Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – In alluding to the story last hour of the NYPD’s “Stop, Question and Frisk,” I was wondering whether or not the New York Constitution said anything about this. Come to find out, it does. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: In alluding to the story last hour of the NYPD’s “Stop, Question and Frisk,” I was wondering whether or not the New York Constitution said anything about this. Come to find out, it does. The New York Constitution was passed, by the way — if you’re a citizen of New York, you probably don’t know this, so let me be the first to tell you you do have your own state constitution. Imagine that! I’m reading it. You can actually find this online. Shock and awe! No Mike, surely you gest. No, I don’t. “The Constitution of the State of New York As Revised, with Amendments adopted by the Constitutional Convention of 1938 and Approved by Vote of the People on November 8, 1938 and Amendments subsequently adopted by the Legislature and Approved by Vote of the People.” The last amendment was on January the 1st, 2010. Here’s the pertinent part of your 1938 constitution, New York. I bet you didn’t know this:
Article I, Section 12: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects . . .
Mike: Remember, why would the State of New York go through the trouble of inserting a bill of rights into their own constitution if they had the magnanimous, universal protection and guidance of the federal constitution? Remember, some of you incorporationistas out there who refuse to adhere to or refuse to admit that American history in an actual literal and legal interpretation of the ratified intent of the Constitution and its attendant amendments does not say that the federal constitution applies in almost 95 percent of cases in which it is attempted to apply. [mocking] “This incorporation, we don’t care. We want a national government. We don’t want the State of New York’s laws. We hate New York. The only reason we live here is because we can’t afford to leave” or whatever the case may be. But can you answer the question? Why would the nitwits in New York in 1938 bother putting a stupid bill of rights in their own constitution if they already had a bill of rights from the feds. That thing’s universal. It goes from here to the ice world of Hoth and back. Every living soul in the known universe is protected by our constitution’s bill of rights, we’re told by some, I’d say most, people. So why do you need Article I, Section 12? Just curious.
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.
Mike: Kind of sounds like the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Why would you need to restate it if the Fourth Amendment applied to every living soul that God ever created? Still waiting for an answer. I’m here. My hotline is open. There’s more, though….
For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)
AG: I assume so.
Mike: So is it safe to say then that when the federales cast their wide, blanket net over all the communications of 110 million customers, that they probably netted some blanket records from the citizens of New York? That’s fair to say, isn’t it? I think we can make that assumption, can’t we?
AG: I would think so, yeah.
Mike: And if we can, then didn’t the federales, not only did they violate the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution, now they’re in violation of Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution, which says that New York will be the people or entity that will snoop or eavesdrop on its own citizens, not the federales. If New York was providing this security for its citizens, why would it do so if it thought or if it knew that there was blanket sweeping authority for the federales to do the same thing? Wouldn’t you think it was the assumption of the nitwits in 1938 in the New York constitutional convention that they must have determined that most police powers, and certainly the powers to search and seize things in the State of New York, would emanate from the officers of the government of New York?
[mocking] “Oh, come on, Mike, you can’t be serious. We all know that the Feds have always controlled all these matters. No one ever thought once the telegraph was invented that the Feds and the federal government wouldn’t have the ability or right, the unquestioned right to analyze all that they want to.” Somebody needs to inform the New York State constitutional convention of 1938 and tell them of their error. Obviously they are misinformed. I just love this historical discovery here and this reading of the actual historical facts into these matters and into these cases. They never comport with the government-as-God and federal-government-as-omnipotent side of the story that we are force fed by today’s media and by today’s hack politicians who are not statesmen of any high or low order.
End Mike Church Show Transcript