Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "LegalEagle" channel.

  1.  @krombopulos_michael  Well they're suppose to have a warrant to search your property anyway.
    5
  2. Honestly I think you failed to keep your bias out of the video, and very badly, I like your videos usually, but I'm starting to be massively off put in how you discuss this topic. Also you didn't even address the problems with Roe v. Wade at all and just run with the assumption that its Constitutional. Like Dread Scott v. Sandford? Just because the supreme court said anything didn't mean it was actually Constitutional, (which I really think the distinction needs to be made, the supreme court doesn't make law, it interprets it) it just became federal precedent until it ended up overturned. (and its not like there weren't states Roe couldn't go to that wouldn't do abortion, even removing the moral problems, there was no reason to force states to allow abortion) It's pretty disingenuous to just skirt over Roe v. Wade without addressing any of the problems about the case, even while covering in a legal sense. It also doesn't help that you refer to the supreme court a lot almost as a creator of law instead of an interpreter of law.
    3
  3.  @sbdxaric  The problem is that Roe v. Wade is entirely based on flimsy justification and lies in the case, also the only remote manner you can principally defend this implication is if you believe that a fetus at conception is not a separate being (which is scientifically wrong) at which case the right to privacy implied in other cases then could apply to this. However if its not then seeking to murder even while a child is within is still murder, which makes it a moral issue that needs to be addressed as the moral issue it is. Contraceptives don't have this same problem because there is no separate being of life until conception, once fertilized we can clearly point at what and where the being with separate life is, and we can distinguish it in multiple manners. But instead the judges decided on a whim subjectively that what they wanted to happen by forcing all states to require abortion be federally legalized in infringement to the Constitution in the first place. Unless you can make the argument honestly that you believe its never a life in the womb, the Roe v. Wade decision can not be consistently applied in law or morality.
    2
  4. didn't Roe v. Wade do just this in the first place? the situation wasn't even very factual and the arguments were flimsy at best.
    1
  5. Except that implication is then made by subjective by whoever is in power at the time, which is why this fight is being made again. (that and Roe v. Wade is such a flimsy case with shockingly large amount of problems in it)
    1
  6.  @RascaldeesV2  Most of those emergencies are unconstitutional specifically because they represent a circumstantial infringement of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The few cases where that's not valid is if another right is being clearly infringed. (if a right isn't clearly being infringed, a warrant is required Constitutionally, and a no one is allowed to search or seizure the premises of any criminal circumstance without a warrant) "Most notably, exigent circumstances. Basically in an emergency I can enter your home if it would be done by a reasonable person" "done by a reasonable person" is a subjective standard, the only standard you can have is the clear infringement of individual rights, otherwise you have no ability to intercede and it is considered trespassing. (which entitles you to be shot according to property rights) "Even without emergency, there are still other ways to get in. If there is a warrant for your arrest and I know you're in there I can enter without a search warrant. I can enter after chasing you in there. Technically I could enter if I tried to pull you over, you didn't stop, and you calmly walked into your home with nothing other than a tiny speeding ticket." That's still a court mandated warrant, (or its suppose to be, otherwise its unconstitutional) and you have to have irrefutable evidence that the subject is on the premises. That fails and those responsible should receive maximum punishment for trespassing, including being killed. Also that's not constitutional either, that's an infringement. (and honestly I'm not only justified shooting you, but I wouldn't feel remorseful about it) If you try to enter my home by flimsy justifications I would not hesitate to protect myself until I am legally obligated by a court order to cooperate. "Oh. Or if anyone that lives in the home invites me in. Or the landlord says it's okay even without your consent." This one is literally the entire concept of property rights you doof, that's how property rights work. If the landlord owns the property I live in, then everything done to the property is at the landlord's discretion, not mine. Same goes for if I invite a cop in, personally I'd never invite an on duty cop into my house willingly (at least if they were doing a report involving me, btw that does not mean I'd be hostile to the cop just so you're aware) but that's my jurisdiction until the court rules otherwise. But the system has failed, that's why SWATing exists. Also I don't respect the lack of a warrant of search and seizure until a constitutional court hearing over it is concluded, I honestly don't care if I live or die over it. Its not my righteous in the first place and I do no respect an immoral system.
    1
  7. It's an incorrect interpretation that technically can be used for draconianism and tyranny, however that is not the intention, tbf I agree with the law however complaining about the law having unforeseen consequences instead of fixing said consequences is more my issue, everyone rants about the wrong approach, just ban the right for the state to legislate how it see fit instead because someone feels they have a morally superior position to others.
    1
  8. That troll ending while shilling skillshare was great. ;D This is such a refreshing channel.
    1
  9.  @Steven_Edwards  Its not involuntary servitude if its a result of biological process, often resulting from personal decision, this is a fallacy used to justify idiosyncrasy that is invalid in both law and logic.
    1