Founding Fathers burned Tree

SmarterThanYou said:
negative. plain reading of the constitutional text compared to the plain wording of the patriot acts provisions clearly stand at odds with each other. My analogy was spot on and you're hemming and hawing over it while clinging to a very bad USSC precedent that stated that all laws written by congress will be assumed to be constitutional. I take it that you think this mandatory insurance purchase will then be constitutional?
Click to expand...
I am on record stating many times that the SCOTUS has made some very incorrect decisions, and judges use these decisions as legal precedence to make further bad decisions. Again, in time of war the government has a duty to protect its citizens, and if that means that we listen in on some terrorists' conversations then I don't have any problem with that, and I think that a plain reading of the Constitution supports that.
 
Southern Man said:
The Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens.
Click to expand...
Bullshit, the 4th amendment applies to ALL searches regardless of the citizenship of the person being searched. Cops cannot bust down the door of a visiting German family and search their hotel room. Your knowledge of the 4th amendment is woefully lacking.
 
Socrtease said:
Bullshit, the 4th amendment applies to ALL searches regardless of the citizenship of the person being searched. Cops cannot bust down the door of a visiting German family and search their hotel room. Your knowledge of the CONSTITUTION is woefully lacking.
Click to expand...

fixed that for you.
 
Southern Man said:
I Again, in time of war the government has a duty to protect its citizens,
Click to expand...
false. numerous court cases bear out that the government has no legal liability for failure to protect you in any situation.


Southern Man said:
and if that means that we listen in on some terrorists' conversations then I don't have any problem with that, and I think that a plain reading of the Constitution supports that.
Click to expand...

sorely lacking in constitutional knowledge. using 'plain text' of the constitution, show me where it says that.
 
I want to know where in the Constitution it says that the 4th Amendment does not apply to foreign nationals on US soil. I have, in state court, several times had evidence suppressed under the 4th amendment while representing citizens of mexico in drug cases. Foreign nationals must also be advised of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney and the fact that their statements can be used against them. In other words all foreign nationals MUST be read their Miranda rights.
 
Socrtease said:
I want to know where in the Constitution it says that the 4th Amendment does not apply to foreign nationals on US soil. I have, in state court, several times had evidence suppressed under the 4th amendment while representing citizens of mexico in drug cases. Foreign nationals must also be advised of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney and the fact that their statements can be used against them. In other words all foreign nationals MUST be read their Miranda rights.
Click to expand...

that is my understanding as well...if an illegal immigrant commits a crime, he is still given the same rights as citizens, except upon his release (assume convicted) he or she will be deported....if a legal immigrant, deportation depends on the crime
 
Socrtease said:
Bullshit, the 4th amendment applies to ALL searches regardless of the citizenship of the person being searched. Cops cannot bust down the door of a visiting German family and search their hotel room. Your knowledge of the 4th amendment is woefully lacking.
Click to expand...

actually, if you are on parole or probation....you virtually always sign a waiver to the 4th or else you can stay incarcerated
 
Southern Man said:
I am on record stating many times that the SCOTUS has made some very incorrect decisions, and judges use these decisions as legal precedence to make further bad decisions. Again, in time of war the government has a duty to protect its citizens, and if that means that we listen in on some terrorists' conversations then I don't have any problem with that, and I think that a plain reading of the Constitution supports that.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you have a problem with or what absurd mental construct you've invented to support that. Everyone on US soil has freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. We listen in on conversations of people on foreign soil all the time, but you can't do that on American soil without a warrant.
 
Is there anyone here that really thinks Franklin, Jefferson, Madison et al., would approve of what has become of our freedoms? Do you think a single one of those heros of liberty would approve the government listening in on you without a warrant? Searching your private messages without a warrant? I can't imagine one of them agreeing. I especially believe that Franklin would be outraged by what becomes our freedoms in the light of "9-11 changing everything."
 
As for who has been harmed by this listening in on conversations, anyone recall the article from last year where they talked about the NSA listening in on Soldiers calls home and getting off on the phone sex between service members and their spouses, significant others? So there SM is your harm to American citizens.

and for those with bad memories, here is where you can read the story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1
 
Socrtease said:
Bullshit, the 4th amendment applies to ALL searches regardless of the citizenship of the person being searched. Cops cannot bust down the door of a visiting German family and search their hotel room. Your knowledge of the 4th amendment is woefully lacking.
Click to expand...
That person would have a visa and therefore have certain rights. But we are talking about folks in a different country who are conversing with a citizen here, planning terrorist acts.
 
Southern Man said:
That person would have a visa and therefore have certain rights. But we are talking about folks in a different country who are conversing with a citizen here, planning terrorist acts.
Click to expand...
wrong again Constitutitard. I have represented illegal aliens in this country charged with crimes and had evidence suppressed because the police violated their rights under the fourth Amendment.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
false. numerous court cases bear out that the government has no legal liability for failure to protect you in any situation.




sorely lacking in constitutional knowledge. using 'plain text' of the constitution, show me where it says that.
Click to expand...

1. Straw man.
2. The plain reading is that "We the People" obviously means citizens of the US, not terrorists and not those waging war on us.
 
Socrtease said:
I want to know where in the Constitution it says that the 4th Amendment does not apply to foreign nationals on US soil. I have, in state court, several times had evidence suppressed under the 4th amendment while representing citizens of mexico in drug cases. Foreign nationals must also be advised of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney and the fact that their statements can be used against them. In other words all foreign nationals MUST be read their Miranda rights.
Click to expand...
Straw Man. We are talking about acts of war, not simple criminal activity.
 
Southern Man said:
1. Straw man.
Click to expand...
you brought it up, I just shut the door on it.
Southern Man said:
2. The plain reading is that "We the People" obviously means citizens of the US, not terrorists and not those waging war on us.
Click to expand...
and this is YOUR strawman, because I'm STILL referring to US citizens and visiting aliens here legally.

FYI, the 'we the people' thing only applies to us as sovereigns over the government we created, not who are the only ones that have rights.

You need to take a constitution/government class. preferably not one run by the state this time.
 
Southern Man said:
Straw Man. We are talking about acts of war, not simple criminal activity.
Click to expand...

No, SM. we're not. The PATRIOT ACT was initially created under the guise of fighting terrorism, but is now being applied to domestic criminal activity. Get off the whole terrorists crap because that's not what I'm referring to.
 
Socrtease said:
Is there anyone here that really thinks Franklin, Jefferson, Madison et al., would approve of what has become of our freedoms? Do you think a single one of those heros of liberty would approve the government listening in on you without a warrant? Searching your private messages without a warrant? I can't imagine one of them agreeing. I especially believe that Franklin would be outraged by what becomes our freedoms in the light of "9-11 changing everything."
Click to expand...
I can't imagine Franklin, Jefferson, Madison et al. attempting to prevent George Washington from spying on British Soldiers, at war with the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top