51–60 of 140 posts
"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.
This is literally what warrants and probable cause are for. Really shocking degree of impunity on display that he would have the balls to say this out loud, in public, on the record.
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.
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 proof is in the pudding! Since there have been no horrible events since the ultra-law was enacted, it must be working!
I'm sure it would end badly, but sometimes I fantasize about the U.S. citizens having a LEO that actively investigates / prosecutes government officials who violate the constitution.
"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.
This is literally what warrants and probable cause are for. Really shocking degree of impunity on display that he would have the balls to say this out loud, in public, on the record.
That's a technique often used by toxic people.
(Disclaimer: im no american)
I'm sure it would end badly, but sometimes I fantasize about the U.S. citizens having a LEO that actively investigates / prosecutes government officials who violate the constitution.
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…
>or does it mean that gun control laws are implicit in what it means to be a 'A well regulated Militia' People who use this argument are disingenuous because they wouldn't argue the same thing about press being limited to printing presses or speech being limited to the spoken word.
Whereas "well regulated militia" absolutely doesn't mean "random redneck with a gun fetish" - the spirit is also obvious here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"Settled" does not mean what you think it means. 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.
"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.
The fourth amendment is a de jure ban, and shouldn't a de jure ban be a de facto ban for law enforcement? The lawful way to make it de facto is to make it de jure first by repealing that pesky amendment.