59677028 (banned)

join:2012-01-19

Pontypool, ON 59677028 (banned) Member all your communication are belong to US USA of a that is....haha

land of the not free



vpoko

Premium Member

join:2003-07-03

Boston, MA vpoko Premium Member I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court It's clearly unconstitutional and needs to be shot down in the strongest terms possible, preferably 9-0. The 4th amendment is not optional.

40757180 (banned)

join:2009-11-01 40757180 (banned) Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court This got to do with national security. Supreme Court should stay out of it.



jseymour

join:2009-12-11

Waterford, MI jseymour Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court said by 40757180: This got to do with national security. Supreme Court should stay out of it.

That was sarcasm, right?

40757180 (banned)

join:2009-11-01 40757180 (banned) Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court said by jseymour: said by 40757180: This got to do with national security. Supreme Court should stay out of it.



That was sarcasm, right? No. National Security>Supreme Court, so it should stay out of the issue.



jseymour

join:2009-12-11

Waterford, MI jseymour Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court said by 40757180: said by jseymour: said by 40757180: This got to do with national security. Supreme Court should stay out of it.



That was sarcasm, right?

No. National Security>Supreme Court, so it should stay out of the issue. I think you need to go re-read the U.S. Constitution. And the Bill of Rights, while you're at it. Perhaps the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, for good measure.

40757180 (banned)

join:2009-11-01 40757180 (banned) Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court said by jseymour: I think you need to go re-read the U.S. Constitution. And the Bill of Rights, while you're at it. Perhaps the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, for good measure.

I guess you haven't noticed that we are not really following them when it comes to national security.



jseymour

join:2009-12-11

Waterford, MI jseymour Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court said by 40757180: said by jseymour: I think you need to go re-read the U.S. Constitution. And the Bill of Rights, while you're at it. Perhaps the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, for good measure.



I guess you haven't noticed that we are not really following them when it comes to national security. And you think that's okay?

40757180 (banned)

join:2009-11-01 1 recommendation 40757180 (banned) Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court said by jseymour: said by 40757180: said by jseymour: I think you need to go re-read the U.S. Constitution. And the Bill of Rights, while you're at it. Perhaps the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, for good measure.



I guess you haven't noticed that we are not really following them when it comes to national security.

And you think that's okay? Ye that is fine by me.



jseymour

join:2009-12-11

Waterford, MI jseymour Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court said by 40757180: Ye that is fine by me.

So it's okay by you that your government is violating the very laws that its leaders swore to uphold? So tell me: What good laws, then, if whomever has the power can simply ignore them at will? Why not just throw the Constitution out, since it has no bearing on anything anymore?



ctceo

Premium Member

join:2001-04-26

South Bend, IN 1 edit ctceo Premium Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court Illegitimate Pres. Barry has pretty much stated that what we have is old and antiquated, and where a system fails he intends to design a "new and appropriate legal regime from scratch" if necessary.



I don't agree with a violation of the basic rights granted by the good ol' Connie and Bill o' Rights. The problem is the corrupt people in charge of overseeing it's continuity and proper adaptation as times change.



vpoko

Premium Member

join:2003-07-03

Boston, MA vpoko Premium Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court said by ctceo: Illegitimate Pres. Barry has pretty much stated that what we have is old and antiquated, and where a system fails he intends to design a "new and appropriate legal regime from scratch" if necessary. Give me a break. I would bet you that when the Obama presidency ends, be it next year or in 5, we will be in quite a bit more debt than when he got there, but our legal system will be unchanged.



ctceo

Premium Member

join:2001-04-26

South Bend, IN ctceo Premium Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court Most of the changes started several presidents prior. Typically change is not caused by the pres. but by lobbyists, insiders, corporations & the staff he appoints, who are working for other interests deeper than him or the US supreme court, House or Senate.



vpoko

Premium Member

join:2003-07-03

Boston, MA vpoko Premium Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court said by ctceo: Most of the changes started several presidents prior. Typically change is not caused by the pres. but by lobbyists, insiders, corporations & the staff he appoints, who are working for other interests deeper than him or the US supreme court, House or Senate.

That I actually do agree with.

Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd to ctceo

Premium Member to ctceo

said by ctceo: Most of the changes started several presidents prior. Typically change is not caused by the pres. but by lobbyists, insiders, corporations & the staff he appoints, who are working for other interests deeper than him or the US supreme court, House or Senate.

Which means when it comes to a boil, the current president basically gets stuck with a big ole shit sandwich and has to take a bite.



ctceo

Premium Member

join:2001-04-26

South Bend, IN ctceo Premium Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court Mmm, TASTY!



ArrayList

DevOps

Premium Member

join:2005-03-19

Mullica Hill, NJ 1 recommendation ArrayList to 40757180

Premium Member to 40757180

obvious troll is obvious.



Radio Active

My pappy's a pistol

Premium Member

join:2003-01-31

Fullerton, CA Radio Active to 40757180

Premium Member to 40757180

said by 40757180: Ye that is fine by me.

OMFG! You're such an AWESOME American!

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 to 40757180

Member to 40757180

LOL, I really can't believe you meant that.



Using your terminology Constitution>National Security and regardless of all that a major reason for the Supreme Courts very existence is to make sure the constitution is not bastardized and that our rights as people of this country are not trampled so some moron like yourself can yell "but it is for national security".



I never decided to give up my civil liberties and rights for the incremental safety that the US government gives us for taking them.



KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK KrK to 40757180

Premium Member to 40757180

Iran and several other nations agree with you. National Security (Government Leader interests) > Courts, Justice, Human rights etc

Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd to 40757180

Premium Member to 40757180

National Security or National Security Theater?



because most of what we see and get warned about is security theater. warrentless wiretaps have likely never improved our national security.



vpoko

Premium Member

join:2003-07-03

Boston, MA vpoko to 40757180

Premium Member to 40757180

If the founding fathers thought it appropriate to include a national security exemption to the 4th amendment, they would have. It's not in the constitution, and the constitution - not your ideas or mine - is the highest law of the land.



If you feel like it wasn't relevant then but is now, the opportunity for amendment exists. I probably don't need to tell you how many laws have been found unconstitutional despite the government's national security claims.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ 2 edits FFH5 Premium Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court said by vpoko: I probably don't need to tell you how many laws have been found unconstitutional despite the government national security claims.





The USSC members are more than just law & constitution interpreters. They are also politicians with their own ideas of how things are and they read the temper of the public and rule not just on the law but on the implications and dangers to the public welfare and safety of overturning laws. And I'm sure I don't have to tell you how it often took the USSC decades to overturn national security laws in the past because they saw that they were needed at the time. Civil War, WW1, WW2 time periods Congress passed unconstitutional laws. And the USSC waited a long time before declaring these laws invalid.The USSC members are more than just law & constitution interpreters. They are also politicians with their own ideas of how things are and they read the temper of the public and rule not just on the law but on the implications and dangers to the public welfare and safety of overturning laws.



vpoko

Premium Member

join:2003-07-03

Boston, MA 1 recommendation vpoko Premium Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court Then this could go either way.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ 2 edits FFH5 Premium Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court said by vpoko: Then this could go either way.





The teacher was a Federal District Court judge. Most people think a judge looks at a law under review, consults the Constitution and legal precedent, and then hands down a ruling. But often the reality is the judge looks at the law, decides whether it is needed and whether it does something HE AGREES with, and then looks for precedent and clauses in the Constitution to back up what he ALREADY decided the result should be. To many that would seem ass backwards, but that is often the reality of how decisions are made. Oh, and of course the practical consideration of the odds of the decision being overruled by higher courts.



In class, the judge often broke us up into 3rds. 1/3 looked at a hypothetical case and were told to determine the constitutionality by researching precedent and reading the Constitution and then write a brief on their findings. 1/3 were told to find the law unconstitutional and then write a brief backing that Pre-determined decision. The last 1/3 we're told to find the law constitutional and then write up briefs defending that. The judge would then pick the best brief from each group and present the findings. The class would discuss and then the judge would cite what higher courts decided in similar real cases. It often amazed me how the briefs written to defend Pre-decided decisions mirrored real live case results. The judge admitted that is frequently how real cases are decided. Yes it can. Most people don't realize how Federal Judges often come to their decisions. Many would be shocked. I took a Constitutional Law course as part of my MBA degree.The teacher was a Federal District Court judge. Most people think a judge looks at a law under review, consults the Constitution and legal precedent, and then hands down a ruling. But often the reality is the judge looks at the law, decides whether it is needed and whether it does something HE AGREES with, and then looks for precedent and clauses in the Constitution to back up what he ALREADY decided the result should be. To many that would seem ass backwards, but that is often the reality of how decisions are made. Oh, and of course the practical consideration of the odds of the decision being overruled by higher courts.In class, the judge often broke us up into 3rds. 1/3 looked at a hypothetical case and were told to determine the constitutionality by researching precedent and reading the Constitution and then write a brief on their findings. 1/3 were told to find the law unconstitutional and then write a brief backing that Pre-determined decision. The last 1/3 we're told to find the law constitutional and then write up briefs defending that. The judge would then pick the best brief from each group and present the findings. The class would discuss and then the judge would cite what higher courts decided in similar real cases. It often amazed me how the briefs written to defend Pre-decided decisions mirrored real live case results. The judge admitted that is frequently how real cases are decided.

PX Eliezer70

Premium Member

join:2008-08-09

Hutt River 1 recommendation PX Eliezer70 to FFH5

Premium Member to FFH5

said by FFH5: said by vpoko: I probably don't need to tell you how many laws have been found unconstitutional despite the government national security claims.



The USSC members are more than just law & constitution interpreters. They are also politicians with their own ideas of how things are and they read the temper of the public and rule not just on the law but on the implications and dangers to the public welfare and safety of overturning laws. No matther whether th constitution follows h flag or not, th Supreme Coort follows th election returns wrote Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936) in 1901, through his comic character Mr. Dooley.



The language has often been cleaned up to say the Supreme Court follows the election returns or judges follow the election returns or the Supreme Court reads the elections returns. The statement means that judges often tailor their decisions to currently popular social and political trends, sometimes without proper regard for the Constitution.



Finley Peter Dunnes saying gained quick popularity and is still quoted by politicians and the judiciary. www.barrypopik.com/index ··· ction_r/ ---------------------------



DataRiker

Premium Member

join:2002-05-19

00000 1 recommendation DataRiker to 40757180

Premium Member to 40757180

said by 40757180: This got to do with national security. Supreme Court should stay out of it.





Who's with me? Its been a while, but I nominate this for the stupidest thing ever posted on DSLR.Who's with me?



Camaro

Question everything

Premium Member

join:2008-04-05

Westfield, MA Camaro to 40757180

Premium Member to 40757180

Errr unfortunately if say your neighbor calls the cops because he heard you say "bin laden" or some other UnAmericana comment and you were joking,they didn't realize you were joking and I think you can figure out the rest.



The amount of tools and assets the 3 letter agency's have and they bitch they need more power then maybe we should see more results.I understand that things need to be top secret and all so they can't parade every terrorist on the nightly news but they want the Constitution,the Bill of rights to be completely ignored for cart blanch spying on everyone all in the name of national security.If that is there version of being safe then hello Canada.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court said by Camaro: I understand that things need to be top secret and all so they can't parade every terrorist on the nightly news but they want the Constitution,the Bill of rights to be completely ignored for cart blanch spying on everyone all in the name of national security.



If that is there version of being safe then hello Canada.

www.zeitgeistnight.com/z ··· ref=n032

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca ··· erations



Camaro

Question everything

Premium Member

join:2008-04-05

Westfield, MA 1 edit Camaro Premium Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court Learn something new everyday thanks.



Maybe I just think it's sad time when a bunch of wackos who run around hiding in caves,and blowing themselves up in the name of religion to have scared the superpowers into needing these tools.



ctceo

Premium Member

join:2001-04-26

South Bend, IN ctceo Premium Member Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court Let's not forget that at one time there were also catholic extremists with a very similar attitude towards anything that was not according to their plan. Look at what happened to it over time and compare that to now. What do you think is going to happen? I doub't were all gonna just get along.

Ghostmaker1

join:2011-07-11

Brunswick, OH Ghostmaker1 to Camaro

Member to Camaro

Not to mention that now as a terrorist they can throw you in jail without a court review for the rest of your life....



mr sean

Professional Infidel



join:2001-04-03

N. Absentia mr sean to vpoko

to vpoko

said by vpoko: The 4th amendment is not optional.



What's good for business/government is good for invading your privacy. Unless you choose the option with Corinthian leather.What's good for business/government is good for invading your privacy.



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 to vpoko

Premium Member to vpoko

said by vpoko: It's clearly unconstitutional and needs to be shot down in the strongest terms possible, preferably 9-0. The 4th amendment is not optional.

MAIN target is calls to overseas locations. And with terrorism still rampant, this is a no brainer. The USSC will most likely allow the spying to continue w/o warrants as thetarget is calls to overseas locations. And with terrorism still rampant, this is a no brainer.



NOCTech75

Premium Member

join:2009-06-29

Marietta, GA NOCTech75 Premium Member Change we can believe in? Yes Bush enacted it after 09/11, yes the Congress approved it (including Obama who voted for it) but if you ran on a platform of change wouldn't this be a great one to overturn.. instead your administration wants to squash legal challenges to it. Guess Obama isn't so different then Bush after all.



dib22

join:2002-01-27

Kansas City, MO dib22 Member Why don't they want the oversite? I still want to know what was so wrong with having a judge involved?



FISA worked with out issues for years, the joke was you could get a judge to ok with little to no effort or time or probable cause... why do they insist on removing a check-sum from the equation?



KrK

Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy

Premium Member

join:2000-01-17

Tulsa, OK KrK Premium Member Re: Why don't they want the oversite? Probably they overreached badly one time and the Judge slapped them down. Since it's secret, we never hear about it, so now the Judge has to go, so the overreaching can be expanded.

firedrakes

join:2009-01-29

Arcadia, FL firedrakes Member Re: Why don't they want the oversite? United States Constitution. oh wait. we dont have that any more doj and us gov took it away from us. to protect us from terrorist.. dam shame seeing usa are terrorist



JohnInSJ

Premium Member

join:2003-09-22

Aptos, CA JohnInSJ Premium Member The supremes... Weren't they a singing group?