If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2654
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7228 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2654 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | » | Last | Show all
 
  2007-09-20 11:32:54 PM
Whidbey: "Because the "law" just says it's OK for the Executive Branch to act without accountability. Which is NOT OK to do.

It's like signing a blank check. There's no accountability, no paper trail, no warrant."


Um...OK....

Let's see....

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Maybe you can point to where in Amendment V any type of "accountabilty" is called for because I honestly don't see it.

So....how exactly does this law violate the "due process" clause?

OH and BTW....

From the law again....

"The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title."

So under this law the AG reports to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

That sure sounds like there is some "accountability" there.

Go figure....

So let's recap....

TUSC does NOT require a warrant.

The law says that a President can use warrantless searches to obtain FII.

The law requires "accountability".

The 5th Amendment does NOT have any requirement for "accountability".

The legal definition of foreign power includes groups involved in international terrorism and does not have a requirement that they be outside of the US.

And I've lost track of what other claims you've made that have been wrong....

Warrantless searches to obtain Foreign Intelligence Information have been used since the beginning of this country.
 
  2007-09-21 12:06:33 AM
C-S: "Wow. So mere travel into the country is "transcending national boundaries?" To be perfectly honest, I can think of better reasons to consider actions taken OBL in the United States as International Terrorism besides merely "travelling into the country." That essentially means that ANYONE who ever comes into the United States can forever be considered as a "foreign power engaged in international terrorism" since their mere crossing of international borders constitutes "terrorism transcending national boundaries.""

No.

Simply coming to this country does not make you an international terrorist.

IF you travel to this country with the intent to plan, carry out or assist in a terrorist attack then yes you are an international terrorist.

I'm sorry but it really is not that complicated...

"Meaning, defendants cannot even see the facts against them in order to raise a possible defense, which to me smacks of a clear violation of due process not to mention fundamental fairness."

Are you now saying that even FISA somehow violates TUSC????

"Doesn't lessening these rights and safeguards mean, in essence, that the terrorists have done their job and forced our country to become something closer to the authoritarian state they desire?"

We've always had sealed rulings. This is nothing new.

When you are dealing with national security you don't want the deails open to the public.

"I'd also like a response to the court opinion I referenced which agreed that Bush's surveillance program needed to be temporarily halted due to its questionable constitutional validity."

Well...let's see...

You have one judge who ruled against Bush's program.

OK.

I've got warrantless searches being used since this country was founded.

I've got FISA court saying that a President can conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.

If I recall correctly you guys basically covered all of her claims....

...and I thought I pretty much covered all of them....

TUSC does NOT ban warrantless searches....

The law says that a President can use warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.... [thanks again]

The definition of foreign power includes groups invovled in international terrorism...

AND YES it is possible to be in the US and be involved in international terrorism.

The law does have "accountability".....

I'm sorry but you guys are running out of claims to make about this issue....
 
  2007-09-21 12:57:21 AM
dottedmint: So....how exactly does this law violate the "due process" clause?

So under this law the AG reports to the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
That sure sounds like there is some "accountability" there.


Having the Attorney General make a token "report" to some House Committee doesn't cut it.

"Due Process" indicates a CHECK against the Executive Branch. This isn't happening here.

Are you now saying that even FISA somehow violates TUSC????

A secret court that could be used to spy on American citizens? You really need to ask?

I've got warrantless searches being used since this country was founded.

This country's had plenty of dark moments. I'm sure you're aware of the Alien and Sedition Acts under Adams and the Espionage Act under Wilson.

Thankfully, the former was ruled un-Consitutional, while the latter? Hey. What better inspiration for what this administration is doing...:)

And I'm sure someone could point out the "legalities" of both of those pieces of legislation, just as someone might defend the equally un-Constitutional Patriot Act.

Just because someone has gotten away with circumventing Constitutional protections isn't a reason to condone those actions. Even if it catches "terrorists."

The definition of foreign power includes groups invovled in international terrorism...

I really don't care. This law is a danger to the citizenry of this country. All it takes is for this government to decide that you or I are somehow involved in "terrorism" and we'd be up the creek without a lawyer.

Your fear of some nebulous "enemy" has blinded you to the very protections that people have fought and died for.

Again, if there is truly a critical need to conduct surveillance on a suspect in this country, the people doing the surveillance had damn well get a warrant before the fact.

It sounds to me that, in the interest of "security" you're going to go along with the abuses our leaders get away with because...it's been done since the beginning of our country. As if somehow that makes it right.

I'm sorry but you guys are running out of claims to make about this issue....

I'm sticking by my original claims. Warrantless wiretapping and surveillance are both violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments and those laws need to be overturned. I seriously think you want this country to be a dictatorship where the Constitution really doesn't matter.
 
  2007-09-21 07:15:29 AM
Whidbey: "Having the Attorney General make a token "report" to some House Committee doesn't cut it.

"Due Process" indicates a CHECK against the Executive Branch. This isn't happening here."


ROLMAO...

Wow....

You make the claim that this is UNconstitutional because there is no "accountability".

I point out that there actually is "accountability" because the AG reports to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

And your respons is 'it's not enough'.....

Give me a break....

The "CHECK against the Executive Branch" is the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

There is a "CHECK" and this makes your argument baseless...

"Just because someone has gotten away with circumventing Constitutional protections isn't a reason to condone those actions. Even if it catches "terrorists.""

It's not just a case of "someone" getting away with something. We have had President after President after President after President after President using this authority and it has never been an issue until Bush uses it.

"All it takes is for this government to decide that you or I are somehow involved in "terrorism" and we'd be up the creek without a lawyer."

NO.

Since the AG reports to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence there is a CHECK against possible abuses.

"I'm sticking by my original claims. Warrantless wiretapping and surveillance are both violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments and those laws need to be overturned."

We've already been over those....

The 4th does not require a warrant and the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath the specific things that are being searched and what is being searched for. Oh and if the government finds a list of numbers at a Al Quada hideout in Pakistan they would have "probable cause" that the people on the other end of those numbers would be Al Quada.

The 5th does not require "accountability" even though this law has "accountability".

***********************************************************
Amendment IV

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.

************************************************************
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

*************************************************************

From now on instead of making up claims of what is in TUSC please quote what it actually says.
 
  2007-09-21 11:40:47 AM
dottedmint:
The "CHECK against the Executive Branch" is the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
There is a "CHECK" and this makes your argument baseless...


No, not really. The Bush administration has taken away that check from the JUDICIAL BRANCH, where it belongs.

Making some "report" to some "Committee" is merely going through the motions. NO, it isn't enough. Congress is NOT the judicial branch, it does NOT enforce Constitutional protocol.

me: Just because someone has gotten away with circumventing Constitutional protections isn't a reason to condone those actions. Even if it catches "terrorists."

you: It's not just a case of "someone" getting away with something. We have had President after President after President after President after President using this authority and it has never been an issue until Bush uses it.

You've been busted on this before. The past behavior of "President after President" means nothing. Don't use this weak argument again, please.

And it's an issue now because this administration is making the biggest deal about it since WWII. They are BLATANTLY violating the Constitution and bragging about it.

Since the AG reports to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence there is a CHECK against possible abuses.

Disagree. See above.

me: I'm sticking by my original claims. Warrantless wiretapping and surveillance are both violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments and those laws need to be overturned."

you: We've already been over those....

The 4th does not require a warrant and the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath the specific things that are being searched and what is being searched for.


Not good enough. Why are you so insistent on ignoring the due process from the JUDICIAL system? What is so WRONG about not obtaining a warrant to search or put someone under surveillance? Seriously, what is your issue with it?

The AG does not have the power to "sign" for it himself. There is no CHECK, no accountability for his actions. Oh wait, he'll deliver some token "testimony" before Congress. Completely disingenuous.

You're giving this government WAY WAY too much power, man. Why?

Again, WHAT IS WRONG with obtaining a warrant from the FISA court?

Why water down this process?

Oh and if the government finds a list of numbers at a Al Quada hideout in Pakistan they would have "probable cause" that the people on the other end of those numbers would be Al Quada.

Again, they had damn well better get a warrant, or it's ILLEGAL under the 4th and 5th Amendments. Sorry, I'm just not going to concede this point. Whatever happened in Pakistan does not give this government the power to act WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY.

Oh wait, that REPORT BEFORE CONGRESS!! Yeah, that'll take care of it. Maybe they'll slap this administration on the wrist if they don't like it...

The 5th does not require "accountability" even though this law has "accountability".

Reporting to Congress possibly after the fact is NOT accountability. The due process that was in place with judges issuing warrants keeps the Executive branch of government from having too much power. Congress!=the law enforcement branch.

Funny how you just don't see that.

From now on instead of making up claims of what is in TUSC please quote what it actually says.

You're a case, man. You support abuses of the Constitution and you have the gall to call me out for defending our freedoms.

Tyranny CREEPS, dottedmint. By supporting this, you're turning up the temperature on the pot of frog soup.
 
  2007-09-21 07:24:12 PM
Whidbey: "No, not really. The Bush administration has taken away that check from the JUDICIAL BRANCH, where it belongs."

But there is a "CHECK" even though the 5th does NOT require it no many how many times you claim it does.

I'm sorry but you keep making cr@p up.

The 4th does NOT require a warrant.

The 5th does NOT require a "check".

This means that even though there is no warrant and no check (oh wait there is) TUSC is NOT violated.

"Again, WHAT IS WRONG with obtaining a warrant from the FISA court?"

Oh...

Do you mean the same court that said a President has the Constitutional authority to do exactly what Bush is doing?

They said,

"that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

and

"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

I find it funny that you want to ignore what they say about that...

"You're a case, man. You support abuses of the Constitution and you have the gall to call me out for defending our freedoms."

I'm calling you out for making cr@p up. The next time you want to claim that 'this' or 'that' is required by TUSC simply quote it because so far your claims have not mirrored what TUSC actually says.

***********************************************************
Amendment IV

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.

************************************************************
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

*************************************************************
 
  2007-09-25 12:33:21 PM
*shrugs*

I've got a problem with the Attorney General office signing off on surveillance without a check from the judicial branch of government, as it has been required to do since the FISA was created.

You should have that problem, too. Up until now, warrants have been issued by the courts system.

Now, it's just the attorney general signing some token "oath" and promising to jive it up before Congress. After the fact. After someone's rights have been violated.

That isn't accountability. And if it does meet some round-peg-into-a-square-hole interpretation of the Constitution, it certainly isn't satisfactory accountability. Not without some say by the judicial branch.

You should be outraged, not gloating about how it's in compliance.

Time will tell if there are people in this government with the courage to challenge these abuses. Right now, the trend is to bend the Constitution as you suggest.

I still stand by my original point that warrantless surveillance violates both the amendments we've cited.

And no, Congress does not have the authority to enforce laws, which this shift in power from the judicial to the legislative branch demonstrates.

You are giving the Executive Branch too much power with warrantless surveillance. It is not necessary, and it is a jeopardy to our freedoms.
 
  2007-09-25 09:46:04 PM
There ya go again Whidbey...making cr@p up.

"I've got a problem with the Attorney General office signing off on surveillance without a check from the judicial branch of government, as it has been required to do since the FISA was created."

The FISA law (that I have quoted for you several times) says,

"...the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information..."

This means that your statement is false. Uh...made up...

"You should have that problem, too. Up until now, warrants have been issued by the courts system."

Except that through history Presidents have used warrantless searches....


"That isn't accountability. And if it does meet some round-peg-into-a-square-hole interpretation of the Constitution, it certainly isn't satisfactory accountability. Not without some say by the judicial branch."

I'm basing my statements on what TUSC actually says and what the law actually says.

You are basing your statements on some faulty idea of what TUSC says or should say.

"You should be outraged, not gloating about how it's in compliance."

And you should base your statements on what TUSC actually says and not what you think it say or think it should say.

"Time will tell if there are people in this government with the courage to challenge these abuses. Right now, the trend is to bend the Constitution as you suggest."

That would be because there is no abuse.

IF there was you would be able to quote the actual text that supports your claim.

So far you haven't.

"I still stand by my original point that warrantless surveillance violates both the amendments we've cited. "

I admire your stubborness but the Amendments that you have cited do not support your claims.

As I said before the 4th does not protect us against warrantless searches and the 5th does not require judicial checks.

You keep making those claims but what TUSC actually says does not support your claims.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat those claims the text of TUSC will not change.
 
  2007-09-26 11:56:54 AM
dottedmint: ..the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information..."

This means that your statement is false. Uh...made up...


That law should be struck down. Why you allow that much power to be given to the Executive Branch without a proper check is puzzling. You have not explained this to anyone's satisfaction.

Historically, the enforcement has come from the judicial branch, not the legislative. You should be opposing this. I don't care what the law says. "Separate but Equal" was a law, too.

Except that through history Presidents have used warrantless searches....

Again, do not bring up other empirical examples as justification. As far as I'm concerned, those were abuses, too.

As I said before the 4th does not protect us against warrantless searches and the 5th does not require judicial checks.

I don't care, it does not allow what you're supporting, either.

There is no "check" with an after-the-fact "report" to Congress.

There is no "probable cause" without involvement of the judicial system.

me: Time will tell if there are people in this government with the courage to challenge these abuses. Right now, the trend is to bend the Constitution as you suggest."

you:That would be because there is no abuse.


There is absolutely no reason for this process to exist. aIt is an abuse. There is a danger of Americans being put under surveillance, and with your steadfast refusal to allow a court to issue a warrant there is also the danger of action after-the-fact. The 4th Amendment requires the stipulation of " particularly describing the place to be searched." That does not mean after the fact.

And no, Congress does not have the power to issue warrants. So what you are supporting does not meet the spirit of that amendment, even though you've twisted it to mean what you want.
 
  2007-09-26 04:38:00 PM
dottedmint: IF you travel to this country with the intent to plan, carry out or assist in a terrorist attack then yes you are an international terrorist.

And putting aside the fact that you have no authority whatsoever to back up your reading of the statute, you are aware that if you were arrested for this, the evidence which "proves" your "intent" is sealed; in other words the government can say "yeah you traveled with that intent" and then gather evidence without a warrant, and you cannot challenge that assertion or see the evidence they have which "proves" this element of the allegation. Do you see the problem there? It's a blank check. Anyone who crosses the border can be an international terrorist even if they are an American Citizen, because the Government can say they are and not have to show you why. IMHO that is in plain conflict with the statutes explicit prohibition of warrantless wiretaps of Americans.

You don't need to go there for Osama. Why do you want to extend the power of the executive so much? Do you not believe in checks and balances? Should the President truly have unlimited authority to essentially do whatever he wants?

I've got FISA court saying that a President can conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.

Wht case? Where? Who? Cite it. Let's see the context. And while you are at it explain to me how a FISA court has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of anything other than warrants.

When you are dealing with national security you don't want the deails open to the public.

OK fine, I don't need the details, but the defendant and his attorney do. Do you disagree with that? Do you think that is fair for the prosecution to have all the facts and the evidence and the defendant doesn't get to see any of it?

You have one judge who ruled against Bush's program.

That's one more than you have. Unless you are secretly Antonin Scalia then your opinion really doesn't hold much water against a federal judge. Until that ruling is appealed it stands and is binding, so that's all I need, thank you very much.
 
  2007-09-26 09:27:02 PM
 
  2007-09-26 11:18:09 PM
Whidbey: "Historically, the enforcement has come from the judicial branch, not the legislative. "

Historically Presidents have used warrantless searches to obtain Foreign Intelligence Information and it has never been an issue.

I don't care, it does not allow what you're supporting, either.

The 4th talks about what is not allowed and warrantless searches are not something that is banned.

There is no "check" with an after-the-fact "report" to Congress.

Actually that is a "check". IF you do something and then after the fact someone comes around to see what you did they are "check"ing what you did.

There is no "probable cause" without involvement of the judicial system.

I've given you examples of when law enforcement can conduct searches without warrants based on "probable cause" without any involvement of the judicial branch.

"There is absolutely no reason for this process to exist. aIt is an abuse."

Just because you don't think it is needed does not make it an abuse.

"There is a danger of Americans being put under surveillance, and with your steadfast refusal to allow a court to issue a warrant there is also the danger of action after-the-fact. "

Actually even with warrants there is a chance of abuse. Going through the courts does not make it impossible for abuses.

"The 4th Amendment requires the stipulation of " particularly describing the place to be searched." That does not mean after the fact."

Even though the law does not require a warrant it does call for the "describing the place to be searched".

"And no, Congress does not have the power to issue warrants. So what you are supporting does not meet the spirit of that amendment, even though you've twisted it to mean what you want."

Wait....Wait....Wait....

Did you just accuse me of twisting TUSC to mean what I want????

I'm the one in here who is actually QUOTING what TUSC actually says. Show me the text of the "spirit" of TUSC. You guys are twisting the actually text of TUSC to support what you want. Not me...
 
  2007-09-27 01:45:20 AM
dottedmint: Actually that is a "check". IF

Weak. Seriously. Try again. Or not. I'm not even sure that's worth a response.

Just because you don't think it is needed does not make it an abuse.

I've more than given my opinion on the matter, and I assure you that it is.

Historically Presidents have used warrantless searches to obtain Foreign Intelligence Information and it has never been an issue.

Dude, I thought I told you not to bring up empirical examples. They were abuses then as now, and thankfully we're hearing about them. That's why they are an issue. And incidentally, it was an "issue" before to those who did the real digging by reading declassified documents. It should appall anyone that our government justifies spying on Americans without proper procedures of getting a warrant beforehand, no not letting someone "check up on them later."

I've given you examples of when law enforcement can conduct searches without warrants based on "probable cause" without any involvement of the judicial branch.

Yes, I know. And I countered by saying those examples could be tossed out in court depending on the lawyer and the judge deciding the case.

Just because you don't think it is needed does not make it an abuse.

It is not necessary. I've explained why, see above. There is no reason why this administration can justify their refusal to seek a warrant to spy on domestic individuals. None.

dottedmint: Even though the law does not require a warrant it does call for the "describing the place to be searched".

Which is a warrant, in other words. You do not go before Congress to get a warrant.

dottedmint: Did you just accuse me of twisting TUSC to mean what I want????

Absolutely. The Bill of Rights explicitly states that people have the right to be secure unless there is probable cause and that due process is followed.

You seem to be OK with having that "due process" be left in the hands of the legislative branch as opposed to the judicial branch, as it has historically been.

Why you don't see this as a power grab by the Executive Branch, I just don't know. Why you believe this twisted interpretation of the Constitution is valid I don't understand either.

Oh, but it's only going to be used to catch "terrorists," right?

I think that's the point of contention here. I see the whole "War on Terror" as a means to power, and frankly, warrantless searches and surveillance sounds like something we would have read about Communist Russia.

Again, there is absolutely NO reason to conduct business differently, and there is no reason this administration should ignore the judicial rulings against their actions.
 
  2007-09-27 01:51:11 AM
Reposting...

dottedmint: Actually that is a "check". IF you do something and then after the fact someone comes around to see what you did they are "check"ing what you did.

Weak. Seriously. Try again. Or not. I'm not even sure that's worth a response. Maybe that was an attempt at humor...? ;)

Just because you don't think it is needed does not make it an abuse.

I've more than given my opinion on the matter, and I assure you that it is. If anything, you're at a loss to explain why you want to give the Executive Branch this much power, and why the present system is inadequate.

Historically Presidents have used warrantless searches to obtain Foreign Intelligence Information and it has never been an issue.

Dude, I thought I told you not to bring up empirical examples. They were abuses then as now, and thankfully we're hearing about them. That's why they are an issue. And incidentally, it was an "issue" before to those who did the real digging by reading declassified documents. It should appall anyone that our government justifies spying on Americans without proper procedures of getting a warrant beforehand, no not letting someone "check up on them later."

I've given you examples of when law enforcement can conduct searches without warrants based on "probable cause" without any involvement of the judicial branch.

Yes, I know. And I countered by saying those examples could be tossed out in court depending on the lawyer and the judge deciding the case.

Just because you don't think it is needed does not make it an abuse.

It is not necessary. I've explained why, see above. There is no reason why this administration can justify their refusal to seek a warrant to spy on domestic individuals. None.

Even though the law does not require a warrant it does call for the "describing the place to be searched".

Which is a warrant, by any other name. You do not go before Congress to get a warrant to search things. You do not go to Congress to gain approval for surveillance.

Did you just accuse me of twisting TUSC to mean what I want????

Absolutely. The Bill of Rights explicitly states that people have the right to be secure unless there is probable cause and that due process is followed.

You seem to be OK with having that "due process" be left in the hands of the legislative branch as opposed to the judicial branch, as it has historically been.

Why you don't see this as a power grab by the Executive Branch, I just don't know. Why you believe this twisted interpretation of the Constitution is valid I don't understand either.

Oh, but it's only going to be used to catch "terrorists," right?

I think that's the point of contention here. I see the whole "War on Terror" as a means to power, and frankly, warrantless searches and surveillance sounds like something we would have read about Communist Russia.

Again, there is absolutely NO reason to conduct business differently, and there is no reason this administration should ignore the judicial rulings against their actions.
 
  2007-09-27 02:42:19 AM
whidbey: Reposting...

Your html-fu is weak young grasshopper ;)
 
  2007-09-27 06:48:56 AM
Whidbey: "Absolutely. The Bill of Rights explicitly states that people have the right to be secure unless there is probable cause and that due process is followed."

There ya go again...twisting what TUSC actually says.

The 4th says we are protected against unreasonable searches, not warrantless searches.

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.

It does NOT say that we are protected against "warrantless searches" no matter how many times you say it does.


"I think that's the point of contention here. I see the whole "War on Terror" as a means to power, and frankly, warrantless searches and surveillance sounds like something we would have read about Communist Russia."

Actually sounds like what George Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt and other Presidents have done since this country was formed.
 
  2007-09-27 06:52:11 AM
Whenever you guys are ready to change topics let me know.

Obviously you are not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.
 
  2007-09-27 11:32:15 AM
It's those damned "nested tags," C-S...blame it on the re-design...;)

dottedmint: The 4th says we are protected against unreasonable searches, not warrantless searches.

Warrantless searches ARE unreasonable.

You haven't provided a single reason why we should abandon the present system, nor have you given any justification as to why we should give the Executive Branch this much power.

I'm not going to argue this anymore until you address those two points.

Actually sounds like what George Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt and other Presidents have done since this country was formed.

In other words, you support abuses of the Constitution based on past examples. Well, thank you for showing your true colors for once. Hey, I tried to steer you away from that. I guess you thought it somehow justified the present abuses. Congratulations.
 
  2007-09-27 11:38:47 AM
dottedmint: viously you are not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

I'd think about it if I were you. My comments aren't out of thin air.

What you are supporting violates the very spirit of the 4th Amendment, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

Well, according to you (and this administration), those words mean very little when it comes to fighting "terror." Why that doesn't bother you is disturbing.
 
  2007-09-27 09:15:37 PM
Whidbey: "You haven't provided a single reason why we should abandon the present system, nor have you given any justification as to why we should give the Executive Branch this much power."

"the present system"
?????

You are the one who is trying to abandon the "present system".

Since the beginning of this country Presidents have used warrantless searches to obtain FII. This has been going on in this country until the "present system" where Bush uses warrantless searches to obtain FII. Now you are saying we "should abandon the present system".

This all means that the Executive Branch has had this power since the beginning of this country. This is not some new power that the E B has never had.

"I'd think about it if I were you. My comments aren't out of thin air."

Well since your comments are not based on the actual text of TUSC I think it is not too far from coming out of thin air.

"What you are supporting violates the very spirit of the 4th Amendment,"

I'm still waiting for you to quote the "spirit" of TUSC.

I've quoted the actual TEXT of TUSC and it does not support what you are claiming.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

Right....

However it does not say against "warrantless searches" and until Bush started doing it Warrantless searches for FII had always been considered as reasonable.

"Well, according to you (and this administration), those words mean very little when it comes to fighting "terror." Why that doesn't bother you is disturbing."

But you see.....

I AM concerned about the actual words of TUSC and I don't base my opinions on what I think is the "spirit" of TUSC.
 
  2007-09-28 01:05:36 PM
dottedmint: I'm still waiting for you to quote the "spirit" of TUSC.

Then you haven't been reading my posts. I did not suggest anything was a violation of the "spirit of the Constitution" as a whole, I said that warrantless wiretapping/surveillance violates the SPIRIT of the 4th and 5th Amendments. They are unreasonable, since a warrant could easily be obtained, and having Congress be the instrument of accountability is historically inconsistent and will prove ineffective as a check against the Executive Branch.

Since the beginning of this country Presidents have used warrantless searches to obtain FII.

Why do you keep bringing this up? Those were ABUSES. All of them. Any Constitutional scholar would point to the actions of Lincoln or FDR as being questionable. There was NO accountability, all were decisions made ALONE by the Executive Branch.

Please do not attempt to use that as any kind of justification again, seriously. It's a weak, circular argument that appeals to authority--an authority which was NOT granted to those individuals. It does not excuse the behavior of this administration or any other.

However it does not say against "warrantless searches" and until Bush started doing it Warrantless searches for FII had always been considered as reasonable.

Now who's making things up? Up until recent events, a warrant was required.

me: "You haven't provided a single reason why we should abandon the present system, nor have you given any justification as to why we should give the Executive Branch this much power."

You still haven't addressed this. I'm still waiting to hear why you feel the Executive Branch needs this much power when there were perfectly good protocols in place. That's what I'd really like to know: why you support this, period.

I can only assume that ultimately you want this country to become dictatorship, not remain a representative democracy where our rights are guaranteed.

Add the equation of "terror" and our freedoms and protections can be circumvented. You give me no choice but to believe that is your intent, based on your interpretation of TUSC.

Which, as C-S has pointed out, goes against two rulings by professionals who say very much otherwise.
 
  2007-09-28 09:54:38 PM
Whidbey: "I said that warrantless wiretapping/surveillance violates the SPIRIT of the 4th and 5th Amendments."

I'm sorry.

I should have said that I've been waiting for you to quote the SPIRIT of the 4th and 5th Amendments..

"Why do you keep bringing this up? Those were ABUSES. All of them. Any Constitutional scholar would point to the actions of Lincoln or FDR as being questionable. There was NO accountability, all were decisions made ALONE by the Executive Branch."

Because at the time nobody thought that they were abuses. Nobody has thought using warrantless searches to obtain FII was an abuse until Bush did it.

"Now who's making things up? Up until recent events, a warrant was required."

No. A warrant has never been required to obtain FII>

President after President after President has used it and nobody has ever thought it was an abuse.

Is there no other topic you guys want to bring up????
 
  2007-10-01 12:19:51 PM
dottedmint: Is there no other topic you guys want to bring up????

I dunno, man...

WHAT could possibly be more important than the gradual eroding of our liberties to fight boogeymen?

Especially when you keep coming back with ready-to-mix defenses of said concerns...

What I really don't understand is why none of this bothers you...

And you never told us what your secret Consitutional gripe about some law Bush signed...no, I don't know what it is. Enlighten us...:)
 
  2007-10-01 12:55:06 PM
dottedmint: No. A warrant has never been required

When, in your opinion, is a warrantless search unreasonable?

Is there no other topic you guys want to bring up????

I'm open to suggestion but I don't have the inspiration right now to start a new topic.
 
  2007-10-02 07:05:13 AM
C-S: "When, in your opinion, is a warrantless search unreasonable? "

Well....

I would say most warrantless searches that are NOT about Foreign Intelligence Informatioin would be "unreasonable".

I think the example of an officer looking in the window of a car that looks the same as a car used in an armed robbery would be reasonable and no I don't think that even a good lawyer would get the charges dropped.

I think it is reasonable for people to be searched before they get on an airplane.

I think it would be unreasonable for people to be randomly stopped on the street and searched.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for the government to use warrantless searches to obtain Foreign Intelligence Information while I think it would be unreasonable for the government to use warrantless searches to listen in on me talking with my brother about the latest football score.

Whidbey: "What I really don't understand is why none of this bothers you..."

That's probably because this has been going on since this country was formed and we have not become communist China.

IF this was some new power that the government has NEVER used before I would probably be more worried about it but since this has been going on since George Washington and we have survived I'm not worried about it.

"And you never told us what your secret Consitutional gripe about some law Bush signed...no, I don't know what it is. Enlighten us...:)"

I'm sure that someone who is as worried about our liberties as you claim to be will be able to figure it out.

After all, I can't imagine that the use of warrantless searches for FII is the only example of our liberties being eroded that you think this government is guilty of.
 
  2007-10-02 12:38:52 PM
dottedmint: I'm sure that someone who is as worried about our liberties as you claim to be will be able to figure it out.

Well, then, fine. I tried to be cool about it.

I guess I really don't appreciate that attitude. We discuss things here, this isn't charades...

I now officially do not care what it is...:)

dottedmint: Whidbey: "What I really don't understand is why none of this bothers you..."

That's probably because this has been going on since this country was formed and we have not become communist China.


And I would Google the term "frog soup" if you haven't heard the expression. Your lackadaisical attitude about abuses of vested power to the Executive Branch is both inconsistent and annoying.
 
  2007-10-02 09:58:57 PM
Whidbey: "I guess I really don't appreciate that attitude. We discuss things here, this isn't charades...

I now officially do not care what it is...:)"


WOW...what a response...

Ya know...

When I said,

"After all, I can't imagine that the use of warrantless searches for FII is the only example of our liberties being eroded that you think this government is guilty of."

I was trying to give you an opening to bring up some of your other complaints about this government.

Maybe I was wrong but I figured you had other complaints of our liberties being eroded and I thought this would be a good way to bring up other topics.

Or are warrantless searches the only case where you feel our liberties are being eroded?

"And I would Google the term "frog soup" if you haven't heard the expression."

Maybe you should Google it....

The idea of "frog soup" is that you would put a frog in cool water and then slowly turn up the heat in a way that he would not notice the fact that he is being boiled until it was too late.

The term is usually used when talking about taxes in that people typically don't complain as much about small gradual increases in taxes than they would about a sudden large increase in taxes even if the end result would be the same.

The flaw in your use of the term is that there is no change or increase in anything.

When this country was first formed warrantless searches were used to obtain FII.

Over the years as this country continued to grow, warrantless searches were used to obtain FII.

Now Bush is using warrantless searches to obtain FII.

There is no change.

The 'temp' has not been turned up on the frog.

He is still swimming around in the same 'temp' water as when he was first put in the pot.

IF the government was using warrantless searches to go after (NON)-FII then your "frog suop" idea would fit but we are talking about activities that have been going on since this country was formed. This means that there is no change.... There is no "eroding" of our liberties.... There is no "frog soup".....

"Your lackadaisical attitude about abuses of vested power to the Executive Branch is both inconsistent and annoying."

Well....

I find your focus on whatever you think the "SPIRIT" of TUSC and the Amendments should say (I'm still waiting to see the QUOTES of the "SPIRIT" of them) while completely IGNORING the actual text of what they say to be just as annoying.

And BTW.....I have tried to consistently base my arguments on the actual text of TUSC.

I think we have beaten this issue to a bloody pulp and I'm wondering what other liberties you feel have been eroded...
 
  2007-10-03 12:10:12 PM
dottedmint: I find your focus on whatever you think the "SPIRIT" of TUSC and the Amendments should say (I'm still waiting to see the QUOTES of the "SPIRIT" of them) while completely IGNORING the actual text of what they say to be just as annoying.

I'm sorry you're so "annoyed" by concepts like "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 person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

I find it almost amusing that you've posted these paragraphs on more than one occasion. Why do so when you don't really believe what those words mean? They are not subject to your exceptions. Two judges have ruled in favor of the Constitution, and the Bush administration has the arrogance and audacity to challenge those rulings.

The idea of "frog soup" is that you would put a frog in cool water and then slowly turn up the heat in a way that he would not notice the fact that he is being boiled until it was too late.

Which perfectly describes the escalation of the abuses within the past fifty years alone. That's why I brought it up. I guess I'm not surprised that you would take the term and make it somehow justify that these abuses aren't taking place.

The term is usually used when talking about taxes in that people typically don't complain as much about small gradual increases in taxes than they would about a sudden large increase in taxes even if the end result would be the same.

Maybe at one time but more recently it's become much more of a relevant term when describing how American citizens hem and haw about how our liberties aren't really being targeted in the name of "national security" and how they ignore said abuses until it's too late.

The flaw in your use of the term is that there is no change or increase in anything.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

From your point of view, this country can do no wrong, and this government can do no wrong. Nevermind the un-Constitutionalities, bending the rules will only apply to "terrorists," right? Not red-blooded American citizens.

And so your refusal to see that indeed the Executive Branch has slowly emassed powers not vested to it Consitutionally really doesn't surprise me.

It sounds like you'd be willing to give up a lot more just to be safe from "terrorists."

Now Bush is using warrantless searches to obtain FII.
There is no change.
The 'temp' has not been turned up on the frog.


You're in denial. The "temperature" has been going up steadily since WWII. The unthinkable, that American citizens can be spied on or detained without due process, is now legitimized. Yes, NOW.

Just as you said.

Or are warrantless searches the only case where you feel our liberties are being eroded?

That's the big one, certainly. If you'd at least do the decent thing and agree that it goes against the Constitution instead of trying to pound a square peg into a round hole as you've been doing, we'd be getting somewhere. I find it deplorable, you find it necessary. I believe in freedom from abuses of power in our government, you embrace them, again because you feel they are "necessary."

This government does not care about the rights of the people when it comes to catching "terrorists."

And as I've also said, I decry the notion of "pre-emptive" war, especially "war" without the required Congressional declaration or UN-led operation as a condition of Article VI.

Yes, dottedmint. Frog soup. Every few years, some President employs some mechanism that circumvents the Constitution to give the Executive Branch more power.
 
  2007-10-03 05:04:36 PM
dottedmint: Over the years as this country continued to grow, warrantless searches were used to obtain FII.

The difference is previous presidents, such as Washington and Lincoln, did their spying on non-Americans who weren't in America. (Or "the Union.") E.g., British to British or Confederate to Confederate communications.

So those examples of yours are irrelevant and not analogous.

As for Wilson's spying, his espionage act has been famously attacked and gutted by several Supreme Court cases as well as subsequent legislation. His warrantless spying and paranoid authoritarianism against such figures as Eugene Debs is well documented and not without criticism.

WWII's warrantless spying grew under Hoover and continued into the 70's, getting so bad that FISA was largely written in order to curtail what was widely agreed to be constitutional abuse of executive privilege. Gerald Ford, remarkably enough, was one of the Presidents who felt NSA spying during his tenure was getting out of hand. I'll give you two guesses who his sec. of defense was. If Gerald Ford thought it was getting bad then we might have had a problem.

So no, it hasn't always been this way. A more apt description would be of an ebb and flow, were the President abuses it, the public doesn't like it, and the courts curtail it, and then 20 or 30 or 50 years later we forget history and make the same mistake again. And regardless of any of that, your assertion that previous incidents of this type have been without criticism is false.

Interestingly you haven't discussed the main argument propounded by the Bush administration in there defense of warrantless wiretaps, but I'm not going to tell you what it is, you'll have to guess... :p
 
  2007-10-03 11:11:47 PM
Whidbey: "I find it almost amusing that you've posted these paragraphs on more than one occasion. Why do so when you don't really believe what those words mean?

But I AM looking at what those words actually say. TUSC does not say we are protected against warrantless searches. I'm sorry but it doesn't no matter how many times you say it does. I have given many examples of when warrantless searches are thought of as reasonable and have been ruled as reasonable by judges.

"Two judges have ruled in favor of the Constitution, and the Bush administration has the arrogance and audacity to challenge those rulings."

I hate to have to say this but judges are not always right. After all when/if the USSC takes up this case and IF they rule in favor of Bush I'm sure you will say they were wrong. My favorite example is to point to the fact that nowhere in TUSC will you find the actual text "seperation of church and state" but thanks to the ruling of a judge ignorant people think that it is unconstitutional for my kids school to have a Christmas program.

"Which perfectly describes the escalation of the abuses within the past fifty years alone. That's why I brought it up. I guess I'm not surprised that you would take the term and make it somehow justify that these abuses aren't taking place."

Again.....warrantless searches for FII have been used since this country was formed. Nothing has changed.

"From your point of view, this country can do no wrong, and this government can do no wrong."

Um.....Hardly.....

C-S: "The difference is previous presidents, such as Washington and Lincoln, did their spying on non-Americans who weren't in America. (Or "the Union.") E.g., British to British or Confederate to Confederate communications."

When Washington used warrantless searches he didn't ONLY spy on non-Americans who were outside of this country. Many of the people who were "spied on" were born in this country but supported the British. And obviously they were in this country.

And when Lincoln used warrantless searches obviously all of the subjects were in this "country". Some were in the North while some were in the South but in any case warrantless searches were used. Oh and.... Some of the subjects in the North were obvioulsy in "the Union" but supported the South and warrantless searches were used to monitor the communications. So if you want to say that the South wasn't part of this country fine. Warrantless searches were used to monitor communications between the North and the South.

Again....Warrantless searches have been used to obtain FII since this country was formed.
 
  2007-10-04 12:35:01 PM
dottedmint: Again....Warrantless searches have been used to obtain FII since this country was formed.

And always with controversy.

So if you want to say that the South wasn't part of this country fine.

Ummm.... wasn't that kinda the point?

Regardless, I fail to see how analogizing centuries old scenarios in any way excuses what is going on now. The courts, so far, have come down against this abuse of power. That's the long and the short of it. What Lincoln and Washington did back in the days when the very existence of this country was in serious jeopardy (not to downplay the threat now but it's not nearly as acute) doesn't undo the opinions of federal judges no matter how hard you try.
 
  2007-10-04 04:52:10 PM
dottedmint: Again....Warrantless searches have been used to obtain FII since this country was formed.

C-S: "JAnd always with controversy."

Not nearly as much controversy as there is when Bush used the same tactic.

ME: "So if you want to say that the South wasn't part of this country fine."


C-S: "Ummm.... wasn't that kinda the point?"

The "point" is that Lincoln used warrantless searches to "spy on" people in the North sending messages to the South. (From this "country" to another "country".

Bush used warrantless searches to "spy on" communications coming from this "country" to another "country".

There is no difference from what Lincoln, Washington and many other Presidents have done when compared to what Bush is doing.

And no there was never as much 'outcry' as there is now....
 
  2007-10-05 02:40:41 AM
On the bright side, I always wondered what it was like in the 80's living on the other side of a wall...
 
  2007-10-08 12:43:29 PM
dottedmint: I hate to have to say this but judges are not always right. After all when/if the USSC takes up this case and IF they rule in favor of Bush I'm sure you will say they were wrong.

Of course I would. For one thing, the Supreme Court is stacked with judges that have already ruled in Bush's favor without any reasonable explanation...:)

If they had any shred of integrity, they would not overturn that ruling and give the people a break. We enjoy these rights, and we do not appreciate the Executive Branch (or any branch) interpreting the Constitution to gut the 4th and 5th Amendments to legitimize exceptions during "war." That's right, "war." Undeclared, illegal, controversial. No thanks.

Again.....warrantless searches for FII have been used since this country was formed. Nothing has changed.

And once again, you need to be reminded that this practice is NOT OK, it has been criticized THROUGHOUT the history of this country.

Doing so is a power grab, simple as that. And of course people are scrutinizing Bush more than previous examples. Thanks to the increased communications we enjoy and places like Fark and other discussion boards, these abuses are now being witnessed by a lot more people than ever.

Again, appealing to past transgressions does not justify them...
 
  2007-10-08 09:01:50 PM
Whidbey: "Of course I would. For one thing, the Supreme Court is stacked with judges that have already ruled in Bush's favor without any reasonable explanation...:)"

But of course if TUSSC ruled in favor of Bush there would be no further judicial back and forth until the makeup of The Court changed.

Also the point of my origional comment was that even if a couple of judges ruled in your favor does not make you right because even judges can get things wrong..
 
  2007-10-09 12:22:38 PM
dottedmint: Also the point of my origional comment was that even if a couple of judges ruled in your favor does not make you right because even judges can get things wrong..

That's a stretch. Most judges' decisions I either agree with, or can live with.

Look, I know you don't want to admit you're wrong on this. Keep in mind that there will be watchdog groups and Constitutional muckrakers that will continue to make these abuses public.

There is simply no justification to do business any differently. No special powers to the Executive Branch, and I sincerely hope the Supreme Court doesn't rule in Bush's favor, because that only turns up the heat in the frog soup pot a little more.

Allow this, and perhaps 10-15 years later, some other right will be suppressed to ensure "security." I'm particularly thinking of Free Speech Zones at the moment...
 
  2007-10-09 05:15:01 PM
Hey!

Why isn't there a greenlight for the fact that SCOTUS just told that one German dude to talk to the hand about his wrongful imprisonment/rendition?!?!?!?

I wanted some flamebait.
 
  2007-10-09 10:41:27 PM
Whidbey: "That's a stretch. Most judges' decisions I either agree with, or can live with."

LOL....but that does NOT mean that their ruling was right.

"Allow this, and perhaps 10-15 years later, some other right will be suppressed to ensure "security." "

...sigh...


This has been "allowed" since this country was formed and that was more than just 10 or 15 years ago.

But now if this is continued to be "allowed" all sorts of bad things are going to happen in the next 10 or 15 years?!?!?

Sorry but history does not support your predictions....

Is there nothing else you guys want to talk about????

I'm still waiting for other examples of our rights being eroded...
 
  2007-10-10 12:52:53 AM
dottedmint: LOL....but that does NOT mean that their ruling was right.

I guess I find it rather disgusting you would laugh at a ruling that champions our guaranteed rights.

I really think we've come upon the crux of our disagreement.

I believe this administration is the culmination of a successive power grab starting in the 1940s, and see the Constitution being subverted and watered-down in the name of "national security" and

you don't have a problem with it.

Never mind that you appeal to historical examples that still don't justify that power grab.

This administration has no intention of giving up that power, and seeing as how easily it was taken, aren't going to stop.

It's just a matter of recognizing the danger to this Republic, or turning a blind eye and refusing to see the signs.

Yeah, I'd say there could be some real trouble coming in the next 15 years when our own government is found to be completely unaccountable for its actions, when other branches refuse to check the other because they don't want to look "soft on terror" or in the case of the German who was abducted on mistaken identity, fear of repercussions from other individuals who felt they had their human rights violated.

I champion these rights, you feel these rights are conditional, dottedmint, I can't help but think otherwise.
 
  2007-10-10 06:59:36 AM
Whidbey: "I guess I find it rather disgusting you would laugh at a ruling that champions our guaranteed rights."

And I guess I find it rather disgusting that not only do you not look at what TUSC actually says you also don't seem able to look at what I actually say.

I was laughing at your comment, "Most judges' decisions I either agree with, or can live with." because your 'agreeing with' or 'being able to live with' what a judge says does not mean that the judge based his/her ruling on what TUSC actually says.

Unfortunatley there are all sorts of judges (as well as citizens) who base their rulings on what they think or feel TUSC should say instead of what TUSC does say.

Let me put it this way.....

Show me where in TUSC gay marriage is a 'right'....

It isn't in there but since some judges think or feel that same sex marriage should be a Constitutional 'right' they make rulings to push what they think or feel instead of looking at the actual text.....
 
  2007-10-10 01:28:47 PM
dottedmint: And I guess I find it rather disgusting that not only do you not look at what TUSC actually says you also don't seem able to look at what I actually say.

The language is pretty clear to me. You seem to think that it's OK to circumvent it whenever convenient, much like this administration.

Warrantless searches are unreasonable. Period. End of story.

There is no reason to change the system. Oh, but wait. "Terrorism."

What was I thinking? The right of the people to be secure in their homes and persons doesn't count, then, does it?

And I'm sure you're aware that gay marriage is covered under the 14th Amendment and also reinforced by court cases like Loving vs. Virginia, where the courts determined marriage is a right.

dottedmint: It isn't in there but since some judges think or feel that same sex marriage should be a Constitutional 'right' they make rulings to push what they think or feel instead of looking at the actual text.....

Rigggght. The old "activist judges" non-argument.

Like I said, my concern is for protecting the rights of the citizenry. Your method appears to center around placing conditions on whether those rights should be recognized or not.
 
  2007-10-10 03:11:19 PM
dottedmint: It isn't in there but since some judges think or feel that same sex marriage should be a Constitutional 'right' they make rulings to push what they think or feel instead of looking at the actual text.....


That's your cynical way of looking at it, but it's more complex than a judge merely thinking it "should" be in there.

You're a textualist. There are those who are not textualists. Some of these people are judges. There are good arguments for being a textualist and being a non-textualist, both sides have rational reasons for their beliefs and believe they are ruling based on the law. There are situations where both methods have their drawbacks and their upsides. It's not a "you are wrong and I am right" cut and dry issue as you describe it.

The SCOTUS is made up of both (and always should be IMHO); Scalia is your classic textualist, for instance. Other great judges in our history have been clearly non-textualists, and their decisions have formed some of the most groundbreaking decisions in our country's history, such as the line of cases applying the Bill of Rights to the states and setting the foundation for civil rights as we know them today.

And as to the FII discussion, those judges were being more textualist than anything; they were looking at the law and the constitution and saying "sorry, you are outside the law." In fact, the Bush administration is the one relying on the non-textual argument of their "inherent" executive authority more than anything else. So, I don't know why you are pushing that for this discussion to be honest.
 
  2007-10-10 10:36:45 PM
Whidbey: "Warrantless searches are unreasonable. Period. End of story."

It's hardly the "end of story" as you claim.

I have given examples of when warrantless searches have been ruled as being "reasonable".

Since some warrantless searches have been ruled to be "reasonable" and hence Constitutional this means that this is hardly the end of the story.

"And I'm sure you're aware that gay marriage is covered under the 14th Amendment and also reinforced by court cases like Loving vs. Virginia, where the courts determined marriage is a right."

Amendment 14th (new window)

Hmmmmm.....

I couldn't find where gay marriage was covered under the 14th Amendment.

Another case where you are not looking at what TUSC actually says but rather what you think TUSC should say.

"Rigggght. The old "activist judges" non-argument."

"Activist judges" are real. They ignore what the TUSC actually says and focus on what they think it should say. Just like you.

C-S: "That's your cynical way of looking at it, but it's more complex than a judge merely thinking it "should" be in there."

Really????

Since nowhere in TUSC will you find anything pertaining to gay marriage why would a judge rule in favor of gay marriage unless they think it should be protected by TUSC?

Whidbey brings up the 14th but gay marriage is not mentioned in the 14th....heck marriage itself isn't even mentioned.

"And as to the FII discussion, those judges were being more textualist than anything; they were looking at the law and the constitution and saying "sorry, you are outside the law.""

Except that I clearly quoted the text of the law and it supports what Bush is doing.

The law says, "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that-" .

This is EXACTLY what Bush has been doing so your claim that what Bush is doing is "outside the law" is simply baseless.

And the actual text of TUSC says that we are protected "against unreasonable searches" NOT "warrantless searches".

I know you guys hate it when I point this out but...

Warrantless searches to obtain FII have been thought to be reasonable since this country was formed.

So is the next topic gay marriage???
 
  2007-10-11 04:05:53 PM
dottedmint: "Activist judges" are real. They ignore what the TUSC actually says and focus on what they think it should say. Just like you.

The Constitution does not have to be interpreted literally. What matters is that the spirit is kept intact, and pretty much what you've been defending in here completely ignores that spirit, particularly what is guaranteed in the 4th Amendment:

That people have the right to be secure in their homes, papers and persons against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Again, most decisions I either agree with, or can live with.
The term "activist judges" is a buzzword used to discredit decisions you don't agree with.

I couldn't find where gay marriage was covered under the 14th Amendment.

Well, you're playing dumb again, fine. I know you don't agree that gay marriage is covered under "equal protection of the law," but it is, and eventually this will be vindicated, and with hope, soon to avoid any further prejudice or confusion.

I have given examples of when warrantless searches have been ruled as being "reasonable".

Not really. Especially given the 30-year tradition of going to a court and getting a warrant. The fact the court is secret is somewhat troubling, but at least the Executive Branch has followed that protocol.

The recently approved system completely does away with that protocol and its check against the Executive Branch. Congress does not give permission beforehand to search, nor should that be their power. If anything, such a law goes against the long-held tradition of judicial review.

The Bush administration is twisting the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean, and they have not given adequate justification for these actions.

No satisfactory reason has been given except it's used to fight "terrorists."

This is unreasonable, hence a violation of the 4th amendment and I also contend that it is against the 5th.

Except that I clearly quoted the text of the law and it supports what Bush is doing.

That law needs to be repealed, as the check against the Executive Branch is unsatisfactory. The former system, with its flaws, at least delivered that requirement. The current one does not, it makes it far too easy for the Executive Branch to abuse and overstep its power.

Which I've told you several times now.
 
  2007-10-11 06:36:23 PM
dottedmint:Another case where you are not looking at what TUSC actually says but rather what you think TUSC should say.

OK, so unless it is explicitly spelled out word for word in the Constitution, it is not true. I am guessing then that you are perfectly comfortable with the following:

Any state can ban possession of firearms.

Any state can ban any speech it wants.

Any state can impose its religion of choice on its people.

Before I go any further I want to make sure you are perfectly comfortable with all of the above.
 
  2007-10-11 11:05:13 PM
Whidbey: "Well, you're playing dumb again, fine. I know you don't agree that gay marriage is covered under "equal protection of the law," but it is, and eventually this will be vindicated, and with hope, soon to avoid any further prejudice or confusion."

I figured that would be your reasoning since I've seen that bogus argument before.

Alright.....The Amendment says....

".....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Let's look at what the law might say.....

Here in the great state of Fark the law says that any one man can marry any one woman as long as they are not cousins (or closer) and are at least 18 years of age.

This law is applied just as equally to a gay man as it is to a straight man.

A gay man could go out and legally marry any woman as long as they were not cousins (or closer) and were at least 18 years of age.

And I know what the arguments are....I've seen them before....

'IF a straight man can marry the person that he loves then a gay man should be albe to marry the person he loves as well.'

For a straight man to get married he does not need to love the person he is getting married to. Nowhere in the law does it talk about love. A straight man could marry a woman that he hates.

'A gay man is not going to want to have sex with a woman.'

Again.....nowhere in the law does it say in order for a man and woman to get married they must have sex. A man and woman could get married and never have sex. A gay man can get married to a woman and never have sex with her.

Again.....the law says that any man can marry any woman as long as they are both 18 and not cousins (or closer).

That law is applied equally.

It does not matter if a man is gay or straight, he can still marry a woman who is 18 and not a cousin (or closer).

C-S: "OK, so unless it is explicitly spelled out word for word in the Constitution, it is not true. I am guessing then that you are perfectly comfortable with the following:

Any state can ban possession of firearms.

Any state can ban any speech it wants.

Any state can impose its religion of choice on its people.

Before I go any further I want to make sure you are perfectly comfortable with all of the above."


Now I can't speak for every state but my State's Constitution protects those "rights" and therefore if my State passed a law that restricts these "rights" that law would be in violation of the State Constitution.

Some states have started to amend their Constitutions to say how that state defines marriage.

Marriage has always been a state issue. This would be why different states have different ages when people can get married without parental consent, different ages when people can get married with parental consent, different ages the people can get married when the woman is pregnant, and even different standards saying how closely related the people can be.

IF we are going to try to apply the 14th to marriage then all of these different standards spelled out by the laws would be ruled unconstitutioinal and the federal government would need to set one nation-wide standard about marriage.

BTW....who do you think should be able to get married????

Should there be any limitations?
 
  2007-10-12 12:20:27 PM
dottedmint: I figured that would be your reasoning since I've seen that bogus argument before.

It's not bogus. The failure to cover marriage equally as the law is presented is covered under the 14th Amendment.

A gay man could go out and legally marry any woman as long as they were not cousins (or closer) and were at least 18 years of age.

THIS is bogus, and it's not the issue.

The issue is to MARRY, not whether they can marry the opposite sex. Denying the right of marriage because of sexual preference is discrimination. Love has nothing to do with it: people get married for all kinds of reasons...

BTW....who do you think should be able to get married????
Should there be any limitations?


The only limitation should be that those wishing to marry are adults able and willing to make a contract with each other.

BTW, the 14th Amendment wouldn't cover polygamy, as it's illegal, and there are no challenges to the rule I can think of.

14th Amendment, dottedmint.
 
  2007-10-12 02:30:34 PM
dottedmint: Now I can't speak for every state but my State's Constitution protects those "rights" and therefore if my State passed a law that restricts these "rights" that law would be in violation of the State Constitution.

But you would be comfortable with the idea that your state can essentially amend its constitution to restrict any of those rights? Such as owning a gun?

Now, as for marriage: arguing this with you is pointless as you disagree with the idea of substantive due process and the 14th amendment. I've been over this topic with you before: EP is a valid argument but I believe that marriage is a protected fundamental right falling under the protection of the 14th amendment's guarantee of due process, which is different from EP.

Substantive due process is different from procedural due process. I will spare you the lecture and this is complicated, but SDP is basically the idea that due process guarantees are not limited to procedure but also to "substance," i.e. "fundamental rights" inherent to a democratic and liberal (not political liberal, I mean liberal as in "of liberty") society, such as marriage, privacy, etc. I also think of it as those rights which impute a sense of fairness and respect for the dignity of each individual. The idea is a well established judicial principle but it has controversial implications, such as Roe v Wade.

As I said, I know you disagree with the idea of fundamental rights and substantive due process so please spare me the old "that's not in my constitution it must be missing a page" bullsh*t as I know that's what you are going to say. Therefore this conversation isn't going to go anywhere. Just recognize that if you are a textualist and disagree with the idea of SDP, than you also disagree with the idea of 14th amendment incorporation and therefore you must be comfortable with the idea that your state can amend its constitution and outlaw guns and free speech and everything else.

Instead I'd be more curious to get to the root of the issue and see why you believe a textualist interpretation is superior to a non-textualist interpretation. Not just of the constitution, but of law in general, because if you are an honest textualist you apply it to everything and take every law 100% literally. That means next time a cop gives you a warning for a speeding ticket you should be outraged and demand he give you a fine.
 
  2007-10-12 10:21:49 PM
Whidbey: "The issue is to MARRY, not whether they can marry the opposite sex. Denying the right of marriage because of sexual preference is discrimination. Love has nothing to do with it: people get married for all kinds of reasons...

The only limitation should be that those wishing to marry are adults able and willing to make a contract with each other.

BTW, the 14th Amendment wouldn't cover polygamy, as it's illegal, and there are no challenges to the rule I can think of."


Alright.....let's see here....

So "denying the right of marriage because of sexual preference is discrimination" ???

And any "adults able and willing to make a contract with each other" should be allowed to get married ....

So if a man was bisexual (a sexual preference) and wanted to marry a man and a woman it would be a violation of his constitutional rights to not allow that.

Right????

Also for the record.....

Two gay men could enter into a contract with each other and never need to get married .

After all.....

What would marriage give the two men that a legal contract couldn't?

Also you say that polygamy is illegal....

UM....so is gay marriage....
 
  2007-10-13 11:30:01 PM
The difference between a contractual union and marriage is economic.
Simply put, gay couples have to shell out money to protect their legal rights where heterosexual couples are automatically covered.
 
Displayed 50 of 2653 comments

First | « | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | » | Last | Show all


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Remember me Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report