Power Play No Game

Can a cop put a tracking device on your car without a warrant? This question is now before the Supreme Court as they decide whether GPS tracking devices can be placed on vehicles to track suspects without a judge’s approval.

It really does not matter. The "cop" is a dangerously armed parasitic robber of state in or out of costume. S/he'll do what s/he pleases. And the court "judge", paid out of the same booty-bag, will agree.

It's like asking, "can an armed robber put a tracking devise on your car?" (So s/he can meet you with a gun and relieve you of your billfold when you come out of a restaurant).

Well, if s/he has a gun, and you don't want to gamble as to whether it's loaded or s/he has the cojones to pull the trigger, then the answer is yes. The advantage, of course, with the latter (non-government robber) is s/he knows s/he is a robber. Sam

The initial question was worded wrong. The question to be decided, for the card-carrying-members of the Country Club only, is, "Can a cop, legally, put a tracking device on a card-carrying-member's car without a warrant?" The answer, of course, may be 'yes' or 'no', dependent upon their peculiar law.

On the other hand, if we ask the question, "Can a cop, legally, or lawfully, i.e. rightfully, put a tracking device on a non-member's car without that non-member's permission*?", the answer is an emphatic, and resounding, NO! [*If we accept that 'permission' can also be given by 'silence' (failure to rebut), and 'forfeiture' (by trespassing on another man's equal rights).]

Whether the 'cop' has the physical ability to do it, is quite another question, of course. But, if he does do it to a non-member's car without that non-member's permission, he then becomes, as Sam rightly pointed out, nothing more than an "armed robber", with or without his master's "warrant"[1], because he has now violated the Law of Nature, that is to say, the Natural Law of Man.

"The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9

Why is it "superior"? Because, "the law of nature [is] coeval with man[2]", and "what comes first in time, is best in law[3]".

That, my friends, is the Cornerstone that is missing in all of your so-called governments.
_______________________________________________________________________________

[1] "The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves" ~ John Locke

[2] 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries at 41

[3] Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347.