41–50 of 140 posts
This is about whether or not the FBI needs a warrant to see information that was already collected legally by another part of the gov't.
This is not about whether or not the gov't can collect this specific data in the first place, everyone involved seems to agree they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would be good, right up until it itself becomes as corrupted as the entities is prosecutes. The problem is that 'unconstitutional' is in the eye of the beholder. Take for example the classic "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Does this mean all gun control laws are unconstitutional or does it mean th…
Interpretation is an issue, just look at the way President Biden, and President Trump are being treated with regards to retention of classified documents. One is being prosecuted, the other is not. That's a very broad and public example, but the party in power typically does not prosecute its own.
On the subject of FBI/NSA/CIA insincerity, that makes me think of various post-9/11 debates often involving "ticking bomb" Hollywood scenarios. I'd like to reiterate that any kind of "OMG there's no time we must stop the NYC WMD ASAP" scenario already has a special exception route: Just commit the necessary spying/theft/torture crime, and plan for a Presidential pardon after explaining the extraordinary circumstances…
On the subject of FBI/NSA/CIA insincerity, that makes me think of various post-9/11 debates often involving "ticking bomb" Hollywood scenarios. I'd like to reiterate that any kind of "OMG there's no time we must stop the NYC WMD ASAP" scenario already has a special exception route: Just commit the necessary spying/theft/torture crime, and plan for a Presidential pardon after explaining the extraordinary circumstances…
The acid test for this is, if its OK for the FBI to spy on you as a citizen, then cool, we need the right to spy on the FBI agent and his family members -- why does he get to spy on me and my family members when there is zero reason for them to do that? I don't have anything to hide, and neither should he, so its all kosher right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Developed nations laugh at our checks and balances, because we believe in them bUt aT LeAst wE cAN tALK aBoUt It
Believe me it is not laughing in a good way, it is more a nervous laughter with a permanent sinking feeling in the stomach kind of way. The collective 'we' developed nations have our own set of problems, but broadly speaking from time to time self correct away from polarisation to hopefully enough of a degree. A unique kind of leadership needs to be allowed to grow in America to stear a less polarised course.
"A warrant requirement would amount to a de facto ban, because query applications either would not meet the legal standard to win court approval" I hope that we get that de facto ban. It would be good for society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would be good, right up until it itself becomes as corrupted as the entities is prosecutes. The problem is that 'unconstitutional' is in the eye of the beholder. Take for example the classic "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Does this mean all gun control laws are unconstitutional or does it mean th…
First off, you are too late for any comment about the text to hold any water. 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald settled that. It is an individuals right to keep and bear, not collective, never was. One term that came from Heller was “dangerous and unusual”, make note of the and. Next, well regulated never meant lots of regulations. It meant well trained and in good working order. 1800s Oxford dictionary.
> It meant well trained and in good working order.
In WV, I've seen people who barely knew how to handle hunting rifles, handle semi-automatique rifles. It's terrifying. Any hunter in my country seeing people handle firearms like those two would've reported them to have their license revoked and firearms locked until further training. (not that hunting permit/license are a big thing in the area btw, I think a lot are hunting kinda illegaly, but well, the woods are shared, and some really need basic training. ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would be good, right up until it itself becomes as corrupted as the entities is prosecutes. The problem is that 'unconstitutional' is in the eye of the beholder. Take for example the classic "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Does this mean all gun control laws are unconstitutional or does it mean th…
First off, you are too late for any comment about the text to hold any water. 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald settled that. It is an individuals right to keep and bear, not collective, never was. One term that came from Heller was “dangerous and unusual”, make note of the and. Next, well regulated never meant lots of regulations. It meant well trained and in good working order. 1800s Oxford dictionary.
There are good arguments that recent jurisprudence is not even justified from an Originalist perspective.
This is neither the time nor place, but your confidence is unfounded.
On the subject of FBI/NSA/CIA insincerity, that makes me think of various post-9/11 debates often involving "ticking bomb" Hollywood scenarios. I'd like to reiterate that any kind of "OMG there's no time we must stop the NYC WMD ASAP" scenario already has a special exception route: Just commit the necessary spying/theft/torture crime, and plan for a Presidential pardon after explaining the extraordinary circumstances…
That’s insincere. Even if you truly believe a catastrophe may happen you may not be willing to risk life in prison because the President doesn’t like your bosses boss.