- This topic has 5 voices and 21 replies.
-
Posts
-
Society hasn't become like that…yet. I worry more about paying for the fantasy of a “greener” earth. Terrorism is real and can be fought without infringing on our rights. And it should be fought, especially if any have entered the country.
Society hasn't become like that...yet. I worry more about paying for the fantasy of a "greener" earth. Terrorism is real and can be fought without infringing on our rights. And it should be fought, especially if any have entered the country.
I dont disagree with your sentiment as expressed here. But you still have not answered my question.
Why does the government need the authority to essentially subpoena mine or anybody else's financial records without showing probable cause?
It boils down to an argument about what powers we think the state should have. I am a proponent of limited, extremely limited, government. Therefore I think the government should have the minimal number of powers necessary for it to conduct its minimal necessary functions. I will always err on the side of the individual.
It boils down to an argument about what powers we think the state should have. I am a proponent of limited, extremely limited, government. Therefore I think the government should have the minimal number of powers necessary for it to conduct its minimal necessary functions. I will always err on the side of the individual.
I agree with your concerns and don't actually know the government's rationale for needing certain citizen financial records without a showing of probable cause. Therefore I can only speculate why this is. However, there are other situations in which searches may be made without probable cause. Do you think these allowances should have been ruled unconstitutional as well?
It boils down to an argument about what powers we think the state should have. I am a proponent of limited, extremely limited, government. Therefore I think the government should have the minimal number of powers necessary for it to conduct its minimal necessary functions. I will always err on the side of the individual.
I agree with your concerns and don't actually know the government's rationale for needing certain citizen financial records without a showing of probable cause. Therefore I can only speculate why this is. However, there are other situations in which searches may be made without probable cause. Do you think these allowances should have been ruled unconstitutional as well?
Simply, YES! I dont care about circumstances where my personal liberty is concerned and if they do it to one person that means they can do it to me. It does not matter whether they ever actually do it to me or not. This is probably the only issue on which the ACLU and I agree. If I voluntarily surrender private information that is one thing, it is quite another if it is given up for me without my consent and without a warrant.The Constitution clearly states in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments that I have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and a right to not be deprived of my property without Due Process before the Law. Is not my personal information my property?
Amendment IVThe 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. Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It seems to me that the Constitution is pretty clear on this and it makes me wonder how and why the Patriot Act has not been struck down yet.
It seems to me that the Constitution is pretty clear on this and it makes me wonder how and why the Patriot Act has not been struck down yet.
I think the answer is because the Constitution is not very clear on this and there is a long history of case law in criminal procedure that has examined such things as the meaning of "unreasonable" as well as "search" and "seizure". Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Patriot Act (I don't want to give you that impression).Now, based on your answer, you would seem to disagree with the court's view which says the following are constitutional:- Terry stops (stop & frisk based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause)- Sobriety checkpoints- School searches of students based on standard lower than probable causeIs this correct?
Now, based on your answer, you would seem to disagree with the court's view which says the following are constitutional:- Terry stops (stop & frisk based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause)- Sobriety checkpoints- School searches of students based on standard lower than probable causeIs this correct?
Yes, you are correct. I am one who thinks my person and property should be inviolate unless and until the government can show probable cause. I dont like cops to begin with, I especially dont like cops who think the law gives them the right to be brutes.Put it like this, If we were living in the 19th century, I would be one of those guys hacking out a homestead in the wilderness,not living in the infested slums of the eastern cities. One of the reasons for this is that I believe in protecting me and mine, and the concept that privacy is everything that I dont want someone else to know unless I decide to tell them. It scares me that the government chooses to arrogate itself the power to decide how and when I should live, travel, associte with, etc., as well as thinking that some government agency knows me better than I do. That is the point of my rant against the Texas CPS taking the FLDS kids a ffew months ago, it is also why I dont like the government being able to pry into my personal affairs.if there is evidence of a crime it is a whole new ball game, but absent this evidence then the government should simply leave me alone in my person and in my house.
I can understand your desire for privacy from government intrusion and the right to be “left alone”.On the other hand, I can understand the government's rationale for certain actions. Picture this: a jewelry store is about to close when the owner will lock up. A juvenile is outside the front clearly "casing" the joint, while another one is at the end of the block looking around. The two send hand signals back and forth to each other. A cop can see something bulging from the juvenile's pocket, about the size of a pistol.Should cops need probable cause to stop and frisk them before any robbery takes place? The courts say no and that a limited "intrusion" of privacy is permissible under the Fourth Amendment. This doesn't mean that the Fourth Amendment is thrown out the window, but that it is interpreted in a way that may be different than a complete libertarian's interpretation.
