L. Coyote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:49 PM
Original message |
Is the new SPY BILL unconstitutional? |
|
I have not heard this question addressed. I hear the constitution mentioned.
|
kansasblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:49 PM
Response to Original message |
1. not in this Supreme Court. nt |
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
12. Beat me to the obvious response. |
dflprincess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:50 PM
Response to Original message |
2. The Warren Court would probably have thought so |
|
the current one - not so much.
|
AndrewJacksonFaction
(471 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:51 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I would argue that it is. |
|
Edited on Sat Aug-04-07 09:52 PM by AndrewJacksonFaction
There are least openings for it to be abused, and you know what this group is like when they have an opening.
I think we have to look no further than the William Jefferson case to see that this program without oversight is in fact unconstitutional.
|
trashcanistanista
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:52 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Yes, but I don't think it matters. |
Warren Stupidity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:52 PM
Response to Original message |
5. With the Roverts Court? not likely. |
burrowowl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:52 PM
Response to Original message |
|
UNCONSTITUTIONAL! PEOPLE! Damn ARISE!
|
Gregorian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:53 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Even if it is it's going to cause an deafening uproar. |
|
I can already hear it. I think this is more than the last straw. There just aren't any more straws left. This camel's back is already broken. People are going to be totally outraged by this.
Keith Olberman will have John Dean on to talk about the constitutionality of this, no doubt.
|
scarletwoman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:53 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Even if it is, there's no one left to uphold the Constitution. Forget the Roberts Court. (nt) |
Hubert Flottz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:54 PM
Response to Original message |
9. No I think it's the constitution that is unconstitutional in Bushworld. |
kansasblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:56 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Here is the midwest people ain't got a clue anything is even going on. |
L. Coyote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
15. You make a good point. We are all ranting to ourselves, and that does nothing. |
|
Meanwhile, what will be on the news tonight?
A bridge fell!
|
kansasblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-05-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
19. I mentioned Cheney impeach once and got strange looks... |
|
Why would anyone want to impeach Cheney?
The land that time forgot.
|
Double T
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:56 PM
Response to Original message |
karlrschneider
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:57 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Yes, it is, BUT in order to have that adjuticated someone will have to |
|
file suit, with 'standing' (someone who was wronged by it) and start in some Federal District Court and it might make it to the USSC in a few years. Good luck with that...
|
L. Coyote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
17. Agreed. And, there is that sticky clause about "reasonably believed to be" |
Tatiana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 09:58 PM
Response to Original message |
14. I do believe it violates the 4th 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.
That being said, the Roberts court would never rule it unconstitutional.
|
L. Coyote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
16. Agreed. It also sends a message to those outside the US. |
|
We have no respect for the rights of anyone else!
|
KingFlorez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-04-07 11:05 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Sat Aug-04-07 11:06 PM by KingFlorez
This particular bill states that foreign suspects communications that pass through the US can be tapped without a warrant, so they aren't protected by the constitution.
|
porphyrian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-05-07 03:53 PM
Response to Original message |
20. It doesn't really matter if no one is willing to do anything about it. - n/t |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 03:15 AM
Response to Original message |