More Egregious Affront to the US Constituions

So then you would be OK if a cop came and took your guns without a warrant if he thought you were a threat and didn't want to bother with the hassle of getting a warrant.

 

Am I a realized threat to National security?

 

I don't know you could be. Would you be willing to allow the government to wiretap you and surveil you to find out?

 

If they have a legitimate reason to,...sure.
Of course, I would file suit based on the fact of no founded legitimate reason.

Lottsa money!

 

ROXRAN, it has been well documented that the NSA far exceeded this mandate in scope and breadth. The NSA regularly intercepted communications with US Citizens in order to determine whether there was a reason to suspect someone. They basically intercepted all calls, and analysed them for content.

The document that you provided states that the interecepts are "targeted at the enemy". This is absolutely a misrepresentation of the facts. It is no more targeted than the use of a nuclear weapon can be targeted at an individual.

Documentation: NSA, the agency that could be Big Brother from the Salt Lake Tribune as taken from the NY Times.

 

gwayneco, would it be too much to ask that you stop calling members here traitors? It's incredibly offensive.

Keep D&D Civil.

 

illegal

vs

legal

thats a difficult one

what do you think giddy?

 

Again I understand what you're getting at but the wording of your argument is clumsy.

Of course illegal abortions are an affront to the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't allow someone to break the law since it empowers the government to enforce the law.

There is an argument for whether a law is Constitutional or not and that requires a process of determining that. Even for laws that were overturned on Constitutional grounds the Constitution still empowered law enforcement to enforce those laws until they were overturned.

What you are asking about is which are the principles behind the Constitution and whether these things are an affront to the principles. Further putting in the terms legal and illegal clouds it further.

If I were you I would've phrased the poll as:

and not bothered mentioning illegality or legality.

 

So you do believe then that the Executive branch should have constraints on their power to surveil because if they can conduct a warrantless search there are no grounds to sue since all review was left up to the Executive Branch to decide what is a legitimate reason. Remember the argument made in the very document you site is that the President and the Executive branch is empowered to act without Judicial oversight or approval. A civil suit you file would be asking the Judicial branch for oversight.

Also since the President's arguments depend on surveilllance to be secret you wouldn't even know whether they were surveiling you or not.

Of course you can volunteer to be surveilled which bypasses any question of a need for a warrant but then you would have no grounds to sue since you've voluntarily surrendered your rights.

Of course since you're arguing so hard to allow the Executive branch to conduct warrantless searches perhaps you have already.

 

Well, there is a squirrel in the White House!

 

The Whitehouse can wiretap immediately and then retroactively seek the warrant. There is no delay at all to using the courts.

The fact of the matter is that the FISA court is the only thing that stands to protect the U.S. citizens from its govt. in cases like this. When that court is circumvented there is no protection, and we are all at risk.

 

Consistency.... If they enforce the right to privacy for one (with caveats), then they should enforce the right to privacy for the other (with caveats).

 

Read Roe v. Wade. Before the Texas statute, pre-term abortions were legal, so you can also say that the law disagreed with you before those changes, and then disagreed with again after the 70's. In fact, the illegal period of abortion was sandwiched between two much longer periods of legalized abortion.

Let's not also forget that Roe's holding was about privacy and jurisdiction under the 14th amendment, not specifically about abortion.

14th amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Under the Constitution, an unborn child is not under jurisdiction of the constitution. While I personally agree with you that a unborn child or fetus is a living person and has rights, you cannot succeed in saying that the constitution protects the unborn.

While I have no issues if we wiretap non-citizens, the constitution does protect those that are citizens, regardless if they are terrorists or not. This prevents the State from having too much power. The Constitution was not created to prevent the people from danger. It was created to prevent the people from harm from the state.

 

NEITHER!!!

The constitution is pretty straight forward in what it says. Its the modern day liberal intellectuals who try to spin and dillute the true meaning and intention of the document. Wire tapping suspected terrorists during a time of war has nothing to do with the constitution and for that matter neither should abortion. Abortion should be handled at the state level NOT the federal level.

 

Is it a time of war. When was this war declared?

I don't think there is a problem with wiretapping terrorists. The problem is when American citizens are wiretapped without any notification from the court. If you don't believe that there is anything dealing with that in the constitution please read the 4th amendment carefully. Also please read about the role of each of the three powers and the checks and balances they are supposed to provide.

 

The court doesn't notify people when a warrant for wiretapping is issued. The purpose of the warrant is to provide a judicial sanction. Further the FISA law allows for retroactive warrants already.

The issue of notification was already hased out in another thread.