Today we fight against mass survailence

[Anton]

Wait, so first you were arguing that you're not allowed privacy because it isn't in the Constitution, and then you say it doesn't mean anything when it turns out it does? Okay.

There's a reason why lawyers and judges are paid quite a bit.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Wait, so first you were arguing that you're not allowed privacy because it isn't in the Constitution, and then you say it doesn't mean anything when it turns out it does? Okay.

The Constitution "doesn't mean anything" without the Supreme Court (thanks to judicial review), and the Supreme Court has molded the "right to privacy", not the Constitution.

That's what I think Shoey meant, anyway.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Uh, the Fourth Amendment?

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.

Search and seizure =/= right to privacy, although the two can overlap.

To me, the right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is a right to privacy. Allowing for reasonable searches is an acceptable breach of this right to privacy.

Collecting metadata on everyone without probable cause is a different story.

 

[Stargatedalek]

corporations already spy on people
unless you have something to hide why should you care if the government does the same?

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Because information is power, and I don't really want the government to have that much power over its citizens. Sure, I have nothing to fear... from a just government. But the government is not always just, and the more power they have the more potential for abuse of power.

I don't have anything wrong with warranted searches and seizures though, because that's reasonable. What's not reasonable is the government being able to know someone's location, who they've been talking to, etc. without a warrant.

Here's a demonstration of what they can do with your data. And this is without a warrant.

 

[Specific Neptune]

Why is this crap even a real thing if it obviously violates the Constitution?

>still believing in the constitution

the government has violated so much of the constitution, it literally makes no difference anymore. Some laws on that thing need to be violated for the safety of the country, though. Others just need to be left alone

 

[Daniel Dyce]

Because information is power, and I don't really want the government to have that much power over its citizens. Sure, I have nothing to fear... from a just government. But the government is not always just, and the more power they have the more potential for abuse of power.

I don't have anything wrong with warranted searches and seizures though, because that's reasonable. What's not reasonable is the government being able to know someone's location, who they've been talking to, etc. without a warrant.

Here's a demonstration of what they can do with your data. And this is without a warrant.

and it's all legal and it will all be upheld by the United State Supreme court

 

[Stargatedalek]

but you wouldn't even know unless they used it against you
at which point they could just get a warrant

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Uh, the Fourth Amendment?

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.

Search and seizure =/= right to privacy, although the two can overlap.

To me, the right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is a right to privacy. Allowing for reasonable searches is an acceptable breach of this right to privacy.

It really depends on what the Supreme Court says, ultimately, but if you put it in context, the clause is talking about protecting people from "unreasonable searches and seizures" without a warrant, thus giving them the right to be secure in their property.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Because information is power, and I don't really want the government to have that much power over its citizens. Sure, I have nothing to fear... from a just government. But the government is not always just, and the more power they have the more potential for abuse of power.

I don't have anything wrong with warranted searches and seizures though, because that's reasonable. What's not reasonable is the government being able to know someone's location, who they've been talking to, etc. without a warrant.

Here's a demonstration of what they can do with your data. And this is without a warrant.

and it's all legal and it will all be upheld by the United State Supreme court

which is dumb. i think we should elect supreme court justices just like any other government official

 

[Daniel Dyce]

Because information is power, and I don't really want the government to have that much power over its citizens. Sure, I have nothing to fear... from a just government. But the government is not always just, and the more power they have the more potential for abuse of power.

I don't have anything wrong with warranted searches and seizures though, because that's reasonable. What's not reasonable is the government being able to know someone's location, who they've been talking to, etc. without a warrant.

Here's a demonstration of what they can do with your data. And this is without a warrant.

and it's all legal and it will all be upheld by the United State Supreme court

which is dumb. i think we should elect supreme court justices just like any other government official

Why so we can make a bunch of stupid choices like we do with every other elected office

 

[Dr. Javelin]

yeah, but that way they can't interpret the constitution however they want because they still have to answer to the people

democracy has always had its pros and cons

 

[Daniel Dyce]

yeah, but that way they can't interpret the constitution however they want because they still have to answer to the people

democracy has always had its pros and cons

So they'll vote the way the people do because they are afraid to lose their jobs if they don't instead of looking at it from a technically neutral stand point wonderful solution there jack

 

[Dr. Javelin]

what makes you say that their standpoint is neutral? you can look at our current justices and point out the clearly conservative ones (scalia) and the clearly liberal ones (sotomayor)

instead of having them interpreting the constitution to suit their own personal political ideals, i'd rather have them interpret it to suit the desires of the people who the constitution was designed for

 

[Daniel Dyce]

what makes you say that their standpoint is neutral? you can look at our current justices and point out the clearly conservative ones (scalia) and the clearly liberal ones (sotomayor)

instead of having them interpreting the constitution to suit their own personal political ideals, i'd rather have them interpret it to suit the desires of the people who the constitution was designed for

You mean the same people who voted in the people who caused this fucking mess to start with?
also they aren't neutral anymore (except Justice Kennedy) but there supposed to be neutral and in the past many of them have been neutral

 

[Dr. Javelin]

what makes you say that their standpoint is neutral? you can look at our current justices and point out the clearly conservative ones (scalia) and the clearly liberal ones (sotomayor)

instead of having them interpreting the constitution to suit their own personal political ideals, i'd rather have them interpret it to suit the desires of the people who the constitution was designed for

You mean the same people who voted in the people who caused this fucking mess to start with?

Yes.

...unless you'd rather have a monarchy?

I personally think that the best way to resolve the conservative/liberal divide in this country would be to just split the country up into a conservative country and a liberal country, but whatever.

also they aren't neutral anymore (except Justice Kennedy) but there supposed to be neutral and in the past many of them have been neutral

yeah, but they have no incentive to be neutral unless neutrality is part of their ideals. trusting them to be neutral doesn't always work

 

[Mario4Ever]

I personally think that the best way to resolve the conservative/liberal divide in this country would be to just split the country up into a conservative country and a liberal country, but whatever.

What happens to the independents and/or the people who think conservatively about some issues and liberally about others?

 

[Daniel Dyce]

I personally think that the best way to resolve the conservative/liberal divide in this country would be to just split the country up into a conservative country and a liberal country, but whatever.

What happens to the independents and/or the people who think conservatively about some issues and liberally about others?

A third smaller nation will be formed

 

[Shyghoul]

the south will rise again

 

[Dr. Javelin]

I personally think that the best way to resolve the conservative/liberal divide in this country would be to just split the country up into a conservative country and a liberal country, but whatever.

What happens to the independents and/or the people who think conservatively about some issues and liberally about others?

They're forced to pick a side, I guess.

But hey, you're right. It would be even more awesome if we just disunited the states and then they all allied according to political ideology. I can already see where some of the political strongholds would be.

Conservative - Deep South, Southeast, Texas, Oklahoma
Liberal - Northeast, California
Libertarian - Midwest, Alaska

Someone should write a fiction about this. It'd be awesome.

 

[Daniel Dyce]

I personally think that the best way to resolve the conservative/liberal divide in this country would be to just split the country up into a conservative country and a liberal country, but whatever.

What happens to the independents and/or the people who think conservatively about some issues and liberally about others?

They're forced to pick a side, I guess.

But hey, you're right. It would be even more awesome if we just disunited the states and then they all allied according to political ideology. I can already see where some of the political strongholds would be.

Conservative - Deep South, Southeast, Texas, Oklahoma
Liberal - Northeast, California
Libertarian - Midwest, Alaska

Someone should write a fiction about this. It'd be awesome.

Um the midwest is more of a bipartisan area considering that we tend to send a fairly even number of congressmen from both parties and tend to split the governerships
also no mention of the west which is extremely liberal (except Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming)
also your generalizing the south when in fact parts of the south (such as Maryland and Virginia) tend to be a mixture of democrats and republicans and tend to switch sides quite a bit
also there is a large portion (although still the minority) that is quite liberal
also I've got a better idea then this how about we do this revolutionary thing called compromise because if you go to the extreme of both sides you will get two failing nations

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Um the midwest is more of a bipartisan area considering that we tend to send a fairly even number of congressmen from both parties and tend to split the governerships
also no mention of the west which is extremely liberal (except Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming)
also your generalizing the south when in fact parts of the south (such as Maryland and Virginia) tend to be a mixture of democrats and republicans and tend to switch sides quite a bit
also there is a large portion (although still the minority) that is quite liberal

I realize I'm generalizing here, but that's what's fun about it! : D

also I've got a better idea then this how about we do this revolutionary thing called compromise because if you go to the extreme of both sides you will get two failing nations

Yeah, but after they've both realized that if they go extreme then they're doomed, they'll have learned the consequences of their extreme ideology and will be willing to compromise and reunite the states, thus placing the country in a more moderate mood.

...

And if they don't reunite, then you could always just move to another country or something. Or if you're like me and you would enjoy living in a libertarian state, move there!

...as long as they didn't go extreme libertarian, because that's just a fancy way of saying "anarchy". Hmm.