It is you who keeps calling it "self-defence", not me. So you are being intentionally dishonest by claiming that I "keep insisting he did not have the right to self defense". If you want to prove me wrong it ought to very easy: Just provide a quote of me saying it. Naturally, you cannot. Is there any (good) reason for you to misrepresent my words and my thoughts?
First came the Declaration of Independence in1776. A constitution then had to be written for the new form of government and the Bill of Rights was added that guaranteed the civil liberties of its citizens in relation to that government. Previously, the whims of King George dictated what happened in the American colony. That was ratified in 1791.
{shrug} Of course it was self defense, and you are against it by virtue of refusing to call it as such in this and other posts. Sorry, but you can't walk back what you have been saying, and there is no misrepresenting your "words and thoughts". You said it and you own it.
The Constitution was an effort to transform the Articles of Confederation of 1781. Then the Continental Congress was referred to as the Congress of the Confederation.
It means more than that. I there is a ruling, say concerning the 4th AM, and it is permitted on those facts, states are free to rule the opposite under their own Constitution parallel clause/AM.
Would you please elaborate? I'm not sure what I think you're saying is what you are saying. Thank you.
Take this case for one example. The SC ruled it does not offend the 4th AM by effecting a full custodial arrest for an offense punishable by a money fine only.
Thank you.
Here is case law, sure if the offender refuses to sign the citation (internal exceptions), but if all is well, NO arrest for a Minor Misdemeanor.
