 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
2 edits | reply to vpoko
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.
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. |
|
 vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Then this could go either way. |
|
| reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:This got to do with national security. Supreme Court should stay out of it.
Its been a while, but I nominate this for the stupidest thing ever posted on DSLR.
Who's with me? |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
2 edits | reply to vpoko
said by vpoko:Then this could go either way.
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.
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
»www.politico.com/2012-election/
|
|
|
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
 ·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist: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.
|
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:5 | reply to ArrayList
You should appreciate this then:
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY |
|
 Radio ActiveMy pappy's a pistolPremium
join:2003-01-31
Fullerton, CA | reply to silentlooker
OMFG! You're such an AWESOME American! |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
 ·Comcast
| reply to silentlooker
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. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | |
|
camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
1 edit | 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. |
|
| reply to camaro92
Not to mention that now as a terrorist they can throw you in jail without a court review for the rest of your life.... |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | reply to jseymour
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. |
|
ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN Reviews:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to camaro92
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. |
|
| reply to Linklist
I find it humorous the lengths people will go to rationalize bad behavior with conditions which not only are obviously the best possible but provably false. The US government already had free reign to tap calls to or from foreign countries and has since FISA was passed in the 70's. What's going on here is nothing more wholesale taping of US phone and Internet based conversations.
»www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying
The undisputed documents show that AT&T installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that makes copies of all emails web browsing and other Internet traffic to and from AT&T customers and provides those copies to the NSA. This copying includes both domestic and international Internet activities of AT&T customers. As one expert observed “this isn’t a wiretap it’s a country-tap.” For a guy that's made a point of attacking the integrity of government at every single opportunity you are sure willing to hand the intelligence community a free pass. The same groups that have been shown time and time again to use this information for personal and political reasons. Not only that but they deliberately lied to congress about how often it was occurring and only revealed the lie when a whistle-blower revealed it. If government is incompetent it's all incompetent. |
|
vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | reply to ctceo
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. |
|
ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN Reviews:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
| 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. |
|
vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | 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. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply 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.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN | Mmm, TASTY! |
|
