The Fouth Amendment is quite clear.

[MarAzul]

How can Barry claim gathering up your phone records and email is legal???

"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."

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

If the government has procedures in place to look for domestic terrorism/terrorists (they do- allegedly) and if they have kept Congress fully informed (they have) and if any other information mined cannot be used in any way (true- allegedly) then there is no violation of the 4th.

What amuses me is the fake shock of certain members of Congress after they have been fully informed of what is going on.

But so long as there is proper oversight then I have no problems with this.

 

[MarAzul]

If the government has procedures in place to look for domestic terrorism/terrorists (they do- allegedly) and if they have kept Congress fully informed (they have) and if any other information mined cannot be used in any way (true- allegedly) then there is no violation of the 4th.

What amuses me is the fake shock of certain members of Congress after they have been fully informed of what is going on.

But so long as there is proper oversight then I have no problems with this.

So you are ok with ignoring the Fourth amendment? No need to modify the amendment to permit the new norm?

Doesn't that attitude just give license to simply ignore the Constitution in general?

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think they can possibly be spying on the content of every single email, phone call, and other form of communication.

More like Phone Number xxx-xxx-xxxx called yyy-yyy-yyyy at 3AM for 12 minutes

If they know yyy-yyy-yyyy is a terrorist's phone, then they want to find out who's calling from xxx-xxx-xxxx and get a warrant. The past two administrations reason that you have a right to privacy within the walls of your home, but not within the servers at your ISP. The ISP is something of a public location, and spying on you there isn't so different from having someone physically follow you as you walk around outside your house (in public).

That said, I think it clearly violates the spirit of the 4th, and I hope it gets to the Supreme Court so they can rule it does and put an end to it.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

So you are ok with ignoring the Fourth amendment? No need to modify the amendment to permit the new norm?

That's a matter of opinion. Where were you when Bush set this all up?

Doesn't that attitude just give license to simply ignore the Constitution in general?

And the obvious answer is 'no'. The government is tasked with the responsibility of protecting our borders and citizens. This is one way to do so. This was approved by Congress, Congress is routinely informed, and I hope there is proper oversight. If not, then some needs to be added. I am sure Congress will deal with it.

Now, if this was hidden from all by the President, Congress never informed, and they were using the mined information for everything from IRS violations to routine criminal matters... then we'd have a different discussion.

 

[MarAzul]

Well I don't think the Constitution is to be ignored by any party. The First nine amendment damn well tell the Congress and the President some do not dos.
The 10th tells them that anything else you come up with is up to the states and the people of those states. I expect them to stay within those boundaries or
purpose a change via the amendment process, that is the way it is designed to work.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Obama is just following Bush's lead on this one, so much for that "change" I guess

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Well I don't think the Constitution is to be ignored by any party. The First nine amendment damn well tell the Congress and the President some do not dos.
The 10th tells them that anything else you come up with is up to the states and the people of those states. I expect them to stay within those boundaries or
purpose a change via the amendment process, that is the way it is designed to work.

You are aware of the patriot act and its offspring right? The bill of rights got shat on a decade ago, you are kinda late to the party here sport

 

[MarAzul]

Not late at all. This action is clearly in violation of the 4th amendment. Having each succeeding administration take it another step forward doesn't make it all right.
Catch up here citizen, it is your rights being trashed as well as mine.

 

[Natebishop3]

That's a matter of opinion. Where were you when Bush set this all up?



And the obvious answer is 'no'. The government is tasked with the responsibility of protecting our borders and citizens. This is one way to do so. This was approved by Congress, Congress is routinely informed, and I hope there is proper oversight. If not, then some needs to be added. I am sure Congress will deal with it.

Now, if this was hidden from all by the President, Congress never informed, and they were using the mined information for everything from IRS violations to routine criminal matters... then we'd have a different discussion.

BP I don't know how you can think this is okay...

The government needs to stay out of my email, my phone logs, my skype conversations, my facebook account, and any and all other forms of private correspondence. They may only inquire about said content if they have evidence to believe that I have committed a crime. Simply saying, "well we need to make sure he isn't a terrorist, or this person isn't a terrorist, or that person isn't a terrorist." That's wrong. I couldn't give a damn about national security if it means tearing down the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What good is protecting the country if the country is a shadow of what it once was? Republican, democrat, it doesn't matter anymore. They're all out for bigger government in one way or another, and I can't support any of it.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

How can Barry claim gathering up your phone records and email is legal???

"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."

 

[Natebishop3]

I personally did. I didn't like Bush and I didn't vote for him in 2004. But there's nothing we could do then, and nothing we can do now.

 

[ABM]

But so long as there is proper oversight then I have no problems with this.

Obama has displayed plenty of oversight on a number of occasions.

 

[Denny Crane]

This kind of thing is worthy of another Nobel prize!

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Not late at all. This action is clearly in violation of the 4th amendment. Having each succeeding administration take it another step forward doesn't make it all right.
Catch up here citizen, it is your rights being trashed as well as mine.

Like I said, same old same old, just find it odd that all of the sudden you seem to be noticing it

 

[MarAzul]

I personally did. I didn't like Bush and I didn't vote for him in 2004. But there's nothing we could do then, and nothing we can do now.

Perhaps you haven't paid attention. Who the hell is in favor of the Patriot Act? However, it is one thing to see a law passed that advocates trouncing the 4th amendment and quite another to
see it violated by deeds.

Wasn't Obama the guy that was going to fix this?

Well so much for that.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-secret-law-patriot-act

Write to Wyden, I did.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul72.html

2003...

 

[Natebishop3]

Perhaps you haven't paid attention. Who the hell is in favor of the Patriot Act? However, it is one thing to see a law passed that advocates trouncing the 4th amendment and quite another to
see it violated by deeds.

Wasn't Obama the guy that was going to fix this?

Well so much for that.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-secret-law-patriot-act

Write to Wyden, I did.

Nothing is going to happen. The government didn't start spying on us in 2001 after 9/11. They've been spying on us for decades. The Patriot Act only made it okay, and now things like CISPA are making it even more okay. They've been doing it illegally for decades. Now it's just kosher because of "terrorism."

 

[MarAzul]

This Paul my actually help.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...0524_1_rand-paul-patriot-act-fourth-amendment

 

[MARIS61]

How can Barry claim gathering up your phone records and email is legal???

Freedom of speech. He can claim he's your fairy godmother and that you owe him all your children and five cows if he wants to.

Doesn't mean he's not committing illegal/treasonous acts. Doesn't mean he isn't f*ing the Constitution up the ass.

Only your refusal to stand up to him allows him to do it. Only the lazy and cowardly mass-compliance of a soft populace ensures their own enslavement.

Fall in line, get in the cage.

 

[MARIS61]

That's a matter of opinion. Where were you when Bush set this all up?



And the obvious answer is 'no'. The government is tasked with the responsibility of protecting our borders and citizens. This is one way to do so. This was approved by Congress, Congress is routinely informed, and I hope there is proper oversight. If not, then some needs to be added. I am sure Congress will deal with it.

Now, if this was hidden from all by the President, Congress never informed, and they were using the mined information for everything from IRS violations to routine criminal matters... then we'd have a different discussion.

So it's okay to violate the 4th as long as it's a larger conspiracy involving most of congress and not just the president.

So the president could bomb Portland with a nuke as long as congress okayed it.

He could send all Scottish-Americans to FEMA internment camps as long as congress was on board.

How sheepish can you get?

 

[MARIS61]

You are aware of the patriot act and its offspring right? The bill of rights got shat on a decade ago, you are kinda late to the party here sport

I think his point is that the so-called patriot act was never a legal act, as it violates nearly every principle of The Constitution and most of The Bill of Rights. It nullifies the very foundation of our government, which is not legally possible to do.

If you're still confused, look up the words treason, overthrow, internment, tyranny, dictatorship, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin.

Then look up the words apathy, avoidance, cowardice, subservience, abetting, timidity, sheep, lemming.

Then look at your future:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...61,d.cGE&fp=df10e9dee2efd1e8&biw=1024&bih=617

 

[jlprk]

I defend Obama when he's liberal and criticize him when he's conservative. (Of course, I get to define those 2 words.) When I have called him Bush Jr., a couple of board conservatives are shocked. They see no similarities.

He was elected to reverse Bush innovations, but simply codified them into law. As for the evil Patriot Act shoved through by Bush threatening us with death, "You're either for us or against us," leftist political sites have opposed it from the beginning. I'm glad that rightist sites are waking up. Will this last into a Republican presidency?