NCAAbbs

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo...7b-06.html


in a speach in south africa she supported using foreign law precedent when deciding US cases. what a crock of crap.

Funny. I thought that's what that "Constitution" thing was for.

Why you worried about the Constitution? We're not using it anyhow.

UAB Band Dad Wrote:Why you worried about the Constitution? We're not using it anyhow.

This is why many people don't listen to the left. If you completely abandon real and meaningful discussion and opt for shrill tantrum throwing and completely idiotic rhetoric, nobody is going to take you seriously.

One thing you have to remember is that a great deal of our law is derived from English law- the Common Law. I think that if you are dealing with common law issues, it is okay to look to how laws are in places like Britain and Australia- places that have the same legal system as us. But as to the interpretation of our own laws and constitution, there is no need to look elsewhere. The answers to our questions lie here. That is why we have a supreme court- to interpret our laws and constitution themselves.

BatesUAB Wrote:

UAB Band Dad Wrote:Why you worried about the Constitution? We're not using it anyhow.

If you completely abandon real and meaningful discussion and opt for shrill tantrum throwing and completely idiotic rhetoric, nobody is going to take you seriously.

lmfao

I guess Bates never watches Fox News.

U.S. Constitution: Fourth 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, 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.


You see anything in there about how you don't need a warrant if the president says you don't?

Me either.

Like I said, we have a great constitution, we're just not bothering to use the parts the administration finds inconvienient.

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order."

- George W. Bush, April 20, 2004, Buffalo, New York.

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:

BatesUAB Wrote:

UAB Band Dad Wrote:Why you worried about the Constitution? We're not using it anyhow.

If you completely abandon real and meaningful discussion and opt for shrill tantrum throwing and completely idiotic rhetoric, nobody is going to take you seriously.

lmfao

I guess Bates never watches Fox News.

What exactly is your point?

The constitution is more than just an amendment that requires warrants. It also gives a guideline as to how the legislature, the courts and the executive branch operates, how the states interact, how the federal government interacts with foreign governments, establishes the freedoms of religion, speach, press, redress, asssembly, the right to bear arms, the right to a jury trial, freedom to vote, and freedom from involuntary servitude. But I guess since we aren't using the constitution, none of that sh*t means anything, right?

This is the kind of crap I was talking about last week. You can't take one example and use it to say that we aren't using the constitution. That just makes you a demagouge.

Well, lessee, off the cuff without any research at all, I can talk about how this administration stomps on freedom of speech by isolating anyone who wants to express any form of protest within a mile of the president to "free speech zones". (I thought the whole country was a free speech zone but maybe that's just me.) They're going after reporters, looking to restrain the press. They've increased the difficulty of getting information both by changing the rules and by classifying a much higher percentage of documents as secret.

The part that enrages me most though, is the whole FISA/NSA thing. The White House has admitted to violating the law, but it has a compliant Attorney General that is willing to say that its ok to do so and a timid Congress that won't hold up it's oversight duties.

Remember elementary school civics? Checks and balances, three branches of government balancing each other? What happened to that? What happened to the oath of office where you swear to uphold the laws and the constitution of the United States? Even when it would more convienient if those bothersome due process laws were not there? And don't give me that straw man about going after the terrorists, we all want the terrorists wiretapped if we can... but with the proper judicial oversight that prevents abuses of power.

There are very good reasons for third party oversight by the judiciary -- the power that the government has to do surveillance is enormous. And it has the potential for misuse, because that temptation is great.

The fundamental question that every citzen in this nation ought to be asking themselves is this: do I trust the government to make appropriate choices each and every time they decide to surveil someone, and to not misuse this power to spy on their political enemies or on people who criticize them or for some other wholly inappropriate purpose?

And then ask yourself this question: would I trust the government not to misuse its power if it were being run by the person on the opposite side of the political chasm that I distrust most? Just think about that for a second, and see if you don't get a huge flinch in your gut at all the possibilities.

UAB Band Dad Wrote:Well, lessee, off the cuff without any research at all, I can talk about how this administration stomps on freedom of speech by isolating anyone who wants to express any form of protest within a mile of the president to "free speech zones". (I thought the whole country was a free speech zone but maybe that's just me.) They're going after reporters, looking to restrain the press. They've increased the difficulty of getting information both by changing the rules and by classifying a much higher percentage of documents as secret.

The part that enrages me most though, is the whole FISA/NSA thing. The White House has admitted to violating the law, but it has a compliant Attorney General that is willing to say that its ok to do so and a timid Congress that won't hold up it's oversight duties.

Remember elementary school civics? Checks and balances, three branches of government balancing each other? What happened to that? What happened to the oath of office where you swear to uphold the laws and the constitution of the United States? Even when it would more convienient if those bothersome due process laws were not there? And don't give me that straw man about going after the terrorists, we all want the terrorists wiretapped if we can... but with the proper judicial oversight that prevents abuses of power.

There are very good reasons for third party oversight by the judiciary -- the power that the government has to do surveillance is enormous. And it has the potential for misuse, because that temptation is great.

The fundamental question that every citzen in this nation ought to be asking themselves is this: do I trust the government to make appropriate choices each and every time they decide to surveil someone, and to not misuse this power to spy on their political enemies or on people who criticize them or for some other wholly inappropriate purpose?

And then ask yourself this question: would I trust the government not to misuse its power if it were being run by the person on the opposite side of the political chasm that I distrust most? Just think about that for a second, and see if you don't get a huge flinch in your gut at all the possibilities.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/04/hilden.freespeech/


u want to rethink your diatribe about this administrations use of free speech zones there band dad? you wouldnt want to look like a hypocrite.

I think the unconstitutionality of the "free speech zones" comes into place when Bush supporters are allowed to have signs and those who aren't are placed in the free speech zones. That's discrimination based on content.

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:I think the unconstitutionality of the "free speech zones" comes into place when Bush supporters are allowed to have signs and those who aren't are placed in the free speech zones. That's discrimination based on content.

example??

dfarr Wrote:

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:I think the unconstitutionality of the "free speech zones" comes into place when Bush supporters are allowed to have signs and those who aren't are placed in the free speech zones. That's discrimination based on content.

example??

Here are some:

1. Phoenix

On Sept. 27, 2002, President Bush came to the downtown Civic Center for a fundraising dinner for two local candidates. A coalition of groups opposed to a variety of the president's policies, consisting of approximately 1,500 people, negotiated with the local police for a demonstration permit. Phoenix police advised the protesters that the president had requested a federal protection zone.

These protesters were required to stand across the street from the Civic Center. People carrying signs supporting the president's policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to stand closer.

Eleanor Eisenberg, director of the local ACLU, was present as a legal observer. When mounted police in riot gear charged into the crowd without warning, Eisenberg, who was across the street taking photos, was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. The charges were later dropped.

2. Stockton, Calif.

On Aug. 23, 2002, at an appearance in a local park to support a Republican gubernatorial candidate, protesters were ordered behind a row of large, Greyhound-sized buses, which placed them out of sight and earshot of their intended audience. They were advised that if they went to the other side of the buses, a location visible to those attending the event, they would be arrested.

People who carried signs supporting the president's policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to gather in front of the buses, where event attendees could see them. Local police told the protesters that the decision to force them behind the buses was made by the Secret Service.

3. Evansville, Ind.

On Feb. 6, 2002, Vice President Cheney was scheduled to appear at the local Civic Center. John Blair, a local activist, walked back and forth on the sidewalk across the street from the Civic Center carrying a sign reading "Cheney--19th C. Energy Man." When Blair stopped walking, he was ordered to move to a "protest zone" more than a block away from the Civic Center. When he refused to do so, he was arrested.

Spectators or passersby who did not express any views about the vice president's policies were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the Civic Center. Blair, represented by the ACLU, successfully challenged the arrest. But the lawsuit remains in force because the city has refused to acknowledge that it had no right to ignore Blair's constitutional rights.

4. Kalamazoo, Mich.

At President Bush's appearance at Western Michigan University on March 27, 2001, a protester was carrying a sign sarcastically commenting on the prior presidential election ("Welcome Governor Bush"). A Western Michigan policeman ordered him to go to a "protest zone" behind an athletic building located 150-200 yards from the parade route. After the protester was ordered to move, several hundred people who were not carrying signs congregated in the area where the lone protester had stood and were allowed to remain there.

The protest zone was located so that people sent there could not be seen by the president or his motorcade. When the protester refused to enter the protest zone, but insisted on standing where other people had been allowed to gather, he was arrested. Local police testified at his trial that the decisions had been made by the Secret Service.

5. St. Louis

On Nov. 4, 2002, one day before Election Day, the president came to the St. Charles Family Arena. Two protesters carrying signs critical of the president's policy on Iraq were ordered into a "protest zone" approximately one-quarter mile away, a location completely out of sight of the building. When the protesters refused, they were arrested.

Meanwhile, protesters carrying signs supporting Republican candidates in the election were not ordered into the protest zone, were allowed closer to the president and were not arrested.

6. St. Louis

On Jan. 22, 2003, President Bush came to St. Louis to announce an economic plan. Protesters carrying signs opposing the economic plan and criticizing the president's foreign policy were sent to a "protest zone" located in a public park, three blocks away and down an embankment from where the president was speaking. Neither people attending the event nor people in the motorcade could see the protesters in the protest zone.

One protester was arrested for refusing to enter the protest zone. Standing near the location where the protester was arrested was a group of people who were not asked to move, including a woman who carried a sign reading "We Love You President Bush." She was neither ordered into the protest zone nor arrested. Local police told the arrested protester that they were acting at the direction of the Secret Service.

7. Trenton, N.J.

On Sept. 22, 2002, the president arrived to speak at a fundraiser for a U.S. representative at the Sovereign Bank Arena. There were 200-300 protesters who sought to protest around issues such as the war in Iraq and prescription drug policies. They were told that they had to go to a protest zone that was set up in Parking Lot 5 of the arena, which is on the other side of a double-divided, four-lane highway with barricades in the middle and high wire on both sides.

Some of the protesters walked around to the front of the arena, where they observed pro-Bush demonstrators standing. Protesters were told that the local police had to consult the Secret Service about the location of the protest zone.

8. Albuquerque

On April 29, 2002, the president came to a somewhat isolated hotel in town to attend a fundraising luncheon for a local member of Congress. Protesters opposed to the policies of the president, many carrying signs opposing the anticipated war in Iraq, were sent to a "protest zone" across the street from the hotel where the president was speaking. People who supported the policies of the president were allowed to be closer to the hotel. Other people were allowed free access to the hotel.

9. Neville Island, Pa.

On Sept. 2, 2002, protesters were sent to a "designated free-speech zone" located on a large baseball field located one-third of a mile away from where President Bush was speaking. Only people carrying signs critical of the president were required to enter and remain. Many people carrying signs supporting the president and his policies were allowed to stand alongside the motorcade route right up to where the president was speaking.

But when retired steelworker Bill Neel refused to enter the protest zone and insisted on being allowed to stand where the president's supporters were standing, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and detained until the president had departed.

The ACLU of Greater Pittsburgh represented Neel and had all charges against him dismissed. Local police testified at his trial that the security policies, including the protest zone location, were dictated by the Secret Service.

10. Columbia, S.C.

On Oct. 24, 2002, the president was scheduled to arrive at the Columbia airport. One protester, Brett Bursey, was carrying a sign opposed to the policies of the president 200 yards from the hangar where the president's plane was to arrive. He was ordered to a protest zone over a half-mile from that location. Several hundred protesters with signs that supported the policies of the president were allowed to stand closer to the hangar. When Bursey insisted on being allowed to remain where other members of the public stood, he was arrested on state and federal criminal charges. In May 2003, a group of 11 congressmen urged Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft to drop the charges, saying that the government's prosecution of Bursey was a mistake "and is in fact a threat to the freedom of expression we should all be defending."

hmm, very interesting. while i personally dont agree w/ "protest zones," i can see the need for them to keep rival parties separated. i think its pretty stupid to keep opposing viewpoints out of sight from the protestee. but then again, just because the person being protested doesnt see the protest doesnt make it an infringement of the first amendment.

i found this on wikipedia:

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones or derisively as Free speech cages) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech. Although such zones existed earlier, instituted by the Clinton administration, they gained more attention after the WTO Meeting of 1999 and have been used vigorously by the George W. Bush administration.

The point here is this (try to keep up sarah):

For every 1 reason you have to say we aren't using the constitution I could find a thousand, robably a hundred thousand, instances we are. So you can hardly say we aren't using the constituion. All some of you are spouting is a bunch of hard line leftist rhetoric. If you want to say that there have been abuses in wiretapping, I'll probably agre with you. If you want to talk about free speach zones, I don't know about it but I'm willing to listen. You start saying we aren't using the constitution, I'll call you out and say you're full of sh*t.

dfarr Wrote:hmm, very interesting. while i personally dont agree w/ "protest zones," i can see the need for them to keep rival parties separated. i think its pretty stupid to keep opposing viewpoints out of sight from the protestee. but then again, just because the person being protested doesnt see the protest doesnt make it an infringement of the first amendment.

i found this on wikipedia:

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones or derisively as Free speech cages) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech. Although such zones existed earlier, instituted by the Clinton administration, they gained more attention after the WTO Meeting of 1999 and have been used vigorously by the George W. Bush administration.

Protest zones have existed for a long time. We had them in previous administrations. I remember being in DC once and those protesting Hillary and her travelgate problems couldn't get near her when she was coming through. I remember Dan Quayle speaking in Birmingham about a decade ago... protesters were not near the event. It has been like this for a while. Good gracious, Cindy SheMan protests right in front of the President's ranch in Texas.

BatesUAB Wrote:The point here is this (try to keep up sarah):

For every 1 reason you have to say we aren't using the constitution I could find a thousand, robably a hundred thousand, instances we are. So you can hardly say we aren't using the constituion. All some of you are spouting is a bunch of hard line leftist rhetoric. If you want to say that there have been abuses in wiretapping, I'll probably agre with you. If you want to talk about free speach zones, I don't know about it but I'm willing to listen. You start saying we aren't using the constitution, I'll call you out and say you're full of sh*t.

So as long as we're using it more than we're not, we're okay? You are a model Republican, Bates. I bet W would be proud.

Oh hell, Bates, the "We have a perfectly good constitution we're not using" line is an obvious exaggeration meant to get discussion started. Do you seriously think that I believe that we live in an America without any form of constitutional protections?

What I do believe is that I have seen the serious erosion of many rights that American citizens took for granted in my lifetime. You don't have to look any farther than the "Patriot Act" to find that happening, and that's far from the only place I see it.

Remember your Ben Franklin? "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Once you give up one of your rights to the government, you never get it back.

I object to "Free speech zones" whether they are set up by Dems or Repubs. If you want to separate two sides to avert conflict, fine... but putting one side in a chain link pen half a mile away is just plain dammit wrong.

Rights of Privacy, Freedom of the Press, Due Process, and other things I hold dear are being eroded in front of my eyes and it pisses me off no end that no one seems to give a tinker's damn about it.

The Bush adminstration put Jose Padilla, an American citizen, in jail for three and a half years with no charges against him, no right to counsel, no hearing, no due process, nothing. They simply labeled him an "enemy combatant" and threw him in solitary for years. If the guy did something illegal, then by god indict him, try him, set his punishment, and incarcerate him. But this is America, we don't just toss people in jail without charges and throw away the key, that's the kind of stuff I expect of the Soviets, not us. We're supposed to be the good guys, remember?

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I throw out the "not using the constitution" line... because if we're allowing our government to do stuff like this in our name, then we have by God stopped following it.

Quote:You are a model Republican, Bates. I bet W would be proud.

The fact that I'm not a republican would seem to contradict that statement.

[quote="UAB Band Dad"]Oh hell, Bates, the "We have a perfectly good constitution we're not using" line is an obvious exaggeration meant to get discussion started. Do you seriously think that I believe that we live in an America without any form of constitutional protections?



What I do believe is that I have seen the serious erosion of many rights that American citizens took for granted in my lifetime. You don't have to look any farther than the "Patriot Act" to find that happening, and that's far from the only place I see it.

And it seems to me that individual freedoms have been stretched to an extent that the framers of the Constitution would have found unbelievable--Constitutional "right to privacy", legal abortion, avoidance of capital punishment, pornography, the Constitution used to protect homosexual sodomy, etc. Most of the framers were important government officials in their respective states and most of those states did not allow these things. That shows clearly how they interpreted these things-- capital punishment, pornography, and homosexual sodomy, at least. Abortion probably was not on their radar when the Constitution was penned and, of course, the "right to privacy" is the unicorn in the Constitution.

Remember your Ben Franklin? "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Once you give up one of your rights to the government, you never get it back.

Would Prohibition be an exception?

I object to "Free speech zones" whether they are set up by Dems or Repubs. If you want to separate two sides to avert conflict, fine... but putting one side in a chain link pen half a mile away is just plain dammit wrong.

Rights of Privacy, Freedom of the Press, Due Process, and other things I hold dear are being eroded in front of my eyes and it pisses me off no end that no one seems to give a tinker's damn about it.

Reminds me of the fellow I saw on the news last night decrying the Bush Administration censoring his beliefs concerning the Global Warming Religion--right there on TV in front of who knows how many millions. He seemed to be voicing his beliefs quite openly.

Oh, the things lunatic that only the lunatic see.-- Rochambeau

The Bush adminstration put Jose Padilla, an American citizen, in jail for three and a half years with no charges against him, no right to counsel, no hearing, no due process, nothing. They simply labeled him an "enemy combatant" and threw him in solitary for years. If the guy did something illegal, then by god indict him, try him, set his punishment, and incarcerate him. But this is America, we don't just toss people in jail without charges and throw away the key, that's the kind of stuff I expect of the Soviets, not us. We're supposed to be the good guys, remember?

Most of us think we are. Even some Dems. Since it fell in love with Marxism, the Left's attitude toward America changed first to impatience, then to disillusionment, and finally hatred.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I throw out the "not using the constitution" line... because if we're allowing our government to do stuff like this in our name, then we have by God stopped following it.

The short answer on Padilla: Enemy combatants have been treated under different law--not state or federal criminal law--at least since the War Between the States. This has been so, even when they are U.S. citizens--if found fighting against the U.S. This has been allowed by the Supreme Court in various wars--at least Civil War, World Wars I and II and Korea. If no American court is intervening in the Padilla matter, it is because they do not believe they have the constitutional authority to do so. Who seriously thinks the federal courts are afraid of the Executive branch?

Creoleman Wrote:Most of us think we are. Even some Dems. Since it fell in love with Marxism, the Left's attitude toward America changed first to impatience, then to disillusionment, and finally hatred.

Ann Coulter, is that you?

BatesUAB Wrote:

Quote:You are a model Republican, Bates. I bet W would be proud.

The fact that I'm not a republican would seem to contradict that statement.

For a non-republican, you sure do toe the republican line well.

You people who talk about there not being free speech need to get out of the US more often. Free speech doesn't guarantee you prime time to spout your beliefs. It doesn't guarantee you an audience with the president. It doesn't give you the right to disrupt another who is excercising their free speech. I know that it is hard for some of you to accept, but it also doesn't give you the right to burn McDonalds, riot when things don't go your way, or fight with the police. I should be able to speak without you disrupting my speach. I would defend the NAACP's right to speak without the KKK disrupting that speach just as I would defend the KKK to spew their junk without the NAACP disrupting their speech.

I have lived in countries where if the newspaper printed something against the government, the government took over the newspaper. Problem solved. If a reporter exposed something that shouldn't be exposed, he was misteriously found dead a few days later. Problem solved. That tends to make the press think twice about reporting something. If you think hard enough, I am sure you will claim that this is happening in the US but you are going to be hard pressed to produce real examples of this. No matter how stupid he is, Michael Moore hasn't been arrested or killed. He has the right to spout his lies and suffer little consequence.

Even where I currently live, there is quite a bit of restriction on the press. There is real persecution for those who hold different beliefs. The governor of my state (not in the US) is in the middle of a scandal right now where a reporter outed a very wealthy textile man who ran a child prostitution ring. The governor is a friend so he arranged for the reporter to be kidnapped by the police. The transported her some 20 hours to bring her back to this state and the plan was for the police to rape her and then for her to be put in a prison with lesbians where they could have their way with her as well. Somehow she was tipped off and was able to get out at the last minute. I don't remember the last time that someone was arrested and tortured for a letter to the editor in the US.

I really believe that you all need to get out of the US more. Only then will you realize just how good you have it in the US.

BTR Wrote:You people who talk about there not being free speech need to get out of the US more often. Free speech doesn't guarantee you prime time to spout your beliefs. It doesn't guarantee you an audience with the president. It doesn't give you the right to disrupt another who is excercising their free speech. I know that it is hard for some of you to accept, but it also doesn't give you the right to burn McDonalds, riot when things don't go your way, or fight with the police. I should be able to speak without you disrupting my speach. I would defend the NAACP's right to speak without the KKK disrupting that speach just as I would defend the KKK to spew their junk without the NAACP disrupting their speech.

I have lived in countries where if the newspaper printed something against the government, the government took over the newspaper. Problem solved. If a reporter exposed something that shouldn't be exposed, he was misteriously found dead a few days later. Problem solved. That tends to make the press think twice about reporting something. If you think hard enough, I am sure you will claim that this is happening in the US but you are going to be hard pressed to produce real examples of this. No matter how stupid he is, Michael Moore hasn't been arrested or killed. He has the right to spout his lies and suffer little consequence.

Even where I currently live, there is quite a bit of restriction on the press. There is real persecution for those who hold different beliefs. The governor of my state (not in the US) is in the middle of a scandal right now where a reporter outed a very wealthy textile man who ran a child prostitution ring. The governor is a friend so he arranged for the reporter to be kidnapped by the police. The transported her some 20 hours to bring her back to this state and the plan was for the police to rape her and then for her to be put in a prison with lesbians where they could have their way with her as well. Somehow she was tipped off and was able to get out at the last minute. I don't remember the last time that someone was arrested and tortured for a letter to the editor in the US.

I really believe that you all need to get out of the US more. Only then will you realize just how good you have it in the US.

So as long as other people in countries outside the US have it worse, I shouldnt have reason to bitch about having my Constitutionally protected rights encroached upon?

Besides, I dont think anyone in this thread has demanded the right to commit arson, assault, or battery, but do you really think its fair for people with "Pro-Bush" signs to be able to line the streets for his passing motorcade, while those with "Anti-Bush" signs are put in fenced areas hundreds, if not thousands, of feet away? That's unconstitutional and should not be turned a blind eye to.

Just pointing out that some people act as if the US is on the brink of totalitarianism. We are a long way from that. I (my opinion) think that many people are looking for rights in the constitution that were never there to begin with.

Your campaign sign problem... If I were speaking to a group of supporters, I should have the right to speak to them without my speach being interupted by protesters.

will someone please give me an example of one right that they do not have due to the patriot act or any other act of government? please, just one example.

BTR Wrote:Just pointing out that some people act as if the US is on the brink of totalitarianism. We are a long way from that. I (my opinion) think that many people are looking for rights in the constitution that were never there to begin with.

Your campaign sign problem... If I were speaking to a group of supporters, I should have the right to speak to them without my speach being interupted by protesters.

protesting during a speech =/= public protest on city street during a motorcade

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:

BatesUAB Wrote:

Quote:You are a model Republican, Bates. I bet W would be proud.

The fact that I'm not a republican would seem to contradict that statement.

For a non-republican, you sure do toe the republican line well.

I don't know if they taught you this at Troy Tech or not, but the phrase is 'tow the line' not 'toe the line.' Seems like you are doing some funky stuff with your toes.

The fact of the matter is, you are so oblivious to any idea that might run in opposition of your sketchy world views that you really aren't in a place to make that call. With your head stuck so deep in the sand (hiding from the black helicopters, I assume) it's hard to see anything from any viewpoint but your own. And if you can call me agreeing with you about needing a change in the way this administration handles issues like the wiretapping towing the republican line, then your view of american politics is pretty skewed.

dfarr Wrote:will someone please give me an example of one right that they do not have due to the patriot act or any other act of government? please, just one example.

The Right to Privacy...see Griswold v. Connecticut

The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:

1. Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)
2. Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
3. Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
4. "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).

BatesUAB Wrote:

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:

BatesUAB Wrote:

Quote:You are a model Republican, Bates. I bet W would be proud.

The fact that I'm not a republican would seem to contradict that statement.

For a non-republican, you sure do toe the republican line well.

I don't know if they taught you this at Troy Tech or not, but the phrase is 'tow the line' not 'toe the line.' Seems like you are doing some funky stuff with your toes.

The fact of the matter is, you are so oblivious to any idea that might run in opposition of your sketchy world views that you really aren't in a place to make that call. With your head stuck so deep in the sand (hiding from the black helicopters, I assume) it's hard to see anything from any viewpoint but your own. And if you can call me agreeing with you about needing a change in the way this administration handles issues like the wiretapping towing the republican line, then your view of american politics is pretty skewed.

Try again, Bates...maybe a little "Troy Tech" education would have done you some good.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r...the%20line

From dictionary.com:
Meet a standard, abide by the rules, as in The new director will make us toe the line, I'm sure. This idiom refers to runners in a race placing their toes on the starting line and not moving until the starting signal. Its figurative use dates from the early 1800s.

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:will someone please give me an example of one right that they do not have due to the patriot act or any other act of government? please, just one example.

The Right to Privacy...see Griswold v. Connecticut

The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:

1. Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)
2. Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
3. Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
4. "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).

ok, so exactly what is the problem? the government is fighting potential terrorists. if there are people who are having contact w/ foreign suspects, are we not supposed to be able to figure out where it comes from? are we not supposed to be able to find out why these people are contacting suspected terrorists? whats wrong with having a look see at the people who are checking out books on bombmaking?

here's the fouth 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, 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.

so contact w/ a terrorist supporting country or reading books on how to make bombs isnt probable cause? is it really that unreasonable to find out where the person who is sending mail to iran, indonesia, etc really lives?

Seeing as the discussion is about the Constitution.....there is no constitutional right to privacy. Never once does the word appear in the Constitution.

Just saying.

dfarr Wrote:

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:will someone please give me an example of one right that they do not have due to the patriot act or any other act of government? please, just one example.

The Right to Privacy...see Griswold v. Connecticut

The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:

1. Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)
2. Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
3. Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
4. "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).

ok, so exactly what is the problem? the government is fighting potential terrorists. if there are people who are having contact w/ foreign suspects, are we not supposed to be able to figure out where it comes from? are we not supposed to be able to find out why these people are contacting suspected terrorists? whats wrong with having a look see at the people who are checking out books on bombmaking?

here's the fouth 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, 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.

so contact w/ a terrorist supporting country or reading books on how to make bombs isnt probable cause? is it really that unreasonable to find out where the person who is sending mail to iran, indonesia, etc really lives?

Because David, those probable causes are supposed to be demonstrated to a court to show legitimate belief in evidence relevant to a crime or related to a threat from a foreign power. Before the FISA law was passed in 1978 there were numerous cases of abuse of the power of surveillance . Turning our back on these laws opens the doors to new abuses of power.

I don't think theres anything wrong with surveillance when it is conducted through the proper and legal check and balance system, and that's essentially that the Patriot Act removes that scares me the most, the checks and balances.

PourOnTheHeat Wrote:Seeing as the discussion is about the Constitution.....there is no constitutional right to privacy. Never once does the word appear in the Constitution.

Just saying.

The Supreme Court of the United States has found that the U.S. constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion.

(source: wikipedia)

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:will someone please give me an example of one right that they do not have due to the patriot act or any other act of government? please, just one example.

The Right to Privacy...see Griswold v. Connecticut

The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:

1. Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)
2. Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
3. Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
4. "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).

ok, so exactly what is the problem? the government is fighting potential terrorists. if there are people who are having contact w/ foreign suspects, are we not supposed to be able to figure out where it comes from? are we not supposed to be able to find out why these people are contacting suspected terrorists? whats wrong with having a look see at the people who are checking out books on bombmaking?

here's the fouth 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, 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.

so contact w/ a terrorist supporting country or reading books on how to make bombs isnt probable cause? is it really that unreasonable to find out where the person who is sending mail to iran, indonesia, etc really lives?

Because David, those probable causes are supposed to be demonstrated to a court to show legitimate belief in evidence relevant to a crime or related to a threat from a foreign power. Before the FISA law was passed in 1978 there were numerous cases of abuse of the power of surveillance . Turning our back on these laws opens the doors to new abuses of power.

I don't think theres anything wrong with surveillance when it is conducted through the proper and legal check and balance system, and that's essentially that the Patriot Act removes that scares me the most, the checks and balances.

Perhaps the most controversial section of the Act stems from Section 215. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant in camera from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. On its face, the section does not even refer to "libraries," but rather to business records and other tangible items in general.[5] Civil libertarians and librarians in particular, argue that this provision violates patrons' human rights and it has now come to be called the "library provision." The Justice Department defends Section 215 by saying that because it requires an order to be issued by a FISA Court judge, it provides better protection for libraries.

On June 15, 2005, a second attempt to limit Section 215 was successful in the House of Representatives. The House voted 238-187 in favor of the Sanders amendment to an appropriations bill. The Sanders amendment prevents the funds provided by the bill from being used by the FBI and the Justice Department to search library and book store records as authorized by Section 215 of FISA. This vote was misreported in many media outlets as a vote against Section 215. [10]

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:

BatesUAB Wrote:

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:

BatesUAB Wrote:

Quote:You are a model Republican, Bates. I bet W would be proud.

The fact that I'm not a republican would seem to contradict that statement.

For a non-republican, you sure do toe the republican line well.

I don't know if they taught you this at Troy Tech or not, but the phrase is 'tow the line' not 'toe the line.' Seems like you are doing some funky stuff with your toes.

The fact of the matter is, you are so oblivious to any idea that might run in opposition of your sketchy world views that you really aren't in a place to make that call. With your head stuck so deep in the sand (hiding from the black helicopters, I assume) it's hard to see anything from any viewpoint but your own. And if you can call me agreeing with you about needing a change in the way this administration handles issues like the wiretapping towing the republican line, then your view of american politics is pretty skewed.

Try again, Bates...maybe a little "Troy Tech" education would have done you some good.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r...the%20line

From dictionary.com:
Meet a standard, abide by the rules, as in The new director will make us toe the line, I'm sure. This idiom refers to runners in a race placing their toes on the starting line and not moving until the starting signal. Its figurative use dates from the early 1800s.

I stand corrected. I guess even a broke clock is right twice a day. ;-)

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:

PourOnTheHeat Wrote:Seeing as the discussion is about the Constitution.....there is no constitutional right to privacy. Never once does the word appear in the Constitution.

Just saying.

The Supreme Court of the United States has found that the U.S. constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion.

(source: wikipedia)

I understand and agree. However, do we, either as liberals or conservatives or moderates, want the Supreme Court "finding" rights in the Constitution which are not explicitly there? Right now, the ability to do so works to the advantage of liberals. Will that always be the case? Almost certainly not.

What if someday the SC finds in that shadowy penumbra a right to "group privacy" under freedom to associate? That is that groups of people--gays, blacks, whites, feminists, Muslims--might have a right to separate themselves from the Others--in subdivisions, gated communities, etc. and continue the exclusion of Others by exclusive covenants. (I know the SC found racially exclusive covenants unconstutional years ago; however, abortion was illegal for the first 207 years of the American nation.)

The problem with "finding" things that aren't really in the Constitution is that the "wrong" court might find the "wrong" things.

Sarahbelle18 Wrote:

Creoleman Wrote:Most of us think we are. Even some Dems. Since it fell in love with Marxism, the Left's attitude toward America changed first to impatience, then to disillusionment, and finally hatred.

Ann Coulter, is that you?

No--but you just made my day. : )