LordMagnusKain
Banned
- May 10, 2001
- 2,669
- 0
- 0
I don?t make much of a distinction between ?invented? and ?interpreted? because you can both un-interpret and un-invent w/ new people sitting on the bench.

But that in no way changes the facts on the ground and what could be done reasonably w/ just a few new appointments to the USSC.
But that?s all a side issue.
Or do you not know that we?ve violated the rulings of the USSC in the past, when kicking Indians off their land, or that FDR threatened to add new members to the SC if they struck down the new-deal socialist programs?
I?m concerned about infringements on the 4th from the patriot act. But the fact is that it?s an invention of the SC that bugging and spying on our people is protected in the 4th.Every ruling thus far in court has concluded that bugging someone's phone is considered a violation of being secure in their house and looking at their email constitutes as a search/seizure of that person's property. Without the 4th you would have no privacy what so ever. Of course the USA Patriot Act does exactly that.
actually, it?s not. No expectation of privacy existed t?ll ?interpreted? by the USSC, their after it?s been the rule of the day by the federal judiciary. I understand how things work now, just as they work in regards to gun ownership, but the fact is we have no amendment that gives us a right to privacy... just unreasonable search and seizure.You do not understand the meaning of the amendment. Every single court ruling says you are wrong. Period.
then explain their rulings on the rights of gun ownership?which they didn't
it?s traditionally part of the parliamentary procedure, such as in England.if the courts won't decide what is and isn't constitutional then who is going to do that?
times of emergency, like the us civil war.. or if bush looses the electionThere are dozens of Executive Orders that gives the President various powers like this. Sounds outlandish but its true
it?s the only nation with laws that matter to the US or it?s non-political agents.The US is not the only nation with laws
I?m for the right to privacy and believe it?s a foundational American value; I?d rather millions die and the country crumble than we destroy our foundational beliefs.Do you want to live in a free and Democratic country or a police state where you have no privacy and you cannot say anything without someone listening in
But that in no way changes the facts on the ground and what could be done reasonably w/ just a few new appointments to the USSC.
I sure hope not, ?cause we?re in a republic; representative forms of government, like that created in America, are most likely based on the communal lodges of the native Americans and, given the philosopher kings that makeup the SC, Plato?s republic.Do you want to live in a free and Democratic country or a police state where you have no privacy and you cannot say anything without someone listening in
But that?s all a side issue.
When it comes to the US it?ll take the political power of the SC to standup to something as big as the patriot act.. and that football is something they want, it?s sure to be punted t?ll the political climate calms down.So long as it goes to jury once it gives a chance for 3 tiers of government to toss it right out, which voids it automatically and government has to pass the law again.
Or do you not know that we?ve violated the rulings of the USSC in the past, when kicking Indians off their land, or that FDR threatened to add new members to the SC if they struck down the new-deal socialist programs?
that?s a fine form of conservatism, as long as it?s true to itself.I vote Libertarian.
you can?t fight the powers that be head on, you can only hope to reduce the amount of power the government has over your life.That is a good thing, however you and I both know that they have already drafted USA Patriot Act II, which has even broader language and gives even more sweeping power to agencies and the government.
Canada has been doing the same thing with added Bills to Bill C-36.