General Discussion

randome

(34,845 posts)

149. We have had 230 years of defining what the Constitution means.

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 01:51 PM

Dec 2013

You can say 'Nothing trumps the Constitution' but that's ignoring the centuries of interpretations and nuances that have add and subtracted to the law of the land.

It's a glib phrase that means different things to different people.

That's why we have a judicial branch of government in the first place -to point out where laws may and may not go.

You want to change the law, go ahead, it's no skin off my nose. But to say that metadata collection is against the Constitution is simply ignoring reality that it is currently not against the Constitution.

And if you're this upset about phone data, imagine how upset you'll be when you learn what the IRS has on you!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

217 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

BREAKING: Federal judge rules NSA data gathering on all US telephone calls is unconstitutional [View all] WillyT Dec 2013 OP

That will stand until it gets to the SCOTUS. I sure wish we could eliminate that 5-4 sinkingfeeling Dec 2013 #1

we could grasswire Dec 2013 #10

except Obama is in favor of this unconstitutional collection pipoman Dec 2013 #13

Third-party business records don't even require a warrant. That's been the case for a long time, now randome Dec 2013 #25

This is the "randome" and universal collection of personal data about nearly all Americans. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #50

Did Snowden have access to metadata records? randome Dec 2013 #57

We have seen only a tiny percentage of the documents that Snowden has provided to the press. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #62

Even the NSA doesn't know everything Snowden took so of course none of us do, either. randome Dec 2013 #71

The FISA warrant was devastating to all, especially lawyers, who have taken JDPriestly Dec 2013 #101

Devastating? ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #143

WWII was a real war. We are not facing off with major world powers. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #163

The Constitution doesn't say "(*) Void during 'real' war" ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #177

I hope that the Supreme Court clarifies the law on this. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #183

Call me a Democrat, but I trust them more than I do private companies ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #189

As I explained, when it comes to your constitutional rights, the chilling of your rights, of your JDPriestly Dec 2013 #196

Your RIGHT to privacy only extends to those things you keep private ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #204

I'm a 70 year old woman, not a porn fan,and I am thinking about the constitutional right to privacy. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #205

JD, you're arguing against precident ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #206

I would love to hear your response to my discussion of your right to privacy with regard to the JDPriestly Dec 2013 #207

Abuses in the courtroom are almost entirely... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #208

The Bill of Rights was written in language that prohibited wrongful things that had actually JDPriestly Dec 2013 #209

George Washington spent over 13% of his budget on intelligence ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #210

Today's hypo is tomorrow's reality. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #211

I have to add that it isn't the proponents of privacy that have to prove that they have the right JDPriestly Dec 2013 #212

Well you may end up getting your wish... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #213

Any and all federal judges should be handling surveillance cases. It shouldn't be a small group JDPriestly Dec 2013 #214

Well, it *is* that way ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #215

The Constitution guarantees public trials. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #216

I admire your tenacity. You fight for the authoritarian state as if you thought rhett o rick Dec 2013 #112

Pointing out the facts as I see them is not 'fighting for' anyone. randome Dec 2013 #116

Well as long as you are comfortable in your denial bubble, who am I to criticize. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #118

You really think the NSA should be concerned with economic issues? randome Dec 2013 #139

Again you are JAQing. Just Asking Questions. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #164

I bet you enjoyed the 60-minutes show propagandizing the NSA. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #119

what you do is NOT pointing out facts. It's an extraordinary illustration of confirmation bias cali Dec 2013 #131

The facts are that collection of third-party business records is legal. randome Dec 2013 #133

thank you ever so for this post which is exactly what I refer to as your confirmation bias, dear cali Dec 2013 #140

The 'real fact' is that one judge since 2006 says he doesn't think it's legal. randome Dec 2013 #145

Me & Joe Biden disagree: bvar22 Dec 2013 #144

It's a desperate denial. A fear of reality. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #169

I admire your silly extremist rhetoric... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #147

Only white people of Libertarian ideology are concerned with this? neverforget Dec 2013 #155

I never said "Only"... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #158

Let's take this paragraph apart shall we? neverforget Dec 2013 #160

I thank you for your post. You prove what we are up against. You conservatives call us/me rhett o rick Dec 2013 #167

You're most "welcome"... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #188

Of course you are a Democrat. Anyone can make that claim. I think Penny Pritzker calls her rhett o rick Dec 2013 #190

Rhett.... just like Teabaggers, you imagine yourself an expert at things you have no clue about... ConservativeDemocrat Dec 2013 #192

So you just couldnt help slipping into the ridicule. I guess when all else fails... rhett o rick Dec 2013 #193

You don't need to have a Juris Doctorate in Constitutional Law Hissyspit Dec 2013 #195

You don't need a JD in law to judge constitutionality. NuclearDem Dec 2013 #198

Not at war with the 1%? What fucking rock have you been living under? NuclearDem Dec 2013 #199

Wrong. Nothing trumps the Constitution which is the law of the land. What you are saying is utterly sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #146

We have had 230 years of defining what the Constitution means. randome Dec 2013 #149

You've just been over-ruled in a real court. So I'm not concerned about your opinion on this right sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #151

'...egregious violations of people's rights...' randome Dec 2013 #154

Yes, as a victim of it, I am outraged. I don't like peeping toms and last I heard, it is illegal to sabrina 1 Dec 2013 #181

Obama favors this garbage. woo me with science Dec 2013 #24

It's clear 'they' have 'somethin' on him. n/t Amonester Dec 2013 #128

Or it's clear he was a corporate Trojan horse all along. woo me with science Dec 2013 #153

Or he might not have all the power some seem to think. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #191

Oh, I doubt he does. woo me with science Dec 2013 #197

Penny Pritzker. nuff said. nm rhett o rick Dec 2013 #200

Confident a higher court will strike down this ruling on the guise that national security indepat Dec 2013 #92

Let the games begin. Ranchemp. Dec 2013 #2

What happened to Feinstein? painesghost Dec 2013 #65

This Californian doesn't give a two bit damn about what Senator Feinstein thinks. Jack Rabbit Dec 2013 #82

Neither does this Californian give a rats ass regarding DiFi's thoughts on the time of day 2banon Dec 2013 #103

I'm Sure NSA Will Blackmail A Higher Judge billhicks76 Dec 2013 #97

Yep. If it was about terrorism they would triple their efforts at standard law enforcement GoneFishin Dec 2013 #134

And we thought J Edgar Hoover was bad? Ranchemp. Dec 2013 #135

Our Country Is So Stupid To Have Allowed This billhicks76 Dec 2013 #171

K & R malaise Dec 2013 #3

He ignores the FISA judge approval and also previous rulings on third-party records. randome Dec 2013 #4

The FISA courts that have admitted they were merely rubber stamping NSA's bullshit? riderinthestorm Dec 2013 #5

You should know by now how that argument goes. randome Dec 2013 #7

I understand your point buts let's face it.... Logical Dec 2013 #17

MUCH greater transparency and oversight is always preferable. randome Dec 2013 #18

Where did the judge say that there has been no judicial review? Vattel Dec 2013 #41

"...for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval..." randome Dec 2013 #48

FISA Ignores the Scope of Previous Desicions SpcMnky Dec 2013 #35

The debate occurred in 1979 when third-party business records were ruled... randome Dec 2013 #44

Oh, that's right hueymahl Dec 2013 #58

Scope was not addressed SpcMnky Dec 2013 #72

Debate should NEVER end. But I sincerely doubt this goes any further than an appeal and reversal. randome Dec 2013 #76

Gotcha SpcMnky Dec 2013 #78

You don't doubt, you obviously hope. JackRiddler Dec 2013 #201

Klayman vs. Obama appeal is nearing a decision veveto Aug 2014 #217

The previous decisions on third-party records were decided on very different facts. JDPriestly Dec 2013 #55

+1 hueymahl Dec 2013 #59

very well said, JDP 2banon Dec 2013 #105

When someone doesn't want to understand Aerows Dec 2013 #162

It's interesting, isn't it? I mean sort of. 2banon Dec 2013 #176

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on U4ikLefty Dec 2013 #182

There's an apt quote if ever there was one. Upton Sinclair should be on the list of "must reads".. 2banon Dec 2013 #187

Now, this quote was worth logging in to give a woo me with science Dec 2013 #202

Excellent news. K&R pa28 Dec 2013 #6

There you go!! Great work!! Thank you for me and all those who don't know you've done this for them! ancianita Dec 2013 #8

But how will the GOP blackmail anyone dickthegrouch Dec 2013 #9

It's irrelevant. The GOP is a tool not the power. They are not unlike Hitlers Brown Shirts. rhett o rick Dec 2013 #168

3 things really stick out here Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #11

A Federal judge, or a FISA pipoman Dec 2013 #19

A FISA judge is a Federal judge appointed to the FISA court. Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #23

i have a hunch a FISA judges first pipoman Dec 2013 #51

This judge is basically ProSense Dec 2013 #22

Klayman: Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #32

Klayman is creepy-freaky. He was a nut job about Bill Clinton, too. nt MADem Dec 2013 #40

Metadata doesn't need a warrant SCOTUS ruled in 1979 in Lee v Maryland that metadata wasn't okaawhatever Dec 2013 #28

Read the judge's opinion in this case. Vattel Dec 2013 #46

I was responding to her statement about warrants being in place for metadata not referring okaawhatever Dec 2013 #49

The warrant was not specific enough. Th1onein Dec 2013 #31

okaawhatever's post, right above yours, is correct, though. randome Dec 2013 #36

If it wasn't specific enough, then the judge shouldn't have approved it. Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #38

Rubber stamping warrants that demand ALL of the records from a telecom isn't Th1onein Dec 2013 #43

everyone's got their own books Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #47

The answer to your question is . . . hueymahl Dec 2013 #60

I am impervious to personal attacks Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #75

Come on, Cali.....let's be logical here..... Th1onein Dec 2013 #104

The metadata is stored in a 'black box' type system. randome Dec 2013 #117

Ah yes. Via the authoritarian state. Some really want to let their authoritarian rhett o rick Dec 2013 #113

And who appoints the FISA judges? Chief Justice John Roberts, conservative W appointee. neverforget Dec 2013 #109

Important points. But the link goes to a Huffpo title different from the OP: freshwest Dec 2013 #115

This was ruling without ruling. He didn't say it IS unconstitutional. DevonRex Dec 2013 #120

Oh NOES! MNBrewer Dec 2013 #12

Like the government cares about the law. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #14

A small victory Dopers_Greed Dec 2013 #15

Methinks the judge missed 60 minutes Bragi Dec 2013 #16

hee hee..good one. Jefferson23 Dec 2013 #20

I slept like a baby after seeing that. progressoid Dec 2013 #69

Yep, it is! n/t Jefferson23 Dec 2013 #21

I wouldnt start bouncing for joy just yet WillyT. cstanleytech Dec 2013 #26

knr Th1onein Dec 2013 #27

And in other breaking news... Glassunion Dec 2013 #29

Fuck Yeah!!! libodem Dec 2013 #30

Thank you Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #33

+1000000 woo me with science Dec 2013 #37

For what, being traitors to this country? No thanks. I think changes need to be made to the NSA okaawhatever Dec 2013 #54

lol Jefferson23 Dec 2013 #56

Exposing a crime is not a crime. grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #67

What a silly thing to say. Plenty of crimes expose other crimes (nt) Recursion Dec 2013 #107

Exposing the pattern and practice of a series of crimes committed by corrupt officials is your duty. grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #124

And there are legal and illegal ways to do it (nt) Recursion Dec 2013 #126

And what is the 'legal' way to do it? AgingAmerican Dec 2013 #137

No, it just doesn't generate the instant results Snowden wanted. Recursion Dec 2013 #138

Imagine a shooter was killing people in a school and you tripped him up with your foot, so he grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #156

Stealing is a crime... Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2013 #136

Not reporting the crimes he was witnessing could make him an accessory after the fact: grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #157

My point is that he didn't expose the crimes properly... Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2013 #159

Snowden and Greenwald Aerows Dec 2013 #165

I understand your point. I don't see that there was a proper channel for grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #166

I think we have a few Senators and Representatives Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2013 #178

lol SpcMnky Dec 2013 #180

Is it? Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2013 #186

only with certain organizations, it is... SpcMnky Dec 2013 #179

Not Pancho Villa? I'm so disappointed. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2013 #68

The Pancho Villa Comment Had Me Cracking Up HangOnKids Dec 2013 #142

More like an American patriot warning that tyranny is comming SpcMnky Dec 2013 #84

No, you're doing it wrong... SidDithers Dec 2013 #129

well played nt arely staircase Dec 2013 #161

LOL, they fooled you. You must be afraid!! Afraid so need protection. LOL, cracks me up. n-t Logical Dec 2013 #96

Yes, thank-you to a couple of patriots... polichick Dec 2013 #73

+1 Poll_Blind Dec 2013 #80

Bingo! LittleBlue Dec 2013 #86

Snowden did not... adavid Dec 2013 #174

K&R! G_j Dec 2013 #34

K&R Long overdue. idwiyo Dec 2013 #39

This should bring the badge-sniffers out in force AngryAmish Dec 2013 #42

Usual suspects already making an appearence hueymahl Dec 2013 #61

The fact that he is not tells us volumes AngryAmish Dec 2013 #64

Good, I hope this is upheld and authoritarian heads explode everywhere. Zorra Dec 2013 #45

Good, time to get this over with uponit7771 Dec 2013 #52

You should change your headline Vattel Dec 2013 #53

Non HufPo link hootinholler Dec 2013 #63

So who goes to jail? grahamhgreen Dec 2013 #66

You're thinking this is a country of laws and justice. polichick Dec 2013 #74

The Headline Sounds like Red Meat for the RW Blogosphere, & not much more ... brett_jv Dec 2013 #70

Nice summary Cali_Democrat Dec 2013 #79

Only for the politics is a sport fans does it come off like that. SpcMnky Dec 2013 #88

Translation : You agree with the dragnet collection of metadata Penicilino Dec 2013 #132

That's awesome! blackspade Dec 2013 #77

Not a problem...we get England or Australia to do it for us and in return HereSince1628 Dec 2013 #81

Don't worry. The Supreme Court will be government lapdogs again LittleBlue Dec 2013 #83

The order..which only applies to Klayman and his client, is stayed. I wonder why Klayman msanthrope Dec 2013 #85

The broader requests have all been dismissed Savannahmann Dec 2013 #89

Your last paragraph would eliminate the third-party business records exception. msanthrope Dec 2013 #91

thank God for at least one small step in the direction of restoring Constitutional government Douglas Carpenter Dec 2013 #87

Yay, and THANK-YOU Edward Snowden! JimDandy Dec 2013 #90

k&r... spanone Dec 2013 #93

A nice sentiment. Unfortunately some people have decided the Constitution doesn't apply to them. Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #94

. Jesus Malverde Dec 2013 #95

"Training" societies in tolerating interceptions no more banksters Dec 2013 #98

Snowden said the ruling, by a US district judge, justified his disclosures. countryjake Dec 2013 #99

Take that, Obama!! bigwillq Dec 2013 #100

"systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data" bucolic_frolic Dec 2013 #102

I hope this gathers snow as it rolls downhill�possible cudgel issue in an election year? silvershadow Dec 2013 #106

Richard Leon, Vaughn Walker, and Anna Diggs Taylor. OnyxCollie Dec 2013 #108

The NSA doesn't give a shit what that judge ruled or what the US constitution says. L0oniX Dec 2013 #110

I'd like to see the Snowden and Greenwald haters truebluegreen Dec 2013 #111

Judge ordered gov't to halt bulk collection of metadata and destroy information already collected! reformist2 Dec 2013 #114

"...I will stay my order pending appeal." DevonRex Dec 2013 #121

Translation: NobodyHere Dec 2013 #194

Other translation: I'm sounding tough for Klayman but DevonRex Dec 2013 #203

CUE THE VONAGE THEME! rocktivity Dec 2013 #122

Meanwhile they've gotten away with ................god only knows. Phlem Dec 2013 #123

SCOTUS has the final say, and we KNOW what that'll be... blkmusclmachine Dec 2013 #125

Citing his ability to read unambiguous English, the judge ruled that.... nt Deep13 Dec 2013 #127

Geewillikers, they're sure to stop doing it now. DeSwiss Dec 2013 #130

k & r! n/t wildbilln864 Dec 2013 #141

Inconceivable! DirkGently Dec 2013 #148

KICK - Thanks Mr Snowden :) Lenomsky Dec 2013 #150

K&R. I'm getting a kick out of watching the authoritarian types get hysterical over this quinnox Dec 2013 #152

Their dithering can be amusing... in infrequent, small doses, otherwise... SpcMnky Dec 2013 #175

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Dec 2013 #170

Thank you, Edward Snowden. woo me with science Dec 2013 #172

Good, now... adavid Dec 2013 #173

This is such a good sign. nt Hekate Dec 2013 #184

I hope he avoids small planes. And takes all manner of precautions. I can't imagine silvershadow Dec 2013 #185