The History of the Democrat Party

Southern Man said:
So what's your issue with the Act then?
Click to expand...

That the patriot act allows law enforcement to conduct secret searches, perform roving wiretaps, and gain access to highly personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records. All without warrants.



Here I was about to list the issues again. Go back and reread where I answered this the first time.
 
Well STY, I guess we can just wait for SM to show us some way that he thinks the Patriot Act is constitutional.



*crickets*
 
Bottom line about this thread, the history of the Democratic Party, as we know it, would have been vastly improved if Andrew Jackson had been killed in a duel prior to 1824.

Speaking of which, when are we finally going to take the fucker off of the $20 bill and substitute MLK or some other cool person like Jeannette Rankin...
 
T&A said:
My anti-Jackson tirades do tend to have that effect. People just can't accept the fact that at least one of our presidents is not enjoying eternity.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of reasons Jackson should be remembered, and lots of them are terrible.

But thats not why I posted the crickets. lol
 
WinterBorn said:
The 4th amendment forbids it without a warrant. And specifically says that no warrant shall be issued without probable cause.
Click to expand...

excuse me?....the courts have decided long ago that what you say is not true....are you arguing that you know more about this issue than the courts do?......the Patriot Act didn't change anything with respect to when taps may issue....it merely expanded previous law to include terrorist activity and created a court specifically available to review warrant applications, so there would be no delays in action......it has long been established that the government may tap international phones without a warrant.....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
excuse me?....the courts have decided long ago that what you say is not true....are you arguing that you know more about this issue than the courts do?
Click to expand...
with respect to the 4th Amendment, yes. I'm telling you that I know more about the 4th Amendment than the courts do. Do not fall in to the trap that most of the sheeple have, that it takes a law degree and a seat on a bench to know what the constitution means. It was written so that the average man could understand it. 'no warrants shall issue without probably cause' is pretty clear.


PostmodernProphet said:
......the Patriot Act didn't change anything with respect to when taps may issue....it merely expanded previous law to include terrorist activity and created a court specifically available to review warrant applications, so there would be no delays in action......it has long been established that the government may tap international phones without a warrant.....
Click to expand...
does the constitution grant the government the power to establish a special court to circumvent the restrictions placed upon it?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/grins....they didn't....they appointed a special court to enforce them.....
Click to expand...

some serious circular logic you're trying to push. the FISA court, which hears secret intelligence arguments to determine if warrants can be issued with less than probable cause is constitutional because it enforces the same restrictions on the government? Do they answer to the USSC, because that is the highest court in the land and according to the constitution, all precedent follows downhill.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
some serious circular logic you're trying to push. the FISA court, which hears secret intelligence arguments to determine if warrants can be issued with less than probable cause is constitutional because it enforces the same restrictions on the government? Do they answer to the USSC, because that is the highest court in the land and according to the constitution, all precedent follows downhill.
Click to expand...

uh, no....the circular logic is yours....the courts, according to you, are violating the constitution because you have interpreted the constitution differently than the Supreme Court has
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so a lot of judges can't read and you can....got it.....
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
uh, no....the circular logic is yours....the courts, according to you, are violating the constitution because you have interpreted the constitution differently than the Supreme Court has
Click to expand...

is it that difficult to read 'shall not be infringed' as 'shall not be infringed'? or no warrant shall issue? unreasonable search and seizure?

if your philosophy is that you need to have courts and judges tell you what the constitution really means, then the public education system certainly did it's job with you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top