- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

National Review Finally Gets It Right on Stop-and-Frisk

When it comes to the Second Amendment, conservatives insist that despite liberal arguments that more gun control will prevent firearm violence, the constitutional rights of citizens cannot be infringed upon.

Conservatives are right.

From the First Amendment to the Tenth Amendment, both well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning voices have often made what sound like reasonable requests to diminish freedoms in the name of societal goods. Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union was told it must choose between “free speech” and “racial justice” [1] if it insisted on being First Amendment purists when it came to the white nationalist alt-right.

It’s not unreasonable to not want to defend racists. But the principle of freedom of expression still matters—even the freedom to express disgusting things—and the ACLU was right to resist [2] this backlash.


In 2013, a federal judge ruled [3] that the New York City police tactic of Stop-and-Frisk was unconstitutional because it violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on illegal searches and seizures. It was good to have such a ruling, but the notion that police officers could search random people based on nothing more than a hunch should have struck everyone as unconstitutional from the get-go. In America, you can’t just stop passersby (so many of whom were innocent [4]) and intrude on their personal spaces and lives in brute fashion.

As part of his 2013 mayoral campaign that year, Democrat Bill de Blasio vowed to end the practice, something many in law enforcement and on the political right insisted would inevitably spike crime. That isn’t what happened. Today crime is down in New York City significantly, [5] to levels not seen since the 1950s [6].

So kudos to National Review’s critic-at-large Kyle Smith for recently admitting his publication was wrong [7] for supporting Stop-and-Frisk:

Today in New York City, use of stop-and-frisk, which the department justified via the 1968 Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court ruling, has crashed. Yet the statistics are clear: Crime is lower than ever. It’s possible that crime would be even lower had stop-and-frisk been retained, but that’s moving the goalposts. I and others argued that crime would rise. Instead, it fell. We were wrong.

Those of all ideological persuasions should respect anyone who has the guts to admit he was incorrect, and my purpose here is not to undermine in any way an important concession from an esteemed conservative journal about an awful police practice.

Smith continues:

Nevertheless, de Blasio was correct in saying the city could withstand a sharp decrease in stop-and-frisk. And he was right to draw attention to the social cost of the practice; more than 80 percent of those subjected to stop-and-frisk since the start of the Bloomberg administration were, according to the NYPD, completely innocent. That means hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers were unjustly subjected to embarrassment or even humiliation.

Remember, respecting constitutional rights in toto would have prevented such embarrassment and humiliation in the first place. And it isn’t just the right that’s struggled with the Bill of Rights’ protections. Every liberal I know thinks it’s necessary to infringe on (or at least distort by pretending their actions don’t constitute infringement) the Second Amendment in order to lower gun crime. Significant portions of the illiberal authoritarian left now think free speech is no longer sacrosanct [8].

The basic freedom of a man or woman to walk down the streets of New York or any other city without fear of being harassed by law enforcement is something we should all be able to agree on and defend. There are no exceptions great enough to dismiss that principle. It’s why we have a Fourth Amendment in the first place.

I’m not such a libertarian purist that I believe the scale between liberty and security should always tilt in the direction I prefer, particularly in times of crisis. But not every moment is a crisis. Government will always tend towards exploiting our fear to take away our constitutional rights: mass shootings, [9] murderous white supremacists, [10] urban crime [11].

It’s good that crime has not risen in New York City with the demise of Stop-and-Frisk. It’s good, too, that National Review is admitting it was wrong to support that heinous policy. But conservatives must remember going forward that invoking the Second Amendment to defend gun rights or the Tenth Amendment to defend states’ rights means you must also back the Fourth Amendment—even if it positions you against those you cherish and support.

Jack Hunter is the political editor of Rare.us [12].

33 Comments (Open | Close)

33 Comments To "National Review Finally Gets It Right on Stop-and-Frisk"

#1 Comment By Kent On January 8, 2018 @ 1:35 pm

And Portugal completely legalized drugs, and addiction and drug-related crimes completely collapsed.

You should assume that any time you want to use the power of the government to enforce your views on your fellow citizens is the wrong thing to do.

#2 Comment By tz On January 8, 2018 @ 2:11 pm

Now if we can only get rid of the groin grabbing gate-rape at airports courtesy of the TSA that lets 95% of firearms through anyway when tested. I think we got rid of the porn scanners too.

#3 Comment By tz On January 8, 2018 @ 2:16 pm

Murderous White Supremacist? The Antifa were bashng his car in, he didn’t hit Heyer directly but ran into another car because the police let the antifa park a minivan to block the intersection so he had no where to go but into the crowd or int the car, then he backed away when the attack got worse. Apparently Heyer (who wasn’t exactly in shape) may have died of a heart attack.

Heather Heyer was white so it’s bad targeting anyway.

But I remember earlier headlines:

And George Zimmerman was a murderous white supremacist that slayed Trayvon Martin.

And Darren Wilson was a murdeous white supremacist cop that slayed the young saint Michael Brown in Ferguson MO.

Then there’s poor Freddy Gray that had his neck broken by six KKKops in Baltimore.

Lets not look at the videos, evidence, or wait for the trial, just convict someone of murder because of racial tension.

#4 Comment By Dimitri Cavalli On January 8, 2018 @ 2:41 pm

Opponents of “stop and frisk” could have used the Second Amendment (and the two Supreme Court decisions recognizing that there is an individual right to own firearms) but God forbid they legitimize private gun ownership.

#5 Comment By KD On January 8, 2018 @ 2:54 pm

There goes NYC. I guess Black Lives Matter SO much that we have to use the full power of public policy to insure the Black homicide rate in NYC reaches Baltimore/Chicago levels.

[P.S. The full constitutionality of “Stop and Frisk” practices dates back to the Terry v. Ohio case in 1968, courtesy of the liberal Warren Court, who are now on the right relative to the National Review.]

#6 Comment By Delano Squires On January 8, 2018 @ 3:12 pm

I find it odd that neither this article nor the NR’s failed to mention why Stop & Frisk that Stop & Frisk had a disproportionate impact on black and Hispanic men in NYC. That was both a source of opposition from the Left and support from the Right ( I wonder if Mayor Giuliani would’ve supported a similar policy for Italian men and boys back when the mob was in its heyday). I know conservatives are loath to discuss the impact race has on any number of areas of social and economic life but this omission is a serious dereliction of duty. The charges of racial profiling are part of what led to the policy being ruled unconstitutional in court. The irony is that while stops failed to lead to charges in more than 85% of cases, white New Yorkers were more likely to have contraband than blacks or latinos but they were stopped much less frequently.

Conservatives talk a good game about defending the constitution and the importance of individual rights but they sure are silent when it comes to issues of policing and criminal justice reform. Just read the reports from Ferguson, Chicago, and Baltimore to see how frequently police departments trample the rights of their citizens and ask yourself why the conservative outlets would rather kneeling NFL players than government infringement on the rights of citizens.

#7 Comment By Whine Merchant On January 8, 2018 @ 3:18 pm

Thank you for this summary of Kyle Smith’s NR article. I was not surprised that so many of the comments on that site were howling about ‘law-‘n-order’ being sacrificed, and that the drop in crime stats were cooked to please anti-‘Murican liberals. It was indeed a brave article; the comments were also a window into the knee jerk adulation of self-proclaimed “real” Americans for anything militaristic.

I did notice that this article slips-in a few winks to the Trumpian base with the line “Every liberal I know thinks it’s necessary to infringe on (or at least distort by pretending their actions don’t constitute infringement) the Second Amendment in order to lower gun crime.” This requires a careful and nuanced debate, but Jack Hunter seems to be concerned with keeping his cred with the GOP/Tea Party right, rather than with thoughtful Conservatives.

Thank you –

#8 Comment By EliteCommInc. On January 8, 2018 @ 3:25 pm

So if I understand the article and the comments

1. stop and frisk is only a violation because crime went down. they weren’t wrong on the foundation rationale, but statistics —

2. despite the video-tape arguments made in court rooms can turn the obvious into justifiable homicide.


entire populations have been making the arguments about government over reach for more than 100 years, they have been repeatedly told, they were wrong inspite of the Constitution and the evidence to support their claims. More whatever they were experiencing was the result of societal mental defect —

I would hope that the national review and others would take their foundational error and re-evaluate fifty years of similar advocacy based on the same peculiar ideological illogical and acknowledge they have espoused a good many years of incorrect influence.

I am not a big fan of the people, they are as a madding crowd blown hither and tither . . ., but I am not going to wait for the privileged to decide truth of why we have a constitution in the first place — to define the limits of government.

Let me know when NR decides that people here illegally is actually a violation of the constitution and they are willing to tackle something as arbitrary as probable cause and “what is in the mind of the government actors prevails over what is in the mind of the citizen.

#9 Comment By chris c. On January 8, 2018 @ 4:08 pm

We think nothing of randomly walking through metal detectors, after emptying pockets in full view of security guards, in order to enter any number of public buildings. Yet a policy such as stop and frisk, designed to protect the police in the course of doing their jobs, somehow gets everyone’s 4th amendment hackles up. We want safe streets, yet expect the police to talk to and question people who may have knowledge of criminal activity without first assuring themselves that they’re unarmed. Yet we think nothing of a blanket policy that assumes all who enter a building pose a potential risk. Something’s not right with this picture.

#10 Comment By Whine Merchant On January 8, 2018 @ 5:04 pm

@chris c. Do you mis-understand ‘stop & frisk’ or are you deliberately distorting the practice to frame it as a cops vs bad guys situation? That is a Faux News tactic. Stop & frisk is the practice of spotting someone going about their business and accosting them on a gut-level hunch, not on observed criminal behaviour or a person matching the description of a suspect.

‘Hunches’ only pan-out on TV shows. This is the same substitution of emotion for reasoned thought that got Trump elected by people who thought that he would be like his TV persona, acting without the constraints of the office or knowledge of rules and laws. TV is no substitute for reality, and emotion is a poor substitute for thinking.

Thank you –

#11 Comment By Christian Chuba On January 8, 2018 @ 5:21 pm

I’ll also give David French a call out for being sympathetic to African Americans protesting the police killings of unarmed men rather than going into the typical, ‘statistics prove there is no racial bias in police killings, Ferguson was a hoax …’ (FOX’s favorite talking point).

He wrote a good column describing how police who are tried for manslaughter are found not guilty because prosecutors fail to explain the statute correctly. Currently, jurors get the impression that merely being afraid is enough for exoneration but miss out on the qualification that the fear has to be reasonable.

BTW plenty of unarmed whites get killed under similar circumstances, while this might not be a racial issue, bad police work should concern everyone and not be swept under the rug.

#12 Comment By MRG On January 8, 2018 @ 5:24 pm

Looking forward to TSA thugs and perverts getting this memo and not hiding behind “national security” to excuse their unconscionable and unconstitutional abuses of power.

And to the poster who said the backscatter (naked) scanners are all gone — nope.

#13 Comment By hooly On January 8, 2018 @ 5:32 pm

Damn! this is a fair article.

#14 Comment By EliteCommInc. On January 8, 2018 @ 5:51 pm

“Something’s not right with this picture.”

Sure the ideas that the police need more protection —-

The number of officers killed in the line of duty doesn’t even reach a percentage point. Our police officers are the most respected and protected class — we have so enamored them with the cloak of righteousness, we explain away their abuses.

Sure we need police. They have a tough job. But it is one in which by and large is not by definition life threatening at the hands of citizens, despite the rhetoric that paints that picture. There’s not a city, not a county, not a district that doesn’t feel beholden and strangle held by the police, their powers and the union(s) that advocate for their issues.

The only advocacy groups that might have better press kits are Israel and feminists.

No. It’s the general public that loves in fear of the police, not the other way around — though listen to any union rep and you’d think that officers are under fire by gun and by by beat down every day — nothing could be further from the truth.

#15 Comment By Sam Jones On January 8, 2018 @ 11:20 pm

This is a good question to determine if a police state exists. Random anything, and stop-and-do-anything without a warrant.

#16 Comment By chris c. On January 8, 2018 @ 11:32 pm

@-Whine Merchant, having studied constitutional and criminal law and procedure in law school, I well understand stop and frisk. From your comments it’s clear you do not.

The practice meets constitutional muster provided that it is based on an articulable suspicion of criminal activity of which the person being frisked has some knowledge. It is designed to allow officers to investigate after assuring themselves of their safety since they have no way of knowing with certainty if the individual poses a threat or not. It is not about accosting those going about their business or acting on a “gut level hunch”. The police have to be prepared to identify the reason for their suspicion for their action to be legal.

Next time try educating yourself instead of making unfounded assumptions about the motives of others.

#17 Comment By EliteCommInc. On January 9, 2018 @ 6:54 am

excuse the correction:

No. It’s the general public that lives in fear of the police, not the other way around — though listen to any union rep and you’d think that officers are under fire by gun and beat down every day — nothing could be further from the truth.

We can honor our public servants without dishonoring the reason they serve.

#18 Comment By JeffK On January 9, 2018 @ 8:12 am

To EliteComminc, we agree! Fantastic. I agree with every word you have said.

I live in a college town. We are vastly over-policed. Half of these guys run around dressed up like they are working at Fort Apache, the Bronx. All to keep a bunch of college students under control. And when there isn’t a football game, some (too many) of these guys behave as though we are in the middle of a crime wave, even though crime is at an all time low.

I have been pulled over while driving 5 times for made up reasons just to see if I have had one beer too many. And I have never been charged, although once I had to take a breathalyzer test to go on my way. My buddy that takes down trees is probably 5 times more likely to be seriously injured than any of these guys, but you would never know it from their rhetoric.

I am not making the following up. As a young man living single in Houston I was given a serious beat down by two off duty Houston cops while in a bar. They handed me off to 2 on duty cops, who drove me around for an hour before taking me downtown. Once there, those two filed assault charges against me! My view of the police has been tarnished ever since. I can just imagine what minorities go through with some of these guys. I will never vote for a ‘Law and Order’ politician again, nor a politician that is an ex-cop.

To all of the law enforcement officers out there doing a good job, Thank You! To all of the officers out there that abuse their authority (and those that look the other way while others do), remember, few that you abused are really bad actors. Many are just every day folks. And we vote, pay taxes, and more importantly, have long memories.

#19 Comment By Jack Kenny On January 9, 2018 @ 11:42 am

It is, indeed, unusual to find an editor or pundit admit he was wrong. I stopped reading it long ago, so I wonder if National Review ever admitted it was wrong about the great Bush War II in Iraq and was even more wrong in endorsing the Bush ’43 administration’s policy of indefinite detention of terror suspects, without charges or trial. The recognition by some on the right that there is more to the Bill of Rights than the Second Amendment is long overdue, but nonetheless welcome.

#20 Comment By Mia On January 9, 2018 @ 7:50 pm

“That means hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers were unjustly subjected to embarrassment or even humiliation.”

An encounter with the police means a little more than just “embarrassment” or “humiliation.” I have mentioned on this site before and even provided court paperwork on my own case of police brutality as a white victim, and I’ve been managing attitudes for two decades since my case. The reality is there is a huge stigma against anyone involved with the police at all, to the point that I had witnesses who could aid my case suddenly claim amnesia so they wouldn’t be called to testify in court. I guess this is an extension of the “I don’t want to get involved” excuse.

There is also an assumption that any encounter with police has to be by definition proof of your guilt, because in the minds of so many in my own community, the police never make a mistake, so if you are under their scrutiny, there “has to be a good reason.” Being let go for insufficient evidence just often is made out to be you “getting away with something.” The assumption extends to all investigations and reports, that they are scrupulous reflections of the TRUTH, like the ten commandments handed down to Moses. As a result, the idea that a criminal complaint is legal “facts” (which are not the same as facts in the civilian world, meaning absolute true details, but facts in the sense of what an accuser is willing to have put down on paper by an investigator) whose truth or falsehood will be determined after the prosecutor (not the accused) proves his case to a very high standard of evidence in court. We don’t understand this, or maybe in some cases choose not to understand it, and I’ve had this convoluted conversation too many times over the years for my own comfort.

“As a young man living single in Houston I was given a serious beat down by two off duty Houston cops while in a bar. They handed me off to 2 on duty cops, who drove me around for an hour before taking me downtown. Once there, those two filed assault charges against me!”

Yep, projection is a real thing among the police, which I discovered in my own case as well. I wish I understood why, but one reason is because these kinds of jobs attract people of bad character, and there’s a lot of cronyism that is involved in police recruitment. All I can say is out of all of the dysfunctional situations I have ever found myself in, my police brutality case was one of the most mind-bending, freaky, wildly illogical and even evil situation I’ve ever encountered. By a mile. But no lawyer will touch my case, and I’m forced into silence in my regular life on the issue. TAC is probably the first time I’ve done any real public discussion of it in 20 years; otherwise I only talk about it privately with only one or two people. My experiences have otherwise been defined out of existence in the local community.

#21 Comment By Mia On January 9, 2018 @ 8:11 pm

“BTW plenty of unarmed whites get killed under similar circumstances, while this might not be a racial issue, bad police work should concern everyone and not be swept under the rug.”

I’m glad you brought that up, but there’s a painful reason why cases of white police brutality are swept under the rug, as I referred to in my post above. There is a different dynamic in the black community on policing issues than in the white community. The black community knows the score and usually is better versed in the actual laws involved in the justice system, therefore they are much more realistic and fairer to their members who get involved with it. The white community has a wildly fantastic view of the justice system that is very condemning of anyone who comes in contact with it even in the smallest way with no interest in the legal issues or even actual evidence. It’s a hard thing to come to terms with as a victim of police brutality that something isn’t quite right in your own community, who you had believed to be fairer than it actually turned out to be. But this is why we are told to shut up and sit down. Seeing what they’re doing reflected in us is maybe a bit too uncomfortable for them.

#22 Comment By Brock On January 9, 2018 @ 10:38 pm

I did an extensive search on Judicial Watch’s position on, Stop & Frisk. They were dead silent about this obvious 4th Amendment violation.

#23 Comment By Nate J On January 10, 2018 @ 2:37 am

It’s interesting that you start by mentioning the Second Amendment because it seems that if you want many fellow conservatives to turn their backs on the Constitution, all you need to say to them is “Support the police!”

It’s weird that consevatives, so distrustful of the motives of the state and ready to call them out at any time, suddenly become subservient to the only department of the state that can actually inflict upon them any real, bodily harm – the police department.

We conservatives dislike judicial activists, but a judicial activist cannot personally enforce his or her ruling. We dislike cumbersome bureaucracies, but a bureaucrat cannot truly force you to do anything. The only people the government authorizes to enact all its policies – good and terrible alike – is the police. All government action is implicitly at the barrel end of a cop’s gun.

I respect the work our police do, but I don’t unconditionally trust them, nor do I worship them.

#24 Comment By KD On January 10, 2018 @ 1:05 pm

Heather MacDonald tells the truth at City Journal on policing in NYC:


I don’t see how anyone who is not committed to a program of eugenics could make an empirically honest public safety argument for ending stop and frisk.

#25 Comment By EliteCommInc. On January 10, 2018 @ 6:48 pm

“I don’t see how anyone who is not committed to a program of eugenics could make an empirically honest public safety argument for ending stop and frisk.”

simple, the US is not intended to be a police state.

Of course if you empower these kinds of in your face tactics, you could deter crime. Miss MacDonald continues to pass of her peculiar use of statistics which as has been discussed on this sight numerous times are evidence of what she advances. Not even God exercises that level of control.

We could outlaw guns, and station citizen watchers to call out their neighbors to reduce crime. But if you want to live as we do — those are not shortcuts that come easily nor should they. Given these kinds of advances why not just instill a camera in everyone’s home, car and every public space. If crime stoppage is the goal, why stop with frisking people at random. Sure in certain communities the crime rate is higher, those communities are larger lower in income and the crime that is committed is against the same. But in truth given the populations, most people living in these communities Miss MacDonald wants to target are not engaged in criminal activity nor are they victims of said crimes.

There’s nothing conservative or healthy about advocating for a police state – literally in certain communities based on the kinds of statistical analysis brought to bear by Miss Mac Donald and others. She clamors about history, but she only clamors about the history that seems to support her agenda. What she doesn’t talk about is the decades in which the people in said communities sought assistance from the police and were ignored. She doesn’t talk about how the intrusive tactics used by the same she advocates for actually fueled discontent and hostility to police motives even when they were intended to aide the community.

#26 Comment By EliteCommInc. On January 10, 2018 @ 6:52 pm

On a personal note: those of you who have been violated by government as related in some of the comments.

I would that I could do something to aide you in healing —- to be violated by those intended to protect is nothing easy to overcome I suspect.

My sincere condolences . . . and deep regret. Rare it may be, but no less demeaning and damaging.

#27 Comment By EliteCommInc. On January 10, 2018 @ 6:54 pm

excuse my rare and inappropriate outreach —

#28 Comment By KD On January 10, 2018 @ 8:54 pm

EliteCommie writes:

There’s nothing conservative or healthy about advocating for a police state.

But there is something liberal about resorting to a straw man argument when presented with empirical evidence.

I thought I was advocating for stop and frisk policies, which are, pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, and brought to us by the Warren Court, consistent with the 4th Amendment protections under the Constitution. Sorry, the Warren Court did not advocate for a “police state”.

#29 Comment By EliteCommInc. On January 11, 2018 @ 1:38 am

“But there is something liberal about resorting to a straw man argument when presented with empirical evidence.”

There have been numerous discussion about Mrs MacDonald’s advocacy concerning law enforcement. Many addressed on this site in great detail.

I have no issues with data sets. In the case of Mrs.(?) MacDonald her stats are subject to error by sample size, misapplication and many assumptions about behavior — unrelated to the data she references.

The core position on her press for a “war on police” falls apart on test as does her advance of “the Fergason Effect.”

Both fall apart and fall apart on test of the data. Her rhetoric loaded with empirical data is often overgeneralized or entirely not applicable to the position she holds.

Stop and frisk is arbitrary as is in my view probable cause as is “in the mind of the officer”
for conservatives such notions of authority should fall flat on their face. And the above article is the kind of data that destroys Mrs MacDonald’s advocacy. Because those data sets are drawn from large urban populations and completely contradict her positions drawn from small sample sizes and from cities with no similar social dynamics or even law enforcement processes.

Look it’s admirable to want police work as easy as possible. Problem — ease, simplicity when they run counter the fundamental principles of democracy such as due process, etc. must give way in spite of the gnashing of teeth and hair pulling of police unions and Mrs MacDonald.

Take a look at the after action reports and detailed statistical analysis following police riots — and what is routinely uncovered is not one incident of police citizen conflict, but thousands over time in which police over stepped, acted as judge and jury —

Our system is designed to constrained the power of government not the rudeness of its citizens. I am not soft on crime and less than that when it comes to government authority — which should be treated with suspicion by nature.

I would prefer that our communities see the police as welcome partners, not a force to be tolerated – even if a few bad guys get away, our republic in action.

#30 Comment By EliteCommInc. On January 11, 2018 @ 10:24 am

Unless of course they are here illegally —

and then I have no issues with every single one being shipped home forthwith – yesterday. Adults, children, uncles, grand parents — pastors, city councils, mayors, governors and presidents — who use law and order as their personal grab bag of policies when it suits them or their friends.

#31 Comment By Ray Woodcock On January 11, 2018 @ 10:38 pm

I like this article, and agree with it for the most part. But it oversimplifies, and in doing so it seems to misdirect.

For instance, free speech is not “sacrosanct” in this country. To check that, try telling your employer what you really think. Indeed, try telling anyone. Hardly anybody who wants to succeed or be liked in the U.S. dares to speak freely as a matter of ordinary practice.

The more accurate (and essentially opposite) statement is that our social and legal environment provides the most protection to those who say the least. The First Amendment is only a restriction on how much Congress can contribute to that national suppression of free speech — and even that restriction is subject to numerous exceptions, some of which are potentially quite broad.

The situation is similar for the Second Amendment. Not even [14] supported a general right to bear arms. He found only a right to bear those arms that federal, state, and local lawmakers cannot restrict — and, potentially, only a few types of arms meet that standard.

In practice, such Amendments are expressions of legal sentiment or inclination, controlling only a fraction of the legal and social contexts in which their concerns arise. That doesn’t mean they are pointless. It just means they are not commandments from Sinai. Their potential scope is largely hedged by numerous legal challenges and stipulations.

This editorial seems to contend that they should be less hedged. And why? Evidently because this is the libertarian inclination. But what supports that inclination? Data, evidently: for example, the crime data pertaining to Stop and Frisk in NYC. The implication appears to be that data should guide the hedging of the second (and other) amendments as well.

It seems, in other words, that the real message of the article is to favor a move away from the old emotional preoccupation with liberal vs. conservative, toward a more intellectual focus on empirical vs. nonempirical. I would be interested in seeing further discussion of such a shift.

#32 Comment By EliteComminc. On January 12, 2018 @ 3:22 pm

” . . . with liberal vs. conservative, toward a more intellectual focus on empirical vs. nonempirical.”

The problem would of course be, practical and pragmatic for whom. In the case of the constitution, the press is against state action. The empirical implication is not emotional, it’s to expressed freedom for the individual to preserve a set of principles and benefits. It is without a balancing act.

The constitution does protect or promote criminal behavior. But it does set the conditions under which the state is compelled to respond to actual criminal conduct /activity. It challenges the notion that the state can engage in a guessing game about who might engage in the same. Regardless of the statistical likelihood, peoples persons and property barred from government intrusion without cause. A conservative cannot have it both ways. My personal freedoms and not someone else’s because of where they live. Even if as Mrs MacDonald and others attempt to argue, it’s for their own good. Suppose the numbers had gone up, the civil protections don’t suddenly fall by the way side. What slams the case against those who consider themselves conservatives and belies a motive less genuine is that even when the empiric are against them, they continue to make the same argument. Which is why this author thinks it’s a big deal — this admission they were wrong. That’s a rigged card game. As conservatives their error is making advances that promote arbitrary government behavior. If their case was sincere they would contend that in order to reduce crime, cameras should be located in everyone’s home and offices. After the last financial debacle, every financial firm should be audited every week, to ensure no one is cooking the books or skimming, etc.

Aside from extreme circumstances — empirics don’t over rule the constitution and while our freedoms are in fact limited — they are limited as much as possible similarly for all.

This would not apply to those here illegally and by illegal I mean, those here even by birth who’s parents were here illegally as well. The preamble of the constitution makes it very clear the purpose and who our laws/constitution are intended to serve.

#33 Comment By kwg1947 On February 10, 2019 @ 3:25 am

So please explain why having “dogs” sniffing around vehicles is not also a violation of our 4th Amendment right?