The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution

[King Ryan]

Since it's on it's way out starting tomorrow, I wanted to get a read on everyone's thoughts about it before it's all gone



poll coming

[doggin94it]

[quote=Tanginius;2592838]Since it's on it's way out starting tomorrow, I wanted to get a read on everyone's thoughts about it before it's all gone



poll coming[/quote]

um, yeah:rolleyes:

[King Ryan]

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2592841]um, yeah:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

would you rather talk about Brittany's new baby or whatever the obfuscation-du-jour is?


the least you could do is vote

[piney]

well..1st people have to look it up to make sure thy know what it is (I did!!!)..then they will say you are crazy and certain examples that you may be able to come up with are not the norm, and certain circumstances calls for the gov't being able to go around this amendment, you know, for our own good.

They will also call you crazy for thinking that every american will lose this right if it is only circumvented a few times...

of course these will be the same people who think Bin Laden will be able to get off free due to the habeas corpus ruling and who also think that in a week or two nukes will be going off in every city in america because of the weak willed liberals and democrats.....

mind you, I think you are crazy if you really think that there will be a permanant removal of this amendment.....

[doggin94it]

[quote=Tanginius;2592843]would you rather talk about Brittany's new baby or whatever the obfuscation-du-jour is?[/QUOTE]

No, I'd rather discuss political issues without alarmism or conspiracy theories. c'est la vie, eh?

[QUOTE] the least you could do is vote[/quote]

That's what they said about Bush-Kerry in 04, too.

When the choices are all horrible, I sit it out.

When you put up a rational option, I'll vote

[King Ryan]

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2592883]No, I'd rather discuss political issues without alarmism or conspiracy theories. c'est la vie, eh?



That's what they said about Bush-Kerry in 04, too.

When the choices are all horrible, I sit it out.

When you put up a rational option, I'll vote[/QUOTE]



do what I do, vote 3rd party... the choices are almost always better!


as for conspiracy theories, I couldn't disagree more. What else do you call the House about to sign into law retro-active immunity for the Telecoms for their illegal snooping?

Doesn't the idea that we're free from unreasonable searches & seizures by the government UNLESS the White House authorizes it render the 4th obsolete and without any teeth?!? To me it does!


Regarding alarmism... I think something like this warrants being alarmed, but maybe I love the Constitution and the rights we were given too much?

[King Ryan]

[QUOTE=piney;2592878]mind you, I think you are crazy if you really think that there will be a permanant removal of this amendment.....[/QUOTE]

What else do you call the House about to sign into law retro-active immunity for the Telecoms for their illegal snooping?

Doesn't the idea that we're free from unreasonable searches & seizures by the government UNLESS the White House authorizes it render the 4th obsolete and without any teeth?!? To me it does!

So yes, it's not removing the amendment or erasing it complete from the Constitution... but it is rendering it useless which might as well be the same as erasing it

[King Ryan]

[QUOTE=piney;2592878]well..1st people have to look it up to make sure thy know what it is (I did!!!)..then they will say you are crazy and certain examples that you may be able to come up with are not the norm, and certain circumstances calls for the gov't being able to go around this amendment, you know, for our own good.

They will also call you crazy for thinking that every american will lose this right if it is only circumvented a few times...

of course these will be the same people who think Bin Laden will be able to get off free due to the habeas corpus ruling and who also think that in a week or two nukes will be going off in every city in america because of the weak willed liberals and democrats.....

mind you, I think you are crazy if you really think that there will be a permanant removal of this amendment.....[/QUOTE]


btw were you kidding about having to look up the Fourth?

[doggin94it]

[quote=Tanginius;2593006]do what I do, vote 3rd party... the choices are almost always better!


as for conspiracy theories, I couldn't disagree more. What else do you call the House about to sign into law retro-active immunity for the Telecoms for their illegal snooping?

Doesn't the idea that we're free from unreasonable searches & seizures by the government UNLESS the White House authorizes it render the 4th obsolete and without any teeth?!? To me it does![/quote]

The Fourth Amendment gives you a right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. It does not give you a right to be free from [B]other people or companies [/B]voluntarily disclosing information relating to you in their own possession. It particularly does not give you a right to a lawsuit against a telecom company that releases information contained in the telecom's computer system.

You know what does? A law, written by Congress, that made disclosure of that information illegal and created a private right of action.

The bill simply says that telecoms who released that information when the government demanded it and informed the telecoms that it was not illegal cannot be sued for doing so.

It doesn't authorize further releases of data, and it doesn't immunize telecoms from suit if they released data later.

There simply isn't a Fourth Amendment issue to be found here.

The question is whether Telecoms should be slammed for what they did. There are reasonable positions on either side; personally, I don't think a telecom that had a good faith basis to believe they were legally required to provide the information should be paying damages.


[quote]Regarding alarmism... I think something like this warrants being alarmed, but maybe I love the Constitution and the rights we were given too much?[/quote]

If you really love the Constitution, I suggest you study it a bit more so you don't make claims like the ones you've made in this thread.

[King Ryan]

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2593100]The Fourth Amendment gives you a right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. It does not give you a right to be free from [B]other people or companies [/B]voluntarily disclosing information relating to you in their own possession. It particularly does not give you a right to a lawsuit against a telecom company that releases information contained in the telecom's computer system.

You know what does? A law, written by Congress, that made disclosure of that information illegal and created a private right of action.

The bill simply says that telecoms who released that information when the government demanded it and informed the telecoms that it was not illegal cannot be sued for doing so.

It doesn't authorize further releases of data, and it doesn't immunize telecoms from suit if they released data later.

There simply isn't a Fourth Amendment issue to be found here.

The question is whether Telecoms should be slammed for what they did. There are reasonable positions on either side; personally, I don't think a telecom that had a good faith basis to believe they were legally required to provide the information should be paying damages.




If you really love the Constitution, I suggest you study it a bit more so you don't make claims like the ones you've made in this thread.[/QUOTE]



and when people like you have no problem giving up our rights, it's not wonder this country is going to sh!t... and FAST

on my father's side, my family escaped communism to come to this "free" land only to have many of those freedoms stripped away within 1 generation! it may not be a big deal to you, but when your father & grandparents have lived in a country where you had to live in fear of the government, only to escape (and be lucky to survive the journey and to avoid being caught) to where they thought they were safe and then have the rug pulled out from under them and sent on the slippery slope of gradual erosion/loss of those freedoms... it tends to be a big deal

[doggin94it]

[quote=Tanginius;2593116]and when people like you have no problem giving up our rights, it's not wonder this country is going to sh!t... and FAST[/quote]

I love it.

Don't address the substance of the post, don't even pretend to know what you're talking about when it comes to the constitution or engage in any sort of intelligent back and forth when someone contradicts your position.

Just hurl insults.

Sorry, but its attitudes like that that are the reason this country is going to ****, and fast.

[King Ryan]

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2593126]I love it.

Don't address the substance of the post, don't even pretend to know what you're talking about when it comes to the constitution or engage in any sort of intelligent back and forth when someone contradicts your position.

Just hurl insults.

Sorry, but its attitudes like that that are the reason this country is going to ****, and fast.[/QUOTE]

what insult?!?

and you've seen me post here before, if your post had any valid substance to it I would've replied.. but since it's bullsh!t why waste my time?


but for the record, the law that made that illegal was the FISA Act

[Warfish]

Great info Doggin. Informative as hell every time. Thanks.

[piney]

[QUOTE=Tanginius;2593063]btw were you kidding about having to look up the Fourth?[/QUOTE]

not at all..I will not pretend to be capable of reciting the first ten commandments in order, it has been a long time since civics class!!!

[doggin94it]

[quote=Tanginius;2593131]what insult?!?[quote]

"when people like you have no problem giving up our rights, it's not wonder this country is going to sh!t... and FAST"


[quote] and you've seen me post here before, if your post had any valid substance to it I would've replied.. but since it's bullsh!t why waste my time? [/quote]

Ah - well, could you point me to the portion of the Fourth Amendment that gives you privacy rights in information stored on the computer systems of telecoms?


[quote]but for the record, the law that made that illegal was the FISA Act[/quote]

What law gave you privacy rights in that information. Hint - it wasn't FISA

[doggin94it]

[quote=piney;2593160]not at all..I will not pretend to be capable of reciting the first ten [B]commandments[/B] in order, it has been a long time since civics class!!![/quote]

[IMG]http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/CharltonHestonTheTenCommandmentsC101021021.jpg[/IMG]

Where did you go to school that they tought the ten commandments in civics? :eek::D

[King Ryan]

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2593168][quote=Tanginius;2593131]what insult?!?[quote]

"when people like you have no problem giving up our rights, it's not wonder this country is going to sh!t... and FAST"




Ah - well, could you point me to the portion of the Fourth Amendment that gives you privacy rights in information stored on the computer systems of telecoms?




What law gave you privacy rights in that information. Hint - it wasn't FISA[/QUOTE]


FISA and other wiretapping acts/laws are applicable here, no?

the Fourth Amendment protects us from the government illegally searching us, which at least I would infer means our personal details & phone conversations (plus many more things) not just physical searches. And when the government voids that by attempting to legalize illegal searches well after the searches happened, it's VERY disturbing... and voids the 4th in my non-esquired opinion. There are a lot of people (read: lawyers) who are way more learned than I am on these subjects that are making the same or very similar cases that I am presenting here...


as you know, the Constitution doesn't contain a lot of specifics about the modern world (gee, they couldn't predict the future 200+ years back then, what's wrong with them?), which is more evidence that it needs to be interpreted as a living breathing document and not taken literally... unless we followed the founders beliefs and instructions and had repeated constitutional conventions (every 20 years or so) and amendments to keep it up to date in which case the pendulum swings in favor of strict literal reading of it

[intelligentjetsfan]

“Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.” Henry Steele Commager (1902-1998), historian and author, Source: Freedom and Order, 1966

“No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” Thomas Jefferson: American 3rd US President (1801-09).

“The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.” John Adams

“All men having power ought to be mistrusted.” James Madison

“It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable.” Eric Hoffer

“If those in charge of our society—politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television—can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.” Howard Zinn, historian and author

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” Samuel Adams

“It’s important to realize that whenever you give power to politicians or bureaucrats, it will be used for what they want, not for what you want.” Harry Browne

“You see what power is—holding someone else’s fear in your hand and showing it to them!” Amy Tan

[cr726]

I cannot speak for the FBI and FISA, but for Title III investigations the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ OEO take it very seriously. It is a long process to listen to someone's phone(without one party consent). Sorry Doggin, I know you know the difference.

Law enforcement gets this information on a daily basis and that is not a difficult thing to do.

What I find very interesting is that the federal gov't throws the telecom people this coverage and yet a lot of them are not very law enforcement friendly and charge ridiculous prices to get the information from them.

The fees they charge for penn reigisters and the TIII itself are outrageous and that is taxpayer money.

[QUOTE=Tanginius;2593194][QUOTE=doggin94it;2593168][quote=Tanginius;2593131]what insult?!?


FISA and other wiretapping acts/laws are applicable here, no?

the Fourth Amendment protects us from the government illegally searching us, which at least I would infer means our personal details & phone conversations (plus many more things) not just physical searches. And when the government voids that by attempting to legalize illegal searches well after the searches happened, it's VERY disturbing... and voids the 4th in my non-esquired opinion. There are a lot of people (read: lawyers) who are way more learned than I am on these subjects that are making the same or very similar cases that I am presenting here...


as you know, the Constitution doesn't contain a lot of specifics about the modern world (gee, they couldn't predict the future 200+ years back then, what's wrong with them?), which is more evidence that it needs to be interpreted as a living breathing document and not taken literally... unless we followed the founders beliefs and instructions and had repeated constitutional conventions (every 20 years or so) and amendments to keep it up to date in which case the pendulum swings in favor of strict literal reading of it[/QUOTE]

[doggin94it]

[quote=Warfish;2593146]Great info Doggin. Informative as hell every time. Thanks.[/quote]

thanks for that