how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to morbo
Re: sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... said by morbo:Warantless wiretap law = a big crap on the constitution. good job, House of Reps! Look at it this way..
If the law is a big, steamy crap on the Constitution (I haven't read it, so I'm not making judgements either way), if/when it becomes law (still has to pass the senate) it will be challenged in the Courts.
Now, a little caveat before I continue, since these threads almost invariable turn into a Red Vs. Blue shouting match, that's not the point of my comment. That said..
If you are of the belief that this type of activity is unconstitutional, this law passing could be viewed as a positive. Without a specific statute to pursue, it is much more difficult to mount a Judicial appeal.
Now, someone can assert their Constitutional rights are violated by this law, and subject it to Judicial review.
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by N3OGH:If you are of the belief that this type of activity is unconstitutional, this law passing could be viewed as a positive. Without a specific statute to pursue, it is much more difficult to mount a Judicial appeal. Now, someone can assert their Constitutional rights are violated by this law, and subject it to Judicial review. That's assuming you can prove that the wiretap used against you was indeed warrantless. With the amount of secrecy and cloak/dagger in law enforcement today, that type of information would be nearly impossible to get at.
As well, the problem with this law is that it creates a situation where the government can troll for people, find them, get a warrant and then bust them. So in other words, without a requirement of judicial review and evidence to back a wiretap request, the government could randomly wiretap, see if you are doing anything they don't like and then they could go legit and get a warrant. They'd have a warrant in hand when you get busted, so it would be difficult to prove they didn't have one when they really got the incriminating "evidence."
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower | |
1 edit | said by bmn:As well, the problem with this law is that it creates a situation where the government can troll for people, find them, get a warrant and then bust them. So in other words, As if the government has never engaged in that type of activity before?
Nah, it's just official now. Oh, look its tea and crumpet time for the elected blue blood politicians. The old,that can't happen in America...just did 
Wait until/if, the Democrat become elected With Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi. Law abiding citizens, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights away for good and forever. Or accept the fact one will need to become an outlaw to keep what rightfully belongs to you.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
macaholicPremium
join:2003-08-31
Jackson Heights, NY | reply to bmn
said by bmn:said by N3OGH:If you are of the belief that this type of activity is unconstitutional, this law passing could be viewed as a positive. Without a specific statute to pursue, it is much more difficult to mount a Judicial appeal. Now, someone can assert their Constitutional rights are violated by this law, and subject it to Judicial review. That's assuming you can prove that the wiretap used against you was indeed warrantless. With the amount of secrecy and cloak/dagger in law enforcement today, that type of information would be nearly impossible to get at. As well, the problem with this law is that it creates a situation where the government can troll for people, find them, get a warrant and then bust them. So in other words, without a requirement of judicial review and evidence to back a wiretap request, the government could randomly wiretap, see if you are doing anything they don't like and then they could go legit and get a warrant. They'd have a warrant in hand when you get busted, so it would be difficult to prove they didn't have one when they really got the incriminating "evidence." The Russians call it "Secret Police".... thats what Bush has in reality implemented...world wide.
--
"You don't subject minority rights to a referendum." Justice Minister Irwin Cotler of Canada | |
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to guitarzan
said by guitarzan:As if the government has never engaged in that type of activity before? Nah, it's just official now. Oh, look its tea and crumpet time for the elected blue blood politicians. The old,that can't happen in America...just did Well, yeah, true, but before, you couldn't admit any of into court... Now that its a kosher modus operandi, its use is going to expand beyond the "war on terror(ism)" into other "wars", like the already lost "war of drugs," etc.
said by guitarzan:Wait until/if, the Democrat become elected With Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi. Law abiding citizens, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights away for good and forever. Or accept the fact one will need to become an outlaw to keep what rightfully belongs to you. Not going to happen... Not enough support for it. It would require a Constitutional change.
And even if they do get elected, at this point, they are the lessor of the two evils.
--
Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science...
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower | | |
|
| said by bmn:said by guitarzan:As if the government has never engaged in that type of activity before? Nah, it's just official now. Oh, look its tea and crumpet time for the elected blue blood politicians. The old,that can't happen in America...just did Well, yeah, true, but before, you couldn't admit any of into court... Now that its a kosher modus operandi, its use is going to expand beyond the "war on terror(ism)" into other "wars", like the already lost "war of drugs," etc. I agree BMN. It will be used to combat any "war", they decide to declare "war" on. This is what gets my ire. The same Democrats wanting the Bush Admin.to take full heat for this, will be the same ones applauding and praising their fellow Democrats for having the foresight and wisdom to vote in favor of this legislation, once their guy is in office or holds the majority in either house. said by guitarzan:Wait until/if, the Democrat become elected With Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi. Law abiding citizens, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights away for good and forever. Or accept the fact one will need to become an outlaw to keep what rightfully belongs to you. Not going to happen... Not enough support for it. It would require a Constitutional change. And even if they do get elected, at this point, they are the lessor of the two evils. Not going to happen... Not enough support for it? I believed the move to ban guns, was not supported when Clinton and the Democrats decided to ban guns, yet it passed.
There is/was no support for this current legislation... Yet it passed.
Lets look at in your opinion, the "party of the lessor of two evils"
Do you think for one second, the Democrats will repeal these legislative acts.? I say no and would offer to bet a hefty wager that I'm correct.
If a Democrat gets elected to the Executive branch of office. Do you think for one second, there will be one big kissey smooch honeymoon and the political ills, will be healed.?
I don't not, for one second, if anything this current political division. Will result in a widening of the political gulf. All this hatred shown to the Bush Administration, will certainly be remembered and will result in vile hatred of any Democratic Administration, it will be especially evident when the Democrats f&*k up the very first time.
This is open for debate of course, IMO the Democratic politics ARE the sole cause as to why this Country is so divided today. It's only going to get worse. Humpty Dumpty could not be put back together again. IMO politics can't put the result of employed politics of our country back together again either.
Its funny when the word revolt or revolution gets mentioned, because that means all of America is on the same page. We're far from it. IMO when one utters revolt or revolution. What I think they really mean is civil war, not a war against the government. That's just my $0.02 cents worth anyway.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
| I hate both of the major political parties, hence why I registered myself as an independent voter. When I say "this country needs a revolution," I mean it needs a revolution. Out with all of the old and in with something completely new... or at least start over again with nothing but the Constitution. That way all the ways it's been screwed up over the past two hundred plus years will just disappear. | |
| I see the point your making, because one can't trust politicians of either party. Sure politicians need to be held accountable for their actions. IMO looking at the bigger picture.
Who is ultimately responsible for these politicians? The people who voted them into office, that's who.
Years ago it was the North VS the South, today its coming to the blue VS the red and not a revolution against the government. I love my Country and form of government. That's not the problem. It's the people electing azzhats into office, is where the problem is found.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. | |
|
