Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/15/13 09:46 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Letters are sent on your property in a sealed envelope. They have both subjective and objective privacy with direct standing.

Phone calls and emails are made on others' property and neither contain a security measure (lest it be actively added). They have subjective privacy, but little to no objective privacy and only indirect standing.

I'm not buying that. How is a little bit of melted wax sealing an envelope shut in 1791 more of a security measure than my e-mail account being password protected in 2013? And how is a phone call I make from MY phone (my property) from MY home (also my property) "made on others' property"?

James Madison wants to write a letter to Thomas Jefferson. He takes a piece of paper from his desk, writes down his communication, seals the envelope with some melted wax, addresses the letter to Jefferson, pays a courier to deliver the letter safely and securely and without opening it, and hands the letter over to the courier. The courier rides with it to Thomas Jefferson's home, and hands the unopened letter over to Jefferson, who opens it and reads it.

What the 4th amendment does is prohibit the government from searching and/or seizing Madison's letter at any point during this transaction of information, unless a warrant has been issued that allows the government to do so. Aside from talking to someone directly, or by having a messenger memorize a message to be delivered orally to someone, sending a letter was the only way for someone to communicate information accurately over great distance.

Today we have other modes of communication that are descendant from the exact same need that Madison had when he wanted to say something to Jefferson.

Matt Damon wants to write an email to Ben Affleck. He opens up a word document on his desktop computer, writes down his communication, saves the document and gives it a password, opens his Courier Email and attaches the document to an email and addresses it to Affleck. He presses send and the document is transferred via the web to Affleck's desktop computer. Affleck downloads the document, enters the password, and reads the letter.

How does the 4th Amendment not apply to this scenario exactly as it did for Madison?

Also, much of the 4th Amendment is limited to the restriction of such things being used in court, especially on the privacy issue, and not to the restriction of the act itself.

"The right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room if you ask me. It's the right to be secure against the unreasonable searches and seizures in the first place that the 4th addresses, not to be retroactively secure from prosecution after such unreasonable searches have already been committed (though that of course follows from it).

Oh stop it.

Do you have a facebook? Because if so, then your "right to privacy" should be thrown out the window.

This is the stuff that always got me upset. Why would you care if Bill Smith of the (clearly fictitious) Federal Bureau of Online Interaction Investigation Committee opened your letter of how you want to buy a laptop off of Amazon or etc.

Or an IM/email/w/ever to your friend of what concerting you'll be attending on Sunday.

These men if they even exist are perfect strangers, you will probably never see them, or at the very least ever come into contact with them and them tell you that yes they view your private information.

Why should you care so long as they never show any of this information to your friends and family that you would not want seeing this.

And yet people are perfectly fine posting pictures of them passed out on the side-walk in a pile of puke with the caption "KRAZY NITE YOLO!", give me a fucking break. If there is such a right to privacy our generation waived that right with the invention of facebook.

At 5/14/13 08:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Ok, it's legal. But not lawful.

If it's legal...that makes it lawful...if you don't know what words mean...you need to stay out of places where they need to be used.

See, in the legal world, there's what called "precedent".

True.

See, the Patriot Act was passed in the early 2000's.

Right.

The Bill of Rights, and the constitution were put into law give or take 200 years before that.

Still with you.

Therefore, those laws supercede any laws that come later.

No, not necessarily. The idea behind those laws and the Constitution itself is to create a foundation for what CAN and CAN'T be made a law. For example let's say I am President, a newspaper in Chicago is reporting that I've been fucking my secretary and I used public funds to get her brother out of a DUI. I did this, but it will destroy my shot at re-election. So I try to pass a law that says any paper that criticizes me is to be shut down immediately. The law is defeated because it violates the first amendment. But if I can get a law passed in a way that the SCOTUS says ISN'T a violation, then I'm in the clear.

Unless of course, the Bill of Rights is amended, but that didn't happen. So the legality of the Patriot Act is tenuous at best.

The morality is atrocious, the legality I think should be imminently challangeable, but it has been upheld each and every time. This is why I say it's a moral issue (which I come down on the same side as you on) that you're pointing out. But you erroneously said it isn't legal, it is, it has been upheld as such.

At 5/15/13 09:52 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Do you have a facebook? Because if so, then your "right to privacy" should be thrown out the window.

Why? If you're argument is "because people put all kinds of private shit onto their facebook for public display" I don't agree. Those people are communicating that information of their own volition, for the consumption of the public. They are making a CHOICE about what is, and isn't private in their world. Facebook is not compelling them to reveal the information, they are choosing too.

This is the stuff that always got me upset. Why would you care if Bill Smith of the (clearly fictitious) Federal Bureau of Online Interaction Investigation Committee opened your letter of how you want to buy a laptop off of Amazon or etc.

Why does Bill Smith need to, or have the right to open my letter? Why does he need to? Why don't I have the right to confront Bill Smith and ask him why he feels the need to do this?

Or an IM/email/w/ever to your friend of what concerting you'll be attending on Sunday.

Same thing. Why do they need to do so? Why don't I have the right to keep my private business my private business? Why shouldn't Bill Smith have to have probable cause to start going through this stuff? Opening my mail is a federal offense, why shouldn't my electronic mail and conversations, and conversations over devices (phones are what I'm mostly referencing here) be secure and subject to privacy unless I can be shown that there is a reasonable cause to monitor them?

These men if they even exist are perfect strangers, you will probably never see them, or at the very least ever come into contact with them and them tell you that yes they view your private information.

So it's cool that they do this as long as I don't know them? You have waaaaay more trust in the altruism of the powerful then I ever will.

Why should you care so long as they never show any of this information to your friends and family that you would not want seeing this.

Because what right do they have to it? Why are they collecting it in the first place? What is the reason? Hmmm?

And yet people are perfectly fine posting pictures of them passed out on the side-walk in a pile of puke with the caption "KRAZY NITE YOLO!", give me a fucking break. If there is such a right to privacy our generation waived that right with the invention of facebook.

There IS such a thing! You're argument continues to discount the idea of choice. If people choose to make things public, then they choose to. The only problem in such a case would be if somebody makes something public, then tries to say "no wait, that's private!" then the person is a hypocrite. Your argument is that if I choose to make information that YOU would venture is private, public, I should have no problem with someone else looking at ANY of my information EVER, without consulting me...that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

At 5/16/13 08:31 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: If it's legal...that makes it lawful

No.

No, not necessarily. The idea behind those laws and the Constitution itself is to create a foundation for what CAN and CAN'T be made a law.

Exactly. It doesn't go any further than that really. The constitution clearly states that it's illegal for the government to hold people without due process.

The morality is atrocious, the legality I think should be imminently challangeable, but it has been upheld each and every time. This is why I say it's a moral issue (which I come down on the same side as you on) that you're pointing out. But you erroneously said it isn't legal, it is, it has been upheld as such.

but the fact that the government upholds it is illegal, because it defies the Bill of Rights.

At 5/16/13 09:54 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No.

Yes. legal and lawful are synonyms. This has been your free English lesson for the day

Exactly. It doesn't go any further than that really. The constitution clearly states that it's illegal for the government to hold people without due process.

Remember when you mentioned "precedent" before? There is a ton of precedent for where, when, and how a President is able to suspend habeus corpus and other forms of due process. President Bush did a tremendous amount of building on prior presidents to make it almost a sick art form.

but the fact that the government upholds it is illegal, because it defies the Bill of Rights.

Which specific part? The problem with simply saying "The Bill of Rights" is that you've got 10 individual provisions/laws to contend with. There are two or three that leap to mind immediately about the legal part. Unfortunately the SCOTUS keeps slapping down any and all challenges and interpreting the Constitution in such a way that keeps it legal.

At 5/16/13 11:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Yes. legal and lawful are synonyms. This has been your free English lesson for the day

Yet, in common usage, not the same :)

By your logic, slavery was legal...it was legal, but as far as humanity is concerned, not legal. Get it?

Remember when you mentioned "precedent" before? There is a ton of precedent for where, when, and how a President is able to suspend habeus corpus and other forms of due process. President Bush did a tremendous amount of building on prior presidents to make it almost a sick art form.

Which stand in defiance with the Bill of rights. All of the times it has happened, it has happened post Bill of Rights. Precedence of the bill of rights still makes all of those times illegal.

Which specific part? The problem with simply saying "The Bill of Rights" is that you've got 10 individual provisions/laws to contend with. There are two or three that leap to mind immediately about the legal part. Unfortunately the SCOTUS keeps slapping down any and all challenges and interpreting the Constitution in such a way that keeps it legal.

5th Amendment

The courts are wrong. The Bill of rights is not open to interpretation. it's there in black and white. Very little wiggle room in the sentence nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

At 5/16/13 08:31 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

If it's legal...that makes it lawful...

I like how you know for a fact that what he's talking about is that some law may be legal (according to the Federal Government), but that doesn't make it legal or lawful according to the nation's supposed "supreme law", that being the Constitution.

...and yet, despite that you continue to carry on pretending like you don't know that.

But let's give a thought experiment!

Say the constitution only allows Eminent Domain for a public use after "just compensation" (to build roads, bridges, hospitals, ect..), but then the supreme court holds (in Kelo) that eminent domain can be used to forcibly remove people from their homes to allow private contractors to build high rise, expensive apartments.

Is this decision legal according to the Constitution? Or just "legal" according to some old, cranky men and women in robes?

At 5/17/13 03:28 AM, Memorize wrote: Is this decision legal according to the Constitution?

It's legal according to the vague language of the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution defines what public use is. Rezoning is a public use as it facilitates a designed growth meant to maximize benefits to the community whilst minimizing burdens.

The Constitution could easily have said "only for conversion to public lands" or something of the sort that would have easily and clearly dictated that this sort of thing would be wrong.

Look the real question is why would you care.

As I was trying to say, these people are insignificant in your life. What they do behind closed doors would literally have no impact on your life, they might as well not even exist.

You should have nothing to fear from them going over your private online history, and emails, unless you've downloaded blue prints of iconic landmarks/buildings in addition to a wikipedia search of explosive ingredients and where to buy them.

And rightfully so I can say I've never once actually looked anything of the sort up aside maybe from a few actual military weapons on Wikipedia, but still not enough to convict me of conspiracy to commit terror.

Obviously our government would not respond in full force to something like that and the instant you look up home made guns/bombs, etc you're house will be swarmed by the FBI and SWAT.

So again I ask why? Because you're committed to some belief in our constitution, which while I greatly respect lets be honest is open to interpretation.

By having such a system in place we could catch such horrible acts before they happen. Look recently some kid posted on Facebook that they "shouldn't go to school tomorrow or else...".

He was interrogated by cops and suspended, harsh I know, but that's idiocy why post something like that? To be edgy cool or funny? Clearly no one thought so, and in this day and age can you simply ignore that to the ravings of some loon.

Look at Chris Dorner the douche posted some manifesto and everyone ignored it until he acted on it.

While I'm not advocating for some Minority report action to be taken, is it so wrong to have some government spook watch you? Creepy, sure but if they're good at their job you'll never see them, and unless you actually act illegally, you'll be fine.

Again, I'm only advocating for people with questionable motives/acts to be watched by FBI something for a period of time,if they fuck up and we catch them before innocents are killed, than it's a success.

Hell look at stop and frisk for an example, everyone bitches how it's racist and stereotypes and while it might it's success can not be denied.

And if the person in question does nothing of the sort, then do you think we'd really continue to investigate the individual and continue to waste resources? No, they would move on to the next spook and wait and see.

Being cautious if somewhat paranoid get's people on edge because they think 1984 Big Brother, Minority report type conspiracy, but as we get more advanced the amount of damage an individual can inflict by himself only grows, should we ignore the warning signs and cost innocent lives just to respect an out-of-date law?

And inb4 some one turns this into about guns, I do respect the 2nd amendment, but an individual does not need 30 rounds in a gun,nor does he need a weapon for the military, and nor does he need to buy such a weapon without any sort of background check or proper paper work to validate such a purchase.

At 5/17/13 02:34 AM, LemonCrush wrote: By your logic, slavery was legal...it was legal, but as far as humanity is concerned, not legal. Get it?

This logic in itself.............I'm sorry, what?

I've read this sentence at least 20 times now, and it still doesn't make a lick of sense. Yes, lawful and legal are synonyms, you'd know that if you'd read a dictionary but we all know now that you don't, so first do us a favor and look both them up before coming to this discussion. That being said, if you want to argue while slavery was legal it was morally and ethically wrong in the eyes of many who may have wanted to change the legal status quo, then that's a separate argument entirely. But this sentence in itself makes 0 sense in the way that it is written because if something is legal, it's legal, period. That's the beauty of the nature of laws: they're absolute. Now, if people follow them in an absolute way again, is a different matter.

So what the heck are you trying to say?

At 5/17/13 03:11 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: So what the heck are you trying to say?

Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the AP scandal.

At 5/17/13 09:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

It's legal according to the vague language of the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution defines what public use is. Rezoning is a public use as it facilitates a designed growth meant to maximize benefits to the community whilst minimizing burdens.

That's like saying because the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, it could then "theoretically" mean that a farmer growing crops on his own property which he never sells to anyone and NEVER passes state lines, can be heavily regulated by Congress only by the irrational reasoning that because growing your own food on your own property to eat MIGHT affect in some SMALL, INSIGNIFICANT way on a SUBJECTIVE scale SOMETHING SOMEWHERE in our ENTIRE economy at SOME POINT.

Even though the word Regulate back in the late 1700's was actually keep states from enacting trade barriers to keep trade "Regular", which to the people who wrote it meant "Freely flowing."

But by your logic, because today's definition of "regulate" has changed, you would argue that could mean Congress can prevent anyone from, oh say, buying insurance over state lines... since, after all, they have the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The problem with idiots like you, is that you don't accept anything in its context. To you, if I killed someone in self defense, you would be the first to disregard the context of the situation and accuse me of murder.

At 5/17/13 09:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

stuff

Btw, I love how you completely ignored Angry Hatters completely on point. logical, thought out argument about email.

What? Couldn't come up with anything?

At 5/16/13 11:11 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: School House Rock!

sorry couldn't help it..

I knew I forgot something with that post...damn me for not putting that soundtrack in!

At 5/17/13 02:34 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Yet, in common usage, not the same :)

Actually it is, that's what synonyms are for. Now, either you failed elementary school english, or you're being blatantly dishonest now. Which is it? I'm done with this point otherwise. I'm not arguing the dictionary.

By your logic, slavery was legal...

No, that'd be the fact that slavery was legal. It was DELIBERATELY left by the Framers of The Constitution as a States rights issue. This of course was doomed to failure and eventually came to a head with the Civil War.

it was legal, but as far as humanity is concerned, not legal. Get it?

I think I understand your point...the problem is you want to condense down words and meanings. Then when I try to say to you "listen, no offense, but your wrong, what you meant is actually this. Understand? Hope I was helpful" you seem to see me as some kind of bully on the playground or a guy with his head up his ass. I don't get that. But let's try to break this down a little better:

The law is NOT always concerned with morality or human right. The BASIS of the law is indeed to try and codify basic societal standards and human rights at it's core (for example, our mutual right to walk down the street and not be randomly assaulted or killed), but this is not ALWAYS the case. This is in part because our moralities are not entirely universal. I'm sure we can both agree that killing someone just to kill them is a terrible thing and should be punished. But my feelings on gay marriage differ from someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I feel MORALLY gay marriage should enjoy the same federal protections as heterosexual marriage. However the LAW does not agree with my morality at the federal level, at least not yet. There was also the issue of segregation and civil rights and all that. We agree NOW that this should have MORALLY been afforded at the very basis of a country founded on freedom, but LEGALLY it was not so until LBJ signed in The Equal Rights Act.

Something can be moral, and yet illegal (though rarely). Something can be immoral, yet legal (see the past 20 or 30 years of Federal legislation).

Which stand in defiance with the Bill of rights.

Which part? Because not everything you're talking about has an applicable portion of the first ten amendments to back it. Plus, I just personally get antsy when people use blanket statements like "The Bill of Rights". It makes me think they haven't bothered to read them too closely and they think they say things or guarantee protections which they actually don't. So please, give me an ACTUAL NUMBERED AMENDMENT from the Bill that we can look at and discuss. Thank you.

5th Amendment

Thank you. Now let's look at the 5th Amendment. Here's the actual text of the 5th Amendment:

No 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.

Ok. So right in the opening sentence I can see the dodge the Bush Admin stuck to to get the Patriot Act through and most of it's challenges slapped down. See the part that starts with "except"? Then it goes on to stipulate that the 5th doesn't apply in times of war? The government treats "The War on Terror" as an actual war, therefore they feel the 5th won't apply in cases in which they invoke that War. That property bit has been messed with as well via imminent domain laws. Double jeopardy still stands...what else, what else...the witnessing bit still holds...and in terms of Gitmo, the dodge has been the document only applies to citizens. Slippery? Oh yes. MORALLY I disagree and I wait for the day it's thrown out and made illegal. I'm not holding my breath though.

The courts are wrong.

I agree.

The Bill of rights is not open to interpretation.

Yeah it is. That's why the Founders created the SCOTUS in the first place. They KNEW the Constitution could not be held up as the be all end all for hundreds of years. That's why they created the Amendment process and why they set up the SCOTUS to interpret it. They just didn't count on the SCOTUS ever legislating from the bench, which they have done.

Very little wiggle room in the sentence nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

But a fair bit of wiggle room before that as I pointed out above.

At 5/15/13 03:33 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: I'm not buying that. How is a little bit of melted wax sealing an envelope shut in 1791 more of a security measure than my e-mail account being password protected in 2013? And how is a phone call I make from MY phone (my property) from MY home (also my property) "made on others' property"?

The email server IS the envelope. The phone call goes through the propety of at least three parties: the caller's hardware through at least one party's phone lines, to the reciever's hardware. That middle hardware carries the phonecall unprotected and unlocked from sender to reciever. There is no seal to break nor any password to crack for the person who owns the middle portion of the call to listen in. The owner of that middle section can transfer the contents of that section to wherever they wish, in the same way a roommate can eaves drop on a conversation made in th common area and tell whomever they wish.

What the 4th amendment does is prohibit the government from searching and/or seizing Madison's letter at any point during this transaction of information, unless a warrant has been issued that allows the government to do so.

But Jefferson can give that to the government at any time. And if Jefferson has actually been transferring the content of the letter to other parties, and Madison knows so, there is no longer ANY privacy interest in the letter with which can be used for a 4th Amendment claim.

Matt Damon wants to write an email to Ben Affleck. He opens up a word document on his desktop computer, writes down his communication, saves the document and gives it a password, opens his Courier Email and attaches the document to an email and addresses it to Affleck. He presses send and the document is transferred via the web to Affleck's desktop computer. Affleck downloads the document, enters the password, and reads the letter.

This is a great way to distract from the actual issue. The use of a password protected attatchment to an email is NOT the same as merely writing an email. That extra password restricts th courier's access in the same way a sealed enevlope would. When the text is written in the email nothing but the courier's promise and contracts keeps them from reading and transferring the contents of the email.

How does the 4th Amendment not apply to this scenario exactly as it did for Madison?

Because we are not as protected (and in many cases, not protected at all) when we allow a third party who is not privy to the conversation access to the conversation. Such access puts serious holes in any claim of objective privacy.

Doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room if you ask me. It's the right to be secure against the unreasonable searches and seizures in the first place that the 4th addresses, not to be retroactively secure from prosecution after such unreasonable searches have already been committed (though that of course follows from it).

This is not the invasion of one's home, nor the siezure of property. This is passively listening in to a conversation that is already not provate by virtue of the courier's direct access to the material.

At 5/17/13 04:11 PM, Memorize wrote: Btw, I love how you completely ignored Angry Hatters completely on point. logical, thought out argument about email.

You mean his ultra forced dodge?

What? Couldn't come up with anything?

No. Was sick and didn't feel like answering at the time. By the time I felt better I had forgotten the back and forth and the conversation had moved on.

What about you? Nothing real to add?

At 5/17/13 01:08 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Look the real question is why would you care.

Cause unless I'm under criminal investigation, which I should be informed of according to the Bill of Rights, that being the 5th, 4th, and to a degree the 10th and 9th. I like my rights, I'd like to keep them for as long as I can. If I don't draw some lines in the sand and let those in power know what I wont tolerate, why not just let them do whatever the hell they want to me?

As I was trying to say, these people are insignificant in your life. What they do behind closed doors would literally have no impact on your life, they might as well not even exist.

But if I say "well, screw them and their rights" then I open the door to my rights being violated as well. It's like this phrase "I may not agree with what someone is saying, but I'll fight like hell for their right to say it". If we don't stand up for our rights, then we can easily lose them. Thats why The Bill of Rights was enacted in the first place.

You should have nothing to fear from them going over your private online history, and emails, unless you've downloaded blue prints of iconic landmarks/buildings in addition to a wikipedia search of explosive ingredients and where to buy them.

They don't need to know what I'm downloading online, or checking out at the library, or anything like that unless they have evidence that I am committing some kind of a crime by doing so. The "if you have nothing to hide, what do you care?" defense is a slippery slope.

Obviously our government would not respond in full force to something like that and the instant you look up home made guns/bombs, etc you're house will be swarmed by the FBI and SWAT.

No, but you do wind up on a secret watch list...and from there you may wind up on their kill lists. Because at this point the government can take out citizens if they feel the threat is great enough. So yes, given that, how about I just give up some more rights?

So again I ask why? Because you're committed to some belief in our constitution, which while I greatly respect lets be honest is open to interpretation.

It is, but if I agree with you, then I'm saying it's so open to interpretation as to have no value whatsoever and we may as well toss it into the trash if we aren't going to follow it's most basic amendments and principles. With all due respect of course, as I appreciate the respect you afforded me.

By having such a system in place we could catch such horrible acts before they happen. Look recently some kid posted on Facebook that they "shouldn't go to school tomorrow or else...".

Ah, but you see this not the same thing. Because what that kid posted on Facebook is made public, or at least as public as his friends list. Also the law is clear that threats are a criminal act in and of themselves and therefore constitute just cause for further investigation. Not an apples to apples my friend. :)

He was interrogated by cops and suspended, harsh I know, but that's idiocy why post something like that? To be edgy cool or funny? Clearly no one thought so, and in this day and age can you simply ignore that to the ravings of some loon.

I absolutely agree. I don't think that was harsh at all. We've dealt with similar situations here on the site and the idea is the same: You take any statement like that as a threat, as a serious situation, and you do whatever it takes to turn it over to the authorities and let them deal with it. You don't make threats publicly and not expect legal consequences. It's a crime.

Look at Chris Dorner the douche posted some manifesto and everyone ignored it until he acted on it.

That's the fault of the people who ignored. There ARE sufficient mechanisms in place to deal with such crap. I'm a part of one such mechanism (the mod team of this site). You can't prevent every crime and every tragedy, more legislation and violation of people's rights isn't going to help that.

While I'm not advocating for some Minority report action to be taken, is it so wrong to have some government spook watch you?

Without probable cause? Yes. Because ultimately it WILL be getting to a Minority Report situation, where they're being left to decide if what I'm doing may result in crime. If I check out a book on Hitler for a research paper I may be put on a secret watch list and branded as a possible neo-nazi when all I was doing was a school project. There have been people on this very board who have been investigated for that very thing, so this is not some pie in the sky idea.

Creepy, sure but if they're good at their job you'll never see them, and unless you actually act illegally, you'll be fine.

Don't worry about Big Brother, he's only going to slap you if you do something illegal...its fine...sleep, sleep...nope, not my idea of an acceptable situation, and not the idea of the country whose history I was taught.

Again, I'm only advocating for people with questionable motives/acts to be watched by FBI something for a period of time,if they fuck up and we catch them before innocents are killed, than it's a success.

We have such mechanisms, had them before 9/11 too. That's what "probable cause" and other such concepts are for. What you're saying is "who gives a fuck if they watch everybody? So long as you don't break the law your ok" but in practice it isn't that simple.

Hell look at stop and frisk for an example, everyone bitches how it's racist and stereotypes and while it might it's success can not be denied.

Are you talking about at the airports?

And if the person in question does nothing of the sort, then do you think we'd really continue to investigate the individual and continue to waste resources? No, they would move on to the next spook and wait and see.

But they go into a database, and that doesn't go away, stays on their record. Something as simple as checking out a book for a school project puts you on a list...scary not good stuff to me.

Being cautious if somewhat paranoid get's people on edge because they think 1984 Big Brother, Minority report type conspiracy, but as we get more advanced the amount of damage an individual can inflict by himself only grows, should we ignore the warning signs and cost innocent lives just to respect an out-of-date law?

We should never ignore the warning signs. My point though is that the tools we had prior to 9/11 were sufficient. The CIA, the FBI, all of them did their jobs, and did it well. The CIA was running around all summer trying to warn the admin an attack was imminent, they didn't listen, then tried to deflect the blame and say "well, the law enforcement and intelligence community didn't have enough resources".

And inb4 some one turns this into about guns, I do respect the 2nd amendment, but an individual does not need 30 rounds in a gun,nor does he need a weapon for the military, and nor does he need to buy such a weapon without any sort of background check or proper paper work to validate such a purchase.

Agreed. Leaving it there because we've got enough gun control threads already, we don't need to derail this one into yet another.

At 5/17/13 06:52 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The email server IS the envelope. The phone call goes through the propety of at least three parties: the caller's hardware through at least one party's phone lines, to the reciever's hardware. That middle hardware carries the phonecall unprotected and unlocked from sender to reciever. There is no seal to break nor any password to crack for the person who owns the middle portion of the call to listen in. The owner of that middle section can transfer the contents of that section to wherever they wish, in the same way a roommate can eaves drop on a conversation made in th common area and tell whomever they wish.

A server of an email provider is not even remotely similar to a common area in a dorm or anywhere else. Also, that server is not even completely the sole property of the company that operates it; I am paying for the privilege of using that server in one way or another. I am operating under the assumption that there is an agreement between the customer and the courier (the company maintaining the server), that the courier will not read, record, copy, or share the contents of the customer's correspondence. Obviously, they COULD tap into that information, just like the courier boy carrying Madison's letter COULD break the seal and read the letter, but then they would then be in violation of the terms of the contract they had agreed to, and would be subject to all the penalties applicable under the law.

But Jefferson can give that to the government at any time. And if Jefferson has actually been transferring the content of the letter to other parties, and Madison knows so, there is no longer ANY privacy interest in the letter with which can be used for a 4th Amendment claim.

There's nothing that the government can do to compel Jefferson to share that information with them though. Nor do they have the ability to compel the courier to break his agreement with Madison (unless they have a warrant). It is up to Madison and Jefferson alone to decide how the information of the letter is disseminated.

This is a great way to distract from the actual issue. The use of a password protected attatchment to an email is NOT the same as merely writing an email. That extra password restricts th courier's access in the same way a sealed enevlope would. When the text is written in the email nothing but the courier's promise and contracts keeps them from reading and transferring the contents of the email.

OK, point taken about the attachment. But, as mentioned, that promise and the contract is not insignificant, in fact it is vital. It goes without saying that the courier could break the contract at any time, but that would carry with it all the fines and punishments allowed for by the law and the terms of the contract. If you send information with a courier without an agreement of privacy, then all bets are off, obviously. You can't fault the courier with reading your letter, copying it, sharing it, or doing whatever with it if your agreement doesn't prohibit him from doing so.

How does the 4th Amendment not apply to this scenario exactly as it did for Madison?

Because we are not as protected (and in many cases, not protected at all) when we allow a third party who is not privy to the conversation access to the conversation. Such access puts serious holes in any claim of objective privacy.

Then that's a question of making sure that you avoid third parties that do not agree to keep your privacy, but when it comes to the government, they have as little right to demand access to an email I sent as they have demanding access to a letter I sent through UPS.

Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that the third party has free and open access to do whatever they want with my information, but through the terms of agreements that most of these kinds of companies have, that's simply not the case.

Doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room if you ask me. It's the right to be secure against the unreasonable searches and seizures in the first place that the 4th addresses, not to be retroactively secure from prosecution after such unreasonable searches have already been committed (though that of course follows from it).

This is not the invasion of one's home, nor the siezure of property. This is passively listening in to a conversation that is already not provate by virtue of the courier's direct access to the material.

See above.

That's not the issue I was addressing with that comment, I was talking about the 4th amendment in general terms. From what I understood of what you were saying, you said the 4th didn't "restrict the act [of unreasonable searches and seizures] itself", which I felt was completely wrong. The 4th restricts the government from searching and seizing anything without a warrant. The act of searching, the invasion of your person, house, papers, and effects, is what it prohibits. Otherwise, there would be nothing stopping the government from using warrantless searches simply as a way to harass people it doesn't like. Even if they don't find anything and no legal action comes from it, they still violated your 4th amendment rights.

At 5/17/13 07:24 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Cause unless I'm under criminal investigation, which I should be informed of according to the Bill of Rights, that being the 5th, 4th, and to a degree the 10th and 9th. I like my rights, I'd like to keep them for as long as I can. If I don't draw some lines in the sand and let those in power know what I wont tolerate, why not just let them do whatever the hell they want to me?

But if I say "well, screw them and their rights" then I open the door to my rights being violated as well. It's like this phrase "I may not agree with what someone is saying, but I'll fight like hell for their right to say it". If we don't stand up for our rights, then we can easily lose them. Thats why The Bill of Rights was enacted in the first place.

They don't need to know what I'm downloading online, or checking out at the library, or anything like that unless they have evidence that I am committing some kind of a crime by doing so. The "if you have nothing to hide, what do you care?" defense is a slippery slope.

No, but you do wind up on a secret watch list...and from there you may wind up on their kill lists. Because at this point the government can take out citizens if they feel the threat is great enough. So yes, given that, how about I just give up some more rights?

No offense, but I feel like you have little faith in our government. I understand you entirely, and believe me I do with your argument on 'where does it end', but I mean let's be honest I think you have to be naive to think we don't already have some system in place like this.

And while I understand your complaint on what happens when it's misused, I think there's a lot of middle ground between being watched and being outright assassinated. I mean you have to think about like this, there's 375 million people in this country, of that 200 or so online?

So now you have to be on the look out for people who might be radical islamist, anarchists, conspiratorial, etc. But of that what are you going to do? Keep tabs on all of them who so much as open anything at all resembling what I just said?

I doubt a database can be that large, and if so it's be so large it'd be impractical, so I'd imagine in such a system you'd have to have several red flags, to so much as be entered in such.

And with that, do you think we'd immediately go straight to an assassination? I'd be too large a number and such a scandal government in general would be questioned, I don't think any politician would dare to even authorize the kill without so much as an open dialogue with the suspect or an attempted arrest?

Hell we allowed the Tsarnaevs to come quietly after they shoot up and blew up the town, I don't think anyone would be outright killed without so much as an arrest first.

It is, but if I agree with you, then I'm saying it's so open to interpretation as to have no value whatsoever and we may as well toss it into the trash if we aren't going to follow it's most basic amendments and principles. With all due respect of course, as I appreciate the respect you afforded me.

no problem

Ah, but you see this not the same thing. Because what that kid posted on Facebook is made public, or at least as public as his friends list. Also the law is clear that threats are a criminal act in and of themselves and therefore constitute just cause for further investigation. Not an apples to apples my friend. :)

True, but the only difference really is one is behind closed doors so to say.

I absolutely agree. I don't think that was harsh at all. We've dealt with similar situations here on the site and the idea is the same: You take any statement like that as a threat, as a serious situation, and you do whatever it takes to turn it over to the authorities and let them deal with it. You don't make threats publicly and not expect legal consequences. It's a crime.

glad we see eye to eye on this

That's the fault of the people who ignored. There ARE sufficient mechanisms in place to deal with such crap. I'm a part of one such mechanism (the mod team of this site). You can't prevent every crime and every tragedy, more legislation and violation of people's rights isn't going to help that.

Right I'd just like to see a step forward I mean as a moderator you watch over all activity but in my opinion I see you as fair and you've had several people ouright curse you out and I don't see them being banned so I mean If you can handle such power properly maybe so too can our government.

Such a system can be inplace without that immediate escalation.

Without probable cause? Yes. Because ultimately it WILL be getting to a Minority Report situation, where they're being left to decide if what I'm doing may result in crime. If I check out a book on Hitler for a research paper I may be put on a secret watch list and branded as a possible neo-nazi when all I was doing was a school project. There have been people on this very board who have been investigated for that very thing, so this is not some pie in the sky idea.

I think I already answered in the other post, a few above*

Don't worry about Big Brother, he's only going to slap you if you do something illegal...its fine...sleep, sleep...nope, not my idea of an acceptable situation, and not the idea of the country whose history I was taught.

*

Are you talking about at the airports?

I'm sorry, this is a program in New York City, were cops can stop anyone they choose and frisk them, it has received a lot of bad press, admittedly so, but there are reports that it is indeed effective, which it is.

But they go into a database, and that doesn't go away, stays on their record. Something as simple as checking out a book for a school project puts you on a list...scary not good stuff to me.

But like I said it can't be something as simple as that given the frequency of such searches, if anything it'd have to be accumulative.

We should never ignore the warning signs. My point though is that the tools we had prior to 9/11 were sufficient. The CIA, the FBI, all of them did their jobs, and did it well. The CIA was running around all summer trying to warn the admin an attack was imminent, they didn't listen, then tried to deflect the blame and say "well, the law enforcement and intelligence community didn't have enough resources".

This I have not heard about, but unfortunately wouldn't surprise me how chaotic our government is.

Agreed. Leaving it there because we've got enough gun control threads already, we don't need to derail this one into yet another.

agreed

At 5/17/13 07:59 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Obviously, they COULD tap into that information, just like the courier boy carrying Madison's letter COULD break the seal and read the letter, but then they would then be in violation of the terms of the contract they had agreed to, and would be subject to all the penalties applicable under the law.

First off there is a stark difference between a courier opening the letter and an email provider merely looking at thecode that is being sent. In such case of the courier they have to take an active step to enter a domain that was not their to enter. A phone provider listening in may be a violation of a contract, but there is not such already private domain they would have to enter to get to the conversation. The private domain v. domain open to all parties who own the area is where the common room analogy comes in. The envelope is like breaking into the roommate's bedroom. The phonecall is like the roommate overhearing something in the common room. You can make a contract with your roommates to not disclose anything they hear in the common room and/or to not allow police into any room without all roommates' consent.

Then again, the violation of the contract doesn't make the police contact with such information unlwaful. All the contract does is provide grounds to sue the party who allowed the police in.

OK, point taken about the attachment. But, as mentioned, that promise and the contract is not insignificant, in fact it is vital. It goes without saying that the courier could break the contract at any time, but that would carry with it all the fines and punishments allowed for by the law and the terms of the contract. If you send information with a courier without an agreement of privacy, then all bets are off, obviously. You can't fault the courier with reading your letter, copying it, sharing it, or doing whatever with it if your agreement doesn't prohibit him from doing so.

I get your analogy, but you still are not delineating between a closed space and an open space. A closed space carries an implied privacy intrest that must be explicitly waived. An open sharing (as emails and phone calls are to the carrier, as well as all other internet activity) does not have that implicit privacy expectation.

Then that's a question of making sure that you avoid third parties that do not agree to keep your privacy, but when it comes to the government, they have as little right to demand access to an email I sent as they have demanding access to a letter I sent through UPS.

Actually, police group routinely demand such information from carriers, and they often get it. Far more so with phones than with emails.

Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that the third party has free and open access to do whatever they want with my information, but through the terms of agreements that most of these kinds of companies have, that's simply not the case.

It is known that phone carriers will often give out records on a mere request. Interenet providers are increasingly doing so as well. The more that these people do so, the less of an expectation of privacy comes with it, and the less the 4th Amendment protects.

That's not the issue I was addressing with that comment, I was talking about the 4th amendment in general terms. From what I understood of what you were saying, you said the 4th didn't "restrict the act [of unreasonable searches and seizures] itself", which I felt was completely wrong. The 4th restricts the government from searching and seizing anything without a warrant. The act of searching, the invasion of your person, house, papers, and effects, is what it prohibits. Otherwise, there would be nothing stopping the government from using warrantless searches simply as a way to harass people it doesn't like. Even if they don't find anything and no legal action comes from it, they still violated your 4th amendment rights.

The 4th Amendment is meant to stop harrassing actions. However, the clandestine collection of emails and phone calls is hardly harrassing. If you don;t know it happened, how can you be harrassed by it?

At 5/17/13 06:48 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'm not arguing the dictionary.

You don't have too

No, that'd be the fact that slavery was legal. It was DELIBERATELY left by the Framers of The Constitution as a States rights issue. This of course was doomed to failure and eventually came to a head with the Civil War.

The civil war had nothing to do with slavery, nor was slavery even REALLY an issue in the revolution.

Slavery was legal. But in terms of humanity, it is a crime. Rights are not granted by governments...each human on this planet is born with rights.

I think I understand your point...the problem is you want to condense down words and meanings. Then when I try to say to you "listen, no offense, but your wrong, what you meant is actually this. Understand? Hope I was helpful" you seem to see me as some kind of bully on the playground or a guy with his head up his ass. I don't get that. But let's try to break this down a little better:

Because you're being condescending. If that will be your attitude, I will return it.

The law is NOT always concerned with morality or human right. The BASIS of the law is indeed to try and codify basic societal standards and human rights at it's core (for example, our mutual right to walk down the street and not be randomly assaulted or killed), but this is not ALWAYS the case. This is in part because our moralities are not entirely universal. I'm sure we can both agree that killing someone just to kill them is a terrible thing and should be punished. But my feelings on gay marriage differ from someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I feel MORALLY gay marriage should enjoy the same federal protections as heterosexual marriage. However the LAW does not agree with my morality at the federal level, at least not yet. There was also the issue of segregation and civil rights and all that. We agree NOW that this should have MORALLY been afforded at the very basis of a country founded on freedom, but LEGALLY it was not so until LBJ signed in The Equal Rights Act.

so, the LAW is wrong when compared to the rights that humans have upon birth.

Ok. So right in the opening sentence I can see the dodge the Bush Admin stuck to to get the Patriot Act through and most of it's challenges slapped down. See the part that starts with "except"? Then it goes on to stipulate that the 5th doesn't apply in times of war? The government treats "The War on Terror" as an actual war, therefore they feel the 5th won't apply in cases in which they invoke that War. That property bit has been messed with as well via imminent domain laws. Double jeopardy still stands...what else, what else...the witnessing bit still holds...and in terms of Gitmo, the dodge has been the document only applies to citizens. Slippery? Oh yes. MORALLY I disagree and I wait for the day it's thrown out and made illegal. I'm not holding my breath though.

The "except" part doesn't apply because, legally, we are not at war.

Yeah it is. That's why the Founders created the SCOTUS in the first place. They KNEW the Constitution could not be held up as the be all end all for hundreds of years. That's why they created the Amendment process and why they set up the SCOTUS to interpret it. They just didn't count on the SCOTUS ever legislating from the bench, which they have done.

And that was one of the founders' flaws. The bill of Rights is basic English. I don't see how you can't see this considering how much of a boner you have to "defintions" of things.

At 5/17/13 10:52 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: No offense, but I feel like you have little faith in our government.

I wouldn't call it "little faith". There are things our government does very well, I'm not one of these idiots who runs around trying to say that government can't do anything right and any function of government can be replaced and done better by private industry. It's nonsense. But there are things, situations, and instances where I don't want the government involved, because it's not their job to be involved.

I understand you entirely, and believe me I do with your argument on 'where does it end', but I mean let's be honest I think you have to be naive to think we don't already have some system in place like this.

So, if we have the system, we should just say "oh well, they already did it, guess we should just stop bitching and get used to it?" I don't agree with that. What we need to do is as I say, dig in our heels, and then vote out the kind of people that believe in and want to administer such systems.

And while I understand your complaint on what happens when it's misused, I think there's a lot of middle ground between being watched and being outright assassinated.

There is, but I don't want to give the government unfettered power to watch me, or anybody else. Because when I start giving up liberty in the name of security, history says I will continue to lose liberty until eventually I have none at all. You can always trust the powerful to want more power, not to give it up.

So now you have to be on the look out for people who might be radical islamist, anarchists, conspiratorial, etc. But of that what are you going to do? Keep tabs on all of them who so much as open anything at all resembling what I just said?

I imagine what they're doing is looking for key words. They clearly are tracking at least libraries and such like that where books containing words or ideas they may find objectionable are being checked out.

And with that, do you think we'd immediately go straight to an assassination? I'd be too large a number and such a scandal government in general would be questioned, I don't think any politician would dare to even authorize the kill without so much as an open dialogue with the suspect or an attempted arrest?

Right now, between the executive orders of the current admin, and the last, the government has a LOT of unfettered, extra legal ability and authority to do things that would have been unthinkable years ago. Plus, as I've said and maintained elsewhere, the government is armed better then any private citizen will ever be, and with the development of tech like drones, pretty soon you want even need a human army. The government is a mostly benevolent figure at this point because it chooses to be. But as much as they continue to creep into every facet of our lives, it's definitely concerning to me.

Hell we allowed the Tsarnaevs to come quietly after they shoot up and blew up the town, I don't think anyone would be outright killed without so much as an arrest first.

Which video did you watch? They ran, and did you see the final shoot out against the one that lived? They were practically blasting him with friggin artillery rounds while he hid in a shitty boat with a handgun to shoot back. Also they didn't "blow up the town" they detonated a home made bomb in a specific part of it. I think the Tsarnaevs crime has been overblown personally but that's a completely different topic.

True, but the only difference really is one is behind closed doors so to say.

As I said. The facebook example is not a good one. Because what I make public on facebook is still my choice to make public. I have not seen a compelling argument yet to say I should no longer have a basic expectation of a right to privacy.

glad we see eye to eye on this

If course we do. As I've maintained, I'm not trying to argue that threats or anything like that aren't a problem. They totally are. But what I'm saying is we don't need a big brother, minority report type setup to catch it. We just need an engaged populace who pays attention and takes the appropriate action in reporting it.

Right I'd just like to see a step forward I mean as a moderator you watch over all activity but in my opinion I see you as fair and you've had several people ouright curse you out and I don't see them being banned so I mean If you can handle such power properly maybe so too can our government.

But my power has limitations. One such limitation is that cursing me out, either outright on the board, or on the PM system, isn't necessarily a rule violation all by itself. I am not omnipotent, I have people overseeing me that feel if I am abusing the power I was afforded, it'll get taken away. The government has the same mechanism theoretically too, that being the citizenry. But what I think has happened is we've had this sort of massive shift where as long as "my guy" is running the government, then whatever they do is ok. When the Republicans had Bush in, most people didn't care that he was subverting the Constitution on an almost daily basis. They don't care right now that Congress wastes time and money on 37 attempts to repeal the healthcare act. Many liberals don't care about the IRS scandal or any of these things because, well, hey, our guy is in charge. I'm just saying we should have a healthy suspicion of anybody in office.

I'm sorry, this is a program in New York City, were cops can stop anyone they choose and frisk them, it has received a lot of bad press, admittedly so, but there are reports that it is indeed effective, which it is.

Again, I don't like this. It's too open to abuse, and it's a completely unconstitutional process it sounds like since there appears to be no probable cause mechanism involved.

But like I said it can't be something as simple as that given the frequency of such searches, if anything it'd have to be accumulative.

As I said, I know of people who are getting hit a day or so after they check out a book on Hitler for a school research project and getting investigated. It's sophisticated, and it's quick.

This I have not heard about, but unfortunately wouldn't surprise me how chaotic our government is.

So...you admit our government is "chaotic"...but I should be trusting them to monitor me and invade my privacy with no probable cause and it'll all be ok?

At 5/18/13 07:36 PM, LemonCrush wrote: You don't have too

With you it seems I do because every time I point out the way you use words is wrong, the dictionary says so, you try to deflect and say it doesn't apply. I'm not going down that road any more.

The civil war had nothing to do with slavery, nor was slavery even REALLY an issue in the revolution.

Ok, the first part is no, slavery was a HUGE and in fact the primary divisive factor that led to the Civil War. Slavery was an issue AFTER the Revolution as the nation was put together but the Founders chose a compromise on it believing it would die off naturally.

Slavery was legal. But in terms of humanity, it is a crime. Rights are not granted by governments...each human on this planet is born with rights.

I believe that as well. But my point is governments make laws, by choosing to live in that society, you choose to live under that government and obey those laws.

Because you're being condescending. If that will be your attitude, I will return it.

I'm not trying to be condescending. I am pointing out your error, and sourcing it, you then deny that and alternate between continuous defiance and outright insults. That's at least the tact our prior debate took.

so, the LAW is wrong when compared to the rights that humans have upon birth.

The LAW can be wrong on a moral level. But it is still the law, and it is still legal. That has been my whole point. Something can be morally reprehensible, but yet legal and lawful.

The "except" part doesn't apply because, legally, we are not at war.

We aren't, but Congress did draft that very loose document that allows the administration to do everything and anything required to go after terrorists and the perpetrators of 9/11. There also were a bunch of other moves via executive order, SCOTUS decision, etc that have been backing a lot of this stuff.

And that was one of the founders' flaws. The bill of Rights is basic English. I don't see how you can't see this considering how much of a boner you have to "defintions" of things.

It is english. However it has terms (militias for instance) that don't really apply now. Plus the whole basis of our legal system has always been that in the legal sense definitions and terms are fluid. He who argues the best, winds up winning the case.

At 5/18/13 08:36 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: So...you admit our government is "chaotic"...but I should be trusting them to monitor me and invade my privacy with no probable cause and it'll all be ok?

Right, I kinda of overlooked that.

I meant that more as in people not doing their job. I feel like though with such a system it should be run maybe military like or at least by the CIA, considering they're not too partisan on anything really they just do their jobs.

The ultimate problem I see is that an individual can cause too much carnage by himself these days. It no longer takes a man with an army or money behind him to cause destruction. He can just go out and buy his own weapons or make them and use these tools to cause massive casualties.

We need to be vigilant against these people and I know it seems intrusive on our rights to allow the government to be as involved in privacy as they are (or will be).

But to me it seems like the lesser of two evils, would you rather risk the lives of the present of the lives of the future?

And my point with that is, the problem you foresee is this system being turned against us as an American Gestapo and while that's a valid argument/concern, I feel that while yes our government is flawed, it is not nearly to the point that it could become tyrannical.

We can say no in our government, so I feel so long as we keep such a system, but as a final line, in the sense that this is the farthest we can allow our government to go. It will only get out of hand if we let it.

You know the whole gate-way drug theory? It's a stupid analogy to make but the only one that comes to mind. I know people can just smoke weed and weed alone, is it so hard to believe that the only right we'll be willing to give up is privacy and privacy alone?

At 5/18/13 08:46 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: With you it seems I do because every time I point out the way you use words is wrong, the dictionary says so, you try to deflect and say it doesn't apply. I'm not going down that road any more.

you don't seem to understand proper definition vs. practical usage. That's fine. you probably lack socail skills, so don't talk to people much. No fault of your own, I suppose.

Ok, the first part is no, slavery was a HUGE and in fact the primary divisive factor that led to the Civil War. Slavery was an issue AFTER the Revolution as the nation was put together but the Founders chose a compromise on it believing it would die off naturally.

No it wasn't about slavery in the least, but rather about the Federal government ignoring the Tenth Amendment in pretty much every possible way. just like they do now.

I believe that as well. But my point is governments make laws, by choosing to live in that society, you choose to live under that government and obey those laws.

Or change them. If we just "obey those laws" segregation would still be around, and women wouldn't be able to vote.

I'm not trying to be condescending. I am pointing out your error, and sourcing it, you then deny that and alternate between continuous defiance and outright insults. That's at least the tact our prior debate took.

You're point out error based on opinion.

The LAW can be wrong on a moral level. But it is still the law, and it is still legal. That has been my whole point. Something can be morally reprehensible, but yet legal and lawful.

i disagree

We aren't, but Congress did draft that very loose document that allows the administration to do everything and anything required to go after terrorists and the perpetrators of 9/11. There also were a bunch of other moves via executive order, SCOTUS decision, etc that have been backing a lot of this stuff.

And in temrs of the Constitution, those things are illegal. For example, according to the constitution, Congress has the sole right to declare war. They don't even have the power to delegate the responsibility to the Executive branch.

It is english. However it has terms (militias for instance) that don't really apply now. Plus the whole basis of our legal system has always been that in the legal sense definitions and terms are fluid. He who argues the best, winds up winning the case.

Militias don't apply now? How so? I'm not 100% on this, but i believe almost every state has a national guard, which more or less acts as a militia.

There is not any fluidity for something that says something basic like that. Where's the fludity in "Congress shall not...". That's pretty fucking solid