F.U. right wingers. NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

[techumseh]

If President Chavez can follow his constitution, why can't President Bush?

[Kuciwalker]

He does?

[Dinner]

Chavez does follow the constitution... After he has it rewritten the way he likes it.

[Joseph]

The fight is not over yet.

[Dinner]

It should be. The constitution is clear.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Lord Avalon, while I resepect you for actually reading and knowing our constitution I can't believe you are bothering to respond to a person like Geronimo who's post consisted of "Derrrrrr, I don't know what is in the constitution so I will say stupid **** and pretend I am smart".

Since we are responding to such ignorant people let me just say that Geronimo needs to go back to grade school because he obviously either didn't take or failed his civics class.

What has gotten into you?

Re-read your original post! you claimed it would be obvious to anybody who has read the constitution that the presidents actions were in violation of it. The fact is that you need more than the constitution to make that determination. You also need familiarity with the interpretation of the constitution that has been established by judicial review.

Someone could read the constitution religiously every morning and commit it all to memory and still fail to recognize that the presidents actions were potentially illegal.

[Dinner]

What part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" do you not understand? That you ran around demanding quote from the constitution detailing which section was violated just points out to me that you haven't a clue what the constution says.

This is not black magic. Anyone who has actually read the constitution can tell this. Obvisously you have not read the constitution or else you did not understand it. This isn't rocket science.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin
What part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" do you not understand? That you ran around demanding quote from the constitution detailing which section was violated just points out to me that you haven't a clue what the constution says.

This is not black magic. Anyone who has actually read the constitution can tell this. Obvisously you have not read the constitution or else you did not understand it. This isn't rocket science.

You're apparently unconsciouly reading into the constitution the interpretation that has only been legally established outside the constitution through judicial review.

In general terms is a wiretap an unreasonable search or siezure?

I have always assumed that originally that word unreasonable was there for a reason. I think the original idea was that intrusive searches would need to be strictly controlled. A wire tapping need not be intrusive. In fact the individuals involved may not even ever become aware that there was a wire tapping.

However, the president could not use such an interpretation to defend his actions unless he were to assert that the now fundamental concept of judical review of the constitution were invalid. Naturally I recognize that such an assertion would be a hugely irresponsible and these days ludicrous approach to for a president to use.

I hope that clarifies my posts for you.

[Dinner]

That anyone could ask where it says warrentless searches are outlawed in the constitution tells me that person has never read the constitution. It is plain as day where it says it. Especially if someone has bothered to read the Federalist Papers where the people who wrote the Constitution spelled out exactly what they meant by the words they wrote. Warrentless searches were the primary thing they were concerned about when they wrote the fourth amendment.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It should be. The constitution is clear.

actually the constitution can be clear as mud. Look at the enormous number of constitutional debates that have occured throughout it's history. A semblance of clarity is only achieved by the mechanism of judicial review but even that mechanism has produced some flip flopping and contradiction of it's earlier interpretations.

Personally I have always found the constitution to be lacking in clarity in many high profile areas ever since I first actually read it.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That anyone could ask where it says warrentless searches are outlawed in the constitution tells me that person has never read the constitution. It is plain as day where it says it. Especially if someone has bothered to read the Federalist Papers where the people who wrote the Constitution spelled out exactly what they meant by the words they wrote. Warrentless searches were the primary thing they were concerned about when they wrote the fourth amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It prohibits unreasonable searches without a warrant quite clearly (and possibly could even be interpreted as prohibiting unreasonable searches even with a warrant).

It also places limits on the issuing of warrants.

It certainly does not as written prohibit warrantless searches. Again such an interpretation was established through judicial review.

I mean no offense but are you quite sure you yourself are actually reading the constitution and not simply reading into it what you know it has been shown to mean by reference to external sources such as the federalist papers and as established by the process of judical review as the law of the land?

[Kuciwalker]

Warrantless searches aren't prohibited by the Constitution...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Kuci is absolutely correct. Some examples of warrantless searches and/or seizures that have been deemed acceptable because they are reasonable.

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;

Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;

Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.

and don't even start talking about the IRS.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Kuci is absolutely correct. Some examples of warrantless searches and/or seizures that have been deemed acceptable because they are reasonable.

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;

Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;

Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.

and don't even start talking about the IRS.

I had no idea so many kinds of warrantless searches were regarded as allowed by the constitution. Surely at least some of those require warrants as a result of various pieces of federal legislation?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Geronimo
It prohibits unreasonable searches without a warrant quite clearly (and possibly could even be interpreted as prohibiting unreasonable searches even with a warrant).

It also places limits on the issuing of warrants.

That is absolutely retarded. If you want to understand the original intent of the people who wrote that sentence then read the Federalist Papers. They spell it out very clearly what they were thinking and what they were concerned about when they wrote the fourth amendment. THE issue they were dealing with was that the British searched houses without a warrent. They considered ANY searches without a warrent to be unreasonable. That is the context of the "unreasonable search and seizure" phrase. It specifically covered any persons, houses, papers, or effects. It is extemely easy for the courts to saym as they have in the past, that telephones are part of the house or effects of a person.

This is a slam dunk. There is no wiggle room.