I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
I also have no desire to live in a country of anarchy.
In general we as citizens give up a bit of freedom in exchange for security. Old Ben's notion isn't a bad one in a general sense, but I didn't see Franklin proposing that there should be no counstable or police and that the government shouldn't bother having an executive to enforce laws.
I do believe that the government should have ways to do survelliance and investigations into people. I also think these things should have checks and balances in place to keep them from being horribly abused, especially on a large scale.
They are when you know how its going to goPreemptive victory dances aren't very becoming.
USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, for a direct tap, or hell, even an entire "Sneak peak" into my life, all they have to do is say "we have suspicion that he is a terrorist/is collaborating with terrorists." No proof necessary, just based on suspicion MY privacy is out the window.
Yeah, that bugs me. Where does it go from here?
Every one of those provisions you stated before must go before some kind of checks and balances before going. A member of government law enforcement agencies can't just go "Hm, I want to tap Shewter today" and then go do it at his leisure, without any reason at all. Its not possible, legally, in the hyperbolic way you tried ot discuss it seriously.
Sneak and Peak requires a judge to sign off on it, and they do still have to alert you. The burden IS higher than simply needing to say "he works with terrorists" as well.
But thank you for showing my point. You talked in extreme hyperbole originally, yet presented yourself as serious. Then when called on it you've danced around, showing nothing that allows someone to listen in on you willy nilly "for no reason" and then continued with FURTHER hyperbole by saying they can just say "we have suspicion that he is a terrorist/is collaborating with terrorists." which is a gross under exaggeration of reality.
As someone pointed out, the government was NEVER meant to be completely unable to search, or sieze the information of, private citizens. They're not meant to do it when its in an unreasonable way. Now, you can argue the term of unreasonable all day long, but its a discussion that can not be had honestly if its litered with hyerbole and exaggeration.
You down with TPP?
Sure thing then. May be a bit as I'll need to go find the links and the appropriate piece. Unfortunantly a number of the sources came from scholarly articles in respected political science and law journals that I unfortunantly no longer have access to since graduating. However in those cases I'll happily give you the information paraphased and give you the relevant information to find the source.
That said, should probably go in a different thread as this thread is meant to apparently be about the feds removing the rights of the states through constitutional amendments, and thus we've gone a bit off track.
You down with TPP?