3 ms·

"was apparently connected to organized crime, even if only through blood" So if you're the son of the local mafia don, from what age should you followed around

• roel_v 16y ago
  I'm not saying anything about the kid actually being a mobster. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there may well be reasonable grounds for the feds to track the whereabouts of a child of a mob boss. There is no evidence or even suggestion of all children of all mafia dons being tracked. As a side note, I quite resent your populist straw man argument. "Perhaps we could assume people are innocent until we can prove them guilty." Of course, and how do you do that? Sometimes, by tracking people you have a reasonable suspicion of guilt of, as long as its done through legal means. Let me also point out that the Ninth Circuit ruled last month that warrantless gps tracking is legal. You may oppose this, it's still the (current) law (yes I'm aware that it's a contested issue, and I also don't know what jurisdiction this was in).
  • lzw 16y ago
    The 9th court can repeal gravity, but it doesn't make it law. It merely makes it the opinion of the court. The law has not changed, and the law is quite clear in requiring a warrant. The law will not change until the constitution is ammended. It is very important to recognize that the courts do not create law, and they cannot change the meaning of the law with rulings (otherwise there would be no purpose in having separation of powers.) That, in effect, they are able to do so, is merely a measure of how lawless the government in this country has become. But that should be obvious. For instance, the existence of the FBI is unconstitutional, since it is not mentioned as an agency of the federal government in the enumerated powers clause.
    • bhjodokast 16y ago
      Nice opinion there. My opinion is that the constitution was written to outline what we want from government, not what we don't want. Just because it's not in there, doesn't make it against the law. That would suggest the Internet is against the law, since it isn't mentioned in the constitution. Also you seem to forget that States and Cities have their own laws as well.
    • roel_v 16y ago
      Sure, and if you're sued and the courts spell your name in all capitals you're not bound by the judgment, either rolls eyes.
      • lzw 16y ago
        It is astounding that those so ignorant of the law are so smug about their ignorance. I am not putting forth some random theory, I am pointing out what the law says. It is black letter law.
    • anigbrowl 16y ago
      It merely makes it the opinion of the court. Not so. When a court holds something, it is exercising its lawgiving function. The opinion (sometimes referred to as 'dicta') is an explanation for the holding. The latter is basically a statement of views, but the holding itself has legal force. It's true that they are often mixed up, by the public, press, lawyers or even other courts in descending order of frequency; that's why there are higher courts, and even the Supreme Court sometimes reverses a previously held judgment. The law has not changed, and the law is quite clear in requiring a warrant. No, it has not changed, but nor is it as clear as you think. We do not know whether or not a warrant was obtained in this case, but current law (as held recently) is that if the car is accessible to the general public, then sticking a tracking device to it does not require a warrant, any more than a stakeout does. It is very important to recognize that the courts do not create law, and they cannot change the meaning of the law with rulings (otherwise there would be no purpose in having separation of powers.) This is so, but the courts do have the sole power to decide how the law should be interpreted, should the meaning of the law be unclear. The Constitution (III.2) says that '[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity [..and..] the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact...' Jurisdiction means, literally, stating the law. The separation of powers is embodied in this decision-making power of the judicial branch - Congress makes laws, the Executive makes decrees, the Courts make judgments. And that includes judgments about the meaning of the law, which is why the Constitution draws a distinction between 'Law and Fact.' If the courts were only able to evaluate matters of fact, then every dispute over the meaning of law would have to be resolved in Congress, a task which would be hopelessly burdensome. This is sort of how it works in countries with a civil law system; courts are mainly triers of fact and apply the law without analyzing it in any great detail. But even here they sometimes make adjustments, if errors or contradictions exist which would lead to an absurd result. The United States has a common law framework, which is partly why we still have the notion of judicial 'circuits' (which in the distant past involved judges traveling around and setting up temporary courts called Assizes to judge cases wherever they stopped). Common law is where we get our notions of precedent and the reason we look back to earlier decisions (and the lengthy explanations given for them). Why can't you find anything about the common law in the constitution? Because it was left to Congress to specify regulations for the Courts. Which they did in the Judiciary Act of 1789, during the first Congress, under President George Washington. http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm Legislation is always incomplete because it is impossible to anticipate all future situations. By resolving ambiguities and contradiction via an orderly process, Courts can fill in the gap where the legislation does not provide a clear answer. If Congress disapproves of a court's interpretation, then it can and does issue new laws to update or clarify its intent. If it chooses not to, then the Court's holding remains in force; if the public is unhappy with the result, it must elect a Congress which more closely aligns with its opinion. For instance, the existence of the FBI is unconstitutional Rubbish! Who told you that? By that logic the Air Force would need to be disbanded immediately, since the Constitution has nothing to say about flying machines or new branches of the military. Go read Article II, which mentions 'executive Departments' without spelling out what they should be, and 'Officers...whose Appointment is not herein provided for, and which may be established by Law...' - are the departments or offices in question enumerated? No, it's assumed that Congress will create them as it sees fit. And if you think something they do or create is unconstitutional, then you seek the decision of a court, because only courts have the authority to make such determinations. Congress can't certify its own output as constitutional, nor can the executive state its decrees or decisions to be so. Seriously, if this is your own interpretation then you need to do some more study, or if you got the idea from someone else then you were badly misinformed. the US constitution is the first word of American law, not the last. The idea that if you can't find something in there then it doesn't exist is terribly misguided.