come on "constructionists"

[vidcc]

With the pending supreme court nomination hearings and the crys from the "right" for the need for a "strict constructionist" I wonder what view those of this mindset have about wiretaps without warrants on US citizens, especially as they could have been done legitimately with warrants with the system in place.

Is the 4th ammendment not important when it comes to the constitution?

I have heard the arguement put forward that they are only listening to "bad people".... however we only have their word for that, and if they are indeed only listening to "bad people" then why avoid the court system?

[Santa]

In the 50/60's there was an art movement called the "Constructivists". There work was purelly about minimizing form into squares, circles etc this lead to the minimalists whom believe (stll today) that the purest "painting" (outdated genre) is a "monocrome" (one coloured surface). Both these fields affected architcture and design as you know it today.

Should your "Constructionists" follow the same path, i suggest fear is in order, yet it is a necessary path inorder to get to where we are nowadays.

[Biggles]

Whilst I am sure builders with a leaning for leather and cuffs have their place in society surely a Judge would be a better choice?

[JPaul]

Whilst I am sure builders with a leaning for leather and cuffs have their place in society surely a Judge would be a better choice?

That's just bigoted thinking, it should be open to anyone.

[j2k4]

Kind of a faux argument, vid; we could get deeply into all this, but perhaps at the outset we might acknowledge that to use the term "constructionist" to discuss this is a malaprop, as the founders had not tumbled to telephony, much less the ability to listen from the shade.

As an aside, one wonders what the authorities are required to say to any innocents whose conversations with the legitimately "tapped" criminal element are discovered?

I'm guessing not a whole lot, huh?

I mean, really...where's the beef?

Besides which, I'm on semi-holiday from serious topics just now.

[vidcc]

Kind of a faux argument, vid; we could get deeply into all this, but perhaps at the outset we might acknowledge that to use the term "constructionist" to discuss this is a malaprop, as the founders had not tumbled to telephony, much less the ability to listen from the shade.

As with many things that come before the supreme court today the founders could have no idea that such things could happen with advances.
If the constitution said "no man shall take an axe to any tree owned by the state" it doesn't mean that men with chainsaws have a free run.
"constructionist" point to the founders and say they "didn't have this in mind when they wrote the constitution" on many of todays cases, mostly only when they don't like the subject. however article 4 is clear and i don't believe it should be ignored because of technical advances.... 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

As an aside, one wonders what the authorities are required to say to any innocents whose conversations with the legitimately "tapped" criminal element are discovered?

I'm guessing not a whole lot, huh?

I mean, really...where's the beef?

So you would be happy for your calls to be monitored without warrant?...For this exercise let's assume that Clinton is in office while this is happening.
Now I am totally for wiretapping the bad guys before someone makes a silly suggestion. I do however believe that it should be done with warrants. And seeing as those warrants can be obtained after the deed has occured and the system in place is basically a rubber stamp I see no legitimate reason for the path chosen.
Maybe it's because it's their guy doing but it does seem odd that the ones that believe the strongest in small government with limited powers are the ones silent on this issue.

[j2k4]

You've been saving for this one, eh?

One would have to be a complete noob to believe this kind of stuff hasn't gone on under every administration for decades.

Clinton apparently did it to Gennifer Flowers, but that was just over illicit sex, not National Security, so he should get a pass?

After all, wasn't his personal security the paramount concern of his administration?

Again, I'm stuck for time (on my way to work), but trust me, vid-this isn't going anywhere-it's a non-issue.

I suppose we'll get into it more later...

[clocker]

One would have to be a complete noob to believe this kind of stuff hasn't gone on under every administration for decades.
People (and governments) have been committing murder for millennia, so I guess that makes it OK now by virtue of precedent. Kind of a "grandfather clause" sort of thing, eh?

Clinton apparently did it to Gennifer Flowers, but that was just over illicit sex, not National Security, so he should get a pass?


After all, wasn't his personal security the paramount concern of his administration?
Give it a rest, j2. It's been six years now and the "Yeah, but look what Bill Clinton did!" defense is wearing more than a bit thin.

Again, I'm stuck for time (on my way to work), but trust me, vid-this isn't going anywhere-it's a non-issue.

It's a "non-issue" why?
Because it reflects poorly on the Republican administration?
How egregiously do the Bushies have to fuck up before it becomes an issue with you- at least a bigger issue than a blowjob and the definition of the word "is"?

I assume you have already removed your firewall and antivirus apps to make monitoring your personal PC easier for the government...after all, where's the beef if some security functionary wants to cruise your pr0n collection? You have nothing to hide, right?
While we're at it let's install a tracking device on your car and security cameras at every intersection (ala Great Britian)...makes it easier to prove you aren't a terrorist.

No doubt Bill would have done all this had he not been busy banging fat chicks, so it's OK.

[vidcc]

Clinton apparently did it to Gennifer Flowers, but that was just over illicit sex, not National Security, so he should get a pass?

If it can be proven he did it he deserves the full power of the law bearing down on him. However as Clocker said this "but Clinton" is getting a bit old.

Again, I'm stuck for time (on my way to work), but trust me, vid-this isn't going anywhere-it's a non-issue.

I suppose we'll get into it more later...

So let's have an answer to the question posed..... would you be ok with your personal communications being recorded?
I think it fair to add that i am not looking for anyone to condemn the man they voted for, just to be honest as to if they believe in the constitution is law or not especially as i mentioned that the ones so silent on this are the ones demanding judges that rule only by the constitution. Do you think Bush had this in mind when he put Miers forward...supreme court russian roulette perhaps?
I do also wonder if the likes of ann coulter et al who are so for this would be just as happy for it to continue if Hillary wins in 08.

I found the following arguement interesting

Why Bush’s Warrantless Spying Programs Puts Americans At Risk

Today, President Bush attempted to justify his secret domestic spying program:

"The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people. In other words, the enemy is calling somebody and we want to know who they’re calling and why."

In fact, according to this explanation, the program was not only illegal but unnecessarily puts the American people at risk.

If we know that U.S. persons are communicating with al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, the surveillance would be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Remember, doing so would not slow the process down because you can obtain the approval up to 72-hours after the surveillance has begun.) Evidence obtained with a warrant from the FISA court, in most cases, can be used to charge and prosecute a suspect. In fact, Section 218 of the Patriot Act amended FISA to make it easier to introduce evidence obtained with a FISA warrant to prosecute people.

Every conversation monitored under Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program is a missed opportunity to get someone who is talking with terrorists off the streets and behind bars.

Why? Becuase evidence obtained by Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program is probably not admissible in court. Convictions obtained with evidence from this program may be overturned. Suspected terrorists are already pursuing appeals.

Conversation between U.S. persons and a known terrorists should be monitored. But those conversations should be monitored in a way maximizes the security of the American people. Bush’s secret program doesn’t do it. We’d be much safer if he would cancel it and start following the law.

WHat do you think?

[JPaul]

What's a "constructionist".

I looked it up.

"A person who construes a legal text or document in a specified way: a strict constructionist."

I thought everyone did that.

Do you chaps have a more specific meaning for it in the USA.