so where is this mentioned in the Constitution?Originally Posted by Guisslapp
|
|
|
|
|
so where is this mentioned in the Constitution?
4th Amendment rights. The role of the judiciary to grant warrants.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
expand that a little more Warrants for what?
Anyone who would come on here on this day in our nation's history and bad-mouth a government that has done NOTHING but protect you is an idiot. Leave it to the resident liberals to start this shit. All we need now is for DB2 and salty to joint the party. Even most democrats know that the government's actions were in the best interest of the country, which is why the Patriot Act keeps passing Congress. But not you looney lefties... leave it to you to stir up as much crap as you can. You should both really stop it with the "independent" or "fiscally conservative" bullshit. Neither of you has a conservative bone in your bodies. Your ludicrous statements on 9/11 have just solidified that fact.
Nothing me, personally, but many citizens of this country face unfair persecution, whether it be by being profiled and put in a TSA waiting room for hours on end with no explanation as to why you are being held against your will, the death of habeas corpus, ridiculous airline regulations (more of just an annoyance)
Look up the Brandon Mayfield case.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Most absurd phrase EVER used to describe the Federal government.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Pearl Harbor - 2403
WW2 - 405,399
Interesting math.
And, for those of you who love to spout off without actually researching the Patriot Act, there are still warrants needed to conduct the searches and "wiretaps." The only difference under the Patriot Act from previous FISA laws is that under the Patriot Act, the Attorney General can authorize a "blanket warrant;" i.e. those conducting the investigations or intelligence collection operations do not need to keep going back to the AG for each instance. Convenient that you omit that little piece out of your argument.
But again, I ask: what in the hell do you care if Islam Tom, a known al-Qa'ida operative, is here in the US and is being targeted by our government? Only a raging liberal would care, which would explain your interest in this issue. Thank God for people who actually care about safeguarding our nation who put the safety of my wife and kids before your delicate sensibilities.
Where does it give the judiciary that power?
first part - matters as to what the courts deem "unreasonable"... and unless the amendment gets amended, modern technology and such don't apply
second part - there are no warrants to be issued, therefore no reason to have to give to have a warrant
I guess I am the only one that cares about limiting government power. How convenient you omit the fact that provisions of the Patriot Act have been declared unconstitutional.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
The 4th Amendment is a constitutional right for individuals.
Separation of Powers is not an Amendment, but was an important principle in how our Constitution was framed dividing EXCLUSIVE powers to the different branches of government to prevent one branch from getting too much power.
The courts disagree with your assessment of the Fourth Amendment, thank god.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
As much as profiling sucks, it is necessary... That's what happens when a group of people who share many similar beliefs, or looks, or what have you, do something like, I don't know, blow up a building?
There aren't law against holding a person, for whatever reason. There are just laws on how long and causes.
Death of habeas corpus? Name one American citizen that applies to.
Airline regulations?
I know what the 4th Amendment is...
I know about Separation of Powers...
This wouldn't be the first time the courts have been wrong...
I take it your for interpretation instead of literal?
It must be read in context with the whole document and understood based on what was going on at the time. "Unreasonable" searches and seizures apply to ANY unreasonable searches and seizures even when technology changes. This amendment was passed in response to writs of assistance that were allowed under the Townshend Act. Literalism is great and all, but we have over 200 years of Constitutional law that have explored and attempted to define the meets and bounds of this Constitutional right. Literal interpretation doesn't answer the basic question of what the word "unreasonable" means.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
