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

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 321 posts

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#271

Post by dragonwriter »

malandrew wrote: post #264
dragonwriter wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious if this could be solved at the federal level via checks and balances provided at the state level. i.e. could a State legislate that it is illegal for candidate for US federal office to make false campaign claims when in that state. No, states can't enforce laws which would penalize federal officials for how they perform official duties. This is pretty well established Constitutional jurisprudence.

Examples please. I would like to read more. Plus, I wasn't suggesting that we create laws that penalize federal officials for how they perform official duties. I was suggesting that we penalize US citizens for things done prior to them becoming federal officials. I wasn't suggesting that we prosecute them for how they do their job but prosecute them for false claims made to help them achieve that job. How they did th…

> Examples please. I would like to read more.

Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U.S. 276 (1898).

> Plus, I wasn't suggesting that we create laws that penalize federal officials for how they perform official duties.

You specifically proposed making them liable for breach of contract under state law if their official acts while in office did not comport with statements made prior to their election. Which is, exactly, punishing them for how they perform official duties.

> I wasn't suggesting that we prosecute them for how they do their job but prosecute them for false claims made to help them achieve that job.

If you abandoned your suggested contract model and instead wanted to make false campaign claims themselves actionable (rather than punishing for future actions that don't comport with campaign claims under a contract theory), I'm pretty sure that the First Amendment would be the problem -- the Constitutional bar for punishing acts of speech, particularly political speech, is very high, and there's almost no way that something trying to regulate based statements of the speakers future political intentions is ever going to meet it.

> Their actions in office would be evidence to a crime, not the crime itself.

Oh, and you want this to be a crime, now, not a civil offense (like breach of contract would be)? That makes it even less likely to be viable.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#272

Post by arjie »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #215
bpatrianakos wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carlin was a great comedian and I'm a big fan but I'm not about to agree with this simply because the late great George Carlin said it. This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. In the end, this is what it is, a joke. If you don't vote you have done nothing to even try to elect someone who you, in good faith, believe will do what you deem the right thing. Yeah, politicians are…

>This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. I think he was pretty much dead on on this one. Swap Republican/Democrat politics for another any other choice and the "you have no right to complain" point makes less sense. Take a fictional encounter with a Doctor... Dr: You're going to get testicular cancer. Would you prefer it in the left testicle or the right? Me: I don't want ca…

In George Carlin's fantasy world:

Me: I don't want cancer in either testicle.

Dr: Congratulations. You are no longer at risk of cancer.

Seriously, if this were a real conversation and given that I'm going to get cancer (per first line), I'd pick one testicle and then have them remove it.

Meanwhile, you'd 'choose' not to get cancer and get it anyway, but without any control whatsoever.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#273

Post by nknighthb »

rayiner wrote: post #194
josephlord wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could still be regarded as a failure even if it is not a breach (and I hold no position on whether it is or isn't a breach). Electronic communications were clearly not considered by the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (understandably) but they were clearly trying trying to impose limits on the power of the state and I think the idea that the government should be allowed to track all of everyone'…

> Electronic communications were clearly not considered by the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights But they did have communications and publications, yet they didn't put anything in the Constitution suggesting you have a right to privacy with regards to those things. And it's not like bank records, insurance records, etc, didn't exist back then. In the founder's day, the police could have asked a barke…

> the police could have asked a barkeep for his records

Asked. Asked. And he could have said "come back with a warrant".

You continue to ignore the distinctions between:

* A party voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement.

* A party being coerced to cooperate with law enforcement by court order.

* A party being coerced to cooperate with law enforcement because law enforcement officers say so.

You keep insisting the government has a right to access any information someone reveals to a third party without a warrant, even if that third party did not intend to and does not wish to reveal it.

What precedent exists for this? If there is any at all (and this will be the third time I've asked you for it), does any of it pre-date 2001?

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#274

Post by dragonwriter »

rayiner wrote: post #267
dragonwriter wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but you missed the part that "common Defense" occurs in the preamble discussing purpose, not powers, and in a phrase limiting the purposes of the Taxing power. Its not itself an enumerated Congressional power (Congress does have more narrow enumerated defense related powers), so its irrelevant, in discussing it, that grants of power to Congress are generally plenary except within express limitations.

Look at another clause in that section: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States..." By your method of interpretation, this clause gives Congress the right to exercise legislative jurisdiction over D.C., but not the right…

> By your method of interpretation, this clause gives Congress the right to exercise legislative jurisdiction over D.C., but not the right to build the city.

No, it doesn't. Legislative jurisdiction over the territory itself includes the ability to build the city.

> You're comparing a power that's mentioned twice in the Constitution

The phrase is mentioned twice, but neither is a grant of power (one is a statement of the overall purpose of the Constitution, the other is expressly a limitation on the scope of another grant of power.)

There is no mention of "common defense" as a power anywhere in the Constitution.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#275

Post by baddox »

bpatrianakos wrote: post #269
baddox wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or don't vote, and take every opportunity to peacefully undermine the government by educating people, participating in alternate currencies and black markets, striving to be self-sufficient, etc.

I don't believe in this. It's not that it doesn't make sense it's that it seems like fighting a losing battle. To me it seems the only way to change things is from within. Trying to affect change the way you describe makes you the "other" and its easy for them to take steps to either make your life harder or shut you down completely. It's this same kind of mentality that I think makes the whole copyright issue a losi…

Don't get me wrong, you're definitely fighting a losing battle. Even (especially!) those who have utilized violence for their supposedly revolutionary goals are fighting a losing battle, and I'm suggesting foregoing violence.

But I completely disagree that the way to change things is from within. When has that ever actually worked? Sure, governments get overthrown from within, but that just results in another government (that may be better, but which also may be worse), and it doesn't change the attitude of the people toward the very concept of government, which in my opinion is the problem. Governments don't get smaller and more respecting of civil liberties. The United States is arguably the most valiant and educated attempt at creating a small and unobtrusive government, and in a very short period it has grown into arguably one of the largest governments ever to grace the Earth.

I think the only hope for lasting change is for the attitude of society toward government to change, and I do think that education and counter-economics are the best ways to show people that the roles that are supposedly only accomplishable by government in fact don't require government at all. That said, the likelihood of any measurable change happening in my lifetime is low, but I suppose that's just part of the human condition.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#276

Post by tomjakubowski »

nathan_long wrote: post #92
brown9-2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes the criticism of "But you said X!" irrelevant.

Oh, sure it does. "Technically, if you parse my statements with the help of a lawyer, I didn't say X at all!" That's extremely satisfying, isn't it?

You really don't need a lawyer to understand the difference between a wiretap and collecting telephone metadata.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#278

Post by rayiner »

dragonwriter wrote: post #274
rayiner wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at another clause in that section: "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States..." By your method of interpretation, this clause gives Congress the right to exercise legislative jurisdiction over D.C., but not the right…

> By your method of interpretation, this clause gives Congress the right to exercise legislative jurisdiction over D.C., but not the right to build the city. No, it doesn't. Legislative jurisdiction over the territory itself includes the ability to build the city. > You're comparing a power that's mentioned twice in the Constitution The phrase is mentioned twice, but neither is a grant of power (one is a statement of…

> No, it doesn't. Legislative jurisdiction over the territory itself includes the ability to build the city.

No more or less than the power to tax for the purpose of providing for the common defense includes the power to actually provide for the common defense.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#279

Post by malandrew »

dragonwriter wrote: post #271
malandrew wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples please. I would like to read more. Plus, I wasn't suggesting that we create laws that penalize federal officials for how they perform official duties. I was suggesting that we penalize US citizens for things done prior to them becoming federal officials. I wasn't suggesting that we prosecute them for how they do their job but prosecute them for false claims made to help them achieve that job. How they did th…

> Examples please. I would like to read more. Ohio v. Thomas , 173 U.S. 276 (1898). > Plus, I wasn't suggesting that we create laws that penalize federal officials for how they perform official duties. You specifically proposed making them liable for breach of contract under state law if their official acts while in office did not comport with statements made prior to their election. Which is, exactly, punishing them…

Given your understanding of law, how would you make it for an individual to make false claims during an election campaign (either in speech or in writing) and hold them accountable for actually carrying out the promises and claims they made publicly.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#280

Post by jbigelow76 »

admax88q wrote: post #263
jbigelow76 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is totally backwards and you have to do some mental gymnastics to believe it. I think he was pretty much dead on on this one. Swap Republican/Democrat politics for another any other choice and the "you have no right to complain" point makes less sense. Take a fictional encounter with a Doctor... Dr: You're going to get testicular cancer. Would you prefer it in the left testicle or the right? Me: I don't want ca…

This is a stupid comparison, and it contributes to the dumbing down of politics and political thought.

The analogy has nothing to do with political thought, it's to demonstrate the flawed logic that not making a choice somehow deprives one of the right to hold an opinion. No need to get testy.
Post reply on HN