Obama backs warrantless GPS tracking of citizens

[alphatarget1]

Would this still be an issue if law enforcement can simply go to court and ask for a subpoena from AAPL so they can track the drug dealer's whereabouts with his iPhone? lol.

 

[alphatarget1]

Another koolaid drinker

What the ACLU does might not please everybody but I'm very thankful for their existence.

 

[thraashman]

I suppose you prefer the liberal interpretation, that you have the right to bear arms when and only when government puts them in your hands and sends you off to war?

That is by no means the liberal interpretation. However I believe in limits to the right to bear arms. Just like how many believe in the limits to free speech. I don't believe that concealed carry falls under second amendment (you have a right to have them, no inherent right to hide that you have it). I do believe that restrictions on obtainable firearms and ammo should exist. I believe that gun registration similar to car registration should exist. While I agree that it isn't weird for someone to be concerned by a person who is open carrying a firearm, I also agree that a person is should be allowed to open carry (I'd rather know they have it than not know they're hiding it).

Really, in the end, based on the wording of the Second Amendment, I would say the legality and regulation of firearms is to be determined by the individual state, and that technically if that state wanted to make firearms illegal then it has the right under the Constitution.

 

[OutHouse]

Wow, land of the free doest mean jack shit anymore

 

[MotF Bane]

That is by no means the liberal interpretation. However I believe in limits to the right to bear arms. Just like how many believe in the limits to free speech. I don't believe that concealed carry falls under second amendment (you have a right to have them, no inherent right to hide that you have it). I do believe that restrictions on obtainable firearms and ammo should exist. I believe that gun registration similar to car registration should exist. While I agree that it isn't weird for someone to be concerned by a person who is open carrying a firearm, I also agree that a person is should be allowed to open carry (I'd rather know they have it than not know they're hiding it).

Really, in the end, based on the wording of the Second Amendment, I would say the legality and regulation of firearms is to be determined by the individual state, and that technically if that state wanted to make firearms illegal then it has the right under the Constitution.

I disagree with pretty much everything you said, but I'm just going after the bolded bit right now. You start down a very bad path with that sort of a ruling, because if you permit states to ban Amendments selectively, there is nothing to stop them from removing the rest at will.

 

[MotF Bane]

Except for ones that they don't agree with. See sig

I would argue that, despite the ACLU's flawed stance on the Second, they overall do more good than harm by far.

 

[IGBT]

all you dopers druggies and pedophiles are screwed.

 

[thraashman]

I disagree with pretty much everything you said, but I'm just going after the bolded bit right now. You start down a very bad path with that sort of a ruling, because if you permit states to ban Amendments selectively, there is nothing to stop them from removing the rest at will.

I don't think states can ban Amendments selectively. And I guess I spoke poorly when I said I believe a state has the right to make them illegal. More what I mean is that I believe that due to the wording of the Second Amendment that it is up to the individual state to set forth the rules for firearms legality or illegality so long as they're not banned entirely.

... yeah that sounds more like how I interpret it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Screw it. Just tear up the Fourth. That's what Bush was after, and his even worse in this regard successor, Obama.

 

[werepossum]

I disagree with pretty much everything you said, but I'm just going after the bolded bit right now. You start down a very bad path with that sort of a ruling, because if you permit states to ban Amendments selectively, there is nothing to stop them from removing the rest at will.

I agree completely. These rights are given by G-d, protected by governments made by man.

 

[IGBT]

been hanging around school yards lately?? guess who knows!!

 

[thraashman]

I agree completely. These rights are given by G-d, protected by governments made by man.

I don't believe anything is given by any god and that man and government are in a way the same thing as government is made up of people. And that any rights need to have certain levels of limits and freedoms in order to maintain structure.

I personally see the limits on unions' rights we've seen lately as an assault on freedom of speech. If a person has decided to allow a union to speak on their behalf for the purposes of bargaining, and we make that type of bargaining illegal, we're limiting that person's right to free speech in the method that they've chosen.

 

[thraashman]

Screw it. Just tear up the Fourth. That's what Bush was after, and his even worse in this regard successor, Obama.

Obama's not worse in this regard, but I'm definitely hesitant to say he's any better. I will say that Obama is worse than I both hoped and expected he'd be.

 

[MotF Bane]

I don't think states can ban Amendments selectively. And I guess I spoke poorly when I said I believe a state has the right to make them illegal. More what I mean is that I believe that due to the wording of the Second Amendment that it is up to the individual state to set forth the rules for firearms legality or illegality so long as they're not banned entirely.

... yeah that sounds more like how I interpret it.

The difference between entirely banned and not quite is rather small when governments get involved. For example, "permit may be issued at the discretion of your local police chief." That's not officially banned, but if the police chief personally hates firearms, or just personally hates you, it might as well be.

Additionally, let's try this...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Fine, Congress shall make no law. But the state legislature of <insert state name here> can make such restrictions under that wording. Let's say... women are not permitted to speak in public.

 

[MotF Bane]

I don't believe anything is given by any god and that man and government are in a way the same thing as government is made up of people. And that any rights need to have certain levels of limits and freedoms in order to maintain structure.

I personally see the limits on unions' rights we've seen lately as an assault on freedom of speech. If a person has decided to allow a union to speak on their behalf for the purposes of bargaining, and we make that type of bargaining illegal, we're limiting that person's right to free speech in the method that they've chosen.

I concur that nothing is given by god, but the government has grown beyond its scope, and I would not equate man and government. If any rights need to have certain levels of limits and freedoms, then what limits would you see added to the First?

How has a person made such a decision? If I wish to be a teacher, I am given no choice in permitting a union to speak for me, unless I choose to teach at a private school. I won't comment much further on the union direction, as I haven't put the time into keeping up on what is happening in Wisconsin.

 

[thraashman]

I concur that nothing is given by god, but the government has grown beyond its scope, and I would not equate man and government. If any rights need to have certain levels of limits and freedoms, then what limits would you see added to the First?

How has a person made such a decision? If I wish to be a teacher, I am given no choice in permitting a union to speak for me, unless I choose to teach at a private school. I won't comment much further on the union direction, as I haven't put the time into keeping up on what is happening in Wisconsin.

Well I also don't feel that union membership should ever be mandatory, and in most situations it is not. If the problem is with mandatory membership then I think the law should prohibit mandatory union membership, not prohibit collective bargaining. As far as limits to free speech, to some degree those exist already. There's first amendment rights limits inside and on the steps of court houses. The infamous "yelling fire in a crowded theater" concept. And then many groups try to limit free speech in other aspects, such as making flag burning illegal (I don't think it should be).

As far as your point on second amendment made in your previous post, it's something I'll have to consider.

 

[MotF Bane]

Well I also don't feel that union membership should ever be mandatory, and in most situations it is not. If the problem is with mandatory membership then I think the law should prohibit mandatory union membership, not prohibit collective bargaining. As far as limits to free speech, to some degree those exist already. There's first amendment rights limits inside and on the steps of court houses. The infamous "yelling fire in a crowded theater" concept. And then many groups try to limit free speech in other aspects, such as making flag burning illegal (I don't think it should be).

As far as your point on second amendment made in your previous post, it's something I'll have to consider.

Unless it is given that the Bill of Rights applies to all in a manner that overrides the decisions of states, then I see no reason, by the language of the First, that individual states cannot restrict the laws further (beyond the "fire in a theater" concept), such as to make flag burning illegal if they so wish. Therefore, I think it is necessary for the federal government to take the stance that the Bill of Rights overrides state restrictions, and therefore, the Second Amendment cannot be restricted by states.

As it is written, I interpret the Second differently than you, but I can agree on some of your reasonable restrictions. The problem to my mind there is where will the government stop, how far will those "reasonable restrictions" be pushed.

 

[fskimospy]

Screw it. Just tear up the Fourth. That's what Bush was after, and his even worse in this regard successor, Obama.

Exactly how is Obama worse than Bush on the 4th amendment? His primary offenses are continuing the same policies as Bush. While I think that Obama has been atrocious on the 4th amendment too, I can't think in any way how he has been worse.

 

[DominionSeraph]

These rights are given by G-d,

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

*breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus Christ (he whose density is apparently significantly less than that of water), this explains a lot about you.

 

[wuliheron]

What I want to know is when they start with the anal probes. I can tolerate a lack of privacy about a lot of things, but anal probes are against my religion.

 

[Infohawk]

From a constitutional standpoint, I think the justice department has a good argument. This is essentially the same thing as being followed. You have privacy in your home and some other limited places, not on public streets.

 

[OutHouse]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

*breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus Christ (he whose density is apparently significantly less than that of water), this explains a lot about you.

Guess you dont know what unalienable rights are.

"...that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Exactly how is Obama worse than Bush on the 4th amendment? His primary offenses are continuing the same policies as Bush. While I think that Obama has been atrocious on the 4th amendment too, I can't think in any way how he has been worse.

There have been news reports over his term where he seeks to broaden the scope of warrantless and the like. A quick google search will provide the details. He seems intent on pursuing this agenda. This is not the right course.

 

[fskimospy]

There have been news reports over his term where he seeks to broaden the scope of warrantless and the like. A quick google search will provide the details. He seems intent on pursuing this agenda. This is not the right course.

Such as? Be specific please.

 

[fskimospy]

Guess you dont know what unalienable rights are.

"...that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

That's from the declaration of independence, not the constitution, and it's pretty clear that constitutional rights aren't inalienable.