3 ms·
The enumerated powers clause of the constitution does not give the government the power to mandate standards for communication. Further, the first amendment ma
by lzw 16y ago
The enumerated powers clause of the constitution does not give the government the power to mandate standards for communication. Further, the first amendment makes it clear that such a law is a violatiin of rights.
Finally, it is worth noting that the fourth amendment requires a warrant, and existing wiretaps are done without warrants, just with "court orders" because getting a warrant was too much of a burden.
The inclusion from all of this is that the act of enforcing this law, if passed, would be itself a crime as there exists a federal law against violating constitutional rights under color of law. Further, passing the law jugs shows who illegal our government has become. If the government is not in comolaince with the document that authorizes it's existence, then it is not a legitimate government.
- olefoo 16y ago"The inclusion from all of this...", I think you meant "The conclusion to be drawn from this...". And while I do think the proposed law is shockingly broad and overreaching; I find your grasp of american jurisprudence to be lacking in several important respects.
- sdp 16y agoWhich important respects?
- kgo 16y agoFor one, at least since the New Deal, the strict constructionist interpretation of enumerated powers doesn't hold water. The federal government has a pretty broad interpretation of 'interstate commerce' which supersedes the list of 'enumerated powers' Since the internet crosses state lines, it's interstate commerce. For example, it the government can't constitutionally control communications, the FCC is illegal. And yet it hasn't been shut down by the Supreme Court or Congress.
- aswanson 16y agoPerhaps it should be.
- aswanson 16y agoMine is lacking further still. Can you expand upon the specific errors made in his reasoning, if you would?
- sbov 16y agoMy uninformed guess is that if it went to court the justification would probably be the (interstate) commerce clause. Its what they used for the war on drugs.
- cookiecaper 16y agoIt's interesting that in the 1920s they recognized that a Constitutional amendment was required to prohibit a given substance (alcohol). You're right, it seems these days anything the Feds want to do can be justified by an allusion to "the Commerce Clause".