Let's rename the Fourth Amendment to the Paul/LaRouche Amendment

[MannyGoldstein]

Americans need to know what the Fourth Amendment is all about. They need to know if they stand for the Fourth Amendment, they stand for the Pauls and for LaRouche.

The Fourth is a menace to our way of life. Time for it to go!

Who's with me on this?

Regards,

Third-Way Manny
(writing from an undisclosed transit zone)

[DirkGently]

1. I have heard recently that only loonies & RW Libertarians support the 4th.

And here I had always thought it was one of our better Amendments.

[idwiyo]

2. I am! Down with 4th! In UK we don't have Constitution and we are just fine!

Third-Way Loyal Royalist Idwiyo

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Long Live The Poodle and GCHQ!

[sabrina 1]

6. Lol! Lucky you, no old quaint document like the Constitution to worry your beautiful mind

about!

[idwiyo]

8. We kind of do have... What is it called... Oh, Magna Carta! But who gives a shit! It's like ANCIENT!

Really, you lads should follow our way and get rid of the shackles of the irrelevant ancient superstitions!

Third-Way Loyal Royalist Idwiyo

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Long Live The Poodle and GCHQ!

[sabrina 1]

9. Oh yes, the Magna Carta, which we based some of our nonsense on.

How's that working for you guys over there? Did anyone show it to the Poodle while he was telling all those Patriotic Lies, catapulting the Propaganda for his bosses over here?

[idwiyo]

20. Hey! Them are not lies if they are for our own good and prosperity of military industrial complex,

blessed be our warmongers!

There were SOME troublemakers but we got rid of them fast!
One killed himself, if you know what I mean
Most of them we just jailed, damn them terrorist sympathisers!
Didn't get all of them, but not for the lack of trying!

Much easier to do it here though, without that 'constitutional' nonsense! If only we could get out of EU so we don't have to be shackled by that commie manifesto they call Declaration Of Human Rights!


Third-Way Loyal Royalist Idwiyo

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Long Live The Poodle and GCHQ!

[Dragonfli]

26. The poodle across the puddle is one of our best employees.

We need loyal royalist allies if the utopian ideals of Reagan/Thatcher are ever going to be fully realized.

I salute the poodle across the puddle and the loyalists such as yourself that are giving Empire a new purpose and vigor under the multi corporate banner of the lords of this new American century!

[Art_from_Ark]

65. Isn't that supposed to be "United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Northern Ireland"? Or has the Irish Republic been re-assimilated?

[idwiyo]

66. It's an eventual goal, and its for their own good!

PS I was sarcastic.

[Art_from_Ark]

68. So, Ryan's daughter was right!

Or was that her father?

[kenny blankenship]

28. *Used to* base our law on, you mean

NDAA renders their tatty ol' Big Chart obsolete and void on this side of the pond. A Federal court placed an injunction on the provision of the NDAA which nullified the 800 year old principle of habeas corpus, but an Appellate Court stayed that injunction at the behest of the Obama Administration, and the Supreme Court has refused to vacate that stay. If you can get out, the best advice is to stay on vacation. Your government claims the right to throw you into a military run prison camp like Gitmo if it wants, and it can keep you there for as long as it likes without a trial. It is not about to give up this claim anytime soon and even an adverse SCOTUS ruling might not deter it.

[sabrina 1]

58. Thanks, too bad so many people defend this. Blind

partisanship on both sides allowed this happen. I have a feeling more Americans than Snowden are going to be seeking political asylum elsewhere.

Habeas Corpus?

[zeemike]

16. Long live the poodle

[kentuck]

3. Who needs it?

Our government will protect us.

[HardTimes99]

4. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing

to fear."

A sentiment uttered in various iterations by Senator Lindsay Graham and Joseph Goebbels, among others.

[kenny blankenship]

54. "If you think you have nothing to hide- "

"a good waterboarding session will no doubt jog your memory" - James Clapper, torture advocate.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Ralph Nader wrote the 4th amendment.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

14. It was originally going to be the 7th Amendment, but Nader totally fucked with the feng shui of the

Bill of Rights. That bastard.

[winter is coming]

31. DUzy! n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

64. definitely deserves to be a DUzy!

[HardTimes99]

15. That, my friend, is an 11th-dimensional

"Oh, Snap!" comment.

I stand in awe!

[liberal_at_heart]

63. I almost spit my drink on my screen! Good one.

[ProSense]

7. The best part of this

"Let's rename the Fourth Amendment to the Paul/LaRouche Amendment"

...is it will show up in Google with the other Paul/Fourth Amendment links.

[sabrina 1]

24. Worse, it will probably be 'collected and stored' by the NSA for future use.

Along with Third Way Manny's email and ISP data. And everyone else's in this thread. Then, when they 'get' a number, or an email address, they can scan the data, quickly of course so they don't see what we are all talking about, to try to match it to one of the millions of other numbers they have 'collected and stored'.

Here's my stupid question. If they 'have a number' why don't they just do a reverse phone # check, then go get a legal warrant, showing probable cause for that ONE individual, to get access to HIS/HER phone records and they would have all the info they need. But noooo, they have to do things the hard way!

And they are not our records anyhow, right? Bank records, are they our records anymore? Enquiring minds want to know how to navigate the Surveillance State now that it is upon us.

[stonecutter357]

10. The best part of this

I will not vote for a Libertarian EVER!

[Dragonfli]

11. Are those two still trying to pass that crazy Amendment?

The fourth will never pass, it is a fevered dream in the mind of that crazy linden and Ron couple.

It is nothing but gibberish about warrants and privacy, CT stuff.

If God wanted a fourth Amendment in his government he would have made it the second amendment!!



Conspiracy nuts and "rights" next thing you know they will claim voting is a right rather than just a reward.

[HardTimes99]

18. Bravo! (or Brava!) - nt

[zeemike]

12. I see Third Way Manny is back.

I knew he could not stay away long....even if some here ate his lunch.
Be safe in that undisclosed transit zone...and don't take any plane rides from some South American leaders.

Yes the forth must go....I am always suspicious of amendments when they are numbered...and 4 is a right wing number.

[East Coast Pirate]

30. Yes, if the president of another country has nothing to fear

he should have no problem with his plane being grounded and search.

Oh that's right, that never happened to that parasite bastard. Wink wink...

[stonecutter357]

13. socialist country?

a libertarian living in a socialist country?

[msanthrope]

19. State-controlled media ownership, too. It's a great place for Snowden. nt

[stonecutter357]

23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Venezuelan_intelligence_agencies

The General Counterintelligence Office is the military intelligence agency of Venezuela.He should be right at home.

[nashville_brook]

17. down with the tyranny of privacy!

[LibDemAlways]

21. Manny , you give the public too much credit. How many

Murcans of all political stripes have any idea who Paul and LaRouche are or what the amendment says? Percentage wise more could probably name the latest American Idol winner. The dumbing down of the US knows no bottom boundary.

[Hatchling]

22. I've even seen a few newbies claim that the "elite" founding fathers

were guilty of espionage, acting like teabaggers. The new talking point is trying to take down the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3175036

This wasn't the only post trying to smear the founding fathers and therefore the constitution and the Declaration of Indepemdence by association.

I mean, really, these documents were written by the elite and greedy teabaggers of their day!

[sabrina 1]

27. There you go. The authors of the quaint old documents our elected leaders swear to defend and

protect were a bunch of Libertarian Teabaggers! And it took us this long to find out. George Bush, to give credit where it is due, DID try to tell us about this, he wanted to get rid of it, but we were very mean to him and imho, owe him a huge apology. He was only trying to protect us after all.

So, what should our elected leaders swear to defend and protect from now on, now that we know the truth?

[Egalitarian Thug]

41. Please. Elite, greedy, teabagging, TERRORISTS of their day.

[ProSense]

25. Rand Paul...Calls For Jailing People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’

Rand Paul, Supposed Defender Of Civil Liberties, For Jailing People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/

"Let's rename the Fourth Amendment to the Paul/LaRouche Amendment"

Yeah, I know it's sarcasm.

[AgingAmerican]

56. May as well toss L Ron Hubbard in there too

...for good measure.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Or drone-killing someone robbing a liquor store in America.

Rand Paul, a piece of work if there ever was one.

[SoapBox]

29. Uh...no.

Ridiculous.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Well done, Manny ...

another post that boils this matter down to the absurd simplicity of your side of the NSA argument. To argue that this NSA thing is an unlawful infringement of the 4th Amendment betrays a lack of understand of the 4th Amendment, a complete ignoring of the facts that we do know and is to reside in a place that doesn't exist.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

33. In that case, please give us a true understanding of the 4th Amendment

And let me know how the NSA's spying meshes with the 4th.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. I know this will be wasted; but ...

All rights ... whether established through law or the BoR are subject to conditions. In this case, the NSA was acting under both Judicial and Congrssional Oversight; both of which establish the programs legality and constitutionality, as a matter of law.

Whether Congress actually was providing that over-sight and/or whether you agree with or believe that the FISA Court is a sham is irrelevant, as to the legality/constitutionality of the NSA activity.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. No, not wasted.

I appreciate the reply, although I disagree with you. I don't believe NSA's actions can be squared with the 4th Amendment, secret interpretations of the 4th notwithstanding.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. I understand that many, many people disagree ...

But, we must ask ourselves, is there Congressional Oversight and is there Judicial Oversight? Oversight, not effective oversight.

If the answer is "Yes"; then the program is, both, legal and constitutional, as a matter of law.

If, however, you wish to make the argument that Congressional/Judicial Oversight is ineffective, that is a political question ... not a constitutional question.

{Edited to add: And this is where and why the "paul-bot"/libertarian" comparison comes in ... for their simplistic understanding of the constitution.}

[TheKentuckian]

49. How does any level of judicial and congressional oversight make the the programs constitutional?

I guess just as important a question is why.

There is no provision of the constitution that asserts that there are exceptions to the clauses in it as long as there is some arguable (or even definitive) oversight from the legislative and judicial branches.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. To your first question ...

just one ... and if challenged, another 3 layers are available in through the Federal Court system.

As to your observation:

There is no provision of the constitution that asserts that there are exceptions to the clauses in it as long as there is some arguable (or even definitive) oversight from the legislative and judicial branches.

That is absolutely true; but it is absolutely NOT the way the SCOTUS has interpretated the application ... since Marbury v. Madison. All constitutional rights granted through the B of Rights are subject to exceptions ... in this case, the Congressional Oversight provision is the exception that extends/enhances the Judicial Oversight that has been there from the program's inception.

[TheKentuckian]

59. I still don't see the basis of the exception. Are you saying the law itself defines an operative

exception to the US constitution.

If so are you accepting that tin pot logic?

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Yes ...

the law itself defines the operative exception to the U.S. Constitution ... and that's the way we have operated since the 1800s.

Yes ... I accept that "tin pot logic", as that is how democracies work.

[TheKentuckian]

62. There is no point at all if that is the game. What is democratic about overriding fundamental law on

a whim?

It is difficult to amend the constitution and it lays out the form and limits on government while enumerating certain powers and rights. If you make that secondary then you have essentially a coup, changing the form of government and redefining rights to favors from the state.

What in the world do you think the benefit of such an arrangement is? Double points in an era of corporate capture of government with money as speech and pushing toward feudal levels of wealth disparity.

Bush disease in full swing, the love of the constitution is "just a gawddamn piece of paper logic".

Why because it is easy. Easy as pie unless it is for the peasants, then you bet your ass you'd best jump all those hoops and then they'll get some fuckers to pass some "self executing exception" anyway.

Democracy? Bullshit, that is a plutocracy on a good day with the formula we have.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. That/This has been "the game" ...

since Marbury v Madison. And no "fundamental laws" have been changed on a whim; rather, the "fundamental laws" are changed through a fully democratic process. That's why, in the instant case, the Patriot Act (which I hate) was drafted and voted on, by our elected representatives and voted on and re-authorized (with tightening changes) by our elected representatives.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. True. "Probable cause" had a different meaning in the 1700s

Can you please remind us all of what that meaning actually was?

Thanks!

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Actually ...

it absolutely did. Every legal concept has evolved since the 1700s.

[frylock]

42. or in this case, devolved.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Okay ...

but that is the political process that we find ourselves.

And the solution is political; not some romantic notion of constitutional "I wishes", that aligns many here with the "paul-bots/libertarians."

[AgingAmerican]

48. Nothing we believe aligns with the Paul Bots/Libertarians

We hold our 4th amendment beliefs for different reasons. We believe in individual freedom and privacy. They believe in anarchistic 'freedom' for businesses, who they believe should hold sway over individuals. Radically different positions.

The fallacy that you are applying is known as 'false equivalency' and it is used heavily by propagandists in right wing and Libertarian circles. A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, when they are not equal.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Point taken ...

and I apologize.

I just wish that liberals/progressive arguing the sanctity of the 4th Amendment (just as the "Paul-bot/Libertarians are) would spend half as much time/energy drawing the distinction that you make here and directing it at the "Paul-bot/Libertarians", as they do castigating Democrats as being "authoritarian enablers."

[AgingAmerican]

44. Right, only the guilty have something to hide

Because we all know that privacy has a negative motive.

[1StrongBlackMan]

45. Where have I said ...

anything that resembles your post? That my friend is called a strawman.

[AgingAmerican]

46. You are essentially calling privacy unconstitutional

Cuz the teabagger congress and Teabagger Supreme Court sez it's true.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. No ...

I am saying that the NSA program is legal and constitutional, as a matter of law, because that's what the law says.

While you can argue that the law is unjust (and I might agree); but that is NOT a constitutional question, it is a political question that must be addressed politically.

[AgingAmerican]

50. You are defending the patriot act

n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. I am defending the rule of law ...

the basis of our political system, while advocating change within the strictures of that system.

[AgingAmerican]

55. I understand where you are coming from

But I believe that bad laws should not be defended, they should be castigated and exposed. As Obama said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant".

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. Agreed ...

I am not defend the law ... I'm advocating that people not throw the baby out with the bath water.

If you (in the generic sense) have a problem with the law ... don't cast your argument in romantic notions of "freedom" or inaccurate constitutional "arguments", as is being done ... use the tools that can effect change.

[Divernan]

35. Manny, thanks for all you do - keep on testifying!

And when some reply to you with hate and vitriol, remember this:

“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”

― George Orwell, A Collection of Essays

[felix_numinous]

39. Those worthless documents

were written on hemp, all those long haired guys were likely stoned anyway!! Pffff!

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. that's right-the Communist were behind the 1st & 5th amendment -the 4th is the Paulbot/Larouche gang