Mach
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 27,745
- Reaction score
- 24,087
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
That's false though. They used the Constitutional process to define what is, and is not "unreasonable search and seizure". Also, that's a matter of interpretation.Not sure I understand all your points, but I will answer your specific question and pass on the rhetorical ones.
Here are examples of how government is broken and how it assaults the founding document:
The USA Patriot Act contradicts and nullifies the Fourth Amendment. Our duly elected representatives gave that to us.
But in any case, they used their Constitutional authority to enact laws that are legally NOT unreasonable search and seizure. If you want to contest that, we have a process.
If you claim they "nullified it", that's false both as a legal matter, and as a matter of the fact that in every other non-patriot-act related action, you still enjoy the 4th.
See, your issue is not government bad...it's that you don't understand what the issue is, so you can't mobilize support to change anything...you don't know what you'd be changing or why, apparently. No shame in that, politics is boring and can be complex, you can change that by correcting yourself.
Assange has been legally charged with crimes, you oppose that... OK.The persecution and torture of the journalist Julian Assange is an affront to civilized society and the rule of law, yet not one person in the US government can find enough conscience to object.
That you reject the rule of law makes you look like you don't value the United States or what it stands for. That's unfortunate. Yes, I agree, since you oppose laws, you should not vote, it would be pointless. Just be lawless and enjoy yourself. Maybe move to some lawless region and go buck wild?
Last edited: