| all your communication are belong to US USA of a that is....haha
land of the not free |
|
 vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | 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. |
|
|
|
| This got to do with national security. Supreme Court should stay out of it. |
|
 mr seanProfessional InfidelPremium,ExMod 2001-07
join:2001-04-03
N. Absentia
kudos:1 | reply to vpoko
said by vpoko:The 4th amendment is not optional.
Unless you choose the option with Corinthian leather.
What's good for business/government is good for invading your privacy.
--
How you can make the world a Better Place |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply 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.
The USSC will most likely allow the spying to continue w/o warrants as the MAIN target is calls to overseas locations. And with terrorism still rampant, this is a no brainer. |
|
| reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:This got to do with national security. Supreme Court should stay out of it.
That was sarcasm, right? |
|
| said by jseymour:said by silentlooker: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. |
|
| said by silentlooker:said by jseymour:said by silentlooker: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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| said by silentlooker: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? |
|
| said by jseymour:said by silentlooker: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. |
|
| 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? |
|
| reply to silentlooker
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. |
|
| reply to Linklist
Terrorism is no more rampant today than it was 20 years ago and it certainly is not any more rampant in the US.
I personally do not see the USSC allowing this to continue. The laws it violates and the scope it reaches are simply to clear and to big of a violation for them to let it continue. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| 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. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to silentlooker
Re: I hope we get a strong ruling from the Supreme Court Iran and several other nations agree with you. National Security (Government Leader interests) > Courts, Justice, Human rights etc
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to silentlooker
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.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | reply to silentlooker
obvious troll is obvious. |
|
FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | reply to Linklist
lol terrorism is not rampant. it never was. We were scared after 9/11 and vulnerable. Liberty was taken advantage of. The threat of terrorism is a charade for diminishing the Constitution. |
|
FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | reply to NOCTech75
Re: Change we can believe in? yes, just put all the blame on Obama. That makes complete sense. à° _à° |
|
