Question for libertarians about collection of phone records

[jkjsooner]

First, I'll point out the following for those who thought this began under Obama.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

That being said, let's assume Verizon and the rest shared their phone records (numbers and times) willingly without coercion. Is that an affront to our rights? What if the government restricted who the carriers can share their data with? Would that not be a violation of their rights to do with their data as they please?

Or let me give you an example. Let's say I go out in front of my house and take down the license number and time of every car that passes by. I do this 24 hours a day. These are my data and shouldn't I be able to do with it as I please whether it offends you or not?

Same with CCTV. It's my camera.


I'm playing devil's advocate a little here but when it gets down to it these issues are never clear-cut. Just like the civil right's debates, what may be seen as an expansion of our rights by one person may be seen as a limitation placed on us by another.

[yermom]

define "without coercion"

[KantoSooner]

I have distinct libertarian leanings, but to me this is a management/common sense issue. We don't live in a Rousseau-ian state of nature as magically independent moral actors. The world is a messy place and it's all a shades-of-gray/compromise type of deal. Am I concerned that people might be taking a bit of interest in who I speak with and what is said? Yeah, a little. But I also recognize that those people who have been deputized, by me (in essence), to look after group security have to have some ability to do their jobs.
And where we're at right now does not strike me as particularly worrisome.

[yermom]

this is only what we know about, and even us knowing about it was not taken very well.

i can't remember the guy who leaked a lot of the above story, but things didn't exactly go that well for him either

[Tulsa_Fireman]

He got a sex change. His name is Vera DeMilo now.

[rock on sooner]

this is only what we know about, and even us knowing about it was not taken very well.

i can't remember the guy who leaked a lot of the above story, but things didn't exactly go that well for him either

Metadata...just the #'s to and from, without the conversation, the idea being
recurring numbers to and from warrant investigation...high reoccurrence then
lets look closer...good idea....oh wait, let's tell everyone that's how we make
connections with potential bad guys and then go ahead and listen closer. Darn,
the bad guys figured out what we were doing and quit calling each other. Instead,
they use burn phones once and toss...no pattern, move to different locations and
repeat. After a burn contact, go to an encrypted sat phone twice, in locations 400
miles apart, can still pass info and set up plans.

Manning (to a lesser extent) and Snowden both did this crap and ought to be hung
out to dry, er wood shed, er solitary confinement, er something more extreme! Ifn
ANYBODY thinks otherwise, IMO, they are to be lumped into the same scenario and
treated accordingly.

Would relish hearing arguments to the contrary....

[olevetonahill]

Its Like some of you Never heard of George Orwell

[TAFBSooner]

Its Like some of you Never heard of George Orwell

Apparently he's down the memory hole.

[KantoSooner]

Just for fun:

How many of you expect conversations that you have in a restaurant to be completely private? Those on a city street? How about if you're standing in your driveway, talking with your neighbor about the pot plants you have in your basement while a cop is parked at the curbe with the windows down?

Where is the distinction between these types of things and having the numbers that call you and the numbers you call recorded and stored for use in case your name starts turning up in other investigations?

You want absolute privacy? Go live in a cave in Idaho and don't talk with anyone. Perfect privacy. You're welcome. All the rest. ALL the rest are shades of grey.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

All the rest. ALL the rest are shades of grey.

How many shades of grey are there? :biggrin:

[jkjsooner]

define "without coercion"

In this case the government definitely coerced the carriers into giving the phone records.

But one of the questions I posed is whose rights were violated by this? The phone companies or you? I think you can make a strong argument that the phone companies are the ones who should feel violated.

Using my example of writing down tag numbers of cars that pass down my street. My neighbors may not like it but it is my right to collect and keep that data. My neighbors may not like the government forcing me to turn over the records but they don't really have a say in it. They are my records to turn over. If I don't want to turn them over I'm the only one (as the owner of the records) having my rights violated.

I would also point out that if you define the phone records as being private data owned by those who made the phone calls you have essentially made an argument of increased regulation of the telecom industry. You can make a strong argument that that goes against conservative ideology. (For obvious reasons the law does state exactly this for the actual conversations themselves.)

Anyway, I'm glad this spurred conversation. Sometimes I like to challenge traditional ways of thinking just for fun. I'm glad so far nobody has jumped all over me for it.

[KantoSooner]

How many shades of grey are there? :biggrin:

At least 50, though those of us with active imaginations could easily come up with many, many more variations. Rest assured.

[SoonerBBall]

I'm far more concerned about the potential for abuse of this massive, continuous data collection many years down the road than its immediate potential for abuse.

[rock on sooner]

I'm far more concerned about the potential for abuse of this massive, continuous data collection many years down the road than its immediate potential for abuse.

You can probably rest easy, though, because our world is fleeting,
from a technological standpoint. It is transient, fluid, ever changing,
except maybe in a case like mine...I've had the same landline number
for the 23 years I've lived in IA so the NSA probably has a lot of info
on me. If they don't just google me, my whereabouts/history is there
for ANYONE to see.

Having worked four military years in the same field as NSA's predecessor
I believe US citizens that are up to no good are the only ones who should
be concerned. I also firmly believe that Manning and Snowden should be
prosecuted to the fullest extent....treason, aiding and abetting the enemy,
improper dissemination of classified material......

[olevetonahill]

You can probably rest easy, though, because our world is fleeting,
from a technological standpoint. It is transient, fluid, ever changing,
except maybe in a case like mine...I've had the same landline number
for the 23 years I've lived in IA so the NSA probably has a lot of info
on me. If they don't just google me, my whereabouts/history is there
for ANYONE to see.

Having worked four military years in the same field as NSA's predecessor

I believe US citizens that are up to no good are the only ones who should
be concerned. I also firmly believe that Manning and Snowden should be
prosecuted to the fullest extent....treason, aiding and abetting the enemy,
improper dissemination of classified material......

That must mean you have absolute Trust and Faith in the "Government"

[KantoSooner]

Actually, Vet, I don't think you do need absolute trust or faith. It's a human system, run by, in essence, us. Now, looking in the mirror, I know that I have my little selfish tendencies and will, upon occaision, bend a rule in my own favor. That's not the same thing as saying that I'm the next coming of Himmler, however. So, when I say the governemnt is run by 'us', I am not only allowing for some slippage a round the edges, I'm counting on it.
We've got a legal system that works pretty well. If someone in government gets frisky with you, there are law school profs and other assorted do-gooders falling all over themselves to 'question authority' etc.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

In this case the government definitely coerced the carriers into giving the phone records.

But one of the questions I posed is whose rights were violated by this? The phone companies or you? I think you can make a strong argument that the phone companies are the ones who should feel violated.

Using my example of writing down tag numbers of cars that pass down my street. My neighbors may not like it but it is my right to collect and keep that data. My neighbors may not like the government forcing me to turn over the records but they don't really have a say in it. They are my records to turn over. If I don't want to turn them over I'm the only one (as the owner of the records) having my rights violated.

I would also point out that if you define the phone records as being private data owned by those who made the phone calls you have essentially made an argument of increased regulation of the telecom industry. You can make a strong argument that that goes against conservative ideology. (For obvious reasons the law does state exactly this for the actual conversations themselves.)

Anyway, I'm glad this spurred conversation. Sometimes I like to challenge traditional ways of thinking just for fun. I'm glad so far nobody has jumped all over me for it.

There's laws on the books about what those same companies can and cannot do with that same data. Credit card companies have to send you a privacy notice every couple of years which probably helps out the post office but all ends up in the same place.

When you're talking about policing matters, there's this thing called the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It states that the gov't cannot compel you to turn over the data you took on cars passing by your house unless they have probable cause that a crime has been committed. Collecting mass amounts of private records without a probable cause warrant clearly is a violation of the 4th amendment.

[KantoSooner]

Collecting mass amounts of private records without a probable cause warrant clearly is a violation of the 4th amendment.

All right. If this statement is true, then the following must also be true:
1. The FISA Court is either corrupt beyond any functionality or is utterly untrained in the law.
AND
2. The Intelligence Committees of both the Senate and House of Reps must be likewise evil or stupid.
AND
3. The President and Dept of Justice must be the same way.

So, addiing up, the top five people in line of succession to the presidency (with exception of the Chief Justice) must be utterly useless along with another 20 or so of the most senior jurists in the nation and 40 or so senior elected officials. And, lest we forget, the entire staff of the DoJ.

Either all that has to be true, or the issue is, perhaps, a tad more complex than 'clearly a violation' would imply.

[olevetonahill]

All right. If this statement is true, then the following must also be true:
1. The FISA Court is either corrupt beyond any functionality or is utterly untrained in the law.
AND
2. The Intelligence Committees of both the Senate and House of Reps must be likewise evil or stupid.
AND
3. The President and Dept of Justice must be the same way.

So, addiing up, the top five people in line of succession to the presidency (with exception of the Chief Justice) must be utterly useless along with another 20 or so of the most senior jurists in the nation and 40 or so senior elected officials. And, lest we forget, the entire staff of the DoJ.

Either all that has to be true, or the issue is, perhaps, a tad more complex than 'clearly a violation' would imply.

Well Ill agree with ya on #3 being Corrupt and Stupid.

[yermom]

utterly useless is far too kind

[KantoSooner]

That's why we have elections every two years.

[SoonerorLater]

Just for fun:

How many of you expect conversations that you have in a restaurant to be completely private? Those on a city street? How about if you're standing in your driveway, talking with your neighbor about the pot plants you have in your basement while a cop is parked at the curbe with the windows down?

Where is the distinction between these types of things and having the numbers that call you and the numbers you call recorded and stored for use in case your name starts turning up in other investigations?

You want absolute privacy? Go live in a cave in Idaho and don't talk with anyone. Perfect privacy. You're welcome. All the rest. ALL the rest are shades of grey.

I would say there is quite a bit of difference between absolute privacy and living in a surveillance state. The conversation needs to start about what information the government can ask for or receive without probable cause of a crime being committed.

[rock on sooner]

That must mean you have absolute Trust and Faith in the "Government"

I'm pretty sure that you know isn't the case....

[KantoSooner]

Absolutely there's a difference between absolute privacy and living in a surveillance state. There is one point of similarity, however: the odds of us experiencing either in the US are equally remote.
Do you believe that our government would fund what exists in Singapore or urban areas of the UK? Do you honestly think that the sort of impunity enjoyed by the security orgs of the PRC would fly here? (and if the answer to this latter question is 'yes' then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.)
There's another place to begin the discussion: What are we asking our government to do, is that a legitimate function of government and what tools are we going to allow the departments involved in order that they might carry out these orders?

[TAFBSooner]

We've got a legal system that works pretty well. If someone in government gets frisky with you, there are law school profs and other assorted do-gooders falling all over themselves to 'question authority' etc.

Which doesn't help if you're shot dead when the cops got a little too frisky.

[yermom]

That's why we have elections every two years.

that game is rigged. just look at what has happened to Ron Paul over the years.

[SoonerorLater]

Absolutely there's a difference between absolute privacy and living in a surveillance state. There is one point of similarity, however: the odds of us experiencing either in the US are equally remote.
Do you believe that our government would fund what exists in Singapore or urban areas of the UK? Do you honestly think that the sort of impunity enjoyed by the security orgs of the PRC would fly here? (and if the answer to this latter question is 'yes' then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.)
There's another place to begin the discussion: What are we asking our government to do, is that a legitimate function of government and what tools are we going to allow the departments involved in order that they might carry out these orders?

The government takes on an overbearing and outsized role in everything in which it becomes involved. As far as national security goes yes, that is a governmental function but not to the extent of throwing a cyber dragnet over the entire population to see what kind of data they can mine from the citizenry. I think the government will incrementally usurp our rights to the extent they can get away with it in the name of the greater good of all. Bureaucracies will never think they have enough power. Even though many agencies were ostensibly created for a good purpose they will almost always morph into an entity whose foremost purpose is self-perpetuation though increasing power. Now apparently US Gov is asking companies for user passwords. IMO this is already getting way out of hand and this type of heavy handed behavior is trampling on the principles this country was founded on.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57595529-38/feds-tell-web-firms-to-turn-over-user-account-passwords/

[KantoSooner]

Which doesn't help if you're shot dead when the cops got a little too frisky.

Yeah, being shot by the cops is something that has me sweaty with worry everytime I open my front door.

Dude, get a life, teevee dramas are not reality.

[KantoSooner]

that game is rigged. just look at what has happened to Ron Paul over the years.

No, Ron Paul hasn't gone further because, attractive as many of his ideas are, there's another 25% or so of his thinking that is unadulterated delusion of the 'Barking Mad' variety. And a majority of American voters get that.

[olevetonahill]

Yeah, being shot by the cops is something that has me sweaty with worry everytime I open my front door.

Dude, get a life, teevee dramas are not reality.

While its NOT a BIG fear of mine, That DOES happen more frequently than one might think.

[KantoSooner]

The government takes on an overbearing and outsized role in everything in which it becomes involved. As far as national security goes yes, that is a governmental function but not to the extent of throwing a cyber dragnet over the entire population to see what kind of data they can mine from the citizenry. I think the government will incrementally usurp our rights to the extent they can get away with it in the name of the greater good of all. Bureaucracies will never think they have enough power. Even though many agencies were ostensibly created for a good purpose they will almost always morph into an entity whose foremost purpose is self-perpetuation though increasing power. Now apparently US Gov is asking companies for user passwords. IMO this is already getting way out of hand and this type of heavy handed behavior is trampling on the principles this country was founded on.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57595529-38/feds-tell-web-firms-to-turn-over-user-account-passwords/

So, go vote for representatives who will limit these actions and who will appoint and confirm judges who agree with you. Our elected reps pretty accurately reflect the thinking of the population. And our judges do a pretty fair job of applying the law and upholding the constitution. When you argue otherwise, you start sliding into the conspiracy theorism of the mentally disturbed. There is no cabal. There is us. If you don't like what 'us' is doing, you have just as much voice as anyone else in changing things.

Is there a tendency in any large org to amass power? Yes. That's a prime reason small government is a good thing. On the other hand, when you are trying to run a country of 300 million+ people, there's a certain 'large' that can't be avoided. So, once more, we're back to the compromise thing. While police activity always deserves watching, we're nowhere close to any sort of danger line.

[KantoSooner]

While its NOT a BIG fear of mine, That DOES happen more frequently than one might think.

I believe it was Chris Rock who pointed out that, if one wished to avoid being shot by the police one good place to start was to not point guns at the police.

How many of those police shootings were of people engaged in crime and how many of innocent civilians out for an evening stroll and ice cream cone? While I'm sure there was at least one of the latter, I'm guessing that the vast majority were of the prior nature.

[yermom]

No, Ron Paul hasn't gone further because, attractive as many of his ideas are, there's another 25% or so of his thinking that is unadulterated delusion of the 'Barking Mad' variety. And a majority of American voters get that.

i'm not talking about not getting elected, i'm talking about bias in news coverage and access to conventions

[KantoSooner]

Bias in news coverage you've got. But since we have umpteen bellowing shows on each week, surely he can find one or more on which to air his opinions.

As to conventions, those are private, party events. He wants stage center? Either he convinces 'his' party or he goes and forms his own. Can't make the latter fly? Go the Gary Johnson route or go gather some money. It's a bit like classical musicians bitching about how hard it is to keep symphonies up and running; if they played music people wanted to buy tickets to listen to, they'd be, well, rock stars. Apparently he hasn't been able to sell his ideas to enough people to do either. So sorry, Ron.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

jkj... I am siding with Libertarians more and more. About to turn in my Repub card.

That being said, Bush was wrong on the Patriot Act. It has been misused since the beginning and needs to be repealed. To answer your posit, one should have to go to an open court to get a warrant to snoop on phone, and other eletronic communication. Period. No secret court, no NSA snooping.

BTW, since I call home frequently from overseas, I am sure I have been recorded.

[KantoSooner]

jkj... To answer your posit, one should have to go to an open court to get a warrant to snoop on phone, and other eletronic communication. Period. No secret court, no NSA snooping.

BTW, since I call home frequently from overseas, I am sure I have been recorded.

I suppose we should also make CIA, DIA et al just publish all their daily traffic. I mean The People have a right to know, right?

[SoonerorLater]

So, go vote for representatives who will limit these actions and who will appoint and confirm judges who agree with you. Our elected reps pretty accurately reflect the thinking of the population. And our judges do a pretty fair job of applying the law and upholding the constitution. When you argue otherwise, you start sliding into the conspiracy theorism of the mentally disturbed. There is no cabal. There is us. If you don't like what 'us' is doing, you have just as much voice as anyone else in changing things.

Is there a tendency in any large org to amass power? Yes. That's a prime reason small government is a good thing. On the other hand, when you are trying to run a country of 300 million+ people, there's a certain 'large' that can't be avoided. So, once more, we're back to the compromise thing. While police activity always deserves watching, we're nowhere close to any sort of danger line.

I don't think I said anything about a shadowy cabal or conspiracy theories or anything of that nature. As far as voting "for representatives who will limit these actions", that's all well and good but it's it's a simplistic notion that it will solve immediate problems on any given issue like the Fed Gov asking companies for peoples passwords. And yes asking for passwords is a bridge too far. Just the act of our government asking is outrageous. There is no prevailing mindset among our leaders to unflinchingly preserve individual liberties.

[KantoSooner]

I don't think I said anything about a shadowy cabal or conspiracy theories or anything of that nature. As far as voting "for representatives who will limit these actions", that's all well and good but it's it's a simplistic notion that it will solve immediate problems on any given issue like the Fed Gov asking companies for peoples passwords. And yes asking for passwords is a bridge too far. Just the act of our government asking is outrageous. There is no prevailing mindset among our leaders to unflinchingly preserve individual liberties.

The NSA metadata gathering program was just recertified by a vote of 217-205 in the House. That's not a lot of votes for those of you who want to publish all national security secrets to swing.

If you need more immediate remedies, look to the courts. Or are they to be assumed useless as well?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I make a great distinct upon spying outside of the borders on non-citizens and spying within our borders on citizens with the protection of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4thand 5th amendments to the constitution.

[SoonerBBall]

If you need more immediate remedies, look to the courts. Or are they to be assumed useless as well?

When the secret courts have never denied a request for information, yes it seems like you could classify that as useless.

I'm not against the theory of a secret court that hears these requests for information to keep them low key, but in practice it is little more than a rote rubber stamp on anything the NSA wants to do. That isn't protecting anyone's rights.

[SoonerorLater]

The NSA metadata gathering program was just recertified by a vote of 217-205 in the House. That's not a lot of votes for those of you who want to publish all national security secrets to swing.

If you need more immediate remedies, look to the courts. Or are they to be assumed useless as well?

Useless, no, compromised, yes. This is how a society devolves into totalitarianism. People like yourself ( I assume by reading what you have written) are of the opinion that things are really just pretty good. Others like myself see things trending in the wrong direction. By wrong direction I mean the erosion of individual liberties. It may be like boiling a frog in water but slowly and surely we are all becoming wards of the state. We can not live with the same freedom and discretion that our forefathers did in this country. We now have laws and regulations governing almost every facet of our existence. A lot of people see this as a good thing. I'm not one of them.

[KantoSooner]

When the secret courts have never denied a request for information, yes it seems like you could classify that as useless.

I'm not against the theory of a secret court that hears these requests for information to keep them low key, but in practice it is little more than a rote rubber stamp on anything the NSA wants to do. That isn't protecting anyone's rights.

Maybe that's because the rights aren't being infringed upon. The intelligence committees haven't thought so, under several admins and with plenty of bi-partisan support.

[KantoSooner]

Useless, no, compromised, yes. This is how a society devolves into totalitarianism. People like yourself ( I assume by reading what you have written) are of the opinion that things are really just pretty good. Others like myself see things trending in the wrong direction. By wrong direction I mean the erosion of individual liberties. It may be like boiling a frog in water but slowly and surely we are all becoming wards of the state. We can not live with the same freedom and discretion that our forefathers did in this country. We now have laws and regulations governing almost every facet of our existence. A lot of people see this as a good thing. I'm not one of them.

You coudl also say that life is a terminal condition: everyone of us will die. Likewise, the Weimar Republic led to Nazi Germany and the Czar's weak-kneed reforms led to Stalin. Or not. Do we have more laws today and are they more comprehensive than in the 1800? Sure. We also have a population more than 10X larger and no longer grow our own food in most cases. Life it more complex now than then....and longer and healthier and better educated. And we have HD teevee and the Thunder.
if you pine for some vanished Utopia in which everyone was a stalwart yeoman farmer and independent of the rest of the world, I think you yearn for something that never existed and never was workable to start with. You want independence, go be independent. Sure, some of our government's rules will make that a bit more challenging, but they don't really stop you. They only restrict what you can do if you want to join in the greater game. And it's not legit to demand the benefits without playing by the rules.

[olevetonahill]

I dont trust the Mother****ing Govt. You can Trust the Mother****ing Govt. All you want, But I aint gonna trust the Mother****ing Govt.

I hope I clarified my position.:cocksure:

[SoonerBBall]

Maybe that's because the rights aren't being infringed upon. The intelligence committees haven't thought so, under several admins and with plenty of bi-partisan support.

The same bipartisan support for the TSA? Or for CISPA before the people came down hard on it? The same intelligence committees that brought us Fast and Furious and the War on Drugs? A secret court with no public oversight should be held to a far higher standard precisely because it is allowed to operate in secret. The people running it, however, have proven that they do not meet that standard uniformly, so how can we trust that they meet that standard in this circumstance as well?

[Curly Bill]

I dont trust the Mother****ing Govt. You can Trust the Mother****ing Govt. All you want, But I aint gonna trust the Mother****ing Govt.

I hope I clarified my position.:cocksure:

Seems you and I share the same position.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Buttkisser!

[TAFBSooner]

Maybe that's because the rights aren't being infringed upon. The intelligence committees haven't thought so, under several admins and with plenty of bi-partisan support.

Wyden and Udall, on the Senate intelligence committee, sure think our rights are being infringed on. Within the limits of classification law, they have been trying to sound the alarm on this for years.

[KantoSooner]

Wyden and Udall, on the Senate intelligence committee, sure think our rights are being infringed on. Within the limits of classification law, they have been trying to sound the alarm on this for years.

And we have Inhofe who doesn't believe air pollution has any negative effects. (or that he will personally be affected by swimming in blue-green algae). Brattleboro, Vermont has an actual communist mayor.Most of the California delegation to the Senate and House are in denial about how their state's economic woes came to be.
Apparently Wyden and Udall aren't swaying their fellows. This might be because they're simply wrong on this point.

[KantoSooner]

The same bipartisan support for the TSA? Or for CISPA before the people came down hard on it? The same intelligence committees that brought us Fast and Furious and the War on Drugs? A secret court with no public oversight should be held to a far higher standard precisely because it is allowed to operate in secret. The people running it, however, have proven that they do not meet that standard uniformly, so how can we trust that they meet that standard in this circumstance as well?

You must know more FISA judges than I do. What have they done that lost your trust? Other than differing from you in interpretation of the constitution. (about which, I guess it would be fair to ask: which circuit are you a judge for? Alternatively, at which accredited law school are you a con law professor?)

[Curly Bill]

You must know more FISA judges than I do. What have they done that lost your trust? Other than differing from you in interpretation of the constitution. (about which, I guess it would be fair to ask: which circuit are you a judge for? Alternatively, at which accredited law school are you a con law professor?)

You have to be a judge or a law professor to understand the constitution? Really? Naw, you were just trying to be witty - that had to be it.

[KantoSooner]

You have to be a judge or a law professor to understand the constitution? Really? Naw, you were just trying to be witty - that had to be it.

No, you don't. It is a pretty safe assumption, however, that people who do something for a career tend to know more about it than those who are amateurs. Even talented amateurs.

For example, if I'm walking around in Northern Pakistan, do I want an active duty SEAL with me? Or a wannabe like George Zimmerman? Likewise, if I'm gettin' all constitutional, do I want the opinion of a tenured conlaw prof or judge? Or that of a doctor, car mechanic, cell phone salesman or sports chat board poster?

[TAFBSooner]

No, you don't. It is a pretty safe assumption, however, that people who do something for a career tend to know more about it than those who are amateurs. Even talented amateurs.

For example, if I'm walking around in Northern Pakistan, do I want an active duty SEAL with me? Or a wannabe like George Zimmerman? Likewise, if I'm gettin' all constitutional, do I want the opinion of a tenured conlaw prof or judge? Or that of a doctor, car mechanic, cell phone salesman or sports chat board poster?

If it's a circuit judge inside the Beltway, and a sports chat board poster outside the Beltway, I would at least want to hear what both had to say.

More to the point, if the Constitution really does say "All Your Metadata is Belong to Us," we need us some conlaw experts to figure out how to fix it.



Point of Order, err, Moderator: Does "House of Cards" belong in SO or Obamafest?

[KantoSooner]

I think you should have the right to listen to whoever you please. I'm just saying that, as with heart surgery, the opinions of the specialists deserve respect. In terms of a 'fix', there are clear procedures involved for amending the document.

I think the issue today is that at least a narrow majority of the people, and maybe more than that, do not believe a 'fix' is needed. And, for the time being at least, the law, both statute and constitutional favors that position.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

So, apparently, Kanto's argument is if it's the law then it's right. That goes also for stand your ground and Oklahoma liquor laws as well I guess.

My guess is, since most SC decisions seem to come down to a 5-4 opinion even con law "experts" disagree on interpreting the Constitution. And this is an internet message board where people offer their opinion. That's what it's for. It's pretty ridiculous to go argue on a message board and then say the other person's opinion isn't valid because they aren't a credentialed expert.

[KantoSooner]

What I'm arguing against is the insistence that those credentialed experts must be either incompetent or corrupt because their opinions differ from those of message board posters.
I do this in the probably naive belief that, in fact, us ordinary folks really can have productive conversations about public policy and it troubles and, yes, annoys me when the conversation is dumbed down by attribution of base motives to said credentialed experts.
As you've quite correctly pointed out, a great many of our SC decisions were and are near run things. I think that alone would indicate that the issues involved are ones on which very bright people, who've spent entire careers thinking about such things can still differ on the basis of principle.

[bluedogok]

It still comes down that they are voting in THEIR interpretation of Constitution, not what is explicitly dictated in the Constitution. They have their own personal views that factor into their vote, otherwise it wouldn't normally fall along those ideological lines almost every time. Not every Constitutional Law professor is made the same or has the same opinion, the President claimed to be one but I haven't seen much of anything that is remotely Constitutional about many of the ideas and stands that he has made.

It also comes down to the fact that if we as a country weren't always messing in other countries politics/business we may not have as many enemies. As soon as a country views itself as untouchable, failure is bound to happen. We might not need such an extensive surveillance state if we left other countries to their own devices and avoided "nation building" that presidents seem to embrace.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[jkjsooner]

explicitly dictated in the Constitution. .

Here is the text.


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

This is hardly explicit when it comes to the searching of metadata which is not even in your possession and arguable not your own property but owned by a third party. (Same as if I took down your license number and tag every time you drove down my street. Those records are my property whether you like it or not.)

I get it. It seems icky to you that the government is looking through phone data. Just because it seems icky doesn't mean that it violates the fourth amendment.


The thing that gets me is that a couple of Republican Senators said that we should not have the data but instead let the phone carriers hold on to it. If this data is so damn sensitive, why are we fine with the phone companies keeping it for an indefinite period of time? And let's say the phone companies do keep it in their possession and we want to know who sent or received calls from terrorist A and we got a warrant for this. We'd still be searching the entire database for the numbers so I can't see what the hell we gained from keeping it in the possession of the phone companies.

[KantoSooner]

Bluedog,
You put your finger on the issue, but draw an erroneous conclusion. Of course anyone who interprets the constitution is making their own conclusions. How could it possibly be otherwise? Reasonable minds can, have and ever will differ on what the constitution means. That's why we have a court system, in part and why the Supreme Court is made up of nine justices. If it was all so obvious, there'd be no need for that.
It's also why the constitution can be interpreted differently over the course of years and thus 'adapt' to changing times. The same document that absolutely confirmed the rights of slave holders in their slaves is now read to grant equal righrts as a matter of the highest law. If that's not some evolvin', I'm not sure anything is.
In the section quoted, what does 'reasonable' mean? What does 'probable cause' mean? Those are not trivial questions or semantic bantering between (presumably) corrupt lawyers. They're important questions. And on them, reasonable people can very well differ without being evil or corrupt.

As to your assertion that all this would not be necessary if we simply stayed home, I'll refer you to the discussions surrounding the Wilson Doctrine prior to our entrance into WWI. It's all there, our oceans are not a perfect defense, you can't let a tryrant go unchecked, so forth, so on. We've covered this ground many times before.

[SoonerorLater]

Bluedog,
You put your finger on the issue, but draw an erroneous conclusion. Of course anyone who interprets the constitution is making their own conclusions. How could it possibly be otherwise? Reasonable minds can, have and ever will differ on what the constitution means. That's why we have a court system, in part and why the Supreme Court is made up of nine justices. If it was all so obvious, there'd be no need for that.
It's also why the constitution can be interpreted differently over the course of years and thus 'adapt' to changing times. The same document that absolutely confirmed the rights of slave holders in their slaves is now read to grant equal righrts as a matter of the highest law. If that's not some evolvin', I'm not sure anything is.
In the section quoted, what does 'reasonable' mean? What does 'probable cause' mean? Those are not trivial questions or semantic bantering between (presumably) corrupt lawyers. They're important questions. And on them, reasonable people can very well differ without being evil or corrupt.

As to your assertion that all this would not be necessary if we simply stayed home, I'll refer you to the discussions surrounding the Wilson Doctrine prior to our entrance into WWI. It's all there, our oceans are not a perfect defense, you can't let a tryrant go unchecked, so forth, so on. We've covered this ground many times before.

Disagree. For the most part we have intentionally chosen to muddy the waters with "interpretation". States rights ammendments have been shredded through "interpretation" to acheive political goals.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Here is the text.



This is hardly explicit when it comes to the searching of metadata which is not even in your possession and arguable not your own property but owned by a third party. (Same as if I took down your license number and tag every time you drove down my street. Those records are my property whether you like it or not.)

I get it. It seems icky to you that the government is looking through phone data. Just because it seems icky doesn't mean that it violates the fourth amendment.


The thing that gets me is that a couple of Republican Senators said that we should not have the data but instead let the phone carriers hold on to it. If this data is so damn sensitive, why are we fine with the phone companies keeping it for an indefinite period of time? And let's say the phone companies do keep it in their possession and we want to know who sent or received calls from terrorist A and we got a warrant for this. We'd still be searching the entire database for the numbers so I can't see what the hell we gained from keeping it in the possession of the phone companies.

The phone companies don't have police powers. The gov't does.

Look, you may be comfortable that secret courts and secret briefings to certain folks in Congress is sufficient to protect our civil liberties but others of us are a little more leery. I still believe in the old axiom that power corrupts.

I believe our best check on gov't power is an independant media and the fact that guys like Snowden can bring these revelations to light. Now I sure as hell don't like everything this guy has done and think he's a self-serving hypocrite for cavorting with these totalitarian regimes, but his initial revelations on the NSA program did this country a service.

[bluedogok]

As to your assertion that all this would not be necessary if we simply stayed home, I'll refer you to the discussions surrounding the Wilson Doctrine prior to our entrance into WWI. It's all there, our oceans are not a perfect defense, you can't let a tryrant go unchecked, so forth, so on. We've covered this ground many times before.
I don't believe in military isolationism but I do believe there needs to be a just reason for entering into what is in effect a "war" and that also needs to proceed through the proper channels, ie a declaration of war by congress, not just an executive order or rubber stamped United Nations proclamation. WWII was the last "war" declared by the United States, every conflict (nee war) since has been acted upon under different terms. There is really no valid reason why we should have gotten into most of the conflicts that this country has engaged in. The goal of almost all of the conflicts has been more about nation building to control of natural resources rather than tyranny because in most cases they replaced one tyrant with another of their choosing and who was beholden to this country for getting them into power. Since WWII our actions have really been no different than that of the Soviet Union and their effect on the Eastern Bloc nations.

Then we have the government created problems from getting into everyone's business coming home to roost as the justification for the police/surveillance state that exists today. With the complicit nature of the media to provide propaganda, many of the dystopian stories about the future are not that far from the truth.

[KantoSooner]

Disagree. For the most part we have intentionally chosen to muddy the waters with "interpretation". States rights ammendments have been shredded through "interpretation" to acheive political goals.

You're entitled to your opinion, however, the very first Supreme Court disagreed and then we fourght a civil war over the issue. The State Sovereignty side lost both times. Hamilton's position won. That's been established law for over 200 years now. Good luck with the windmills.

[KantoSooner]

Okay Bluedog,
Regarding our supposed interventionism overseas (and your assertion that our motives in so doing are largely related to natural resources), let's tot 'em up. Just to stay manageable, let's go from 1945 forward.

Korea. Natural resources? What? Reishi mushrooms? An ally/protectorate (and before you get all excited there, Korea was a Japanese colony from 1905 or so until the end of WWII, they had no institutions to allow them to stand on their own, a bit of help was not out of place) was attacked by proxy forces of what Tom Wolfe has described as 'piratical slave trading thug gangs' (he was referring to the PRC and the USSR and, yes, the utterly fit that description). So, zero pecuniary self interest, pretty serious altruistic motive and total strategic national interest involved.

Suez. We sided against the Brits and French in favor of the Egytians. Need I say more?

Various Israel vs Neighbor conflicts. We sided with the small country without natural resources who needed no assistance in national development. And did so to our distinct cost.

Vietnam. Again, natural resources? none. Strategic interest? Huge. The future of the entirety of SE Asia was at stake. As a result of our war there, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Bangladesh were kept free. Vietnam was lost for 25 years to self same 'slave trading thug gangs' (remember the 'Boat People"? Things are great at home if you get into a sinking shrimp boat to get the hell out.) although it's now a not too bad place to be. Cambodia descended into precisely what would have been the fate of the rest had we not intervened. They, and Laos, remain quasi-feudo-communist backwaters to this day.

Panama and Grenada? Natural resources? Well, one has a canal. The other has a cut rate, low quality med school. That's about the score. Both were run by criminals. Criminals got booted, our guys left. Not a lot of national building going on.

Iraq. Well, they certainly have the oil. They also had a truly evil dictator who was destabilizing the entire region. You say not? I say invading your neighbors multiple times is a mite destablizing. And he had WMD. Doubt me? Ask a Kurd. It would have been nice if Rummy and his boys had made at least a modicum of planning toward what happens VI day plue one instaed of simply assuming that it would be Paris in '44 all over again, but they didn't. My guess is that the place atomizes into three countries ultimately...just as it basically was under the Ottomans 150 years ago. Still Saddam is gone. That's a major plus.

Afghanistan. Natural resources? Well, maybe. They've been there and well known, however, for a century. No one's been ablet o figure out how to access them. Was that our motive? Or was getting rid of a canker on the *** of humanity in the form of a terrorism petri dish? I believe the weight of evidence favors the latter interpretation.

So, I'm scoring it somewhere between 7 and 10-2 against your argument. I am sure that many people would like the US to stay home and not bother them. Many of those people are intending to do bad things to us. I am not in favor of leaving them with the leisure time to do it.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Kanto, I would say Vietnam has lots of natural resources, oil and gas... No whether they will get it or China is a matter for debate... Also, don't know if in the 60s we knew of the oil and gas...

[KantoSooner]

Kanto, I would say Vietnam has lots of natural resources, oil and gas... No whether they will get it or China is a matter for debate... Also, don't know if in the 60s we knew of the oil and gas...

It's been known of for a long while...theoretically. The Whole South China Sea is supposedly a nice little reservoir. Extensive drilling off Vietnam, the PI, Hainan, etc, have not turned up any mother lode. It was not a motivating factor whatsoever in our involvement in Vietnam.
Our involvement was driven by:
1. the logic of 'Containment' which was, by the way, absolutely accurate and what ultimately forced the collapse of the Soviet Union and the transition of China to capitalism.
2. The logical subset referred to in gross simplification as The Domino Theory in which, if Vietnam fell, the rest of SE Asia would as well. Our action in Vietnam allowed things like the communist uprising in Malaysia and a number of abortive takeoever attempts in Thailand to be thwarted, Burma/Myanmar to be isolated and India to be somewhat weaned from the Soviet sphere. It also allowed time for Suharto to put paid to the communists in Indonesia.
3. The less logical but no less real effort by the Democrats under Kennedy to show that they had balls in the wake of the 'Who Lost China?' furor of the 1950's, and to a lesser degree, following the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
4. The military's interest in playing with their new toys.

Vietnam was a geo-political play, not an economic one.

[SoonerorLater]

You're entitled to your opinion, however, the very first Supreme Court disagreed and then we fourght a civil war over the issue. The State Sovereignty side lost both times. Hamilton's position won. That's been established law for over 200 years now. Good luck with the windmills.

Well yes, and that is a very benign mainstream view which more or less describes the nature of the problems we have have in this country. We took a serious wrong turn at the Marshall Court and have been piling on mistake after mistake going forward. By original intent we should have had many Constitutional Conventions in the past 200+ years to address the issues not conveniently subvert the process for political expedienency. There will always be some plausible excuse to erode our liberties.

[KantoSooner]

Well yes, and that is a very benign mainstream view which more or less describes the nature of the problems we have have in this country. We took a serious wrong turn at the Marshall Court and have been piling on mistake after mistake going forward. By original intent we should have had many Constitutional Conventions in the past 200+ years to address the issues not conveniently subvert the process for political expedienency. There will always be some plausible excuse to erode our liberties.

This is hilarious. Wrong turn at the Marshall Court? You realize, of course, that, had we not followed the course we did, we very likely would not only not be a united country today, but would be a series of little tributory states attached in some way to European powers, very likely including both a surviving Nazi state and a USSR? Nifty world your 'true path' would have given us.

And, seriously, 'Original Intent'? What gives you the god-like power to determine what that is? We are now to assume that you have a greater ability to determine what that is than do the vast majority of Supreme Court Justices (and appellate court judges, and trial court judges) and law school professors over the past 200 plus years? Because of why? What is your scholarly background that justifies accepting your opinion over the other 99% of jurists over the past 200 years?

And should 'Original Intent' even be a reference point? What, for instance, does the Constitution have to say that guides us in the role of the Federal vs. the State governments in regulation of space over the individual states? Absolutely effing nothing in 'Original Intent'. If you start 'interpreting' (oooooooooh, that dirty word) the document, you might get somewhere, but let me assure you, the drafters had not even the baldest speculation to offer on such matters.

And on such matter as slavery, they were clear in their 'Original Intent': it was here and it was intended to stay. Hmmm. Satisfactory? Not really. So we absolutely and completely negated the 'Original Intent' of the drafters by freeing the slaves. Are you prepared to attack that nasty 'interpretation' as well?

I don't get the dogma.

[TAFBSooner]

This is hilarious. Wrong turn at the Marshall Court? You realize, of course, that, had we not followed the course we did, we very likely would not only not be a united country today, but would be a series of little tributory states attached in some way to European powers, very likely including both a surviving Nazi state and a USSR? Nifty world your 'true path' would have given us.


If we were a gaggle of little states, whether or not tributary to European powers, there would be no Nazis (because there likely would have been no WWI. If there was, the Germans would have won or at least not been so overwhelmingly beaten that they gave power to a Hitler). Without the US intervention into the USSR in 1918-1919, their history would have turned out way differently also.

We would have been watching empires rise and fall from the outside, or (likely) been consumed by one. Certainly it would have been a different world.

[FaninAma]

If we were a gaggle of little states, whether or not tributary to European powers, there would be no Nazis (because there likely would have been no WWI. If there was, the Germans would have won or at least not been so overwhelmingly beaten that they gave power to a Hitler). Without the US intervention into the USSR in 1918-1919, their history would have turned out way differently also.

We would have been watching empires rise and fall from the outside, or (likely) been consumed by one. Certainly it would have been a different world.
Agreed. US interventionism has had some very negative consequences which we have then had to go back and correct with great cost to human life and financial resources. The Middle East is only the latest misadventure that began in the 50's.

FDR knew he was pushing Japan into confrontation with his policies of cutting the Japanese off from energy resources around the world. He knew what their response would be. As a result of destroying Japan we got a communist China in return.

[TAFBSooner]

And on such matter as slavery, they were clear in their 'Original Intent': it was here and it was intended to stay. Hmmm. Satisfactory? Not really. So we absolutely and completely negated the 'Original Intent' of the drafters by freeing the slaves. Are you prepared to attack that nasty 'interpretation' as well?



My interpretation is: the original intent was that slavery was here and that its future wasn't going to be an issue for the first 20 years, i.e., kicking the Original American Can down the road. The South wouldn't participate if there were limits on slavery, but the North was already aggrieved enough about it to write in revisiting the issue (at least the slave trade) after 1807.

Your general points about the difficulty of interpreting original intent, and the need to amend as circumstances change, are quite valid. I don't think we should let the government, in secret from the public, be interpreting away core freedoms such as those contained in the Bill of Rights.

It seems the arc of public opinion is bending towards favoring freedom from spying over security from terrorism:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/29/poll-nsa-surveillance-privacy-pew

The more most people learn about government spying on them, the less they favor it.

[KantoSooner]

You realize, ol course that The Guardian is the paper that is sponsoring Edward Snowden? They left their professional detachment behind long ago.

[KantoSooner]

Fanin, 'The Mideast' as we know it, has its roots not in the 50's but in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire 75 years before that. The Turks, Brits and French effed it up originally and we've been trying to clean up the mess because of the consequences of not doing anything ever since.
Strangely, setting aside the Mossadegh removal, we've had remarkably clean hands in the area.

[KantoSooner]

TAFB, I made the same arugment in a paper long ago (No USA victory in Civ war, no WWI....and likely no Soviet Union either). It's very hard to say, but possible. The more nasty aspects of nationalism and Imperialism, however, would have expressed themselves somehow and it wouldn't have been good news for a fragmented series of American mini-states or the world. The USofA has been way, way on the beneficial side when you do global calculus. Even the people who have the most to resent of us, the Mexicans, are, in general, pretty well disposed to us and a decently strong ally.

[SoonerorLater]

This is hilarious. Wrong turn at the Marshall Court? You realize, of course, that, had we not followed the course we did, we very likely would not only not be a united country today, but would be a series of little tributory states attached in some way to European powers, very likely including both a surviving Nazi state and a USSR? Nifty world your 'true path' would have given us.

And, seriously, 'Original Intent'? What gives you the god-like power to determine what that is? We are now to assume that you have a greater ability to determine what that is than do the vast majority of Supreme Court Justices (and appellate court judges, and trial court judges) and law school professors over the past 200 plus years? Because of why? What is your scholarly background that justifies accepting your opinion over the other 99% of jurists over the past 200 years?

And should 'Original Intent' even be a reference point? What, for instance, does the Constitution have to say that guides us in the role of the Federal vs. the State governments in regulation of space over the individual states? Absolutely effing nothing in 'Original Intent'. If you start 'interpreting' (oooooooooh, that dirty word) the document, you might get somewhere, but let me assure you, the drafters had not even the baldest speculation to offer on such matters.

And on such matter as slavery, they were clear in their 'Original Intent': it was here and it was intended to stay. Hmmm. Satisfactory? Not really. So we absolutely and completely negated the 'Original Intent' of the drafters by freeing the slaves. Are you prepared to attack that nasty 'interpretation' as well?

I don't get the dogma.

You make it sound like the USA got to where it is today by the cumulative decisions of a cadre of wise and gifted intellectuals with the best interest of individual liberty in mind. Nonsense. Most of these " Supreme Court Justices (and appellate court judges, and trial court judges) and law school professors over the past 200 plus years", are little more then well versed political animals that were successful because they knew how to push the right buttons. You give them way too much credit. Marshall completey bastardized the Constitution with an almost complete disregard for states rights. The 10th Ammendment meant nothing to Marshall. What about enumerated powers did he not understand? I bet 200 years from now somebody will be writing about the brilliant intellectuals of our time like George Bush and Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor. They will be wrong too.

As to "'Original Intent'? You ask..... "What gives you the god-like power to determine what that is?"...... Are you serious? Really? What would make you believe you need God-like powers to read a sentence or sentences. The Bill of Rights is really pretty clear. Again it's just just been "interpreted" to death by a bunch of the aforementioned political animals to appease certain contituencies.

You ask why the dogma? Because power over other individuals is something that should be severely limited and NEVER left to some bureurucrat's discretion or opinion. Nobody is good enough. Nobody is smart enough. Nobody is honest enough to be trusted with discretionary power. A liberal interpretation of the Constitution is defacto discretionary power. A "living constitution" is whimsical and arbitrary. Because of the liberal interprtations of the Constitution we have drifted toward having a National Government instead of a limited Federal Government. That's a problem.

[KantoSooner]

Well, I wish you luck in whatever alternative universe you inhabit. Here on Earth, getting most anything done requires compromise.
"Nobody" 'Never" ?? Are you for real?

Are you married? Ever had an argument with your wife? And the two of you are married and presumably love each other. Figure other people in society can have differences of opinion?

Thus you have to have interpreters of what the thing means. I'm sorry you don't get that. If you deny that simple starting point, there's really very ground for discussion. I'll stand over here with my boys, you can be over there with John Calhoun and whoever else you can find.

[jkjsooner]

By original intent we should have had many Constitutional Conventions in the past 200+ years to address the issues not conveniently subvert the process for political expedienency.

I'd like you to define original intent. You can't possibly believe that all of the people who wrote and signed the constitution (a process that took quite a lot of compromise) had exactly the same idea of what every part of it means. Heck, they started arguing about it almost immediately.

A constitution is a framework. Some of it is very specific and straight forward although even in those cases unexpected wrinkles can pop up that require interpretations. Much of it uses vague or general language (for example where does it spell out the exact definition of "due process") with the intent that it must be interpreted based on the individual circumstances.

I don't entirely disagree with some of you points and I do think that the courts have gone too far in some cases but when I hear the term "original intent" I can't help but chuckle.

[SoonerorLater]

Well, I wish you luck in whatever alternative universe you inhabit. Here on Earth, getting most anything done requires compromise.
"Nobody" 'Never" ?? Are you for real?

Are you married? Ever had an argument with your wife? And the two of you are married and presumably love each other. Figure other people in society can have differences of opinion?

Thus you have to have interpreters of what the thing means. I'm sorry you don't get that. If you deny that simple starting point, there's really very ground for discussion. I'll stand over here with my boys, you can be over there with John Calhoun and whoever else you can find.

Alternate universe? Yeah right, whatever. I can only assume you must be intentionally mis-stating what I am saying because I'm sure you aren't that thick. I have no problem thinking you would have to interpret how and if the written words apply to a particular situation (if at all). What I have a problem with is when the wording is direct and clear, twisting the words to make it apply to what you deem should happen. Example:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


Word for word what does this say and mean? Really it's very direct and simple. Doesn't require interpretation as to what it says.

You may love the Hamiltons, Marshalls and Lincolns. I'll stick with those knuckle dragging Neanderthals like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and George Mason that dared to take opinions counter to luminaries like that genius John Marshall.

[SoonerorLater]

I'd like you to define original intent. You can't possibly believe that all of the people who wrote and signed the constitution (a process that took quite a lot of compromise) had exactly the same idea of what every part of it means. Heck, they started arguing about it almost immediately.

A constitution is a framework. Some of it is very specific and straight forward although even in those cases unexpected wrinkles can pop up that require interpretations. Much of it uses vague or general language (for example where does it spell out the exact definition of "due process") with the intent that it must be interpreted based on the individual circumstances.

I don't entirely disagree with some of you points and I do think that the courts have gone too far in some cases but when I hear the term "original intent" I can't help but chuckle.

Intent with respect to the Bills of Rights would say that these are States Right Ammedments put in solely for the purpose of limiting Federal Power. As I read it per the 10th Ammendment if the Constitution doesn't say the Federal Government has the power to do it then it's a state matter.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Read that. "nor prohibited by it to the States" In this view the states should be determining what power the Federal Gov has. The Fed Gov is there to serve the states. All of life's issues and problems aren't something that needs to be addressed by the Federal Government. Any government really for that matter but at any rate that is up to states to decide. The Federal Gov should only be involved in a fraction of what they are involved with today. It's not that I have so much faith in state gov but at least if it has to be dismantled or overthrown then it is much easier to do it at the state level.

[TAFBSooner]

You realize, ol course that The Guardian is the paper that is sponsoring Edward Snowden? They left their professional detachment behind long ago.

OK, then . . .
http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/26/few-see-adequate-limits-on-nsa-surveillance-program/

[TAFBSooner]

Fanin, 'The Mideast' as we know it, has its roots not in the 50's but in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire 75 years before that. The Turks, Brits and French effed it up originally and we've been trying to clean up the mess because of the consequences of not doing anything ever since.
Strangely, setting aside the Mossadegh removal, we've had remarkably clean hands in the area.

Arming Saddam Hussein? We knew that he had (past tense) chemical weapons because we supplied them . . .

And, in the Mideast, setting aside 1953 is like asking, "But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

[KantoSooner]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances



Right then, let's go:

"Congress" Does this include the President? Making 'recess decisions' of one kind or another? Are those 'laws'? You see where this can lead, no?
"Respecting" Well, what if the law either purports or honestly has nothing ostensibly to do with religion? What it it's say a prohibition against the harvesting, possession and ingestion of peyote? That was held to violate this clause, though I am relatively certain it had nothing to do with the 'original intent' of the drafters of said law.
'Establishment' What's that, exactly? A religion itself? The building in which that religion is practiced? Must said building be used exclusively for that purpose? Must it be registered as such or publicly understood to be such? How do we ascertain that?
Are all the clauses to be read together? In other words, could one logically draw the conclusion that we're talking freedom of speech here more than one particular type of speech? Could a general freedom of speech thus permit silencing of a particular kind? What about internet chat boards? Are they 'speech'? 'Press'? 'Religion'? What?

And what about the fact that we, following an English model of legal construction, do not generally allow documents surrounding the argument and discussion of a law prior to passage into consideration by courts later trying to interpret said law? (Unlike, for instance, France, where the legislative intent can be divined through examination of the minutes and records of the legislature's debates.

You don't have to come down on any particular side of a given issue to quickly realize that the document is not cut and dried and is open to very broad interpretation. And that is the reason that it still stands. An instruction manual that attempted to consider and decide each and every possible question would quickly collapse under the weight of unforeseen circumstances. Our plastic and adaptive document, on the other hand, is going strong centuries after its drafting and remains, like the substance of our revolution, the most complete and profound expression of the Enlightment and, really, the only revolution in the past two millennia that has lasted and made any difference at all to humankind.

[SoonerorLater]

Right then, let's go:

"Congress" Does this include the President? Making 'recess decisions' of one kind or another? Are those 'laws'? You see where this can lead, no?
"Respecting" Well, what if the law either purports or honestly has nothing ostensibly to do with religion? What it it's say a prohibition against the harvesting, possession and ingestion of peyote? That was held to violate this clause, though I am relatively certain it had nothing to do with the 'original intent' of the drafters of said law.
'Establishment' What's that, exactly? A religion itself? The building in which that religion is practiced? Must said building be used exclusively for that purpose? Must it be registered as such or publicly understood to be such? How do we ascertain that?
Are all the clauses to be read together? In other words, could one logically draw the conclusion that we're talking freedom of speech here more than one particular type of speech? Could a general freedom of speech thus permit silencing of a particular kind? What about internet chat boards? Are they 'speech'? 'Press'? 'Religion'? What?

And what about the fact that we, following an English model of legal construction, do not generally allow documents surrounding the argument and discussion of a law prior to passage into consideration by courts later trying to interpret said law? (Unlike, for instance, France, where the legislative intent can be divined through examination of the minutes and records of the legislature's debates.

You don't have to come down on any particular side of a given issue to quickly realize that the document is not cut and dried and is open to very broad interpretation. And that is the reason that it still stands. An instruction manual that attempted to consider and decide each and every possible question would quickly collapse under the weight of unforeseen circumstances. Our plastic and adaptive document, on the other hand, is going strong centuries after its drafting and remains, like the substance of our revolution, the most complete and profound expression of the Enlightment and, really, the only revolution in the past two millennia that has lasted and made any difference at all to humankind.

I'll make it a lot more succinct. Did Congress pass any laws today regarding religion, speech, assembly or the press? Then ammendment fully met.

[KantoSooner]

Did congress pass any laws at all? You're due the opinion that congrerss should do nothing (which, in fact, was the position taken by the AofC), but that does not a country run.
And it was on precisely those grounds that the AofC was finally rejected an the Const enacted. So, as far as 'original intent' is concerned, the enactment of the Const over the AofC is pretty good indication that a strong(er) central government was indeed preferred.

[SoonerorLater]

I'm of the opinion that each branch of the Federal Government perform their enumerated powers. Nothing more, nothing less. If enough people feel that the Federal Government needs to be involved more deeply then change the Constitution to enumerate greater powers but don't do these end runs around the document.

[KantoSooner]

I'm of the opinion that each branch of the Federal Government perform their enumerated powers. Nothing more, nothing less. If enough people feel that the Federal Government needs to be involved more deeply then change the Constitution to enumerate greater powers but don't do these end runs around the document.

Whoohooo, sing it, Brotha!

A major cause, in my opinion, of the imperialization of the presidency and the so-called 'legislation from the bench' of the judiciary is because the legislative branch lost their cojones sometime in the late 1940's and hasn't been able to find them since. If our legislators would LEGISLATE and take charge of their sphere of responsibility in our federal government, most of the present day problems would go away. But they won't do that because the process of getting elected seems too nasty to attract good people (not too tough, but too soulness and corrupt) and so we get pygmies who couldn't have carried Ev Dirksen or Lyndon Johnson or Jerry Ford or Robert Kerr's lunchboxes.

[SoonerorLater]

Here's a perfect example of a runaway Federal Government that has trampled on just about every right that we have. It's also a great example of the theme of this thread. Anybody who reads this should be mad as hell.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-pressure-cookers-backpacks-visit-feds-140900667.html

[SoonerBBall]

Here's a perfect example of a runaway Federal Government that has trampled on just about every right that we have. It's also a great example of the theme of this thread. Anybody who reads this should be mad as hell.

http://news.yahoo.com/google-pressure-cookers-backpacks-visit-feds-140900667.html

Seriously. Again, it is that these mass data collection efforts are rife with the possibility for abuse, not that they are necessarily being abused now. I'd posit that the article linked to is a huge abuse of that power, though. "Well, they googled these flagged search terms. Take a half dozen agents to their door to bully them without any further evidence!" Defend that crap.