91–99 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems the choice is between an Authoritarian left or a small-government right. I'll take small government over monolithic Authoritarianism any day.
Just a reminder, the small government right led by Rand Paul would dramatically expand military spending.. Http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a reminder, the small government right led by Rand Paul would dramatically expand military spending.. Http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/
But what president won't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The broadest possible reading of the essence of marriage is a single relationship entered into exclusively, voluntarily and with full awareness. An arranged marriage fails the voluntary test. A union involving a young child fails the awareness test. A unions that includes a non-human entity fails the voluntary and awareness tests. A union of three or more entities fails the exclusivity test. (Between two people there…
I have always wondered why the government is involved with marriage at all. Seems like it would be simpler if we set it up like this: Everyone pays the same taxes no matter what, and you better write an explicit will and testament to control who gets your stuff when you die/can pull the plug on your vegetative state. Ie. no special benefits/drawbacks for married people. If you want to get married, great---go find a c…
I've also often wondered why your gender is the state's business at all. One way to make the whole gay marriage thing a non-issue would be to say it's nobody's business what you have between your legs, except your doctor and your partner.
There are a couple of scenarios where it would be an issue, like if you go to jail and there are no mixed gender jails, but it's likely that a little bit of imagination would fix that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So let's ask you Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA? Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise, and being associated with it isn't a scandal which would tarnish a presidential candidate to any degree worth being concerned about - associating with the NSA is part of a senator's job. It would definitely be a president's job. What he should be concerned about is giving the appearance of makin…
> Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? Maybe if its employees engaged in intimidation of journalists, or lying under oath? Or would they need to burn a flag and strangle a bald eagle?
This. What was violated? What has been done that is illegal? Please, I beg you, give me something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? Maybe if its employees engaged in intimidation of journalists, or lying under oath? Or would they need to burn a flag and strangle a bald eagle?
> Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? This. What was violated? What has been done that is illegal? Please, I beg you, give me something.
The whole mass metadata surveillance program was illegal; what was violated was the Constitution, insofar as, even assuming that the government could Constitutionally act in the manner the executive did, such authority of the Government as a whole would rest on authorities granted to Congress under the Constitution, not to the executive independently.
Or have we already forgotten that the mass metadata surveillance program was ruled by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to not have been authorized by the Patriot Act provisions the NSA relied on for it? [0]
[0] https://www.epic.org/amicus/fisa/215/aclu/Opinion-2nd-Cir.pd...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? This. What was violated? What has been done that is illegal? Please, I beg you, give me something.
> What was violated? What has been done that is illegal? The whole mass metadata surveillance program was illegal; what was violated was the Constitution, insofar as, even assuming that the government could Constitutionally act in the manner the executive did, such authority of the Government as a whole would rest on authorities granted to Congress under the Constitution, not to the executive independently. Or have w…
> SENATOR TOM COTTON: The program has been approved 40 times by 15 different, independent federal judges based on 36 years of Supreme Court precedent. It has been approved by two presidents of both parties. [0]
[0] http://www.npr.org/2015/05/07/404994217/appeals-court-rules-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What was violated? What has been done that is illegal? The whole mass metadata surveillance program was illegal; what was violated was the Constitution, insofar as, even assuming that the government could Constitutionally act in the manner the executive did, such authority of the Government as a whole would rest on authorities granted to Congress under the Constitution, not to the executive independently. Or have w…
You didn't really answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer it at all. Because I'm not very bright, can you please spell out, in very simple terms, what right was violated? > SENATOR TOM COTTON: The program has been approved 40 times by 15 different, independent federal judges based on 36 years of Supreme Court precedent. It has been approved by two presidents of both parties. [0] [0] http://www.npr.org/2015/05…
Yes, you asked two questions, and I answered both of them:
Q. What was violated?
A. The Constitution, in that even if the bulk metadata collection program did not intrude on reserved rights and therefore could Constitutionally be done by the government, it would require authorization by Congress for the Executive Branch to have authority to do it, and, although the Executive has claimed it was authorized by Section 215, it was not, as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
Q. What was done that was illegal?
A. The entire bulk metadata collection program, for the reasons stated above.
> Because I'm not very bright, can you please spell out, in very simple terms, what right was violated?
The most fundamental political right on which the entire American system is based: the right to popular sovereignty, that is, the right to a government in which each part of the government exercises only those powers assigned to it by the people (in the case of the US, either directly through the Constitution, or through acts of other parts of government themselves acting through their Constitutional powers.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't really answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer it at all. Because I'm not very bright, can you please spell out, in very simple terms, what right was violated? > SENATOR TOM COTTON: The program has been approved 40 times by 15 different, independent federal judges based on 36 years of Supreme Court precedent. It has been approved by two presidents of both parties. [0] [0] http://www.npr.org/2015/05…
> You didn't really answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer it at all. Yes, you asked two questions, and I answered both of them: Q. What was violated? A. The Constitution, in that even if the bulk metadata collection program did not intrude on reserved rights and therefore could Constitutionally be done by the government , it would require authorization by Congress for the Executive Branch to have authority…
This is what I am confused about.
> SENATOR TOM COTTON: The program has been approved 40 times by 15 different, independent federal judges based on 36 years of Supreme Court precedent. It has been approved by two presidents of both parties.
I am not clear on this point. I am wondering if someone can explain to me where in the Constitution something was violated. According to the source I've linked a few times, I don't understand.
To be blunt, everyone seems to throw around "violated the Constitution" without ever citing the Constitution.