Victory! Illegal Snooping Law Expires!

[ForksLaPush]

Quote:
I am actually quite curious as to why you said those two statements are wrong.
__________________
Well, for starters, try flying to Indonesia and demanding your US Constitutional rights.

Pat, if in the constitution, or anywhere else, you find support for the proposition that the US government has a duty to recognize constitutional rights of "the people" around the world, you'd better rethink the Ron Paul banner and sign up with the one world government folks.

 

[Pat H]

WA is using the "exceptions" ginned up by the SCOTUS via the Treaty power and admiralty law. Admiralty law is how the Coast Guard searches the boats of American citizens without a warrant. UnConstitutional, certainly, but try arguing most of the time under the barrel of a .50 M2 or a 90mm cannon.

Of course, neither grants additional power to the US government in actual fact, but the courts have granted additional powers not listed in the Constitution via the treaty clause and via the subterfuge of Admiralty law.

 

[Wildalaska]

WA is using the "exceptions" ginned up by the SCOTUS via the Treaty power and admiralty law.

"Ginned up?"

OK, right, I forgot..... YOU are the final authority on the constitution, my bad.

Perhaps when Ron Paul gets elected he can make YOU the Supreme Court.

WildireallytrynottojustburstoutlaughingsometimesAlaska ™

 

[Wildalaska]

WA, I'm aware of rulings to the contrary, but that doesn't make it right.

Well actually, since there are rulings to the contrary, you're wrong

WildherewegoagainAlaska ™

 

[nobody_special]

Under the facts presented, is listening into a conversation where one party is out of the US and "unreasonable" search and seizure.

Indiscriminately and without PC or even reasonable suspicion? I'd say that's pretty unreasonable.

Well actually, since there are rulings to the contrary, you're wrong

Sorry WA, I don't quite follow... are you saying that SCOTUS never makes a bad decision?

 

[zukiphile]

Just like Art I, Section 8, clause 1, correctly interpreted, is a general grant of power to the Congress that supercedes any of the remaining clauses and therefore there are no limits to Congressional power... At least, that's what FDR thought. Along with the Court in Wickard and Raich. Just to name a start and end point.

Far from it. Congressional powers are domestic, and checked and balanced by the other branches.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There is no constitutional impediment to the executive overseas, except the domestic power to defund, but that is a practical limit rather than a legal one.

 

[Wildalaska]

are you saying that SCOTUS never makes a bad decision?

no, but there batting average is better than anyones here

Indiscriminately and without PC or even reasonable suspicion? I'd say that's pretty unreasonable.

How many of you folks actually think the government does any type of investigation on a whim? If so, you know nothing about government.

WildletsgetrealAlaska ™

 

[nobody_special]

There is no constitutional impediment to the executive overseas

Really? Where in the Constitution does it say that? Where is it stated that no right is protected from the US government beyond the nation's borders? By your logic, it'd be fine and dandy (and legal) if the Bush administration murdered American citizens overseas.

no, but there batting average is better than anyones here

Ooh, judgmental much? How high is that horse, anyway?

How many of you folks actually think the government does any type of investigation on a whim? If so, you know nothing about government.

This isn't about investigations, this is about wiretapping and indiscriminate data gathering. Check out the EFF AT&T case.

Edited to add: if you think governments can't investigate on a whim, you haven't been paying attention to history.

 

[ForksLaPush]

Admiralty courts. How could they be unconstituional if created under
Article III? Section 2 gives congress the power to change it.

Not much chance of Ron Paul appointing you AG, Pat. First you want to police the world, now this.

 

[ZeroJunk]

until we have a Democrat in the White House, at which point the same folks who now say "what's the big deal?" are going to scream and holler "government abuse!" for the next four or eight years.

I've been through several of both and have yet to think that any of them weren't trying the best they could.

I think many people in this country really do not realize how much freedom we have lost.

I'm trying to think of something I want to do that I can't.

 

[zukiphile]

Really? Where in the Constitution does it say that?

If there were a constitutional impediment to the exercise of executive power overseas, it would be stated in the COTUS.

 

[nobody_special]

If there were a constitutional impediment to the exercise of executive power overseas, it would be stated in the COTUS.

Oh, I see. So by that logic, the only constitutional impediment to the exercise of executive power in the USA is also stated in the Constitution? :barf: I think you need to study your history... especially the arguments presented against the Bill of Rights.

The constitution grants powers to the government. It enumerates them. It is not a grant of all power with only certain exceptions.

 

[Wildalaska]

How high is that horse, anyway?

real high.

This isn't about investigations, this is about wiretapping and indiscriminate data gathering. Check out the EFF AT&T case.

really? So you know the REASONS behing investigations do you?. Enlighten us then.

Edited to add: if you think governments can't investigate on a whim, you haven't been paying attention to history.

Who says they can't...not me....but I say they don't. So...give us a historical example of a "whim" investigation.

WildiprefertosavetheskyisfallingforrealdamagenotifcomesAlaska ™

 

[Al Norris]

Far from it. Congressional powers are domestic, and checked and balanced by the other branches.

I'm sorry, it's now obvious you didn't get my sarcasm. I need to work on that, I suppose....

Under the facts presented, is listening into a conversation where one party is out of the US and "unreasonable" search and seizure.

Under the principle of a limited government constrained by the original meaning of the 4A, yes. It is an unreasonable search to permit a wiretap on a U.S. citizen who originated the conversation within the jurisdictional bounds of the Federal Government. (note: this assumes no warrant, no probable cause, no reasonable suspician: i.e. a fishing expedition)

Under the "general welfare" doctrine, no. (note to zukephile: See how such a doctrine of unlimited power "bleeds" over to the executive branch? FDR did it well, don't you think?)

 

[zukiphile]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zukephile
Far from it. Congressional powers are domestic, and checked and balanced by the other branches.

I'm sorry, it's now obvious you didn't get my sarcasm. I need to work on that, I suppose....

No apologies necessary. I am ordinarily at the other end of these misunderstandings.

Quote:
If there were a constitutional impediment to the exercise of executive power overseas, it would be stated in the COTUS.
Oh, I see.

I don't think so.

So by that logic, the only constitutional impediment to the exercise of executive power in the USA is also stated in the Constitution?

No. Citizens and states have rights against the government, and the role of government is limited, and the power of the executive of that government limited by courts and legislature.

There are no analogous limits to executive power against non-citizens overseas (citizenship involves domestic issues as well.)

I think you need to study your history... especially the arguments presented against the Bill of Rights.

We could all use more study.

The constitution grants powers to the government. It enumerates them. It is not a grant of all power with only certain exceptions.

And the power granted to the exec is limited domestically only. If you can find an overseas limitation on executive power in the COTUS, kindly share it with us.

 

[Wildalaska]

I'm trying to think of something I want to do that I can't.

I personally would like to walk naked down the street with a sign that says Bong Hits for Satan but I'm afraid someone would tell SWMBO


WildhowsthatforfreedomAlaska TM

 

[nobody_special]

No. Citizens and states have rights against the government, and the role of government is limited, and the power of the executive of that government limited by courts and legislature.

There are no analogous limits to executive power against non-citizens overseas (citizenship involves domestic issues as well.)

Your original statement did not specify citizens or non-citizens. It was:

There is no constitutional impediment to the executive overseas

Clearly that is not true.

Note that the FISA law in question here involves warrantless wiretaps where one party is a US citizen inside the USA.

And the power granted to the exec is limited domestically only.

Where in the Constitution is that written?

If you can find an overseas limitation on executive power in the COTUS, kindly share it with us.

The limitation isn't necessary, as the Constitution isn't a list of things the government can't do; rather, it is a list of things the government can do.

 

[Wildalaska]

Under the principle of a limited government constrained by the original meaning of the 4A, yes. It is an unreasonable search to permit a wiretap on a U.S. citizen who originated the conversation within the jurisdictional bounds of the Federal Government. (note: this assumes no warrant, no probable cause, no reasonable suspician: i.e. a fishing expedition)

With that, Al, lets say the call originates from the US to and non citizen in Dubai who has a telephone number listed on a laptop siezed at Tora Bora?

Thats OK I assume.?

WildisntitallamatterofdegreeAlaska TM

 

[nobody_special]

really? So you know the REASONS behing investigations do you?. Enlighten us then.

Didn't I just say that this isn't about investigations?

Again, check out the EFF case against AT&T, where all IP traffic was being diverted to an NSA tap. This was inside the USA.

Edited to add: if you think governments can't investigate on a whim, you haven't been paying attention to history.

Who says they can't...not me....but I say they don't. So...give us a historical example of a "whim" investigation.

Don't even go there; my wife is from China... the corruption there is unbelievable, and the police are largely unchecked. And didn't the Stasi basically investigate everyone? Sure, that's not the US, but it could be, and we've been treading the slippery slope a lot lately...

 

[nemoaz]

Wiretapping a US Citizen, who resides within and makes (originates) the call within the US, without a warrant, is a 4A violation. It isn't the intended foreign receiver who was violated. It is the originators 4A rights that were violated. My understanding of current law is that if the originator of the call is a foreigner, then any wiretap is lawful.

Your understanding is wrong. If it crosses the border, the only impediments are statutes. It doesn't matter whether it's a letter, a package, your car, an email, or a phone call. If it's coming in or going out, it's subject to search. It doesn't matter a whit where the mail or phone call originated.

If you continue to disagree, please cite a case that supports this "originator" theory.