Reply With Quote
And Congress can set the laws, but it can't break the cons ution in doing so. That's why laws are declared uncons utional in part or in whole all the time.
Yes you are. You skipped over:
Since the Patriot Act was passed, it's unclear whether this ECPA protection is worth much anymore in the U.S., or whether it even applies to email that originates from non-citizens in other countries.
Did you skip that part on purpose?
And Congress can set the laws, but it can't break the cons ution in doing so. That's why laws are declared uncons utional in part or in whole all the time.
Last, but not least, you do think we should interpret the cons ution differently depending on the contemporary boogeyman... or you're going to back track on that too?
So why don't you understand it?
You assume a warrant is required. I know better. If a warrant was required, then arrests without warrant would violate the premise that we are secure in our person.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.
Does "reasonable" mean anything to you are not?
Is it reasonable to arrest a bank robber with a weapon pointed at a teller without warrant or not?
Why does it matter?
Congress sets the laws, right? Does it violate the reasonable/unreasonable line?
No Sherlock. I agree, but don't see any examples from you.
Now I agree that congress violates the cons ution, especially this congress. look at the parts of campaign fiance reform struck down, the the new law that will also be struck down. I don't see that with your flaky email examples.
When I first agreed it was wrong, was about the data mining being a gray area. Tools are being used to search for key phrases rather than individuals, and I don't know if that is cons utionally legal or not. I would say if the provider is not compelled, but gives the information by choice, then it is likely legal depending on the service provider contract for third party dissemination.
Not at all. My point is that the cons ution is written as it is for those boogymen.
I understand it. The executive is not above the cons ution, including the 4th amendment. Which makes mass wiretapping of communications or emails uncons utional and illegal.
The question is why you pretend like you don't get it if you do?
Why do you feel the urge to apologize for them?
I'm not confused at all. You're simply uneducated in the standards of probable cause when it comes to arrests vs searches.
Are you even aware that the 'probable' in 'probable cause' has nothing to do with probability?
What's similar between a point-and-gun scenario vs mass surveillance of emails?
And if the probable cause standard you spouse for arrests would be as loose as you claim, why do the police force go constantly to judges to request arrest warrants? They shouldn't need to, right? If you don't know, then you have a lot to read up on.
I wonder who started this thread and what is it about... hmmm...
So you do think it's meaning should change based on such boogeyman.
It's ok, we know... you can say it.
Though I do agree that there are some who are uncomfortable with the degree of personal liberty in the West, wish that it would end, and are willing and able to recruit some dolts into conducting murderous attacks against the West. Of course, perhaps a way to take a stand for Western civilization would be to allow an Islamic mosque or community center, whatever, to be built a block or two from the former site of the World Trade. Perhaps it would also be to not create a mammoth surveillance state and scrap the cons ution in the pursuit of total security. This would be a way to channel whatever angst one feels about these stone age terrorists (ie actually living free), instead of seeing a terrorist behind every bush and giving the state the power to sodomize you at will.
To the OP: Thank. ing. Christ. Had something like this passed our judicial checks, it wouldn't be long before Big Brother-Government is installing cameras in your ing house.
You sure have an opinion for not knowing jack about it.
They must not teach analogies at the Rupert Murdoch School for Conservatives.
And I agree mass wiretapping is probable illegal. Just when did that start anyway?
Why do you keep spinning my words incorrectly?
Not appology, but pointing out facts.
Should I walk away if a see a heart attack victim, or help, maybe call 911?
Should I not point out the truth when people lie?
Granted, one is more serious than the other. I just hate liars.
No. You are applying federal, state, and local restrictions to the executive branch. Lower laws cannot supersede the executive branch cons utional powers.
Duh...
OK Chump. Would you stop acting as if I disagree with that aspect?
My God Chump. I'm tired of your stupidity.
Again....
Federal, state, and local requirements are not required of the executive branch.
The scary thing is that our children's grandchildren will probably be sold greater encroachments on their cons utional rights by waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 (provided that there is even a pretense the cons ution exists then).
I suggest you start with my first posting on this thread and see how it digressed.
Not all my remarks are to the OP theme.
You know that, don't you Chump?
My God.
You do a great interpretation of Chump.
The meaning does not change of the cons ution. Period. I'm sorry you don't understand the nuances, and the additions congress has placed on the basic cons utional law. I cannot get though to you if you remain closed minded on that.
My opinion is the premise of the OP is illegal. I'm just not sure.
Do I have a valid point, or not?
Oh, I think by that time they will probably have multiple newer examples to cite.
We are dealing with a very resourceful adversary that has multiple ways to hit us.
Airport Security Harassment is the Maginot Line of Homeland Security.
No, you don't.
Here is my first posting when i actually addressed the OP:
Now what I didn't say is that if this was done by the executive branch, it would be legal. However, without expressed law by congress allowing the FBI to set their own probable cause requirements, or probable cause spelled out by congress, then this does violate other laws that do exist.I have made such positions clear. Did you forget, or are you being an ass?
I have no problems with such uses if there is probable cause. I simply fear that the people who have access to the technology will illegally abuse it, like in the movie Enemy of the State.
What?
Are you saying a warrant is required before a policeman can arrest a bank robber in the commission of a crime?
Wow...
What planet are you from?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions