Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 493 posts

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#121

Post by heimatau »

xxpor wrote: post #111
ColanR wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No regular people voted on the Constitution. Nitpick. The people who were sent as representatives from each state to help write and ratify the constitution were chosen by the people of that state. So technically, through representative democracy, the regular people did agree to the constitution because their representatives agreed on it.

Not the same thing IMO. Ignoring the issue of who was allowed to vote in the 1780s, there's a reason why the House was voted on by the people and the Senate the state legislatures. They recognized then the two groups have different interests.

> Colan R said: So technically, through representative democracy, the regular people did agree to the constitution because their representatives agreed on it.

>> xxpor said: Not the same thing IMO.

It actually is. This country is not a direct democracy. You are trying to reinterpret the structure of this Republic. The people through their votes uphold the structure every time they vote. It's a collective decision (social contract) to have our vote to have representation and we 'trust' (for lack of a better term) said Rep. to perpetuate the ability of governing.

[edited: accidental pasted something additionally]

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#122

Post by bsza »

ncmncm wrote: post #2

Now, when can we begin prosecuting the instigators? Presumably, after we have prosecuted those who ordered and participated in torture. (There is no statute of limitations on torture, is there?)

Seems there isn't

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#123

Post by lordnacho »

yyyk wrote: post #112
danenania wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that just the pardon power by itself is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the rule of law. It's like saying you're a pacifist... except for Tuesdays when you go on a weekly killing spree. I imagine that if we can survive and progress long enough to have real democracy and rule of law, our present system will be viewed a transitional period that, for all its very real improvements, was still…

There's no choice in a democracy but to have something like the pardon power. The reason is that we need protection also from the power of judicial branch, which is abusable like any branch with power. Not having a pardon power allows bad judges to throw anyone they don't like into jail with no recourse by anyone. In a democracy, all branches are checked by the others, and this is a necessary check on the judicial br…

Now suppose the kid who shot the people in Kenosha gets a pardon (I don't know about jurisdiction). What would be the check on presidential power in that case?

I think the pardoning thing is absolutely wrong in the US form, where it is used quite often. I think it's just crazy that you can do something illegal but if you can just talk one guy into it, you are off the hook.

The only case I see where it makes sense is that there's some corner case that everyone can agree on. But then it would involve more than just one guy on his last day in office.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#124

Post by ihumanable »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #81
krapp wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an eighteenth century document that can be maddeningly vague at times. A lot of people (on HN at least) seem to think it's a problem that the First Amendment only applies to Congress, letting companies like Google or Facebook censor speech as much as they like. The Second Amendment isn't even written in complete sentences, and we need a room full of scholars to figure out just what exactly they meant by "A well…

> Maybe we don't need the Electoral College? As someone who designs distributed systems for a living, I can say very confidently that the electorate system is a very good idea indeed. Why risk the entire system if a single small part is corrupted?

You could still let the states run the elections and remove the Electoral College.

All the redundancy with none of the downsides of the Electoral College.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#125

Post by lettergram »

ardy42 wrote: post #54
_8j50 wrote: post #6

You know what I don't get? There is no penalty for violating the highest law of the land (the constitution). How is it anymore than a suggestion or a guidline if government officials are not punished for violating it? And that is exactly how lae enforcement and intelligence community treat it. The US constitution needs lots of updates but this maybe the most important item -- manadatory prison terms for anyone acting…

> You know what I don't get? There is no penalty for violating the highest law of the land (the constitution). How is it anymore than a suggestion or a guidline if government officials are not punished for violating it? And that is exactly how lae enforcement and intelligence community treat it. It's because it can't reasonably work like that. At a certain point, defining punishments is moot, because there's no highe…

There’s a reason the founding fathers regularly stated things like

> the Tree of Liberty Must Be Refreshed with the Blood of Patriots and Tyrants - Thomas Jefferson

It’s because the final authority is the people of the country. The constitution is the social contract the government and people agreed to. If broken, the people have the obligations to correct it. That’s not to say some kind of rebellion necessarily. We have the justice system, Congress, senate, etc. when all that fails... that’s why we have the first, second, fourth, etc amendments. It makes it hard to enforce your will all at once when the people have those protections. Each would have to be slowly taken away to effectively take control .

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#126

Post by ihumanable »

Alupis wrote: post #80
sudosysgen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say the Second Amendment would need to be tweaked. Our gun control laws are honestly really in breach, and I think they are very sensible pieces of legislation, so we should make everything consistent.

The views of Californian's are not universally shared throughout the country.

You do realize that California's strict gun control laws were passed by Reagan right?

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#127

Post by mLuby »

Our society hasn't figured out how to punish organizations, whether businesses, NGOs, religious groups, or government agencies. Past a certain level, fines don't cut it—you need existential threats.

We need "prison" more often for misbehaving entities; that is, a prohibition on operating for the duration of the sentence.

"But what about all the people who will be unemployed?" Exactly, that's part of the incentive not to mess up.

"You can't shut down the NSA for a year, what about the commies and the terrorists?" Yes that would be bad, so make sure it won't happen. #Incentives

Nothing is too big to fail.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#128

Post by shkkmo »

heimatau wrote: post #115
xxpor wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Either our founding document matters as the backbone of our Laws or it doesn't. Nitpick, the constitution isn't a founding document. There was that whole Articles of Confederation thing. Congress isn't the final authority of if laws are constitutional or not. The courts are. Congress and the Supreme Court commonly disagree on the constitutionality of laws. What you're proposing is essentially a oligarchy lead by the…

>Nitpick, the constitution isn't a founding document. There was that whole Articles of Confederation thing. Let's totally 'nitpick' because the structure that our entire government is built upon the Constitution. "The first, The Articles of Confederation, was in effect from March 1, 1781, when Maryland ratified it. The second, The Constitution, replaced the Articles when it was ratified by New Hampshire on June 21, 1…

> No one is forcing you to be a US citizen ruled by Constitution, namely after an adult legal age.

Rejecting US citizenship is difficult and costly, this places it practically out of reach of most US citizens

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#129

Post by r00fus »

xxpor wrote: post #101
zucker42 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unconstitutional ex-post-facto punishment This point makes no sense. A properly passed amendment to the Constitution (presumably what is meant by update) can never be unconstitutional by definition. Furthermore, prohibiting ex-post-facto laws means you can't pass a law which criminalizes actions in the past. But courts don't pass laws, they interpret them. There's plenty of cases where courts interpret a law in a n…

>But courts don't pass laws, they interpret them. This is a common misconception. Courts don't pass statutes , but they certainly create law. Nearly every ruling from any sort of appeals court answers a question of law which is then binding on everyone under the jurisdiction of said court. This is the essential difference between a common law and civil law system. There are still rulings in the US that cite old Engli…

Only in a country with jurisprudence. Not all countries hold that court decisions require following court decisions to respect previous decisions (ie, legal precedent).

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#130

Post by bacondude3 »

ihumanable wrote: post #126
Alupis wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The views of Californian's are not universally shared throughout the country.

You do realize that California's strict gun control laws were passed by Reagan right?

So? Who's responsible for passing a bad law doesn't make the law not-bad.
Post reply on HN