- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
I don't really take much exception to that since it was said in the heat of the moment under intense questioning of his authority as commander in chief where the Patriot Act was concerned.
jallman said:It was George Bush and he said "it's just a goddamned piece of paper".
I don't really take much exception to that since it was said in the heat of the moment under intense questioning of his authority as commander in chief where the Patriot Act was concerned.
Sure is a good thing we have those courts to rule when the president does something blatantly unconstitutional, otherwise we'd have to worry about the chief executive doing things like ordering torture, destroying mountains of questionably incriminating emails, selectively enforcing the laws passed by congress and refusing to elucidate just what the **** he's been doing to the people this republic had empowered to investigate potential malfeasance. "Nu-uh! Executive privilege!"
Nice to know that all these things get the constitution's stamp of approval, and that this was exactly how the founding fathers intended our country to run.
Isn't it the president's job to uphold the constitution? 'Cuz I'm pretty sure there's something about that in the oath one takes to become the president. Hasn't every member of the armed forces sworn defend, from enemies foreign and domestic, that "goddamned piece of paper"? And don't they swear to do that even before swearing to obey the commander in chief?
The president saying the constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper" is tantamount to the pope saying the bible is just a goddamned book. The fact that he said it in the heat of the moment is a very good indication of where his base impulses lead him when not he doesn't exert the effort to moderated them.
The outrage of the left is selective - when their people trample the constitution, they cheer it on.Guess what? It is just a goddamned piece of paper. And the Bible is just a book. It's what's done with the words that matter and I don't see where the pres did anything to damage those words.
The constitution has been under fire all through the Reagan year and the George Bush years.
Look at this terrible expensive war, which benefits nothing to the USA.
Look at our horrible national debt the greatest in history. We are partially owned by China now. All thanks to Bush.
We are holding thousands of people without a trial, which the constitution is against. We are losing our freedom of our 1st Amendment, Bush hated it when we the people of the USA did not agree with him while he f***ed up everything
The GOP has practically destroyed the united States and you make the dumb statement that the Constitution is under attack from Liberals. Take your head from the sand and start looking around.
The GOP is not what it use to be. I was registered and an active Republican until the second term of Reagan. The hand writing was on the wall and it was filling the Walls with BS. Conservative use to be something to be proud of. What the heck is happening to America? It is like watching a many years long bad movie in the television, which started with Reagan.
American will not be ruled by Corporate CEO dictator no matter how much Bush and his buddies want this.
We live in a world where Liberals have become the traditional conservatives and the GOP has become radicalized to the extreme.
We need to abandon the World Trade Organization, and NAFTA, and start taking care of Americans and America.
God Bless America, and protect us from the Evil of the Radicalized Right Wingers.
A. See the 10th Amendment. The Constitution is a strict enumeration of powers. What is not included in it is off-limits to the federal government to decide. Nowhere does it include any mention of dictating to the states how to fill vacancies.
The fact that the government can listen into my conversations at any given moment without my consent kinda.... well... bugs the **** out of me.
One small step, right?
The outrage of the left is selective - when their people trample the constitution, they cheer it on.
But, you knew that. :2wave:
Problem with facts is they need to be well, facts. The government can't listen to your conversations at "any given moment". And in regards to consent, they could listen into your conversations without your consent since dating back into the 1970's and earlier.
What the hell part of that do you think would make me feel any better about the situation?
The Patriot act just gave them "Reason" if you will.
For the most part, the Patriot Act extended power the government already had to cover the subject of terrorism.I'd anxiously wait to hear which section of the Patriot Act specifically just gives the government blanket reason to listen in on anyone at any time for any reason.
No clue. If one is prone to paranoia I can understand it can be a rather unnerving thought. I can also think of the extremely large amoutn of crime that has been stopped in part due to wire tapping over the past 4 decades and the thought of a large amount of those going unsolved also is a bit unnerving.
I'd anxiously wait to hear which section of the Patriot Act specifically just gives the government blanket reason to listen in on anyone at any time for any reason.
The problem with Hyperbole when you're using it in a serious manner is that when you get called to actually prove it you either have to face up to being extremely hyperbolic or flail around while attempting to skirt having to answer.
The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
Title II is titled "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures" and covers all aspects of the surveillance of suspected terrorists, those suspected of engaging in computer fraud or abuse, and agents of a foreign power who are engaged in clandestine activities. It primarily made amendments to FISA and the ECPA, and many of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act reside in this title. In particular, the title allows government agencies to gather "foreign intelligence information" from both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, and changed FISA to make gaining foreign intelligence information the significant purpose of FISA-based surveillance, where previously it had been the primary purpose
Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peek" searches, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act — the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard"[49] — and it may be extended at the court's discretion.[50] These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007 after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Roving wiretaps are wiretap orders that do not need to specify all common carriers and third parties in a surveillance court order. These are seen as important by the Department of Justice because they believe that terrorists can exploit wiretap orders by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones,[53] while opponents see it as violating the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment.
So, for a direct tap, or hell, even an entire "Sneak peak" into my life, all they have to do is say "we have suspicion that he is a terrorist/is collaborating with terrorists." No proof necessary, just based on suspicion MY privacy is out the window.
Yeah, that bugs me. Where does it go from here?
Remember too that the requirement for a warrant only applies to 'unreasonable' searches and siezures.I'm sure you've heard of the term "probable cause"? Those two words allows any policman to go into your home weather they have a warrent or not. So whats the diff?
I'm sure you've heard of the term "probable cause"? Those two words allows any policman to go into your home weather they have a warrent or not. So whats the diff?
Note I'm playing devils advocate here...I personally don't like the Patriot Act.
Remember too that the requirement for a warrant only applies to 'unreasonable' searches and siezures.
Its not really a problem -- over time, a reasonably clear line has been drawn.And that is exactly what the problem for many is. What one person deems "unreasonable" another person deems OK.
And that is exactly what the problem for many is. What one person deems "unreasonable" another person deems OK.
I'd say thet depends entirely on what they base that 'suspicion' on.Of course.
I don't see it reasonable that our government is able to dig as they please based on a "suspicion". To me it's just another step taken to trample our liberty.
I'd say thet depends entirely on what they base that 'suspicion' on.
Knowing your privacy is not of your own control doesnt bother you then? Well, different strokes I suppose. Said it twice in this thread, might as well go for #3 to drive it home. "One Small Step..."
Preemptive victory dances aren't very becoming.
USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, for a direct tap, or hell, even an entire "Sneak peak" into my life, all they have to do is say "we have suspicion that he is a terrorist/is collaborating with terrorists." No proof necessary, just based on suspicion MY privacy is out the window.
Yeah, that bugs me. Where does it go from here?
And that is exactly what the problem for many is. What one person deems "unreasonable" another person deems OK.
But thank you for showing my point. You talked in extreme hyperbole originally, yet presented yourself as serious. Then when called on it you've danced around, showing nothing that allows someone to listen in on you willy nilly "for no reason" and then continued with FURTHER hyperbole by saying they can just say "we have suspicion that he is a terrorist/is collaborating with terrorists." which is a gross under exaggeration of reality.
As someone pointed out, the government was NEVER meant to be completely unable to search, or sieze the information of, private citizens. They're not meant to do it when its in an unreasonable way. Now, you can argue the term of unreasonable all day long, but its a discussion that can not be had honestly if its litered with hyerbole and exaggeration.
Ahh.
Sure thing then. May be a bit as I'll need to go find the links and the appropriate piece. Unfortunantly a number of the sources came from scholarly articles in respected political science and law journals that I unfortunantly no longer have access to since graduating. However in those cases I'll happily give you the information paraphased and give you the relevant information to find the source.
That said, should probably go in a different thread as this thread is meant to apparently be about the feds removing the rights of the states through constitutional amendments, and thus we've gone a bit off track.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?