7 ms·

Putting away meth dealers supercedes strict adherence to the constitution, by far, IMO, even if the police have to break the law to put the bad guys away. (Para

Putting away meth dealers supercedes strict adherence to the constitution, by far, IMO, even if the police have to break the law to put the bad guys away. (Parallel reconstruction etc) The founding fathers didn’t have any conception for our information society. Extra judicial activity, With the corresponding regulatory body, is necessary to maintain parity with a morphing technological society

k988dfgj_s 8y ago
Does it? Why do we have this venerated piece of paper then constantly paraded in front of us like it means anything then? Either it is a foundation and a supreme law, or it is not. I am not convinced that catching meth dealers is greater than a supreme law of the land.. or worth the cost of basically tossing entire framework of the country outside the window. edit: added more pompous language
komali2 8y ago
>Putting away meth dealers supercedes strict adherence to the constitution, by far, IMO, even if the police have to break the law to put the bad guys away. (Parallel reconstruction etc) Ethically, I disagree with your argument. See: unlawful asset theft by police departments, which the supreme Court recently confirmed is illegal. But from a legal standpoint your argument doesn't hold water. The Constitution is THE binding legal document of the USA, from which literally every aspect of the US government, and thus justice system, derives authority. There is nothing but strict adherence to the Constitution, trying to work outside it might work for a bit but will end up with someone standing before the supreme Court to answer for it.
- evolvedcleaning 8y ago
  I freely admitted that breaking the law is an appropriate means to an end in some cases. Again imo. Unchecked civil forfeiture was not part of my argument. I disagree that common people should have perfectly secure comm technology. I disagree with Snowden actions and politics.
  - k988dfgj_s 8y ago
    Are you in law in enforcement by any chance?
    - dang 8y ago
      Please don't get personal in comments here. Also, could you please stop creating accounts for every comment or two you post? This is in the site guidelines, and we ban accounts that do it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. HN is a community. Users needn't use their real name, but should have some identity for others to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. There are legit uses for throwaways, just not routinely. Lots more explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=by:dang%20community%20identity https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
      - k988dfgj_s 8y ago
        Sorry for that. I will be moving to a more permanent handle soon.
        dang 8y ago
        Appreciated!
    - evolvedcleaning 8y ago
      Nah I’m an old college dropout
  - komali2 8y ago
    Who gets to break the law? Based on what ethical framework? Who decides whether those actions were indeed justified?
    - evolvedcleaning 8y ago
craftinator 8y ago
What an aweful thing to say. Today it's meth dealers, tomorrow it's Koran owners, then gun owners, people of a certain color, people with the nose of a certain length, etc... We stick to the Constitution because it protects us from crazy invasive government.

k988dfgj_s 8y ago

Does it? Why do we have this venerated piece of paper then constantly paraded in front of us like it means anything then? Either it is a foundation and a supreme law, or it is not. I am not convinced that catching meth dealers is greater than a supreme law of the land.. or worth the cost of basically tossing entire framework of the country outside the window. edit: added more pompous language

komali2 8y ago

>Putting away meth dealers supercedes strict adherence to the constitution, by far, IMO, even if the police have to break the law to put the bad guys away. (Parallel reconstruction etc) Ethically, I disagree with your argument. See: unlawful asset theft by police departments, which the supreme Court recently confirmed is illegal. But from a legal standpoint your argument doesn't hold water. The Constitution is THE binding legal document of the USA, from which literally every aspect of the US government, and thus justice system, derives authority. There is nothing but strict adherence to the Constitution, trying to work outside it might work for a bit but will end up with someone standing before the supreme Court to answer for it.

evolvedcleaning 8y ago
I freely admitted that breaking the law is an appropriate means to an end in some cases. Again imo. Unchecked civil forfeiture was not part of my argument. I disagree that common people should have perfectly secure comm technology. I disagree with Snowden actions and politics.
- k988dfgj_s 8y ago
  Are you in law in enforcement by any chance?
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't get personal in comments here. Also, could you please stop creating accounts for every comment or two you post? This is in the site guidelines, and we ban accounts that do it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. HN is a community. Users needn't use their real name, but should have some identity for others to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. There are legit uses for throwaways, just not routinely. Lots more explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=by:dang%20community%20identity https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
    - k988dfgj_s 8y ago
      Sorry for that. I will be moving to a more permanent handle soon.
      - dang 8y ago
        Appreciated!
  - evolvedcleaning 8y ago
    Nah I’m an old college dropout
- komali2 8y ago
  Who gets to break the law? Based on what ethical framework? Who decides whether those actions were indeed justified?
  - evolvedcleaning 8y ago

craftinator 8y ago

What an aweful thing to say. Today it's meth dealers, tomorrow it's Koran owners, then gun owners, people of a certain color, people with the nose of a certain length, etc... We stick to the Constitution because it protects us from crazy invasive government.