so. So is the problem really in the Court? ”

    And, Yes, this entire rogue, unlawful, tyrannical, “government” MUST to removed …. by force if necessary. As was the government of the King remove, so must the “government” of “this King” be removed. I pray, daily, that there is some other way – but if none of the branches of “government” will do their job – if none of the States will do there job, if none of the Sheriffs will do their job – then it is to WE THE PEOPLE to do our job to uphold and enforce the Constitution upon OUR creation.

    Be safe!

  18. Gentlemen, it’s a pleasure to read comments from men who still have a backbone. History teaches us that only organized, dedicated groups of individuals have affected real change. The original percentage of colonists who were willing to defy British authority was about 6%. This tells us two things. 1.) Large numbers are not required, and, 2.) Leadership is absolutely critical.

    Do we have one leader in our midst who is capable of leading a national effort to bring about this change? My guess is that there is one, or perhaps several men and women who are capable of this caliber of leadership.However, they must remain anonymous for the time being. The media would viciously attack them, and no doubt certain agents provocateur would attempt to join their organization to weaken it. Forget about any well known politicians; they’ve been thoroughly vetted by the media to ensure that they won’t be a threat.

    Notice whom the media dispise; whom they hurl threats at, and who is labeled names. This is an indication that this person is probably someone we should support when the time comes.

    1. What we really need, Trey, are County Sheriffs who understand that THEY are the Highest Law Enforcement in their county – even over the Governor, unless the Governor can show that the Sheriff is acting outside the Constitution.

  19. The hazard for police remains as it always has that if they claim probable cause and find nothing they can be sued for civil rights violations of an unlawful search. This ruling has not changed that. So police take the risk upon themselves if they do random searches (such as a “you pissed me off tear and toss”) and then try to claim probable cause.

    1. Nonsense – Methusselah, the “police” will investigate themselves and find that they are blameless, just like the Clintons and Obama.

  20. In too many instances, probable cause has become little more than a free pass to violate citizens Fourth Amendment Rights without honest justification. Authorities have been proven to abuse the probable cause requirement by inventing aural and visual circumstances that vanish with the wind and cannot be proven either way without independent witnesses, leaving the courts no more than a case of the citizens word versus that of the authorities.
    And then they play the credibility game wherein they tell the jury and the judge to assume the integrity of the authorities while questioning the integrity of the subject. The ability to smear by innuendo if nothing else the subject of the search by the authorities and prosecutors is much greater than the ability of the defendant to question the police or agency.
    The state or agency has almost unlimited resources that they can keep secret while the defendant has only the ones he or she can afford.
    This dichotomy in power between the state and its citizens is what the US Constitutions Bill of Rights was intended to address and yet our courts, the safe keepers of the constitution are too often the destroyers of the peoples rights, continually finding exceptions and excuses for undermining them and strengthening the advantage of the state.
    When that sad day comes wherein the people no longer feel their government protects them but instead has become an abuser, the impetus for extreme change will be born.

  21. Did you know that, ON A BOAT…..ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, we have NO 4th Ammendment rights….. NONE……. ANYTIME any law enforcement, can board, search, and seize….. WITHOUT any probable cause whatsoever! It doesnt matter is you’re out floating around, crusing, or even parked at your own dock! River, Lake, Ocean….. it don’t matter! BE AWARE! I don’t understand this, but it’s true. How do they get away with this?

  22. Once again big brother rears it’s ugly head. When will we wake up to this overt taking away our rights. We fight in other country’s to set people free our arm forcers bleed for them then come home to Tierney but here we sit by and let the Gov. Take away ours.

  23. As a 32 year LEO veteran all I can say is good luck with that and would advise every law abiding citizen to sue any law enforcement agency that chooses to violate the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The
    Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will learn on appeal that they cannot super-cede the U.S, Constitution.

  24. The state of Iowa used to allow officers to search vehicles after issuing a citation. I think it was in 1995 an officer cited an individual for running a stop sign, then searched his vehicle and found some MJ. The case went to the U.S. Spreme court and their decision forced Iowa to rewrite their law, no search without an arrest or probable cause, example drug dog sniffing around vehicle. The problem in our country now is the quality of many officers. They usually come from within your own community and many are examples of our failed education system, they then operate on emotion, not policy or objective reasoning. I am a retired officer and former adjunct criminal justice professor.

  25. I am an army vet and a supporter of the second ammendment. If you read the attached court paperwork when the officers approached the noticed the smell of weed coming from the vehicle. The suspect admitted there was weed in the vehicle and after being placed in the cruise fled the scene. The cops had probable cause to search the vehicle and then found two pounds of weed under the hood.

    1. ArmyVet – If they had “probable cause” to search the vehicle … they had “probable cause” to obtain a warrant and to LAWFULLY search the vehicle WITH A WARRANT.

    2. Just food for thought, if a car with 4 people reeks of weed (or other probable cause, where a reasonable person would conclude that the vehicle is/has been involved in criminal enterprizes) at 1130 on a Saturday night, and its going to take hours to detain everything and get a search warrant because the driver does not consent, wouldn’t the waiting for the warrant detain the other 3 passangers, who cannot consent for the vehicle to be searched, for the time required?

  26. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has breached the Constitution they are sworn to obey, thus, they have “re-written” portions of said Constitution without the LAWFUL AUTHORITY to do so.
    By these actions they have attempted to overthrow the very foundation of this nation and, thus, the nation itself.
    By this attempt to overthrow this nation, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has committed an OVERT ACT OF WAR against this nation and her people.
    As long as Pennsylvania wishes to remain within the union, they MUST OBEY THE CONSTITUTION – as written, without alteration.

    Everyone involved with this “legislation” has committed HIGH TREASON and ACTS OF WAR against this nation and must be held accountable for their action … up to and including DEATH BY HANGING FOR THEIR CRIMES.

    1. Too many today are overly into their electronic devices and far too into themselves to even pay attention to the fact that they have far less rights these days. The day will come soon when they look up from their “smart” phone to find that they are no longer free. If noone stands up against these changes (even in peaceful protest) they will just continue as business as usual.

  27. I am an army of 1 with the best combat gear a civilian can legally own( in most states) but I got no war to go too. The militiamen I first new are all dead of old agen or some from prison induced senility.
    All the things they wanted to fight against they found blocked by loyal to the government militia who praised war as glorious and our nations god given duty to bring world to its knees.
    Today the articles of Bill of Rights are not in extant and the makeup of
    three seperate but equal is but one house of whores for sale to highest
    bidders.
    Oh nothing was ever bad enough just a small inconvenience and we
    always had republicans turned democrats turned plutocrats we could bribe come electio. Years ; not yo fix the Constitution but to let us keep our guns.
    We joined in killing pepple for corpirate profit and paraded into first pick for gov and i dustry jobs and the bars with military clothes and bragaddo
    but forgot to defend the Constitution.
    So like Solon of old I put my weapons of shield swords and body armor all in webgear and bug out bags up for sale, now gone broken apart sold seperately for best return.
    My freedom and liberty were sold for cheap and my flag and nation today are but cheap copies, limp lies.
    The great and honorable men are gone, and if one tries to stand up he is
    quashed as worthless men sit looking at paper targets.
    Like old stove up hunting dogs they lay sleeping r stoves or in the sun, quivering now and then with maybe a growl or yelp as their old arthritic
    feet in dreams run like the wind of youth once more.
    Sleep well!

    1. @Hide Behind. Your comment brought tears to my eyes…truth is always well said! You wrote what my heart has been trying to tell my conscious mind for the past twenty years or so. But, the fight has not left me yet. Although my body might not respond the way it used to, I will still stand with others against the coming tyranny we’re expecting to very soon show its ugly face.

      I’m right behind ya!
      Remember 1776 & Keep Your Powder Dry!

    2. I’m an old enlisted combat vet of Nam, a militiaman waiting for my last war here in my own country, I know what my native American ancestors knew when whiteman first polluted our shores whom all should have been killed on sight. Now I watch as a foreign enemy, a terrorist resident in the Whitehouse laughing at us, living in sin with a transvestite black man whose very ancestors were sold by Obama’s family who were arab muslim slave traders, with commies & muslims scattered thru out this government illegally waiting for the day to pull the rug out from all of us, beware, be warned, join your state’s militia and pick up arms and train well on them to protect family & mother earth of ours.

    3. Thank you for your service. I can only imagine fighting in another country then finding the enemy’s mindset planted here at home.
      As far as militias, I think they are a joke. No disrespect intended. For all the talk about rising up and fighting against a tyrannical government, none of that can be seen today even with a tyrant in power. Actions speak louder than words, and what we see here is a bunch of militias claiming to fight against evil but waiting for it to come to their doorstep before they start fighting. If this is the case they are doomed to loose. Keep this in mind, for one to win in this situation one must take the initiative. I am not disrespecting any patriots well meaning preparation, but just warning that they ultimately must be the aggressors or stand down and do nothing. The choice, is up to us. Keep in mind that the milita should avoid having their pride before pragmatic values. Throw away any uniforms or symbols you may have prepared for your “uprising”, adopt the clothing of your enemy. Ranks are useless and can only spark conflict between some whose egos get the better of them. Only maintain an emergency chain of command, and one that changes frequently so all get practice at leading. And please, do not go out in public advertising your militia. You do not need a big armed force to fight against this enemy, even just 5 dedicated patriots could be a considerable defense to this countries traditional ideals. Just a thought that must seriously be considered.

  28. Yes, it is those who think they are smarter than the rest of the population.
    This takes away an individual’s personal freedom and makes the government a dictator!
    Only idiots want to take away an individual’s freedom and put control of all the others in themselves.

    1. No, Carl, not idiots. PSYCHOPATHS. Our country is made up of idiots. By design. The worse education system in the world. It was a DELIBERATE dumbing down because dumb idiots slaves make great state worshipers.

  29. It appears that once again, the government is using the courts to chip away at the rights of citizens, previously guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. As these rights are diminished, we continue to lose our freedom and become only worker bees in the eyes of the government. Worker units to be indoctrinated and controlled for the benefit of the state.

    1. You are absolutely correct. A cursory understanding and reading of the fourth amendment has no EXCEPT clauses in it. Just as the 2nd amendment has not EXCEPT clauses. It states specifically that 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. Soon it will be time to utilize the REASON the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.

    2. Hold on. All is NOT lost. Since when does the judicial branch of government legislate? Something has always NOT seemed right about such on-going actions. Think about it we, the people vote on an issue, but if the courts don’t like the issue a ruling to the contrary??? Perhaps we need to review the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights on these and other such matters of governance..

    3. I believe there is some confusion here. Per the U.S. Constitution, vehicle searches without a warrant have been ruled legal since 1925 by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is known as the “motor vehicle exception”. Given the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, states have always had the option to legally fall in line with that 1925 Federal Constitutional ruling. Over the years some states adopted it and others did not. Pennsylvania is simply the most recent state to implement this Supreme Court ruling and is well within the U.S. Constitutionally protected standard to do so.

      I am not saying I agree with it, but I just wanted to clarify that currently states are within their right as a matter of law. Everyone here knows what must be done if we want this to change: Remove judges, vote out politicians, elect likeminded officials, and finally work towards court rulings and amendments that better protect our rights.

      A final word – I ask each of you to consider the following: The law is written with the intent to aid officers when making stops. It is meant as a tool that affords officers more success in catching and charging the proverbial “bad guy”. An officer will still always require probable cause in warrantless searches. So is our fear in the law itself, or the officers we entrust with the authority to execute the law? And if we have such little confidence in our officers, then I say that is where the problem lies, not in the law. So what do we do about that?

    4. Explain to me, G-man, how it is that the Constitution may be re-written, by fiat, anytime the “supreme court” should decide to do so.

      Even the “supreme court” MUST abide by the Constitution AS WRITTEN.
      Not even the “supreme court” may change the letter or intent of the Constitution. In cases where the “letter” of the Constitution may be in doubt the “supreme court” may OFFER AN OPINION as to the “Constitutionality” of a particular thing, or an opinion as to the “intent” of our Founders (based upon the other Organic Laws and the writings of our Founders) – but they are FORBIDDEN THE CREATION OF LAW.

    5. Explain to me, LameBear, how it is that you think I said anything about the Constitution having been re-written by the Supreme Court? It appeared to me base on this post, along with other readers’ comments, there existed some confusion that Pennsylvania was somehow defying the Fourth Amendment. I merely pointed out that as a matter of law, no violation has occurred.

      What you suggest raises another topic completely and has no bearing on my accurate and factual statement regarding the obvious confusion between our Constitution, and state and federal rulings in this particular matter.

      That said, under a different context I would 100% partner with you on dialogue regarding an out-of-control judicial system that legislates from the bench. However, in this particular context, we have had 90 years to get that Supreme Court’s 1925 interpretation of the Fourth Amendment overruled and yet have failed. That would be our fault.

    6. G-man, quite simply in the fact that the Constitution REQUIRES a warrant and DEMANDS that WE THE PEOPLE be secure in our persons, places, and things – period. Not even the “supreme court” can change that – they do, after all, WORK FOR US, do they not?
      If they change anything in the Constitution, then they are in fact and in deed “changing” the Constitution – UNLAWFULLY.
      Since the 1925 ruling violates both the letter and the intent of the Fourth Amendment, said ruling is in fact, NOT LAW AND NEED NOT BE OBEYED – again, an opinion by the “supreme court”.
      One thing that few seem to realize, the supreme court is NOT the final authority – the States and WE THE PEOPLE can nullify any “opinion” of the “supreme court”. They are our SERVANTS, just like any other part of the “government” created by WE THE PEOPLE.
      When this nation was being founded, every single one of our Founding Fathers was “guilty of breaking the law” and were all under a sentence of death. Our Founding Fathers threw off a tyrannical government, including the “lawful” courts of the King.
      Are we to do any differently when this unlawful, tyrannical, government and their ‘courts’ usurp powers not granted them by the Constitution?
      If all it takes is for the “supreme court” to decide that the Second Amendment no longer applies, the I guess the same would hold for the Fourth Amendment (or any other). The Bill of Rights grants WE THE PEOPLE absolutely nothing – all it does is provide a GUARANTEE that the “government” that WE THE PEOPLE control will never attempt to breach, void, or abrogate the RIGHTS we have as Free Men. The Constitution limits the “government” to a very few things that they ALLOWED to do (and how they are to do them). The “government” may not exceed those bounds BY LAW.
      However, they now do so at whim.
      Any “legislation” that is at odds with the Constitution, or other Organic Law, of this nation is NOT LAW AND NEED NOT BE OBEYED.
      Unfortunately, WE THE PEOPLE will have to put the dog back in it’s cage by force.

      To summarize – the Constitution says there MUST BE A WARRANT, if the supreme court, or anyone else says differently – they breach the Constitution – therefore, it is NOT LAW AND NEED NOT BE OBEYED – and WE THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT to resist this UNLAWFUL LEGISLATION by force, if need be, up to and including deadly force.
      Those SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION who breach their sworn oath have removed themselves from office and the authority and protections of that office – pure and simple.

      The question is, “What are you willing to fight for”

      We are “on the same page” with the exception that I do not believe there is a “time limit” for unlawful legislation.
      Be safe!

    7. You’re preaching to the choir brother. However, your statement may be beneficial for other readers.

      I will state one particular point of contention is when you continue to maintain the Court’s interpretation is somehow a “change” to the Constitution. Nowhere did (or does) the Judiciary ever actually re-write words and embed them into the Constitution as an amendment. They simply conclude matters with written opinions. Thereafter, rulings have no force or effect unless the Executive Branch chooses to follow through by enforcing them. There is nothing in the Constitution that states Executive elements must do so. So is the problem really in the Court?

      Make no mistake, all issues before the Court become so by petition, whereby someone somewhere felt the need to ask the Court for clarification on a matter under dispute. It’s not as if the Court just woke up one day and felt they would render random decisions on arbitrary matters.

      Regardless, nowhere in the Constitution does it actually give the Court the authority to rule on the Constitution itself. So why do they? Because a century or so ago someone somewhere petitioned the Court to rule on just such a matter and the people accepted it. From there it became a trend and we’ve done nothing to stop it ever since. That would be a “We the People” problem for allowing it.

      So, when “We the People” continue to appeal to the Courts on matters directly flowing from the Constitution, and allow the Court to continually rule, it continues to add to the Court’s legitimacy. Look at it like common law practices such as marriage. Nothing official tied that knot but after X number of years it is seen as legal by virtue of cohabitation. Same applies to homesteading or land rights; it’s legally mine because my family lived on it for X number of years. So you can’t ignore that when we allow something to become traditional and then wrap our lives and culture around it, then we must accept that it just is, or has, become the “common law” of the land.

      My point is that there is in fact a “time limit” and we failed to address it in time.

    8. @ LameBear. You made your response as a new post rather than a Reply from above so it landed on the bottom of page 2 and may confuse other readers. Anyway, you responded to my comment by saying that, “Any ‘legislation’ in conflict with the Constitution is an attempt to ‘change’ the Constitution.”

      Actually “Legislation” is the only entity of government legally allowed to change (amend) the Constitution. So it could never be considered a “conflict”.

    9. The only method that may be used to alter or change the Constitution is through an Amendment and the process for Amending the Constitution is very precise.

    10. Precisely my point. And that “method” used to “alter or change the Constitution ” can only be carried out by the Legislation, which is clearly a contradiction to your earlier statement of ,“Any ‘legislation’ in conflict with the Constitution is an attempt to ‘change’ the Constitution.”

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.